IN: Review: In what is a truly diverse cast, this show hits it's stride on FOX. It is the kind of sitcom that grows on you. If you just watch 1 show you might not like it much, but once you watch two or three- you get hooked.

This is because some of the jokes hit & some miss depending upon how you view them. As is usual today, the themes are very mature. The humor is usually very mature too. Often the most funny parts are the parts where the mature themes collide with the innocent ones.

Red (Kurtwood Smith) a veteran actor does some very good deadpan type of humor on this show. Debra Jo Rupp plays well in this ensemble cast too. Danny Masterson, the oldest actor of the "kids" is very good too. Laura Prepon (Donna) looks better in the earlier shows as a natural redhead (who got the idea of making her a blonde?). She shows very good talent & comedic timing often. She looks good without make up too.

This is one of the better entries on FOX in the sitcom department & it's most successful live action one since Married With Children
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This is a copy of the 1948 Doris Day classic, Romance on the High Seas.

The story line is more or less same but is contemporary. Govinda plays a sharp witted fellow who replaces the husband on the trip. While Rani plays the college friend of the wife who does her the same favour. They ostensibly try to catch each other out while the actual husband and wife tries to trip each other in Bombay.

On the trip, Govinda mistakes another girl for Sanjiv's wife and spies on her while falling in love with the ravishing Rani.

Lever plays a dual role of father and son both lawyers specialising in divorce proceedings. They are pitted against each other for the warring couple.

It is a poor attempt at copying the original classics and the songs are quite appalling. The comedy is slap-stick and will not make one laugh too much.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Before seeing this movie, I was expecting a fictional drama based loosely on ideas from the book; instead, it's the book, interrupted with dramatic scenes illustrating the different "illnesses." That didn't bother me much, but it hindered my enjoyment of the film. One story or even two or three long stories with excerpts from the book interspersed through the movie would have been preferable, in my opinion. If you're going to base a movie on a psychology text, you've got to find a more interesting (and preferably accurate) text than this one. The film drags during parts where it's little more than a video encyclopedia of 19th century sexual psychology and would be utterly intolerable if it weren't sexual in nature (because "sex = interesting" for most of us, even me). Luckily, there are several stories with actual character development that pull us in.

But, disappointingly, Krafft-Ebing's theories of sexuality went unchallenged, for the most part. I was hoping it would use stories to show how the imperfections of his archaic view of psychology which is still held by many to this day.

So, in the end, what do you have? A detailed catalog of a few fetishes and orientations, with some mildly interesting stories showing the trials and tribulations of a few "sexual deviants" before they are cured. For most of the film, the film moves with the crawling speed (and mood) of a wake. And, as an obviously low budget film, the cinematography and acting are not exactly top tier. Although I *was* pleased with the music, costume and interior design.

I felt this film's subject was right up my alley, and I still feel it's a below average film. It deserves a 3/10; a 4/10 if I were feeling extremely generous. I can't imagine anyone enjoying this if they didn't already have an interest in sexual fetishism.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: While this was a better movie than 101 Dalmations (live action, not animated version), I think it still fell a little short of what Disney could do. It was well-filmed, the music was more suited to the action, and the effects were better done (compared to 101). The acting was perhaps better, but then the human characters were given far more appropriate roles in this sequel, and Glenn Close is really not to be missed, as in the first movie. She makes it shine. Her poor lackey and the overzealous furrier sidekicks are wonderful characters to play off of, and they add to the spectacle Disney has given us. This is a great family film, with little or no objectionable material, and yet it remains fun and interesting for adults and children alike. It's bound to be a classic, as so many Disney films are. Here's to hoping the third will be even better still- because you know they probably want to make one. ;)
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive