Given its 1970 release, this film unsuccessully attempted to cash in onthe box-office success of The Graduate and Easy Rider. While there arerelated themes it is considerably less imaginative and much moreconventional in tone and production technique.

As the vaguely disgusted Adam drives east into the unknown his energylevel increases with his forward motion. The awkward and uncomfortablemoments at the funeral and the reception are the most authentic scenesin the film. A highlight is a discussion of the movie "Blow-up" with adisgusted relative who went to the film thinking from its title that itwas a war picture.

Adam is about to move on when he is introduced to Jerri Jo (LeePurcell). They go to a drive-in movie (see The Reivers comment above)and soon fall in love. Unfortunately the Douglas/Purcell romanticscenes are weak and only the hormonal aspect of their relationship isbelievable. Douglas decides to spend the summer in Missouri and gets ajob clearing brush for the local power company. The work crew certainlylooks authentic; since they only have a couple lines of dialogue theymay have actually been some local hicks.

He thrives in his new job and sincerely enjoys the change of pace andthe lack of complications. He becomes friends with Joe Don Baker(apparently the only other professional actor on the crew) and sees howhis marriage and kids keep him trapped in a going nowhere life. Forsome reason this depressing situation inspires him to propose to JerriJo, who has a very different idea of what their marriage will be like.There was a little foreshadowing about this back when Adam wasexplaining his academic specialty (semantics) to one of his relatives;he cited the communication problems that occur between two people whenthey have different meanings for the same word. Adam’s idea of marriageis traveling around together having adventures. Jerri Jo’s idea ofmarriage is setting up house in her hometown with her husband teachingsemantics at the local college.

It slowly dawns on Adam that he and his prospective bride do not sharethe same vision of marriage. This is done through a wonderfulsemi-montage sequence of engagement party decorations, father-in-lawdressed in an apron, hair curlers, laughing relative, domesticdiscussions with Jerri Jo’s girlfriends, and the ice cream fetchingerrand. Adam leaves the party and drives to the A&P for ice cream. Yoususpect that he is going to bail out on the whole Missouri thing sohaving him actually buy the ice cream was a stroke of genius. He couldhave just left town immediately but this builds suspense, puts a morepositive slant on his decision to leave (i.e. it is not just animpulsive irresponsible act-he gives it careful consideration), and itprovides a prop for a great final image.

What Adam is saying is that he does not want to be like most people, hedoes not want to construct a small world for himself where he can keepeverything orderly. He does not know exactly what he wants but he doesknow for certain that he does not want the average. Although this is alow budget production with some major flaws, it is a very solid effort.The theme is compelling, the score communicates as much as thedialogue, Douglas and Baker do a good job, and Purcell is very pretty.

2) Idealistic college professor decides to find himself by spending a summerinthe midwest as a laborer. He meets and falls in love with a beautiful younglady who, to his regret, cannot share his same vision. Biggest differancehere is that the other laborers aren’t potrayed as ignorant, suspicious,bigots. Instead we see them as friendly, helpful, and interesting people.Does degenerate into the perverbial bar fight, but mostly this is asubdued,almost loving look at Americas’ heartland. Great chance to see MichaelDouglas in a very early dramatic role. (He did this even before STREETS OFSAN FRANCISCO). Lee Purcell is also quite good becoming easily identifiableof most young ladies of that era (and even today). She willingly takes onthe more ‘liberated’ values of the younger generation when it is conveniantand fun, but is unable (and unwilling) to break from the mores of theenviroment from which she was raised. Has a good finalshot.

3) Douglas stars as a big city California college professor who realizeshis life is pretty unfulfilled. His cushy college job is pretty boringand he’s tired of waking up Monday with what’s her name Sunday. He’slived a very pampered life from rich parents as everything in his lifecame on a silver platter and he’s taken far too many things forgranted. While visiting his parents he overhears his mother on thetelephone ordering flowers to be sent to a recently deceased relative’sfuneral in a small Missouri town. It dawns on him to get away from itall, drive across the country and get to know his virtually unknownrelatives.

