In brief, Tracy plays a troublemaking reporter, Toby Prentiss, who isforcedby his editor to take up the Miss Lonelyhearts column. Much hi-jinxensue,as Prentiss gives screwy "modern" advice to everyone who writes in, in thehopes he’ll be fired. But, in the best tradition of "The Producers,"Prentiss’s column turns out to be an unexpected boffo hit, and the editorrefuses to let him go. There’s more jazzy early ’30s wackiness, with lotsof gleeful mugging from everyone involved, until the story takes an abruptturn into melodrama, as if the scriptwriters suddenly remembered theoriginal Nathanael West novel. In exchange for cash, Prentiss has beenplugging some drugs for a shady manufacturer, until (**SPOILERS**) hegivesthose same drugs to his ma who’s having a spell of heart trouble- and shepromptly croaks. The scene where he realizes he was partially responsiblefor his own mother’s death is startling, since until then the film wasstrictly light comedy. Yet albeit odd, it is interesting and moving toseeTracy act other than a goofy wiseacre- he emotes quite well indeed, andit’sa pity that the film doesn’t develop his new-found angst. Instead, itmakesanother abrupt turn and becomes a fairly standard "righteous reporter vs.the evil corporate thugs" drama, with everything ending happily. There’sawedding too! Golly gee whillikers!

In any case, plot problems asides, this is a lot of fun, and it even has agreat soundtrack. Sterling Holloway (aka the Cheshire Cat) is veryamusingas Tracy’s sidekick, and Sally Blane, Loretta Young’s sister, is okay asthelove interest (though it’s hard not to think of her as the poor man’sLoretta Young). It’s a must-see for Lee Tracy fans out there, since he’sintop form here. It’s really too bad this film isn’t more available(althoughthose curious can find it at Eddie Brant’s Saturday Matinee, a mostexcellent video store in North Hollywood).

She brought home "Advice From A Caterpillar." She was excited because thebox said it was funny. Lucky for us, the propaganda on the boxes neverlie.

This movie was an exercise in patience. This is one of those movies where,unless you are a pretentious and shallow person who likes watching moviesabout yourself, you will hate every character in the movie. Until theintroduction of the one nice character. Which the lead annoyingpretentiouscharacter will fall in love with and act in such a way that, in the realworld, would drive anyone away.

MILD SPOILERS FROM HERE ON

So a bunch of emotionally vapid, stuck-up, pretentious artists swear offlove and find success in their careers. Then, they meet a nice,intelligent, emotionally mature and loving character (an almost perfectguy). We then watch the woman, the annoyingly pretentious artist (in her30’s?) freak out as she falls in love. So she tries to flee from the nice,intelligent, emotionally mature man and stay with the married man with whomshe’s been having great but empty sex. She is rude to the man and doeseverything in her power to drive him away. In the real world, she wouldhave been quite successful. I certainly wanted to flee from her and Iwasn’teven in a relationship with her!

Although its nice that the man ‘fought for his love’, I never wanted her tohave him. (Nor did my girlfriend) She didn’t deserve him. And, why Iwonder, did the director think that the ‘almost perfect guy’ should bepunished by having to win a relationship with her? When the artist wasasking the ‘almost perfect guy’ to leave, we were screaming for him toleavetoo. There’s a problem with a movie when the heroine of the film is soannoying, childish and stupid that you want her to fail.

Beyond that, let me say that Andy Dick made me laugh a few times eventhoughhis character was also pretentious to the point of annoyance. Regardingtheother characters, they were well acted, morally bankrupt and annoyingcharacters.

It is a comedy and I can say I did laugh a few times in the film.Unfortunately, not much laughing happened until the last 10 minutes or so.But by the time I had those laughs, I had been praying for the movie to endfor far too long. I needed to get these vapid characters out of mylife.

If you want to watch people you hate struggle with a love for people theydon’t deserve, then this is the movie for you.

2) This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically andsexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Althoughsomeexcellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, andCynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearlytotally upon clever dialogue; which isn’t. Nixon’s role possesses thebestlines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw whichmustbe saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes everyavailablecliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt atcomedy.

3) As soon as Cynthia Nixon’s character spies the naked Brat (Timothy Oliphant)sleeping in her gay friend’s bed and her eyes betray her interest, we knowthat they will be together by the end of the film. That’s the way moviecliches work. Missy (Nixon) a pop-fad artist, who has an amazing successshowing home movies of her childhood with narration, is having an affairwith a married man whose character is given in the credits as "Suit" (JonTenny). If there is humour in this film, I missed it. Obviously the finalconfrontation scene in the diner with a commenting chorus of patrons ismeant to be a hoot. But it’s too far-fetched and contrived even for thisfilm. And one can’t really have a "Romance" if one doesn’t care about thecharacters involved in said romance. But I think there is a greater problemwith this film. Let me explain. If films continued to depict Afro-Americansas toadying Uncle Toms, I am certain that here would be vehement cries ofanger and protest. Yet this film dares to portray a gay man as the swishy,queenly creature that bigoted Americans think all gays are. Worse than that,it tells us that any bi-sexual man can be "cured" by the love of a goodwoman. Yet even accepting this preposterous and insulting thesis, it isinconceivable that Timothy Oliphant’s character would have Andy Dick’shomely, effeminate character as a regular sex-partner and/or fall in lovewith the irritating creature played by Cynthia Nixon. This film not onlyangered me. It was an insult to my intelligence.

4) Why? Why did they make this movie? If Timothy Olyphant wasn’t shirtlessinit several times, there would be ABSOLUTELY no reason to watch this movie,ever. Um…Plot? Nope. Well-defined characters? nope. The only time Ilaughed was when my boyfriend made fun of the whole she-bang. P.S. AndyDick? Nope.

5) Successful New York artist encounters a bunch of weird guys (do artistsknowanybody else) and wants to maintain her independence by having sex withoutfalling in love. Sound familiar? You bet, it is just about every episodeof "Sex and the City", without the female support group, the guys pick upthe ball.

Although rather mundane, the character interactions manage to bring asmileto my face, like an episode of "Friends".

Definitely worth a rental, if you want a "Chick Flick" without a wholehellof a lot of chicks to muck it up.

6) Yes, As Bees in Honey Drown is great. You should go see it. But "Advice…"is a good movie. The three main characters played by Cynthia Nixon, AndyDick and Timothy Olyphant- are great actors and make this film extremelyworthy of your time. Though touches of nixon’s "miranda" neurosis seepthrough her character, the whole cast does a great job of showing how lovecan always win.

7) Playwright Douglas Carter Beane’s stageplay has been turned into anidealized urban fairy tale of the "love conquers all" variety. Beane (whowrote the vastly more entertaining AS BEES IN HONEY DROWN) has a way withcity wit, and manages some funny lines – if you happen to be a GreenwichVillage performance artists or a theatre queen. This turf was somewhatbetter handled in TRICK. Otherwise this simple story of an artsy gal(Cynthia Nixon) and her gay best friend (Andy Dick) being in love with thesame bi stud is fairly easy-going. Aside from Beane’s barbs, best fun iswatching for the playwright’s Drama Dept. actor friends in cameos. If youhaunt the Off-Broadway scene, this one’s worth a peek, otherwise stickwithTV’s "Sex in the City" or reruns of "News Radio". Better yet, wait foryourlocal community theatre to produce AS BEES IN HONEY DROWN, then go!

Originally I had never heard of this movie until (being the broke collegestudent that I am) one day I was in Best Buy and decided to check and seeifthere were any movies in the cheap section(9.99 and under) that mightcatchmy eye. Well as soon as I saw that Cynthia Nixon and Andy Dick werestarringin it, I thought how can I not buy it? Not to mention the "institution ofaman" that we get to see naked, Timothy Olyphant(dont worry its not fullfrontal, shucks)..Well now it is somewhat of a new obsession. I watch itatleast once a week with my friends. Awesome movie. I can not see how youdon’t consider this a comedy, there are various times in the movie were Ifind myself laughing histerically.. are we forgetting the whole rowboatscene, let alone numerous others.. unless I am just easily amused.Anyways,I think this was one of Andy’s most endearing roles, and makes me evenmoreof a fan. Personally I’d have to give this film the two thumbsup.

