Q: "Who Done It?" contains many surefire laughs and gags. It is not only one of the best Stooges films with Shemp, it is one of the finest short comedies Columbia produced. Director Bernds originally wrote the screenplay in 1946 for the Stooges, but when Curly Howard suffered a career-ending stroke, it was tailored for the Columbia comedy team of Schilling and Lane (their version was released as "Pardon My Terror.") It obviously was too good for the Stooges to pass up, and it was finally filmed by the Stooges at the end of 1947.

Old Man Goodrich calls ace detectives Shemp, Larry, and Moe out of fear that he will be murdered. When they arrive at his home, Goodrich has disappeared, and his niece and assorted goons try to get rid of the Stooges. Will they find Goodrich and bring the niece and goons to justice?

Shemp is particularly funny in this film. His reactions after being given a mickey by Christine McIntyre are superb; he gives his trademark sound (eeeb-eeeb-eeeb) and Miss McIntyre is noticeably trying not to laugh! Other funny scenes: the close-up of Moe's mug looking through the camera lens; and the in-the-dark fight with all cast members involved.

Nikko the goon (played by Duke York) is one of the most unusual looking characters ever portrayed in a Stooges film. With his kinked hair, he could almost pass for a Stooge, if he didn't tower over everyone else! "Who Done It?" is a gem among the Stooges films with Shemp. Even die-hard Curly fans will enjoy this one! A true Stooge classic. 9 out of 10.
A: positive
Q: I can't figure Al Pacino out. I watch him in the Godfather, Scarface, Carlito's Way, and I think I am watching one of the greatest actors of the last thirty years. Then I see him in Two for the Money, Any Given Sunday and Revolution, and I wonder what the guy is thinking.

I stumbled on Revolution a few nights ago, and thought I would invest the next two hours on this. Here is a news flash: Want to get prisoners to talk? Force them to watch this over and over...they'll confess to anything.

I won't rehash the plot since there is no coherent plot, but it does take place during the American Revolution and Pacino plays an uneducated peasant who does not want to get involved, but ultimately does. While he has no money, no education and dresses like a caveman, a very hot Natasha Kinski falls in love with him for no apparent reason, since they have only two minutes of dialogue together.

Quite frankly, if "Al Smith" starred in this movie, instead of "Al Pacino", it would have ruined their career. The script was horrible, but Pacino's demotivated performance and obvious fake accent made it even worse. Donald Sutherland's role was laughable. I really can't describe it. Natasha Kinski is a main character, but has like 5 lines in the movie. In fact, nobody speaks much in this movie.

One of the most laughable premise in the movie is how Al Pacino and Kinski have this uncanny knack to continually run into each other on the battlefield. Its like the entire Northeast is a Starbucks. "Hey, funny to see you here again, on ANOTHER battlefield 100 miles away...see you in a few months".

I am required to give this one star by IMDb, since there is nothing here for a negative score.
A: negative
Q: I really wanted to like this film, but so much of it is stolen/borrowed from other work -- some of the borrowing is painfully blatant. The New York Times' review pointed out that their singing frog is awfully reminiscent of the one in the famous Warner Brothers' cartoon ('Hello my baby, hello my darlin', hello my ragtime gal...'). But I challenge anyone to watch the Fox/Blue Sky animated feature Robots (2005) and not find ridiculous similarities in: storyline - A young inventor growing up, and a single innovative corporation distributes all great inventions.

cityscape - Extremely similar camera angles capture extremely similar futuristic city environments.

...robots... - The servant robot in the Robinson household has a very similar design to those in Robots, and both films use a sort of retro-futuristic look.

All of this seems to be in sharp contradiction to the obnoxious quote from Disney at the end, implying that the company has been a steady innovator who never looks back (which also contradicts their entire catalog of films in the 90s that were pretty much clones of each other, with some minor tweaks to storyline and ethnicity).

The filmmakers seem unable to let the story speak on its own, and instead constantly send objects and noises flying in our direction, as though we don't have the attention span for anything less.

The villain is really well-designed and brilliantly animated, and he's a pleasure to watch. Much of the rest of the film seems thrown-together. Some of the landscapes look like CGI from the mid-90s.

The film actually opens with a classic Mickey Mouse short. By the end of this cartoon, we are reminded that Disney never did have much interest in innovating or good storytelling -- they seem to think that simply getting something up on the big screen is proof enough of their virtue.
A: negative