Permanezca en sintonía

The funniest bit is probably Roy Knable being plopped into a certain Santa Monica three story house, tripping over a sofa, and being questioned by a certain blonde and brunette, "Where have you been?!" Is "Three's Company" John Ritter's personal Hell? Who knows, but it's a broad wink to the couch potatoes in the audience.

I stumbled upon this movie while channel flipping, ironically enough. I thought that the film was very well done, with just enough cheesy humor to keep me groaning and laughing. The jewels of the film were found in it's references and TV jokes. Some humor at actor Ritter's expense gives the impression that movie is making fun of itself. Jeffery Jones plays an excellent role, further showing off the actor's versatility. What the film lacked in plot, it made up for in originality. The highlight of the film is a cartoon segment done by the legendary Chuck Jones, parodying the Tom and Jerry clichés we all grew up with. All in all, a funny if not cheesy film, definitely worth watching.

The idea behind this movie was great. But, the writers missed so many opportunities for jokes. The characters in the movie jumped into probably 25 different movie or TV types. Each one was a ripe setup for several hilarious jokes. But, most of the time, the writers punted and just played it straight or relied on sight gags (which Ritter is known for).

So, they get dropped in the Arctic and wolves attack them. Not funny. They get dropped into a cat-and-mouse cartoon and the cat chases the mouse for ten minutes. Less funny than a real cat-and-mouse cartoon.They get dropped into a "professional" wrestling match and get thrown around the ring for a bit. Not funny.

Each scene was just bursting with comic potential, but the writers never went for the home run and always played it safe and bunted for the single. By the end, I was writing the big jokes in my head.

This movie is just begging to be remade with a team of actual comedians writing the script and, bonus, playing all the bit parts.

The things that Ritter's character found 'hellish' back in '92 are now common fare - e.g. stabbing each other in the back (figuratively) in 'The Apprentice', 'Survivor', etc.; paternity tests on 'Maury'; revealing the adultery of spouses (and nude wrestling) on 'Springer'; not to mention Jackass, Southpark or Borat.

I think the word is prescient.

I have often thought over the years about how this movie was so outrageously impossible when it was made, but how, within a few years how mainstream much of the portrayed content had become.

I think this is a movie - although a low budget comedy (dare I use the descriptor "B"?) - that should be recognized for its historical significance, and perhaps studied in sociology courses about the effect of media on society (or more exactly - the effect of media on media).

The significance of this movie has been overlooked.

I have always liked this film, since I was younger. It's an expensive flop but at the same time I think it has plenty of laughs and is entertaining. The late great John Ritter is always good value and likeable as is Pam Dawber, the ultimate fanciable former sitcom star. She is differently attractive and I have always fancied her like many others, particularly from the Mork And Mindy days, you know that sitcom with Robin Williams that you used to find funny but when you look back now it kinda sucks!

This is good family entertainment. It's inconsistent and some of the references aren't that funny but on the most part the referencing of old movies and TV shows is where most of the humour lies. Good fun. ***