A short film with the the depth of a feature. First rate acting andextremely clever dialogue establish characters in an instant. Theproduction values are first-rate never revealing the film’s shoe-stringbudget. A very entertaining twenty minutes.

2) "Advertising and the End of the World" is a really interestingdocumentary,butunfortunately, it also stands as an example of why many people prefer tocommit ideaslike the ones in this movie to other media. For example, this movie wasshown in asociology class I took, and despite the ideas presented in thedocumentary,it was clearthat there were too many "talking head" shots and not enough visuals.

It’s too bad, really, because other filmmakers such as Mark Achbar andPeterWintonickhave managed to make Noam Chomsky (the ultimate talking head) appear asthough hewas on MTV while preserving the cogency of his ideas (cf: "ManufacturingConsent:Noam Chomsky and the Media"). I had high hopes for this documentary aswell,but wasultimately disappointed by what could have been, especially given thebreadth of thetopic and the plethora of rich visual examples available.

• Based on a true story, that of Jean-Claude Romand, who on January 9, 1993, killed his wife, two children and both his parents.

Chilling French suspense tale (based on a true story) of a seeminglywell-to-do doctor, a husband and father, who turns out to be a completefraud. He pretends to go to work in a prestigious medical building butall he does is loiter and kill time until he has to return home. Hetakes money from family and friends, pretending to invest it in foreignventures… but he just uses their money to live on, buying his familymore expensive homes and automobiles (plus a hot, young mistress forhimself). But eventually people start demanding to see some returns ontheir investments… or want to withdraw large sums that the good"doctor" just doesn’t have. So he keeps stalling and putting them offuntil he runs totally out of options and his whole world comes crashingdown… resulting in his final, chilling actions. Terrific performanceby Daniel Auteuil… who has the difficult job of trying to engendersympathy for a man who deserves none.

2) Once in a while you come across a movie about which you know from thefirst moment on what has happened and still you aren’t able to turn itoff or to switch to another channel. You keep watching, because youwant to know everything about it. Why that is, I don’t know, but I findit very intriguing and I guess it only proves the quality of thesemovies.

"L’Adversaire" or "The Adversary" is such a movie. From the firstmoment on you know that Daniel Auteuil’s character Jean-Marc Faure hasdone something terrible to his family. You know he has murdered hiswife and children, but you don’t know why. Only when you keep watchinguntil the end you’ll see that the man has been living a lie for thepast twenty years and that he wasn’t able anymore to continue likethat. He had made everybody believe that he was a successful doctor,working for a prestigious medical institution. Next to his ‘dayjob’ healso invested money for his friends and relatives, which in reality heused to live on, buying his family more expensive homes and cars, andsustaining a young mistress for himself. But eventually people wantedto see some returns on their investments or wanted to withdraw largesums that he couldn’t possibly give them. So he kept stalling andputting them off until he ran totally out of options and his wholeworld came crashing down … resulting in his final, chilling act ofdesperation.

What perhaps is even the most chilling thing about this movie is thatit has been based on true events. Yes, if you turn on the news, youregularly get to hear news about a father who has murdered his entirefamily because they were in big financial problems, but it is nevershown in so much detail as it is in this movie. In this movie you getto see, thanks to a complex series of flashbacks, the investigationafter the murder, showing how he starts getting into trouble until hehas only one option left. I’m pretty sure that a lot of people had toswallow a couple of times when seeing it all and I admit that I was oneof them.

Next to the chilling story, the acting is something else that deservesnoticing. I’m not very familiar with these actors, but they all did anice job. Especially Daniel Auteuil (the only actor that I have heardof before), who is absolutely terrific. He has managed to help youunderstand why the man did it, without saying that what the man did wasright or wrong. I’m not saying that you’ll like the man, but you’llunderstand him and that’s something very special for a movie like thisone. All in all this is some very powerful cinema like you don’t get tosee it very often. Even if you aren’t too familiar with the director orwith the actors, even when you aren’t used to watch foreign movies, youstill should give this one a try. It certainly deserves it. I rewardthis movie with an 8/10.