As soon as he goes to the funeral he’s touched even though the localstreat him like he just stepped off the mother ship. Feeling like he’sfinally home he gets a logging job and despite being over educated andunderpaid his life is new again. At the funeral he meets a popularlocal girl (played by Lee Purcell) who immediately sets her sights onDouglas; she wants a husband and her parents are ready for ason-in-law. The two fall in love but he soon discovers someone elseonce again controls his life, this time by his soon to be in-laws allneatly packaged and planned. Even though he truly loves his girl hedecides he isn’t sure if he’s ready to settle down or be rooted inanother town just yet.

If the movie were made today it would probably be made into a comedywith Ice Cube so I’m very happy that it was made during the time itwas. The plot tackled important issues and it was meant to be a drama.

The movie includes a wonderful cast, including Michael Douglas ofcourse. Other standouts include Joe Don Baker as Douglas’ loggerco-worker whose big dream is becoming a TV repairman or the meddlingfuture in-laws played by Louise Latham and Charles Aidman.

Also check out the really good song “Elijah Rise Up” by Danny O’Keefe.

I was only able to find this title on VHS about 10 years ago as anout-of-print special order. It would be very nice having it on DVD, asit’s a great collection to any fan of Michael Douglas, the 70’s or justgreat acting. Interestingly in this movie Douglas plays a professor wasreleased in 1970 and the other Douglas’ movie “Summertree” in 1971 inwhich he played a college student, one year later.

4) Call it sentiments of generation X before generation X. This movie wasfantastic. It asks the sincere question: do you see yourself assuccessful,or do others see it in you? And what would happen if you and society foundyour success in different places? The last scene captures the outcomevisually with great symbolism.

5) This film is the latest acquisition to my collection of Michael Douglasvideos and DVD’s, and the IMDb user reviews prepared me for what toexpect from the film. The main interest for me was to see Douglas inone of his first films – and to see just the same mannerisms, facialexpressions and voice intonations as in his most recent films! Thestory itself I found mainly improbable – what was the point of the longand irrelevant intro? We needed to see more at that stage of just whyAdam was dissatisfied with his life. I also couldn’t for the life of mesee what Adam found attractive in Jerri-Jo – she was so shallow, surelyhe could see that from when he first met her?? OK for a summer flingmaybe, but getting engaged to her?? Give me a break! The best scenes ofthe film were those with the labourers – you could understand why heenjoyed being with them – and they were the only scenes that rang truefor me. Plus the ice cream tub at the end – nice one! But where didAdam go? Back to his unsatisfying life again? How sad!

6) Michael Douglas plays a young semantics professor who has several closeladyfriends. I believe the film takes place in California. It has a definitehippie-era vibe. The soundtrack is kind of country-sounding, and it makesyou wish they’d spent a little cash on getting some popular rock musiciansto do the score. No real original music to keep the film "fresh-feeling".I’ve seen a dozen better films from this era about similar subject matter.Nicholson was in about five or so of them. Douglas always has a p***edofflook on his face in this movie. But I still enjoy almost every MD film Iwatch. He’s just not Jack Nicholson. Then again, who is? ExceptMr.Ray-Banshimself.

7) The person who made the comment that the title of this film makes nosense is incorrect. Of course, the title makes sense. The maincharacter, Adam, is a young college professor who spends the summerworking at a blue collar job. Thus, he gets up at 6 a.m. to go to work.The entire movie is about the summer that he spends working at thisjob. I first saw this film when I was about twelve or thirteen, and Iabsolutely loved it. It's now a period piece, but it's an excellentperiod piece. The last shot of this film–which I won't reveal here–iswonderful. I've described it to many, many people over the years asbeing one of the funniest things that I've ever seen in a movie. I canstill remember watching this on television with my brother and myfather, and we all laughed hysterically at that final shot.

That would be the only reason why I would watch it again. I was 3 yearsold when it was made, but I remember my parents talking about howexciting it was to have Michael Douglas staying in our little 'ol townand how everyone in town were extras in the movie. I've seen it as anadult and the only thing I enjoyed about it was looking for familiarfaces and familiar places in my hometown. I would imagine anyone notfrom my hometown wouldn't enjoy this movie as much as I did.

