Q: ... than this ;-) What would happen if Terry Gilliam and Douglas Adams would have worked together on one movie? This movie starts with a touch of Brazil... when, at a certain point, the story moves straight into the twilight zone... bringing up nothing new, but just nothing... and nothing is great fun! When Dave and Andrew starts to explore their new environment the movie gets really enjoyable... bouncing heads? well... yes ;-)

anyway... this movie was, imho, the biggest surprise at this year's FantasyFilmFest...

Just like in Cube and Cypher Natali gave this one a minimalistic, weird but very special design, which makes it hard to locate the place of the story or its time... timeless somehow...
A: positive
Q: Yes, I did, as I sit here red-faced, remembering having felt almost guilty as I watched it a couple of weeks back while my wife chose to watch something as inconsequential (in comparison) as "Mommie Dearest."

How does one explain the appeal of "Batman and Robin" - I mean the only ones who ever really counted, Adam West and Burt Ward. It was a terrible show, with terrible plots and terrible acting - and, oh yes, it was terribly funny! And the same applies to this "reunion" and "flashback" movie. Adam and Burt are invited to an auction where the old Batmobile is going to be sold off for charity. But it gets stolen, and our pals (as themselves) jump into their old characters' personas (if not their costumes) and head off to find out what's happened. Along the way they reminisce about the series, and we see how it all came together in flashbacks, with Jack Brewer and Jason Marsden playing the young Adam and Burt of the TV series. It really was quite interesting to get some behind the scenes looks at the old series, and Adam and Burt just stepped perfectly back into character (even though they weren't really in character - well, you'd have to watch it to see what I mean.) It was also great to see Julie Newmar and Frank Gorshin.

If you're not a fan of the old series, you'll hate this. If - heaven forbid - you actually thought Michael Keaton and George Clooney made acceptable "Batmans" then you'll hate this even more. But if you grew up with Adam and Burt and are still willing to admit that you never missed an episode - well, this one's for you.

Yes, it's true - 9/10
A: positive
Q: Expectations were somewhat high for me when I went to see this movie, after all I thought Steve Carell could do no wrong coming off of great movies like Anchorman, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and Little Miss Sunshine. Boy, was I wrong.

I'll start with what is right with this movie: at certain points Steve Carell is allowed to be Steve Carell. There are a handful of moments in the film that made me laugh, and it's due almost entirely to him being given the wiggle-room to do his thing. He's an undoubtedly talented individual, and it's a shame that he signed on to what turned out to be, in my opinion, a total train-wreck.

With that out of the way, I'll discuss what went horrifyingly wrong.

The film begins with Dan Burns, a widower with three girls who is being considered for a nationally syndicated advice column. He prepares his girls for a family reunion, where his extended relatives gather for some time with each other.

The family is high atop the list of things that make this an awful movie. No family behaves like this. It's almost as if they've been transported from Pleasantville or Leave it to Beaver. They are a caricature of what we think a family is when we're 7. It reaches the point where they become obnoxious and simply frustrating. Touch football, crossword puzzle competitions, family bowling, and talent shows ARE NOT HOW ACTUAL PEOPLE BEHAVE. It's almost sickening.

Another big flaw is the woman Carell is supposed to be falling for. Observing her in her first scene with Steve Carell is like watching a stroke victim trying to be rehabilitated. What I imagine is supposed to be unique and original in this woman comes off as mildly retarded.

It makes me think that this movie is taking place on another planet. I left the theater wondering what I just saw. After thinking further, I don't think it was much.
A: negative
Q: There is this private campground in Plymouth, Massachusetts, that's been around since 1959. My grandparents were among its founders, my parents had a site starting in 1965, and my two brothers have sites there now.

(This doesn't have anything directly to do with the movie; bear with me.)

I spent summers at Blueberry Hill from when I was five years old to when I was eighteen, and it is to people like me to whom this film speaks: the ones for whom a group camp in the woods was, as my fiancee tells of me, "the good and happy place." If you've never experienced the lifestyle, Indian Summer will probably be lost on you; don't bother. It's not quick-paced, it doesn't have rapid cuts, the plots aren't in the least bit convoluted, it has no explosions, such dramatic tension as exists is mild, there aren't any A-list actors, there are no rapid-fire quips just to show off how clever the scriptwriters are (other than, perhaps, Kimberley Williams' killer line about how her fiance shouldn't "overwind his toys." That is not the least degree what this movie is about, any more than The Godfather is a slasher flick just because it has a lot of on screen gore.

But Indian Summer is Godfather's polar opposite. If you have experienced the lifestyle, see this movie. Don't read any more, just do it.

For me, this is a 9/10 film.
A: positive