3) What a chilling experience, this terrific movie. Jean-Marc Faure’sloneliness in conference halls and on the highway is so painful thatit’s hard not to feel compassion for him. All my credits to Auteuil andGarcia for this moving film. As you probably know, L’adversaire wasbased on a tragedy that truly happened some ten years ago. It didn’tjust inspire one, but two directors. The other film based on this storyis L’emploi du temps, by Laurent Cantet. I watched it yesterday, and Ihave to admit I was a bit disappointed. Having read the veryenthusiastic comments on this site, I expected a film of equal qualityas L’adversaire but the latter outclassed it by far. I missed thepalpable loneliness and desperateness in l’Adversaire, and DanielAuteuil is in my opinion simply a more interesting and accomplishedactor than Aurélien Recoing. If you haven’t seen either of the films, Irecommend you watch L’emploi du temps first, or just L’adversaire. It’salways interesting to compare, but if you have already seenL’adversaire, you might be in for a little disappointment.

4) This is a tough, poignant film – as it evolves, the viewer becomessubmergedin the dark universe of the main character, a man living a lie for yearsinfront of his family and friends. Daniel Auteuil is, as usual, absolutelymasterful, expressing extremely well the quiet and sombre nature of thecharacter and the conflicts going on in his mind. Sadly a true story, itapproaches us to the dark universe of a person capable of the worst tohidethe truth.

5) Emmanuel Carrere's novels are chilling, desperate and very well told.This adaptation to screen by Nicole Garcia works pretty well. If itwasn't based on a true story, you'd think that it's silly and a bit toomuch. The movie certainly doesn't leave a happy feeling with you, it'shopeless and sad, in everyone's point of view. So the story is told inthe beginning of the movie, in the matter of fact before to moviestarts, but the point isn't that at all. Film is about what's going oninside Jean Claude Romand's (played by great Daniel Auteuil) head andlife during the times before he murders everyone he knows. The music inL'Adversaire is by Angelo Badalamenti, one of my favorite composers(escpecially Twin Peaks -soundtrack), and it fits perfectly. Latestadaptation of Carrere's work is La Moustache and it's directed byhimself

6) The magnificent Daniel Auteuil is … well … magnificent once again inthis study of a common man whose world turns unaccountably pear-shaped,andwho is powerless to get out of the increasingly large hole he’s dug forhimself. The sequencing of the film is very neatly done – we know fromtheword ‘go’ that Faure has done something horrendous, we’re pretty surewhatit is, and we are led to find out why through a complex series offlashbacks. The art of Auteuil is in his ability to make Faure asympatheticcharacter, despite his many flaws and the gruesome crime he commits. Thepainstakingly constructed portrait of a man in torment may get painted onalittle too thickly at times, but Auteuil’s descent from mixed-upfamily-manto lethal psychopath is gripping stuff.

7) I saw L'Adversaire last night (20 Aug 07), and I'm still trying to sortit out. It's very disturbing, possibly because it's based on a truestory (an UNBELIEVABLY real and devastatingly true story; as the oldsaw has it, you couldn't make this stuff up).

Director Nicole Garcia has apparently decided to present the truth,more or less, as it happened. She has done a wonderful job withmaterial written by her son, Frederic Belier-Garcia, and EmmanuelCarrere, upon whose novel the film is based. This must have been verydifficult to transpose to the screen — the subject matter requires abombardment of raw, visceral emotions.

L'Adversaire is based on the sensational 1993 French murder caseinvolving Jean-Claude Romand, who murdered his wife, two children andhis parents before attempting suicide himself. After almost two decadesof blatant deceit (not a mere 15 years as shown in the film), he wasabout to bring shame on everyone, most of all upon himself. Rather thanface the inevitable, he commits the atrocities.