It is kind of an interesting movie to watch, early in the career ofMichael Douglas. I believe this movie was made before he did Streets ofSan Francisco which by the way I absolutely loved!

9) This is an unusual film for Michael Douglas, and kind of "lost". Iwonder if it was ever even released? I rather doubt it’s even availableon video or DVD today: your only shot at seeing it is late at night onsame cable station. Which is how I saw it, many years ago.

Adam is a late 20s college professor having a sort of early mid-lifecrisis when he decides to spontaneously attend a family funeral in theMidwest. Away from his intellectual/liberal environment and hedonisticlifestyle, he finds life in the small town surprisingly warm andembracing. In time, he has a working class job (light years from hiscushy teaching job), friends (Joe Don Baker) and a cute girlfriend forwhom he has the major hots, but who is "saving herself for marriage."Adam becomes, for this one summer anyhow, so immersed in this simpledown-to-earth lifestyle that he decides to marry the girlfriend and buya house.

At this point, the film takes a sharp detour…as if ashamed suddenlyof the idea that simple hard work, good friends and a loving marriagemight be exactly what spoiled pretentious Adam needed all along. So heabruptly decides to "chuck it all" when sent on a mission to buyvanilla ice cream for his fiancé’s bridal shower…and skedaddles outof town in his sports car, presumably never to be seen again. (Or maybeto return to his unhappy life as a swinging college teacher.) Noclosure on the presumably broken-hearted fiancé, who had to behumiliated by his disappearance, or his confused and hurt friends.

For some reason this film has stuck in my mind all these years. I thinkbecause up until the final couple of minutes, it almost seems like apre-Reagan paean to family values…which would have made "Adam" a realoddity in 1970. Some good supporting work from supporting actors. Thisfilm also foreshadows the 80s film, "Amber Waves of Grain" with KurtRussell and Mare Winningham, about a spoiled actor who becomes a farmworker.

If you are up late at night and this comes on…watch it. Somethingdifferent, and you get to see a very young Michael Douglas.

(BTW: No, the title makes no sense at all.)

10) A minor cult classic for fans of 70s films. Joe Don Baker isoutstanding. I highly recommend it, if you see it in the late-night TV listing.

High-society hostess Evelyn Trevelyan (a name which almost rhymes) ishappily married to Adam Trevelyan … never suspecting Adam’s secret,namelythat he has an evil identical twin brother Allan. Of course, as soon asEvelyn learns about this brother-in-law, who until just now was utterlyunknown to her, guess who shows up on her doorstep.

Confusions between good brother Adam and bad brother Allan promptly ensue,made more complicated when Allan deliberately impersonates Adam. Allan hasbeen squiring a floozy named Gwen; when Evelyn sees Gwen in the arms ofAllan (who looks like Adam), she assumes that her husband isunfaithful.

This movie is meant to be a comedy, but the best jokes are in the gaggytitle cards written by comedy veteran Ralph Spence. Lew Cody, an actor whohas never previously impressed me, actually manages to turn in twodifferentperformances as the twins, so that we can tell which one is actuallyonscreen in any given shot. (Except when the script requires us to beintentionally confused.)

The most interesting thing about this movie is the crude processphotographywhich enables Lew Cody to interact with himself in double-exposure. Mostofthe film is lighted normally … until both of Lew Cody are onscreen inthesame shot, at which point suddenly the set is lighted from the sides, sothat one Lew Cody doesn’t throw shadows where the other Lew Cody will bestanding (in the other half of the exposure). At one point, Adam hands apiece of paper to Allan (or maybe it’s just the other way round): in orderto achieve this stunt, the set dresser conveniently places a table lamp inprecisely the right spot to obscure the physical contact between the twocharacters played by Lew Cody. This is an MGM film, so (as usual for thatstudio) the set design and art direction are contractually credited toCedric Gibbons, but were actually done by one of his assistants … inthiscase, Richard Day.

