Eine total verrückte Formel

This is quite good comedy. First of all it has to do with beer! It has weird & stupid humour, but not even once does the pace slow down for a bit. It goes all the way, almost fresh even during the ending sequence, which must as tradition to be silly in american films. This one has some nice jokes - not the best, but surely enough for those who are looking for a nice old-school comedy.

Fast pace & hillarious characters (not mentioning the general beer-frenzy depicted in the film) are the two factors that make this an OK film.

My review was written in May 1987 after a screening at Manhattans' UA Twin theater.

The filmmakers of the intentionally bad 1977 release "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" have not progressed one iota in a decade, judging by the singularly unfunny "Happy Hour", a purported comedy about beer. Poor writing and inept technique will have the viewer claiming "Sour Grapes", pic's original title when shot back in 1985.

Richard Gilliland blandly portrays a scientist working for Marshall eer who accidentally invents an ingredient which makes the product irresistible and addictive. Unfortunately, he cannot reproduce his formula, so only one bottle of the stuff exists, half of which is stolen by rival Lakeside Beer.

Picture consists of poorly staged and ill-timed slapstick as a bunch of zanies try to capture both breweries' vials of the ingredient. Charmles overacting is encouraged by director John De Bello, except for the casting of mimic Rich Little as a James Bond type of suave spy, given a very laid back, boring reading by Little. Film is so dated that Little has a running gag vocally doing an impression of Cary Grant to fool security guards.

Despite its R rating, pic has no nudity or sex. Technical quality is disgraceful, with poorly synched dialog (done intentionally as a gag in "Killer Tomatoes" but just a boner here), and no color correcting. Latter caused most of the print screened to be very reddish, virtually making lovely costgar Tawny Kitaen look as garish as a circus clown; some shots are greenish with no matching. The only pro credit is an effective music score. Pic ends with a bimbette addressing the audience directly, informing us we probably are too stupid to understand the film's message. Supposedly a satire of society's crassness as epitomized in beer advertising, the film's shoddy attempt to make a fast buck is transparently clear to any movie fan.

Every so often i pick up a film that anyone could tell is awful. My reason being is one of pure cinematic experimentation and filmmaking science. How could somebody come up with a really lame, unfunny script, get Jamie Farr and Rich Little to star in it, and think they really have something, enough to convince someone to bankroll the travesty, and release it into theatres. Well, ladies and germs, HAPPY HOUR is a grouping of all these people and they created something so not funny, you have to watch some of it to believe it.

Two scientists have created an additive that when put in beer, makes it taste so good that it becomes addictive. Rival companies steal half the formula and slapstick ensues with Rich Little playing a James Bond secret agent trying to steal one half of the formula and Jamie Farr trying to blow up the other. I know this isn't much of a plot description, but it really doesn't matter. Tawny Kitaen shows why she didn't have much of an acting career(plus she shows more skin on the box art than the actual film), Eddie Deezen appears to remind you that you can do anything with your life if you just try, and Farr and Little are just hack has-beens. The rest of the cast is equally as miserable and surely leave this off their resume (if they still have careers). Like I said though, it's kind of amazing that people think they have a good idea, that someone thought Jamie Farr and Rich Little were marketable enough to greenlight this picture and strike prints to put it in theatrical release. Also for any aspiring filmmaker, you should see this movie, and all movies like it,to know how not to make a movie. Anybody nowadays can make a technically polished film. See how not to do it, you'll probably be better off for it. Start here.

This was an example of some of the worst mugging and all-around bad acting since Plan 9 from Outer Space! The leads actually maintain a straight face throughout to their credit, but the supporting cast (every last one of 'em), are all horrendous! It could have been funny if it had been played a bit more realistically. Then the outrageous behavior shown by the characters' reaction to the "Marshall Beer secret ingredient" would have been hilarious. Oh well... it WAS filmed in 1987 after all.

This movie begins with two chemists named "Blakely Teegarden" (Richard Gilliland) and "Meredith Casey" (Deborah Gates) who accidentally create a chemical concoction which cannot be duplicated but makes whatever food source is available highly addictive. Upon hearing this their CEO, "Jack Marshall" (Jim Newell) decides to add this substance to a certain brand of beer made in a brewery he owns. When the sales skyrocket he promotes Blakely-but not Meredith. Not long afterward a rival beer company manages to get their hands on one of only two vials of this substance as well. Because both companies want to be #1 in beer sales they each hire corporate spies to try to steal the other companies container of this substance. What follows is a film with several good-looking females--most notably Debi Fares (as "Ms. Shepard"), Kathi Diamant ("Cathy Teegarden") and Tawny Kitaen ("Misty Roberts")--who managed to keep my interest for the most part. Unfortunately, the plot meandered all over the place and for a comedy the humor was noticeably absent. That said, I have rated this movie accordingly. Below average.