Reviews

As a big fan of Dustin Hoffman's and of "Tootsie," my first thought was, of course, that this was a rehash with the same basic plot, just in a different language. All similarities aside (and you may judge for yourself whether it's a good or a bad "remake"), I have to say one thing that puts this movie far above all other "men in drag" movies: Even while I was fully aware at all times that I was looking at a man pretending to be a woman, this is the only film that ever convinced me that nobody around him would see through the disguise. Matthias Schweighöfer seemed perfectly at ease in high heels and never looked like Curtis and Lemmon in "Some Like It Hot" or Hoffman in "Tootsie" or Williams in "Mrs. Doubtfire" -- he WAS a woman on screen, and he could have played the role of a woman from the beginning to the end AS a woman, without anybody in the audience realizing he's a man (unless you know him or read the credits). In this sense, this movie should be the benchmark for all future films of this kind.

This video release was produced by The Asylum, and when I saw it on TV, I had nothing but the lowest expectations, so my disappointment was not gigantic (i.e. I never even remotely expected anything like the Downey/Law movies or the Cumberbatch/Freeman TV series). This said, I was wondering whether some capable screenwriter, a good director, and actors like Downey and Law might not be able to extract something usable from this movie. There is, of course, the obvious fun of having one Downey character (Holmes) face off with another (Iron Man), but I think, with state-of-the-art special effects and a few improvements, this story might be turned into a decent, very entertaining movie, with lots of action and humor. The seed is there! If you watch it under this aspect, you might agree. I am sure much worse scripts have been handed to producers/directors and eventually, with a lot of rewrites and other improvements, been turned into quite decent movies.

Even though this may not be the funniest or most original kidnapping comedy (a genre in which, for example, I would put movies like "Ruthless People" or "The Big Hit" at the top of my list), it adds a new twist by linking the comedy plot to recent events and, in particular, the ridiculous hype surrounding the African relatives of President Obama.

In this movie, news about the President's grandmother living in a remote Kenyan village prompt several amateur crooks to plot a kidnapping and demand ransom from the White House for the release of "Obamama," as the French kidnappers call her. The title is, of course, ironic, because: no, they can't. Their plans are thwarted less by the lax local security than by their own ineptitude. The various kidnappers get in each other's way, only to end up, more or less, empty-handed. I won't give away any details about the plot, but suffice it to say that it kept me entertained. French, Germans, Americans, Greeks, and Italians are all ridiculed equally (using plenty of clichés!), and the joke is definitely on all the "Westerners" interfering in the lives of the Kenyans.

This movie may not be for everybody, and you should not be ashamed of laughing at some rather weak and silly jokes (not always politically correct), but there is plenty of genuine satire (especially in depicting the Kenyan village with its ridiculous souvenir stands). The slapstick scene at the end is also quite funny … with a slightly altered presidential address that gives credit to the French (!) for (well, you'll see) – if that's not satire

No offense to anybody, but I think that it is very hard for anybody who didn’t grow up in Germany in the past forty years to appreciate the impact that this story has had on kids and adults here (Urmel is now the official mascot of Germany’s national ice-hockey team!). This is, after all, the third adaptation of the original book (not counting the 2-D cartoon series) and, I must say (being very skeptical about remakes), a very good one. It was good to see Max Kruse, the author of the book (1969), who is now 86 years old, commenting on the DVD how much he appreciated this version, and I understand why. In many aspects, it has been carefully (!) updated and adapted to current taste, but in other ways it is MORE faithful to the original book than the more famous TV puppet version from the 1960s. And the dialog is so faithful to the book that I could anticipate all the punch lines! Apart from that, I was also surprised (not having read the book or seen the older version for a while) to see how topical the theme still is. I certainly never watched it for its “message” when I was 8 years old, but it has one: It is the old theme of the conservationist (who wants just to preserve nature) vs. the scientist (who wants to analyze and dissect everything) vs. the trophy hunter (who is purely destructive for the sole purpose of achieving personal “glory”). It is in no way subtle – but it is told in a way that children understand. I can tell, because my daughter is now about the same age that I was when I saw it for the first time, and the impact hasn’t changed. And thanks to DVD, we can all watch the 1969 version alongside the new one – I think we have two wonderful version of one wonderful book. And tell your kids to read the book, too (the book is called “Urmal from the Ice Age” in English, “Plodoc” in French).

It seems to me that nobody noticed an oddity about the Iraqi flag displayed in the flag room. It is established in the movie that 20 years ago, when Grandpa worked for Wonka, Wonka was already an adult (played by Johnny Depp). In the flag room scene, however, we see Wonka as a boy walking past the Iraqi flag that contains the words "Allahu akbar" between the stars. As we all know, Saddam Hussein added those words during "Desert Storm" (on 14 January 1991, to be precise), which was less than 20 years ago. Or is this an indication that the movie actually takes place in the future? Did I miss something? I automatically assumed that the movie's present was close to our present...

I saw this movie in the 1980s on German TV (in English). Fortunately, I taped it, because I never saw it again -- until 2006 on the MGM cable channel (and now I recorded it on DVD!). In the meantime, I wrote a thesis that dealt, among other things, with integration and denial issues (compare it to Woody Allen's "Zelig", for example!), and I found more quotable poignant and funny lines in this movie than in any other. On top of it, it has all those minor jokes that you probably won't catch the first time around and that make a comedy great. This movie is extremely funny, well written and has great actors, who should really be proud of it. The only thing that surprises me is that with all those big names attached the movie is so frequently overlooked and almost forgotten. If you haven't seen it and get a chance to, by all means, watch it and spread the word. By the way: I won't claim I saw Denzel's potential back then, but when I look back at this movie now, in hindsight, you can detect an Oscar winner in the making. Why didn't I give ten points? Well, I have to admit that the movie tapers off a bit at the end. If it had started more slowly, it would be OK, but the first half is just one funny line after another, and it just doesn't keep up its pace. And maybe the end is too unrealistic -- but then again, what do you expect from comedy? For me, it still works because it has a lot to say, and it does so in a brilliant way.

I have never seen the U.S. version with Hank Azaria, but the original is pure genius, very much like The Simpsons, but with that irreverent twist of British humor. I have rarely laughed so hard! I am sorry that American viewers missed most of that thru the Americanization of the show. (What's next -- Monty Python dubbed into American English?) I am sure that American viewers are perfectly capably of understanding British humor, as there have been numerous successful British comedies shown on U.S. television that were understood without translation. Hopefully there will be a DVD edition of this show one day -- maybe they will let viewers choose languages between "British" and "American"!

I have a feeling this movie has been misunderstood by many of the reviewers -- or it was wrongly advertised. When I saw the name David E. Kelley, I expected something along the line of "Picket Fences" and "Ally McBeal", and I was NOT disappointed. It is Ally with teeth, or more precisely "Picket Fences" with some elements that might not have passed the TV censors. You have the same bucolic type of setting, with some weird characters (some of them lovable and some less so) and some unexpected horror that breaks into the (phoney!) idyll. That's what I loved about Kelley's TV series, and that's what's great about the movie. If you are looking for the other kind of movie (horror), follow the advice of the reviewers who didn't like "Lake Placid". (BTW: Even the title of the movie is a joke, since it does NOT take place at Lake Placid NY: they would have liked to call it that, but "the name was already taken"!!)