Matthew-Broderick Movie Reviews

It's uneven because the movie can't quite figure out what it wants to be. It's a comedy, mostly--I burst into laughter several times. Yet, at times it's sad, and at other times it's almost horror, as when people start dying through electrical contraptions gone bad, and possibly through anorexia. It's also pretty scatalogical, what with all the enemas and obsessions with bowels (that's why it's not for everyone). It's a pretty good satire of John Kellogg, of Kellogg's Corn Flakes (who, by all accounts, was a thoroughly strange fellow), and it does a good job of sending up the kind of obsessive vegetarian anti-fur silliness that exists even today (there is an amusing scene when Kellogg shows the audience his "vegetarian wolf"). Anthony Hopkins, with buck teeth and glasses, is unrecognizable, as is Dana Carvey as his rotten-toothed adopted son. What the movie says clearly is that people who are this obsessive-compulsive over their health have sexual problems, and come from dysfunctional families. It's pretty funny, but certainly not for everyone.

As a former resident of Battle Creek, MI, I can say this movie was particularly enjoyable as I envisioned the city as it was back then. Although not filmed on location (the Battle Creek Sanitarium now stands as a Federal building) the scenery is very similar, and all the location names mentioned in the film are 100% accurate. The cast of this movie is fantastic and started (or boosted) many careers. Anthony Hopkins gives a brilliant performance and I wish he was offered more roles of this sort. Dana Carvey is funny as well, but his role is supporting only. The real scene stealer is the under-sexed and modern Camryn Manheim, who gives a peek into her future career as a great dramatic actress. John Neville's classic one-liners in the bath scenes caused me to laugh like I haven't since "Married with Children." Matthew Broderick and Bridget Fonda excel, as do every actor -- the depth of comedic acting in this film is amazing! This film is fantastic for anyone who is sick of the health craze (any of them) and just wants a good laugh at how health-quacks worked and how many were taken by the fads. Some of Dr. J. H. Kellogg's inventions we have today -- corn flakes, electric blankets, but the bulk of his work was not based in science. This makes the movie so funny -- the crazy gadgets used on the residents is actually classic slapstick comedy, and the one liners are almost as good as Airplane! All in all, I recommend this film to make you laugh histerically, and it's a darned good history lesson, too. "More amperes please!"

If you are a person like me, who grew up in a health conscious family that has the courage to laugh at themselves, this movie is great. It always gets OK reviews because either they don't understand what it is like to convict your life to eating healthy, or they are health nuts that don't have the guts to laugh at themselves.

This movie start off with one of the funniest openings in movie history (I will not tell you anything about it. It must be seen). It has an all-star cast, which is lead by a fantastic performance by Anthony Hopkins. It is one of those performances that didn't get the deserved recognition because he was so good at it that he convinces the audience that he actually talks and acts that way. I know it sound funny, but through the movie you'll start laughing because you'll realize that Hopkins is talking like a beaver/gym teacher, but he makes it work throughout the movie.

The lines and scenes that come out of this movie about eating right and being healthy are legendary. My favorite being: "Health! The open sesame to the suckers purse." Don't think I gave away the funniest line either, there are many more.

It must also be noted that stuff like where this movie was shot is breath taking. The costumes, the backgrounds, the buildings, and the scenery are superb.

This movie is well worth seeing especially if you: Eat healthy, work in a health food store, know people that are health crazy, or if you want to laugh at the people who make health a major part of their life.

I was very excited to hear that this movie was coming to theaters! I have been a fan of the cartoon show since my youth. I must say, I was disappointed in this movie.

First, one of my pet peeves is deceptive trailers! A good portion of material from the trailer was either left out entirely or rushed through as a flashback or afterthought. This movie has the air about it that budgets ran dry and rather than scrap the movie altogether, it was rushed to production.

Disney needs to raise the bar on their live action movies. This was as much of a disappointment as Snow Dogs. If you are going to produce a movie based on a book, comic book, television show, etc., from a by-gone era, it would help if a fan of the material was involved in the production in my opinion.

See this one once, but save your money on the video. Maybe they will release the old cartoon on DVD. I would buy the whole series!

i wouldn't really reccomend this movie for the older crowd who remember the 80's cartoon series. i think it was cool to learn the stuff like how he became the gadget guy. the acting was great! i agree with someone i saw that said in this movie the letters should self distruct! that would be hysterical. im sorry but i just couldn't accept that inspector gadget is self sufficient in this movie. in the cartoon series penny and brain were always having to save her uncle's butt! they should have gone more closely to the show! oh well. it's fun and a little funny because as usual matthew broderick is cute and funny and charming! maybe part II will be more closely tied to the show... but overall i would rent it not buy it. but your little boys, ill bet will absolutely love this movie!

Well, I'm 10 right now buy when I was 6, the trailer scared me to death. Like the part when Gadget got captured by claw and took of his shirt and it just looked scary when I was 6. Well, after 4 years, we rented the DVD and watched it. Not as intense as it looked like when I was 6. I used to watch the TV show when I was 4. Just to tell you if you are 10 or older it will be sort of cheesy but watch it if you want to see the movie really bad. Only Rent it.

This movie starts off well enough, and I actually thought the premise for Godzilla's creation was fairly clever. I was beginning to think that the negative reviews I'd heard were a bit exaggerated. Unfortunately, the film makers decided special effects were more important than originality and story line. It's really too bad as this could have been a great movie instead of just another special effects tour de force lacking subtance.

The U.S. Army's attempts to stop Godzilla are reminiscent of the Keystone Cops; they have the most advanced weapons in the world but can't hit the broad side of a barn (just large skyscrapers). And just how do you loose a 60-story monster on Manhatten Island?

