Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

ThatMOVIENut Based on the quasi historical novel by T.C. Boyle, Alan Parker's adaptation tells of the hijinks up at the Battle Creek sanatorium at the end of the 19th century. It is a centre of health mania, headed up by the one and only Dr. Kellogg (Hopkins), who believes carnal impulses are dangerous, and clean bowels are the end all, be all of personal health and hygiene. A young couple enters (Broderick and Fonda) to seek healing of their own, while a young entrepreneur (Cusack) and a disgraced son of Kellogg (Carvey) attempt to launch their own breakfast cereal brand.A quirky & curious affair from the usually straight-laced veteran Parker, 'Wellville' boasts several enjoyable qualities. First off, we have a scene chewing Hopkins as Dr Kellogg, false teeth, cartoon accent and all, and he is a real treat to watch. The rest of the all-star cast all do satisfactory work, though none ever outshine Hopkins, with Broderick being mainly the suffering butt (pun very much intended) of the film's more anatomically-minded humour. Indeed, the playful contrast of period class and lowbrow gags does allow for a good few chuckles, and unlike your typical Sandler production, the sanatorium provides a decent context for the humour and is not gratuitous. This is all perfectly underscored by a zany soundtrack from romance veteran Rachel Portman, at points reminding me of Elfman's earlier works. However, the film's endgoal is not quite clear, and does sometimes undercut the fun; is it a health craze satire, a personal story of real human nature and how it shouldn't be suppressed, or just a wacky romp? It's all of that, and yet, no one element ever feels like the forefront of the film, with Parker more interested in seeing Broderick get pumped full of enemas and yoghurt than using it to make much of a point. Plus, the pacing does wind down by the end, and it feels like the film could wrap up sooner than it does.That being said, I enjoyed myself a lot more on the second go around with 'Wellville', now that my expectations had been tempered. It never fully achieves transcending period farce, but it's still perfectly watchable with enough strengths of its own to make for a unique title in Parker's distinguished catalogue.

avallyee Did you find funny any film involving characters named "Focker"? How about "The Hangover"? Did you think "Avatar" was well-acted or well-written? Was any "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter" film silly? Was "Titanic" without historic inaccuracies? Just curious. The above questions embody the primary criticisms of Wellville. Leaving out, of course, the obligatory "poop jokes are gross" remarks. I'm certain those who lodge this complaint never were amused by scatological humor. Or ever told such a joke. Of course not.If someone you liked told you a joke, then, presuming the delivery was similar, were told the same joke by someone you despise, would you laugh both times? Be truthful.Point being this: Is the movie really as bad as you say, or are you unable (or maybe unwilling?) to suspend your disbelief because you're pre-programmed so to do? Taste may be subjective, but is also subject to manipulation.So now ask yourself: What was the last movie you thought was great, whether others liked it or not?

mnpollio A thoroughly appalling "comedy" detailing the wacky misadventures at an early 20th century health farm run by bizarre cereal magnate Dr. John Kellogg. Purportedly based on real events, one is hard-pressed to find much to laugh about in this over-long and criminally unfunny film. Anthony Hopkins, sporting buck teeth, has been drafted to play the nutty Kellogg. The events at the health farm largely unfold through the eyes of newly converted health maven Bridget Fonda and her less enthused husband Matthew Broderick, who is dragged along to have his system cleared of impurities.It is open for debate how much on screen is indeed factual, but it is certainly not open for debate how such a debacle could have been conceived with the talent involved. Director Alan Parker is responsible for some of our best dramas, including Midnight Express and Mississippi Burning. The cast is stocked with familiar faces, who have had far better days elsewhere. The humor is almost completely one-sided in scatological references and bodily functions - if you think the idea of someone getting a yogurt enema is the height of hilarity, then this is definitely the film for you. The film is also awash in gratuitous nudity, but no amount of eye candy (and much of it would not qualify for that description) can distract from the film's glaring shortcomings.Hopkins throws himself into the role of Kellogg, but it is little more than a cartoon character. Fonda alternates between nagging and dishrag in a dreadfully uninteresting role. Broderick fares best from the cast, largely because he is playing the only semi-developed character and the only one remotely normal or sympathetic. It is also a pleasant surprise how enticing he looks when naked - that close-up on the vibrating platform was a real eye-opener. John Cusack is on hand, but why is anyone's guess. His subplot - playing a nephew of one of Kellogg's patients involved in a shady scheme - goes no where and takes up too much screen time. Ditto, Dana Carvey as Kellogg's deranged son. Both subplots could have been completely excised from the film without anyone noticing and making the proceedings blessedly shorter. Camryn Manheim is light years beyond obnoxious as Fonda's confidante at the health farm.Truly there is literally nothing that works in this film. There is nary a chuckle to be found in its morass of jokes on poop, enemas, flatulence and body fluids. At the end, the question lingers as to how so many talented people ended up in this mess?

mrockman-1 I rate the picture highly simply because it evokes the period and attitudes so interestingly. The tongue-in-cheek narrative follows the experiences of several people in and around the Battle Creek (Michigan) Sanitarium, that was operated as a health spa by Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. A member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Dr. Kellogg was a firm believer in vegetarianism, no smoking, no drinking, regular exercise and abstinence from sexual activity as the roadmap to a healthy life. Much of what he was peddling was unscientific bushwa. But he did invent the breakfast cornflake, although it was his brother who successfully marketed it. The movie is set just after the turn of the 20th century, when the town of Battle Creek was host to dozens of wannabees who attempted to develop and market their own vegetarian breakfast foods. A well-meaning but gullible young man arrives to cash in on the breakfast food craze. A troubled young married couple visit the "San" to cure the man of his bowel troubles. Both find gratification not of the kind generally permissible under Dr. Kellogg's regime. The Dr.'s own family, that consists of he, his wife, and dozens of adopted children, is uniquely dysfunctional. One uncooperative child opposes the Dr. early on and later demonstrates peculiarly and emphatically what, exactly, in Dr. Kellogg he found repulsive. The movie is about sex. The regime is sexually repressive yet one finds sexual tension relieved at every turn. But, alas, there are no car chases.