‘Adam and Evil’ is slightly funny, but not nearly so funny as it seems tofancy itself to be. It would have helped if the two main characters hadn’tbeen named Adam and Evelyn. ‘Trevelyan’ just makes everything worse.Rating:4 points out of 10.

2) I bought this movie because I love Granger and Simmons so much in ‘YoungBess’. The quality of the VHS copy however is disappointing, I wonder ifitdue to repairing technical problems or lack of budget? Nevertheless, it isstill worth the money because every once is a while, there will be aclose-up of Granger or Simmons that is clear enough for an audienceappreciation.

Granger and Simmons radiate their charms so effortlessly here because thecharacters they played are practically themselves–English socialites. Theoverall delightful result may look easy but it is however important thatthe script did not step into any wrong note.

3) ADAM AND EVELYNE offers a variant on the 'guardian-ward' theme exploredso compellingly in the earlier Rank film THE SEVENTH VEIL. However,ADAM AND EVELYNE opts for light comedy rather than cane-lashing in thecentral relationship between Simmons and Granger.

The plot is rather silly yet all in good fun: Evelyne (Simmons) is anorphan who is suddenly found and taken away for a better life with theman she believes to be her father, handsome professional gamblerAdam(Granger, sporting a rather terrible mustache). It is all a mix-up,of course, and unrefined 'Orphan Annie' Simmons finds out the truthabout her parentage (yet not about Adam's source of income) in duetime. She stays with a generous (and guilty) Adam as his ward, maturing(with the aid of an expensive boarding school) into an attractive andaccomplished young woman. Complications ensue when Adam and Evelynestart developing feelings for each other that are definitely not of the'father-daughter' type…

ADAM AND EVELYNE works reasonably well as light, unpretentious comedy.Simmons does some good work, likable as both the elfin-like young girland the beautiful young woman (her appearance and clothing in the scenewhere Adam meets her as a lady must have inspired the costume designerof Audrey Hepburn in SABRINA). She also seems to resemble a curiousVivien Leigh-Elizabeth Taylor hybrid in several scenes. Granger ischarming and does not have to do too much heavy lifting here. Grangerand Simmons share good chemistry (which is expected, as they werecourting at the time and married several years later), which definitelyaids the production.

A rather poor script and silly plot hampers the production. Still, thismakes good Sunday afternoon viewing.

6/10.

4) Enjoyed this film which I had my doubts about until I viewed the greatacting of Jean Simmons, (Evelyn Wallace) and Stewart Granger, (AdamBlack). This story is about a young girl Evelyn who lives in anorphanage and receives letters from her father telling her he is goingto visit her someday and take her home where he raises horses. However,this is really not her father but a good friend of her father's AdamBlack. Evelyn's father passes away and he asks Adam to take care of hisdaughter and he promises to look after her. There are very funny scenesand some very dramatic moments along with many lies which have beentold and have to be explained to poor Evelyn Wallace. In real life,Jean Simmons and Stewart Granger were married and had a child. GreatClassic film from 1949, enjoy.

5) OK so this film does not break any new ground but its worth watching to seethe effortless way the two principal actors (Jean Simmons and StewartGranger) give an impressive performance overcoming the somewhat well wornthemes dealt with in the script. Jean Simmons turns from a backward Englishschoolgirl of the 50’s into a stunning deliciously irresistible asexualgoddess which will leave all men with a revived faith in the female of thespecies, at least for a few minutes after watching the film.

6) Possible spoilers: I used to think that cute and winsome comedies were aHollywood specialty, but after seeing "Adam and Evelyne" I realised theBritish can do them too. Stewart Granger plays Adam, a professionalgambler. Jean Simmons plays Evelyne, the innocent orphan he adopts. Aboutfifteen minutes into the film it becomes easy to predict how everything isgoing to turn out – Evelyne will grow up, she and Adam will fall in love,and after reforming him, she will marry him. Not surprisingly, StewartandSimmons sail through their parts. Neither made heavy demands upon theactors. Stewart was required to be suave and charming, while Simmonsradiated naive innocence.