Romand was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1996.

Everyone close to him believes that the cinematic Romand — Jean-MarcFaure (Daniel Auteuil) — is a medical doctor at the World HealthOrganization (a UN agency) in Geneva. He doesn't work there at all –he isn't even a doctor. He hangs around the WHO halls, briefcase inhand, a haunted, sad, lonely man; he pops in on occasional conferences;he sleeps, listens to his car radio, giggles, reads newspapers, eats,and then, after his 'full day,' he goes home to his wife and twochildren. He carries on this fiction for 15 long years, financing it on'donations' from family and friends who believe Faure is investingtheir money for handsome returns.

The days of reckoning come, as they must, and Faure begins to implode.What follows is a minimalist excursion into terror, but with animportant caveat: there's very little blood. The viewer fills in thekilling scenes, which, as Hitchcock knew so well, is always morefrightening.

Daniel Auteuil as Faure is perfect. This is a difficult performance –how does the viewer empathize with such an ostensible monster? And yetwe do, based on Auteuil's performance. He emerges as a pathetic,tortured man who adopts his elaborate NON-lifestyle early, as a'stop-gap' perhaps. But the years zip by and he finds himself in sodeeply that he cannot extricate himself. After seeing Auteuil'smagnificent Gallic face twist and turn into 100 degrees of irony,desperation, joy, and pain, you're left to conclude that no otherFrench actor alive could play this part, unless it would be AurelienRecoing. He superbly played a stunning similar role (without themurders) in L'Emploi du temps (Time Out), which was released in 2001, ayear before L'Adversaire.

The lovely Geraldine Pailhas as Faure's bewildered and long-sufferingwife doesn't have very much to do, but she brings shining femininity toher part. Emmanuelle Devos is, as usual, outstanding as Faure's flightygirlfriend.

The film has a few problems: there's a bumpy, fuzzy beginning, and theflashbacks are disruptive and often confusing. Auteuil was 52 years oldwhen he made the film, too old for a man who left medical school (adrop-out) only 15 years before. And we're left with a big question atthe end: did he live or die? If you didn't know the real story ofJean-Claude Romand, that lingers as a loose end with the viewer.

Despite these deficiencies, it really doesn't matter. This is just avery disturbing REAL story — Sartrean nothingness, existentialismbrought to life — the 'non-person,' the artificial human being wholives a titanic lie for a very long time and gets away with it. No onereally seems to notice, which tells us a lot about our own sense ofself-absorption.

This film is very dark, but it couldn't be anything else. We arelooking into the face of hell, an assault of demons, through the eyesof Auteuil. L'Adversaire is a splendid exploration of that part of allof us that is afflicted by deviant behaviour. We all deceive, we alllie; it's just a matter of how far we are willing to take it.

A first rate actress, Nicole Gacia also produced films of varyingquality: "Un Week-End Sur Deux" (1990) was a estimable piece of workbut its follow-up "le Fils Préféré" (1994) got bogged down in a riverof clichés. These two works revealed Garcia's strong interest for thefamily and "L'Adversaire" revives her fascination for it. It is sourcedfrom Emmanuel Carrère's novel which is a true story. On the 09thJanuary 1993, Jean Claude Romand killed his wife, children and parentsbecause he was about to be unmasked. The investigation will reveal thathe wasn't a doctor but an impostor who had been lying for eighteenyears. The female director changed the names but kept the thread of thelast moments of this extreme story.

Nicole Garcia walks away with honors and respect of a story which wasdifficult to shot in its entirety: how to assess a solitary, absent,tormented life of an unfathomable man with elusive thoughts facing theothers? Some moments were also unimaginable (the killing of thechildren but with an accurate sense of directing, by keeping a lowprofile, by highlighting the somber scenery when her hero is all alonewithout extreme effects, the female director makes us really feel theloneliness of this mysterious man who just confides his secrets to avideotape. What increases the malaise is that Garcia removed anyexplanation or even little clues likely to shed light on his demeanor.With Faure's nonsensical actions and as the tragedy looms, the viewerwill learn some astounding facts about his past like his refusal topass his medicine exams in his second year at university.

