Encurralados no Paraíso

What's not to like about this one? It's hilarious! I know he's not the best actor, but this is one of Nicolas Cage's best movies (certainly as far as COMEDY goes, at least). It causes me genuine laughter all the way through. It doesn't contain any corny or dull jokes--quality humor. This is a favorite in my book.

I absolutely adore this movie. This movie was not made to dazzle people or make them stand back and go "wow that was an awesome scene." Trapped in Paradise is about the healing powers of a small town at Christmas. If you've ever live in a small town, or even visited one, you could relate to this movie. To me, this is more of a feel good comedy than anything. It might not hit a lot of top ten lists because its not flashy and it doesn't have a huge trailer, but its a good movie to sit down and laugh to and make you feel good about the human race once again. Nicholas Cage, John Lovitt, and Dana Carvey's characters are believable, even if they are not dynamic. I highly recommend this movie for anyone, from the young to the young at heart.

This was a surprisingly funny movie. Having Cage, Lovitz and Carvey in the same movie is hilarious. Carvey has to have the best role as a kleptomaniac. Watching the movie just to see Dana in this role is worth it all by itself. If you liked City Slickers, you would probably like Trapped in Paradise. 8 Stars.

This was the funniest movie because I have three older brothers, and I swear that this movie reminded me of them. Simply put, I am befuddled at why everyone says that this is such a boring, dull and drab movie. Do they think the same about ConAir? It had more plot holes than Swiss cheese. Unbelievable. Yet they were both great movies. I also don't get those who say that Thirteen Days was inaccurate. My God, the only thing that the filmmakers didn't have was access to the thoughts of those involved. What more do you want? The thing to remember about films like Trapped and ConAir is that they are fictitious, and the whole point of making movies is to suspend belief and tell a story. It doesn't have to be funny. It doesn't have to sad or make a point or have a morale. It just has to be. This is what separates the boys from the men, and thus separates filmmakers from those with axes to grind and wannabes. You make a film because it means something to you personally, not for commercial value. When people finally figure this out, it will be too late, but at least at that point we will have a better understanding of each other.

What we have here is an experiment in no writing, no directing, just gathering some actors together and turning them loose. Many of these have been funny in skits, and each was encouraged to develop their own comic persona. But since these are not very clever comics, we have copies of Harpo, Jonathon Winters, Laurel and Hardy, Lucy and so on. There's nothing original or entertaining here except to watch how strong is the magnetism of the past masters.

Watching Cage flounder is also interesting since there are some who celebrate his talent. I'm coming more and more to appreciate how many different types of actors there are and how widely they differ. Cage as a person always sits nervously in his character. This is no problem if he is cast as a person who sits nervously in himself, and of course this is how he is typed. Sometimes it works, for instance with DePalma's experimental `Snake Eyes,' the disembodied EMT of `Bring out the Dead,' and the pretty sensitive `Raising Arizona.' But when it fails, it fails spectacularly with Cage staring goofily as in that lottery movie, or with shouting as here. Spectacular.