Still, I have seen worse movies. There was nothing actually offensive orirritating in "Adam and Evelyne", nor was it slow moving or boring. Theobligatory scene where Adam shows Evelyne the sights of the town wascleverly handled. Instead of the standard montage of famous sights,intercut with Evelyne’s enraptured face, we saw a sequence of scenesdepicting Evelyne’s energetic and Adam’s increasingly weary *feet*, withthecharacters’ dialogue as voiceover. And if nothing else the sets andcostumes were fun to watch.

7) Stewart Granger was 16 years older than Jean Simmons when they marriedin 1950, so they had real life chemistry together in this 1949 film asmature man (Adam) having a relationship with a beautiful girl(Evelyne).The plot has already been outlined by other user comments soI will merely comment on the time and direction.

As someone who was born in 1946, 1949 was, for most of us, a year inBritain of food rationing, burdensome post war taxes andausterity.Shots of people drinking champagne, drinking and eating innightclubs, buying expensive clothes and driving expensive cars were amillion miles away from most Britons life experiences then.It is onlyin recent history that gambling has been legalised and it is worthreminding viewers that in 1949 this practise could be prosecuted hencethe film's depiction of illicit gambling in private homes.

The relationships of ex-service personnel in the post war period couldbe strong if they had previously shared privation together during thewar in a life inter depending culture.This fact is clearly shown byAdam's steadfast friendship with his Irish jockey comrade who hassecretly sired a beautiful daughter (Evelyne) who now resides in anorphanage.Adam and his Irish war friend share a mutual love of horseracing (and gambling) which keeps their friendship current with astrong bond of loyalty between them.The morality of the 1940s meantpeople could not be seen to be escaping the consequences of the law anda racing scam cooked up between them goes tragically wrong and theIrish jockey loses his life while racing.With his last breath he asksAdam to look after his daughter.A previous reviewer predicted thefilm's outcome but it is still enjoyable seeing how the charactersfinish.The mature divorcée who wants to marry Adam (while using herflat for gambling) is in for a bitter disappointment but so is Adamwhen she tips off Adam's ne'er-do-well younger brother, out of femalespite, when she realises she cannot compete in the emotional stakeswith the beautiful 20 year old Jean Simmons, when they give the policea tip off about illegal gambling.

There is a nice cameo performance about morality from Wilfrid HydeWhite who explains to Evelyne that heroes often come with clayfeet.Enjoyable with competent direction in B&W. I rated it 6/10/

It all basically began with Adam and Eve. We've seen the young,innocent girl maturing into the young lady and falling in love with theolder man in "My Fair Lady," and "Gigi." This is basically the samestory in "Adam and Evelynne."

When Stewart Granger's friend dies, he takes his daughter in. Thelatter, Jean Simmons, believes that Granger is his father until she istold otherwise by Granger's girlfriend who senses Simmons as futurecompetition. That sense proves correct when Simmons returns fromfinishing school in Switzerland all grown up. Problem is that Grangerhas never told her his true vocation: illegal gambling.

The story unfolds how they fall in love and the eventual treachery ofhis girlfriend and younger brother to destroy him over this love.

The film is nicely done. Jean Simmons goes from an unhappy child,looking for her father to the mature young woman searching for love.

9) With its echoes of "Little Miss Marker", "Daddy Long Legs" and "OrphanAnnie", this is a rather stilted plot on which to hang a lightweightcomedy.Nonetheless, it makes for enjoyable enough entertainment, even if a trifletoo predictable and over-long. Agreeable playing, competent direction andfirst-class production values help.

2) My girlfriend and I picked this movie up at the video store thinking toourselves "This should be funny, National Lampoon is genuinely funnyfor those boring afternoons". We were sorely disappointed.

From the get-go, this movie looks like it could have potential. No.Stop thinking that. The acting is horrid, the jokes are not funny (Ican't even think of a moment where I laughed, nor my girlfriend). Wesat in disbelief as we waited for a joke to come, or possibly thismovie to even get better – but no. The "National Lampoon" name wasobviously tagged on so someone would actually watch this. Well thatworked.

To sum this up, I watched the rest of this movie hoping for somethingfunny (my girlfriend walked off and did something more constructive),something to justify the $5 I wasted on this. In the end, this onefound its way back to the video store and I insisted that the movie wasscratched so I could get another movie that would redeem that $5. Don'twatch this movie, unless you're looking at how "not" to make a movie.

3) If you check the other comments, you’ll hear about this being a greatromantic comedy. It’s not. As a romantic comedy, it barely passesmuster. The laughs are few and far between, the plot is completelyformulaic, and the only thing "National Lampoon" about this film is thetitle. Douglas is wooden as Adam, although Chriqui is very convincingas Eve. The frat-house shenanigans are tame beyond belief when comparedto other Lampoon college movies, and the girl waiting for the perfecttime to toss in her V-card is an old theme that isn’t freshened in anyway by this film. After great National Lampoon titles like "VanWilder", "Animal House", and the "Vacation" movies, this one feels likethe first attempt of someone straight out of film school.

4) No one expects a movie with National Lampoon in the title to be hightheater, but most National Lampoon movies are funny in a low brow way."Adam and Eve" couldn't cut the mustard. Emmanuelle Chriqui isGORGEOUS, but that alone couldn't save the movie. The love story issweet, and the chaste Eve is treated in a respectful way, but thescript wasn't funny, the supporting characters were not funny. GeorgeDzundza, who I remember fondly from his Law and Order days, was wastedin this film. The male lead seemed too stoned and apathetic to careabout anyone. Thank God this movie was on Starz and I didn't have topay for a ticket.

5) When I think of National Lampoon I think of school-boy jokes, smut,innuendo, gross-out scenes and heaps of gratuitous flesh, beer andstupidity. It’s the kind of thing I found outrageously funny at 13 (andstill do 40 years later). There is scarcely any need for acting becausethe "actors" are playing themselves. But Adam and Eve is not like that.It has a plot, it has some character development, it even has some realacting in it. I enjoyed the basic premise of the story even if it hasbeen done a hundred times before. It’s an old theme, and it can do withre-examining on a regular basis as society changes (or doesn’t). It hada few (relatively tame) gross-out scenes and some funnyish scenes butmostly it had what no National Lampoon should ever have: subtlety. Notgreat cinema, but a bit of good fun.

6) I loved National Lampoon’s Van Wilder and Animal House so I thought"Oh, this must be an awesome movie!!" When me and my friend started it,we thought the beginning must be a lead in and the plot would starttaking off soon. Unfortunately, this bullshit made up the entire movie.The acting in this movie was horrible-the guy couldn’t act to save hislife and is using his father’s name to actually get parts in Hollywood.The girl’s performance was okay, but she has basically screwed over herentire reputation because she chose to be in this movie. If you knowwhat’s right for you and don’t want to waste $5 at Blockbusters, neverever rent and watch this movie.

7) Okay, so this wasn't like all the other National Lampoon movies, likeit was hardly funny…at all. However if you go into it knowing that,then it's actually a great movie. And it's also a slow movie, just awarning, but I loved it. It's a movie I will always remember this movieand certain parts from it, there are many fabulous words of advice(probably more of a chick flick, I don't think most guys would waitthis out) But honestly, don't just ride it off. I'm a teenager, I lovethe funny movies out like all the other National Lampoon movies, thisone is just a bit more…real? Than the others? I would give it a shotfor sure, when you think you're in the mood for it of course (:

I am only giving this one a 5 out of 10 because of all the disgustingfrat boy humor. I can take frat boy humor, but in moderate amounts. Idon't think many women want to know what a guy's balls smell like afterat least a week of no bathing, anymore than a guy wants to know what atampon left in for a week might smell like. Ugh! The one bright spot inthis flawed comedy is Emmanuelle Chriqui. I don't know what draws herto so many frat boy comedies, but she is a very lovely, talented andcharming actress who probably gets less respect that she deserves. Shenails the realistic emotions of virgins everywhere. We were all virginsat one time, and it's true: For some reason, we just don't want to doit until that right, perfect (or as perfect as can be) moment comes.There are issues with intimacy, fear of being naked (figuratively, notphysically) and the terror that once you open up and reveal your entirebody and soul, that person will only betray you.

I don't know what attracted Eve to Adam at all. He was just anotherdamaged-goods frat boy with so many tattoos that it only made him looktrashy. His haggard face also suggest a really rough lifestyle thatincluded too much booze and probably some drugs too. He and hisroommates are a bunch of slobs who lay around all day drinking, eatingjunk and watching porn.

SPOILER AHEAD! It's just an opinion, but she was way too good for himand should not have even given him the time of day. Or maybe histattoos and "rode hard and put away wet" appearance is what attractedher. As a character, Adam does seem sweet and sincere at times, butthere just didn't seem to be anything that made him a standout. Ididn't see anything special to fall for. He even cheats on Eve (or atleast he thinks he did) with a gal that looks more to be his type,which is cheap and trashy.

If Chriqui hadn't been in this film, I probably wouldn't have bothered,as I have never heard of any of the other cast members, save ChadLindberg, who I enjoy in most of his other stuff. I might have evenliked the movie better if Lindberg had been the lead male role. Atleast he isn't an illustrated man.

9) It's Low Budget, Amateurish, and Simple. When I came across the DVD onAmazon I was only interested in buying it, because it had NationalLampoons plastered over the front cover. When it arrived and I watchedit for the first time I was pleasantly surprised.

It's the story of Adam and Eve, but not the story we are familiar with.In National Lampoons version of Adam and Eve Adam falls for Eve abeautiful college student who happens to be a Virgin. At first thevirginity thing doesn't pose a problem, but during their nine monthrelationship and Eve's reluctance to lose her virginity Adam'sfrustration causes him to question leaving the relationship and thewoman he truly loves.

This is a teen movie so there is obviously profanity, fart jokes, andalcohol filled parties with half naked girls, but blended in with abeautiful story of Love and Friendship.

The beautiful Emmanuelle Chriqui was of course fabulous in the film. Iwish I could say the same for Cameron Douglas. I could sense he wasuncomfortable in certain scenes, which made him appear like a pooractor, which in all honesty he isn't just a newcomer. Maybe a littlemore rehearsals and he would have done the part justice.

I'd recommended this to all National Lampoon fans and possibly anybodywho likes a beautiful love story with some fart jokes in the mix. Thisis a great first date movie or for any guy still trying to get his girlinto bed.

7 out of 10 stars.

10) First of all, I couldn't "find" or dig the "National Lampoon's"trademark through all the way. I didn't find some jokes at the level ofa NL movie; still, I think this is a clever and funny romantic comedythat has the occasional and effective sex jokes that surround the maincouple of the movie.

The principal plot deals with Adam insisting on taking Eve's virginitywhile she thinks she's "Not ready" and prefers cuddling after makingout. Yes, it sounds she's a c*** teaser but she has her very personalreasons. Anyways, Adam totally wasted cheats on Eve and gets a viralinfection (TSD) but has a hard time telling it to Eve.

One thing leads to another and in the end they make up and have sex.Wow, I surely want a girlfriend like Eve!

Emmanuelle Chriqui is extremely hot, sexy, cute, and delivers abelievable performance. Cameron Douglas does what he can.

The direction is plastic and does not offer anything new, nor thesoundtrack or sub-plots.

Watch it only if you don't have anything else to do or if you have thehots for Mrs. Chriqui. God, she's so PERFECT.