Daniel Auteuil is like good wine: he improves with age and"l'Adversaire" bears witness of it. He's just mind-boggling and it'simpossible not to remain indifferent to this incredible experiencewhich really happened.

9) This movie is adapted from a true story, the one of Jean-Claude Roman, amanwho made his family and friends believe for 18 years that he was asearcherat the OAS when he didn’t even had a job. For 18 long years, he had beencrooking his parents and fooling his relations till he finally gotdiscovered. He then killed his wife, children, mother andfather.Revealing the end of this story won’t bother the appreciation of thismovie, since it’s a well known news item in France that deeply moved thepopulation in the 90’s. As a matter of fact, the story is fascinatingenoughto make the script interesting and that is the main problem of the film.Itrelies almost essentially on the unbelievable destiny of Jean-Marc Faureand the performance of Daniel Auteuil, one the best French actors actorsactually. His acting is sober and at some moments is approaching madnesswith convincing realism. But the staging and the whole ambiance remaincoldand distant as if there was since the beginning a shift between Faure andthe others. This creates an embarrassment that keep us from understandinghim.

Anyway, it is worth seeing this movie, above all if you don’t know thestoryyet. The only fact to know that this really happened makes you watch itwithinterest. Another movie was made upon this story, `L’emploi du temps’ byLaurent Cantet.

10) I must admit my French is a little rusty and I could have done withsome subtitles so I was having trouble following the first half of thefilm on DVD. I borrowed it because I think Daniel Auteil is a goodactor and had no idea what it was about except something about a manwho lives a lie.

I watched it through to the end and recalled reading so many similartrue stories in the last few years on cnn.com that I really got a shockby the end. As one of the scriptwriters comments in the extras on theFrench edition of the DVD says, "those scenes brought the film backinto reality".

I found some of the editing a little jarring but perhaps that wasintentional. It all makes sense in the end. Interestingly the producer- again, on the French edition of the DVD – said that she just wantedto follow the main character through his life without judging ordiagnosing him, so perhaps those of you who know something aboutpsychiatry will have a different perspective.

Stick with it, revel in the details of the film, and hug your familytightly afterwards.

• This film is believed to be lost. Please check your attic.

2) Journalists from other newspapers try to keep Torchy Blane and her fiance Steve McBride apart on their wedding day with a faked murder, but the murder turns out to be a real one.

• Jack Mower (Driver), Robert Barrat and Hugh O'Connell are in studio records/casting call lists as actors in this movie, but were not seen in the print.
• The reporter in the original stories was Kennedy, a male character.

2) I like the Torchy Blane character and the way Glenda Farrell played herin the Warner Brothers series. But this second episode probably couldhave sank the whole series.

Glenda Farrell and Barton MacLane are about to be married which ofcourse will make them even closer. Both the police and Farrell's fellowreporters see problems. But the reporters in their infinite wisdomdecide to do something about it.

Can you believe these lugnuts decide to stage a fake murder of and hirea ham actor to play the part? But then the ham actor really does turnup dead, leaving another mystery for Farrell and MacLane to solve.

Call me just an old fuddy duddy but I seem to remember their being lawsagainst this sort of thing. There sure is in making a false report of acrime. In real life a lot of the working press of Torchy's city wouldhave been filing their stories from the big house. And that's even ifthis thing had stayed just a gag.

Incredibly stupid movie.

• The original film featured the then unknown Rudolph Valentino. To cash in on his rise to stardom, it was re-edited to feature more of him. Various shots were repeated several times; long shots were blown up into close-ups and inter-cut with other footage; some scenes were projected on a loop, so that Rudolph Valentino repeated the same motions several times over; one scene was used as a flashback; and out-takes from the original were inserted into the new film. In addition, the locale of the new picture was switched from World War 1 Germany to a desert island by the simple expedient of inserting shots of bathing beauties on a palm-fringed beach throughout the film.
• Originally shot in 1918, but re-edited, retitled and re-released in 1920 and again in 1922.