AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
3,6/10
789
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaWhile watching TV, ex-adman Morris Codman receives a message from God. Advised by the Almighty to go into business for himself, Codman inaugurates his own religion, founded on a philosophy o... Ler tudoWhile watching TV, ex-adman Morris Codman receives a message from God. Advised by the Almighty to go into business for himself, Codman inaugurates his own religion, founded on a philosophy of selfishness.While watching TV, ex-adman Morris Codman receives a message from God. Advised by the Almighty to go into business for himself, Codman inaugurates his own religion, founded on a philosophy of selfishness.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
Chuck Pfeiffer
- Brendan Collins
- (as Chuck Pfeifer)
José Torres
- Jose Torres
- (as Jose Torres)
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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've seen this movie many times and it's very funny from start to finish.
Who would have thought that forming your own religion that promotes greed and selfishness would be so funny. It really gets rolling when the cast of leaders is chosen, especially the custodian. And it just snowballs from there. George Plimpton puts on a spectacular performance. The scary thing is that the plot could work in real life.
Religion, Inc, is to religion what Spinal Tap is to musicians.
Definitely not to be missed.
Highly recommended.
Who would have thought that forming your own religion that promotes greed and selfishness would be so funny. It really gets rolling when the cast of leaders is chosen, especially the custodian. And it just snowballs from there. George Plimpton puts on a spectacular performance. The scary thing is that the plot could work in real life.
Religion, Inc, is to religion what Spinal Tap is to musicians.
Definitely not to be missed.
Highly recommended.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesJerzy Kosinski and George Plimpton also appeared in Reds (1981). Both aren't professional actors (Kosinski was a novelist while Plimpton was a journalist) and both acting careers in the 1980's started with the other film and ended with this one.
- Erros de gravaçãoWhen Morris is talking to an employee in a meeting about starting up a cocktail hour there is only one pack of cigarettes in front of him when he is seen from the front. But in shots of him from behind, there are two packs.
- Citações
Ian Clarity: Remember: The road to Utopia is paved with bad intentions!
- Trilhas sonorasOld Noah
Words and Music by 'Kip Martin (II)' and The Merles
Performed by 'Kip Martin (II)' and The Merles
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is A Fool and His Money?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- A Fool and His Money
- Locações de filme
- Edison, Nova Jersey, EUA(office interiors)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 6.000.000 (estimativa)
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 24 min(84 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente