Bill-Murray Movie Reviews

This horrible mess should have never been made...terrible story, awful music, dreadful animation (I use the term lightly), nasty characters, devoid of any warmth or charm...just awful, awful, awful. This has nothing to do with Christmas or any other holiday for that matter. Stick to the charming "Frosty the Snowman" and it's sequel, "Frosty's Winter Wonderland" where Frosty gets a wife. Shame on Golden Books for including this with the original Frosty. Wish I could rate this a ZERO but I wasn't given that option.

Frosty the Snowman was awesome but Frosty Returns is a shameful mess! All the characters are bratty, sarcastic and disrespectful, the children, Frosty but especially the adults, What kind of message does that give to children? That it's ok to be bratty and disrespectful?

Okay so this isn't as good as Frosty the Snowman or Frosty's Winter Wonderland but once you get past the fact that it doesn't resemble those two classics you just may be able to allow youself to find out that it's pretty good on it's own and that's what happened to me, I hated it the first time I saw it and whined and complained about it and reluctantly watched it again a couple of years later but to my surprise I liked it and think 5 stars is a good rating and I could see watching Frosty's Return every December too and I actually recommend this if you are a collector of Christmas videos and DVD's.

This Tarzan spoof may have been racy back in 1975, but it looks tame today. Normally this sort of "raunchy" humor would have me lying on the floor clutching my stomach with tears of laughter streaming down my face. I didn't laugh once.
An American edit of a French cartoon with American voiceovers; the "plot" centres on Shame's efforts to rescue his girlfriend June from the movie's anatomically incorrect villain, who resembles a bald Cruella De Vil. However there is one memorable scene of marching male members (that's correct), complete with army helmets! It's safe to presume I'm not ruining anything by saying they don't fire bullets. The 10 second sequence showing the creation of these soldiers is the only part of the entire film which is mildly funny but the ending is original, to say the least and is solely what earns the movie an extra star.
There are also a couple of memorable scenes involving an enthusiastically amorous chimp. John Belushi and Bill Murray made their film debuts here (or rather their voices did). But in the long run you're better off watching some SOUTH PARK reruns instead.

....
An American edit of a French cartoon with American voiceovers; the "plot" centres on Shame's efforts to rescue his girlfriend June from the movie's anatomically incorrect villain, who resembles a bald Cruella De Vil. However there is one memorable scene of marching male members (that's correct), complete with army helmets forming a nazi swastika! It's safe to presume I'm not ruining anything by saying they don't fire bullets. The 10 second sequence showing the creation of these soldiers is the only part of the entire film which is mildly funny, and the ending is original, to say the least.
There are also a couple of funny scenes involving an enthusiastically amorous chimp. John Belushi and Bill Murray made their film debuts here (or rather their voices did). ....

Originally saw this film by it's release title: "Tarzoon: Shame of the Jungle" and the cuts and edits required to remove the lead characters name in addition to the cuts made to make this have a R rating render this a slim shadow of the originally funny (albeit tasteless)animated comedy. This pale version of the original is basically worthless and difficult (if not impossible) to follow.

Give me Mortal Kombat, Batman, or Cheech and Chong (movies that make sense to me) anyday over this college-level crap. I have four needs in life: beer, breasts, football, and explosions. (Either on t.v. or between my legs from the beer.)

James Joyce is notably my favorite author. His writing is enough to move me to deep thought and was a daring endeavor in contrast to what was accepted and expected during his time.

This movie was such an injustice to his writing. So very rarely did one get a chance to see what the boy or young man thought of; what his musings were. One could not feel the struggle and turmoil in trying to understand what was right and wrong. The incidents played like flashbacks without the depth of the true Joycean work. For example, the book gives us the harrowing journey to the rector and the anxiety that built up in telling a figure of authority that an injustice was done. In the movie, he strolls down the corridor, tells the rector that he was unjustly pandied, and that was the end of it.

The greateast atrocity of all was his seeing the woman in the water. In the book, he comes to the realization that a woman is a thing of beauty, not an object of lust or the detriment to his salvation. He identifies himself as an artist; the epiphany is huge. In the movie he just smiles at her and tears up the priestly vocation.

The reason for two stars and not one? Chapter five of the book (was once a separate book called "Stephen Hero") was well done. Now we get to hear the thoughts of the protagonist, his convictions and musings. It is quite obvious in direction that this was the favored aspect of the story. Unfortunately, the very important buildup of the other chapters was all but ignored. This story has such amazing implications for film and was a sheer disappointment through and through. If one wants a wonderful adaption of a Joycean work, be sure to look at John Huston's "The Dead" (from Joyce's Dubliners.)

This film is a much better attempt at filming Joyce than was the 1967 "horror of a film" Ulysses. Here, Strick has come closer to filming the internal thoughts of Joyce's characters. The film itself looks great,I feel. He did a good job of lining up shots that corespond to what one might imagine in the novel. However, the acting was not as good. Perhaps now something as this just seems dated. Who knows? I would hope someone today would want to attempt this again. Overall, better that Ulysses. Another great attempt at filming the works of our centuries most intellegent man. For anyone wanting to expand their view and inturpretation of the novel, this film is a must see.

Give me Mortal Kombat, Batman, or Cheech and Chong (movies that make sense to me) anyday over this college-level crap. I have four needs in life: beer, breasts, football, and explosions. (Either on t.v. or between my legs from the beer.)

James Joyce is notably my favorite author. His writing is enough to move me to deep thought and was a daring endeavor in contrast to what was accepted and expected during his time.

This movie was such an injustice to his writing. So very rarely did one get a chance to see what the boy or young man thought of; what his musings were. One could not feel the struggle and turmoil in trying to understand what was right and wrong. The incidents played like flashbacks without the depth of the true Joycean work. For example, the book gives us the harrowing journey to the rector and the anxiety that built up in telling a figure of authority that an injustice was done. In the movie, he strolls down the corridor, tells the rector that he was unjustly pandied, and that was the end of it.

The greateast atrocity of all was his seeing the woman in the water. In the book, he comes to the realization that a woman is a thing of beauty, not an object of lust or the detriment to his salvation. He identifies himself as an artist; the epiphany is huge. In the movie he just smiles at her and tears up the priestly vocation.

The reason for two stars and not one? Chapter five of the book (was once a separate book called "Stephen Hero") was well done. Now we get to hear the thoughts of the protagonist, his convictions and musings. It is quite obvious in direction that this was the favored aspect of the story. Unfortunately, the very important buildup of the other chapters was all but ignored. This story has such amazing implications for film and was a sheer disappointment through and through. If one wants a wonderful adaption of a Joycean work, be sure to look at John Huston's "The Dead" (from Joyce's Dubliners.)

This film is a much better attempt at filming Joyce than was the 1967 "horror of a film" Ulysses. Here, Strick has come closer to filming the internal thoughts of Joyce's characters. The film itself looks great,I feel. He did a good job of lining up shots that corespond to what one might imagine in the novel. However, the acting was not as good. Perhaps now something as this just seems dated. Who knows? I would hope someone today would want to attempt this again. Overall, better that Ulysses. Another great attempt at filming the works of our centuries most intellegent man. For anyone wanting to expand their view and inturpretation of the novel, this film is a must see.