input: Well to answer one persons's question of "why doesn't anyone remember this film?" it's because really,not that many people saw it in 1978 and it's not been shown much on TV since. (If it's on video that'd be news to me!) Even in the era of sometimes mindless comedies that was the '70s,movie-goers had the smarts to avoid this film. Unless they love Billy Crytal,Paul Lynde or Joan Rivers "that" much!

Paul Lynde was funnier on "Bewitched" or "Hollywood Squares" than here. Joan Rivers at this time in her career was getting laughs making cruel jokes about singer Karen Carpenter's lack of weight! Har-har Joan! It also seems like every "somewhat" famous name from the era is in the cast. (Most surprising is Doris Roberts later of "Everybody Loves Raymond".)

Anyhow,a somewhat good idea for a storyline,a man getting pregnant instead of the woman goes to waste here. With help from a male friend Crystal gets set up with a hooker to finally lose his virginity but because she was "on top" instead of him,he gets pregnant! (A commentary on women taking positions of power away from men).

Crystal's stomach grows,he goes through all the female emotions and related feelings. Unfortunately,he is now a socially misunderstood outcast! He's attacked by a mob who wants him rubbed out (I guess).

He's forced to go into seclusion to have his baby...in a barn. Or if you will,a manger (God only knows where it may have exited from! Ewwww!) It turns out (no shock here) to be a girl!

Everything else about this movie is worthless and forgettable,the humor is high school level or less.

2 stars for a good idea and a few good touching & relevant moments w/ Billy Crystal. Ignore the rest of Rabitt Test,it flunks big time!

I can't believe Roddy McDowell signed on either! (END)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Very few so called "remakes" can be as good as the originals. This one crosses that border with flying colors. Just a remake, I don't think so! I saw it theatrically at the age of nine, and was completely entranced and enraptured by the film.

The film certainly invites comparisons to its 1963 counterpart. The earlier film is also a enjoyable and entertaining movie, but admittedly it tends to feel more like a nature documentary than a film. This update is more epic and cinematic. Still, I thoroughly recommend both films.

This film is certainly a must-see for an animal lover. We have the wise old Golden Retriever, Shadow; the sharp, sarcastic Himalayan cat, Sassy; and the young, fun-loving American Bulldog, Chance. The animals are brilliantly voiced by Don Ameche, Sally Field, and Michael J. Fox, respectively.

There is virtually nothing offensive in the film. There is a bit of scatological humor, but nothing extreme. No hard violence, save a few tense scenes involving a pounding waterfall, an angry porcupine, and a dark railroad shaft.

Hilarious, scary, moving, and above all real, it surprised me to see that this film didn't win any awards, not one. Nevertheless, I will have to say this is just as good as some of the Best Picture nominees nowadays.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: First ever viewing: July 21, 2008

Very impressive screenplay and comedic acting and timing in this film. Now 40 years old, it has lost none of it's power. Neil Simon displays excellent insight into human nature and relationships as well as how to create genuine comedy from unusual situations. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau give great comedic performances. Neil Simon was inspired by actual events in his own life to write the play this film is based on.

One of the best written and acted Hollywood comedies of all time!

Surprisingly, only nominated for 2 Academy Awards: "Best Adapted Screenplay" and "Best Film Editing". Hollywood rarely awards comedies, no matter how well they are made.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The real star of this ridiculous story is glorious technicolor. A visual treat to the eye, the film fails to stimulate the mind and heart. I was intrigued, at first, by the idea of Dietrich and Boyer leaving religion in order to "find" their capacity for love. What follows is a huge disappointment. Boyer is the only real actor in the production and one feels his torment. Dietrich's amazing wardrobe outshines her performance -- at times her face is frightening to look at -- a unfeeling mask. As a monk, Boyer held the formula for the monastery's liquer (which reminds me of the true story of Chartreuse) -- when he leaves his "marriage to god" the reaction by his fellow monks holds the shock and fear that perpetuate organized religion. The viewer feels Boyer was well rid of his past. However, the journey that follows is all too predictable.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative