Brouille$ et embrouille$

This movie is recommended for those who have insomnia's - otherwise don't waste your time. The plot outline on the cover is much better than the actual movie which is terrible. Listening to an oratory by a parakeet would be more exciting than this terrible movie!

The transfer quality of the DVD is also bad. There is a lot of distortion on the sound which makes it hard to understand what is being said. The color timing shifts with the advancing frames. Together with a poor plot, the acting is bad, which is surprising considering some of the actors used in the movie. Although it is sold as a "budget movie," even the low price to pay is not worth buying this movie...if some of you insist on seeing "A Fool and His Money," look for it in the television listings. And, have a "pocket" video game or something to help with the boredom!

Well, sort of. Actually, the actors (Penner for Cruise and Orange for POTUS) look very much alike and it was my best idea to get your attention. In all cases, it stars the real Sandra Bullock even if her part is a bit small. Thus, she doesn't worth to be at full on the cover! it's a con for idiots (like me!).

It's a very strange flick than this one. It's original because it tackles the two great driving forces of the third millennium (Capitalism and Religion) but the outcomes is rather unusual: a comedy sure but also a criticism of sharks and bigots with a touch of fantastic (God talking in TV while playing tennis). Unfortunately, except the 80s-90s feel, the script fails to grasp such big and explosive thematic.

As ever, we are in need of those movies about faith, wild globalization but a better cast and story would be welcomed. With this movie, it's a golden opportunity missed so everything is still to tell.

I found the DVD on a shelf at a rental condo I was at. Had never heard of it, but Sandra Bullock was on the cover, it was late, so why not give it a go. What a terrible, terrible movie. Perhaps one of the worst ever made. If IMDb allowed a zero rating, this would be it. In fact, I'm tempted to raise my score on the other 5 movies I have rated a 1 on IMDb, just to show how bad this one was.

The writing was bad, the plot was non-existent, the acting was terrible, the camera-work looked like that of someone using a video camera for the first time. My wife and mother-in-law were smarter than me, they went and found something else to do. I kept watching, thinking something has to happen. And you know, NOTHING EVER HAPPENED in this movie.

Go watch a snail crawl across the sidewalk, go watch water dripping from a faucet, anything is better than watching this.

I obtained this as part of a batch of early Bullock and they were a lot easier for me to find than a couple of years ago.

This has the qualities of many of Sandra Bullock's other very earliest features, so it will not appeal to everyone. With this there is poor visual quality. It is a 4x3 screen image likely trimmed from wider. Sandy is only in a few parts. I still find it to be okay, just not for watching too often. Liable to appear to gradually improve if not watched all that often. More approachable than Hangmen. Very okay Bullock.

It is also looking at questions of good practice, doing that in a fairly simple and open way. Those who like later Sandy because of the 'good guy' element could find that most of these early Sandy have something too, but expressed in a way that is easier in some ways but more difficult because of the low budget factor.

*

Is this about religious or political or business beliefs? It is very post seventies.

Sandy manages to keep to her good girl beliefs, typical early Sandy, but gets badly mauled because of that.

There is a happy ending, which is fitting and makes for a nicer sort of entertainment. That a less than happy ending might appear to be more reasonable is not the issue as entertainment value has a priority, here. This is obviously not a low budget documentary about post seventies beliefs, though it does have a lot of the qualities that such a documentary might have.

I first became interested in this movie because Sandra Bullock was on the cover. Little did I know that she was barely in the movie, and not even her rare appearance (which was the only thing worthwhile) could save this movie. The only reason I didn't stop the movie after the first five minutes was because I was determined to see it to the end--no matter what. Unfortunately, after the movie came to a conclusion (if you can call it that) I felt as if I had been violated with the most awful cinematic experience ever. The troubling parts of the movie were the horrible acting, the worst script, and music that sounded like it was pulled straight from a "country's worst" compilation album, volume one. I would recommend anything else. This is probably the WORST movie I have ever seen, and I have seen my share of bad movies.