Several of the scenes appeared to have been lifted right out of Jurassic Park and leave you with a been-there-done-that feeling. What's worse, you're made to endure the mandatory tired romance formula so many movies think they can't live without. Godzilla is worth renting if you like special effects, but not one I'd shell out my hard-earned bucks to own.

Tri Star and Centropolis entertainment really blew it with this film. BOY did they blow it!

There are comedic moments or intended comedic moments but the film just wasn't funny and there lies part of the problem. They tried to make it light and funny. They should've made it serious , dark , and scary; a horror film. Hardly anyone gets killed here even with Godzilla just 10 feet behind them or right on top of them or actually inside of his mouth! Writers , come on.

Godzilla in the original Japanese film from the 1950's is a nightmare. A horrifying , radioactive , fire-breathing killer. If Tri Star had went that route it may have been alot more interesting. Instead it was lame.

The only parts of this film I liked was the old man catching Godzilla with his fishing rod and the sequence after that on the West Side highway (funny how that little old man was able to outrun Godzilla. Writers , come on!), the helicopter fight scenes and the cab chase across the Brooklyn Bridge at the end of the film. Otherwise it was a chore to sit through some parts of this film.

You didn't care at all about anyone in this film because some characters in this movie are badly written and badly developed. I've read some reviews that knock the acting but I don't blame the acting. I blame the script. The love story between Broderick and Maria Pitillo seemed superimposed. I think that Maria Patillo should have at least put some depth into her character. Particularly the scenes with Harry Shearer's male chauvinist character. Its alright if her character is weak in the beginning. Her weakness can be something for her to overcome as the story went along but unfortunately she also seems kind of ditsy and bubbleheaded too. She doesn't have to be that way and blame falls on the writers and the director for that. I also blame the writers for Michael Lerner's "Mayor Ebert" (assumably named after and resembling Roger Ebert and the mayor's aide is named "Gene"; Gene Siskel and Robert Ebert).Its nothing but a silly cartoon-of-a-mayor;he's unlikeable and not believable. You can get a stronger sense of character from the mutants in "X MEN" (comic book characters) than you could from these characters in "Godzilla".

The actual DVD is terrific though. Picture and sound is great and you get commentary from the special fx supervisor. Interestingly not only does it have the three trailers for the movie but it also has the trailers for the Toho Godzilla films made in the 1990's in their original Japanese audio; "Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah" and "Godzilla vs. Mothra".

If you are a serious Godzilla fan then you should get it only to say that you have it and to enjoy the trailers.

that movie should of gone down in history the best action of all time that monster just takes manhattion i am dissapointed that people ignor it

While this is a moderately good monster movie, this is a horrible Godzilla movie. It's virtually identical to "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms". And another thing that bugs me about this movie is the total lack of research. In the film, the AH-64 Apache helicopter is shown as a one-man chopper with guns on either side of the cockpit. The real AH-64 is a two-man chopper with one machine gun mounted UNDER the cockpit. Also, the creature's claws are all wrong. Lizard claws are flat on the bottom, whereas the creature's are rounded, like birds. And whoever came up with that "within a year, these 200 babies could become 40,000" line should watch the movie again. The first one wasn't able to lay eggs until it was at least thiry years old. Thirty years seems like planty of time to hunt down and destroy those hatchlings.

This movie is very unique, which is good. It gets boring watching the same Godzilla from Japan. Godzilla is much more flexible in this film. Don't listen to anybody who says this movie is a waste of time, because they're crazy.

This video is quite good but there are other videos of cartoons you would rather prefer.Eg-Casper a spirited begining or spiderman.

Francis Veber is one of the most popular frnch director. A lot of US movies were an adaptation of the french ones( three fugitives, the birdcage,father's day,la chèvre and soon le diner de con). "Out on a limb" was his first movie in USA and Matthew Boderick destroyed it. Even in France, it's quasi impossible to find this movie. The only reason to watch it is Jeffrey Jones.

While browsing at a local video store on a rainy weekend, the box for a movie called "Out on a Limb" caught my eye. Watching VHS motion pictures has been one of my most frequent hobbies since I was about ten years old, yet the movie was completely new to me. That struck me as bizarre, since Matthew Broderick is one of my favorite comedians. After substantial research, I discovered that "Out on a Limb" was not a box office success. When yours truly asked ten people what they knew about the 1992 comedy, seven of them didn't have the vaguest idea of what movie I was referring to. Following my rental and viewing of "Out on a Limb", I was generally impressed. It bared resemblence to some of the classic television comedies such as "Laurel and Hardy" and "The 3 Stooges". In other words, this film should be classified as a gagfest, full of little puns and laughers. Though not at all a fan of the classic comedies listed above, I found "Out on a Limb" to be refreshingly enjoyable. Broderick played a common civilian in the plot that was stitched together to include a middle-aged woman taking the civilian hostage and forcing him to do ridiculous things. My main point about "Out on a Limb" is that there is a storyline, and that does the job of making it into a real movie, contrary to many Adam Sandler and Chris Farley films which have no plot. Funny little jokes are included in basically every scene, and, the significance of each joke isn't important since the jokes go from character to character: the jokes will go from the kidnapper to the victim to the police and were initially from a little elementary school girl telling her class what happened on summer vacation. In conclusion, there aren't many clean and outright funny movies like this one out in today's society. It's crystal clear to me that the average movie buff has to have "out of this world" special effects sprinkled on top with sex and violence. This is different in every way, but it is one of the better comedies that I have viewed. Although critic's may disagree with me, I think that Matthew Broderick wasn't as funny 5 years earlier with "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" because that seemed to be a tired movie with nothing to the imagination. If you're looking for an enjoyable movie that makes you think and makes you laugh, then "Out on a Limb" is a winner.