The animation, in spite of looking just a tad unpolished, is excellent,the sight gags are perfectly executed (I like Adam’s futile attempt tohead off and see the rest of the world myself), and Adam himself is ascharming a stop motion character as they come. His total obliviousnessto his own limitations, which somehow manage to land him in all kindsof perilous situations on this seemingly innocuous planet, is whatmakes him so thoroughly appealing. It all comes together to produce oneof the most fascinating and ambiguous films that the Bristol-basedstudio has ever crafted. Did Peter Lord intend it as a socialcommentary on male and female relations, a statement about humankind ingeneral, an analogy of the animator’s role as ‘God’ to the claymationfigures he sculpts and brings to ‘life’, or simply a playful variationon the familiar creation story? Well, that’s for your owninterpretation to decide, but I personally view it as being a mixtureof them all. Whatever the real meaning, it’s lovable, enjoyable andAardman’s most inspired shot at a non-dialogue film.

Grade: A

2) This 5-minute film short is one of 4 different shorts on one VHS tapeby Aardman Animations, the group that has given us the Wallace andGromit animations.

"Adam" is a whimsical look at the creation of man. We see a rathersmall (compared to the size of the real Earth) blue-green crater-pockedball of clay. Onto it the hand (and arm) of God (but not really God)places this lifeless figure on the top, it falls, He picks it up,eventually it gets the hang of standing up, and then it explores thisnew world. Then we wonder, will we see him get his mate??

At only 5 minutes running time it doesn’t require much effort to stickwith it. Nothing Earth-shaking but a fun 5 minutes.

3) This short was nominated for an Academy Award and is well worth watching,though it was probably about a minute too long or thereabouts. It’s oftenamusing, but drags in spots. Interesting idea with excellent animation,butuneven and tedious at times. Recommended.

4) Adam is the story of the first man on the planet Earth, who is knownbetter with his female counterpart Eve. Adam, the short claymation filmfrom Aardman animation is more about Adam and God and how the two gotalong, and how lonely Adam was with no female, or anyone for thatmatter.

The short starts off with God, who is portrayed by the hand of filmartist Nick Upton, making Adam out of clay. He sticks him on the world,which is only about 10 times as big as Adam himself and is nothing buta ball of clay. There is no talking here, so anything that would besaid is acted out instead. Adam does various things, like try to travelaround the world, which takes him only a few seconds, and throws apiece of the Earth which flies around the Earth until stopped by hishead. Adam becomes lonely and asks God to make him a companion, whichends in a silly, but effective ending.

This is a very slapstick reliant short. Adam is like one of the 3Stooges and does amusing things either ending in him getting hurt oracting goofy. I wouldn't call the humor hilarious, but it's quiteamusing. The animation is good, with Adam being the only main clayanimated character, and God being a stop motion hand. You can find thison the Creature Comforts shorts compilation DVD, and if you're a fan ofAardman animation, or just a fan of animation in general, you'll besure to enjoy this.

My rating: *** out of ****. 6 mins.

5) Considering that the film is called ADAM, you can probably assume thisanimated short is supposed to be a strange retelling of the Creationstory. However, instead of God, you have the hand of the animatordropping a simple claymation man onto a small newly formed planet. Fromthere, the poor clay creature is mercilessly messed with by the nastyhand. In the end, in a sick twist, the hand realizes that Adam islonely and creates a mate–you just have to see it to appreciate it.

This short has both a lovely sense of humor and is very creative. Inlight of this, it seems appropriate that it was nominated for an Oscarfor Best Animated Short of 1993.

6) Many believers of the Bible may wince when they watch this Aardmanshort based on the first man and God, but it is likely to entertainthem in some way otherwise. People who do not believe the Bible aremore likely to love this, the absurdity of "the hand of God" (played bya real human hand) and Adam being a coward and being surprisinglystupid – which makes him more the irresistibly lovable!

Basically, this "amazing" short to watch, is based on the first man,Adam, coming down to a rather barren, rocky earth and learning to belike a man. The plasticene animation makes Adam look very entertainingand the hand of God is done very well as well. The background is alsosurprisingly unnerving and realistic.

So, if I am not mistaken, you should be entertained by this short.Enjoy "Adam".

• One of the photos for the abducted children shown at the end of this movie, named Bryon Anthony McCane, is of rapper Bizzy Bone, who is a former member of Bone Thugs N Harmony. He was abducted at age 4 by his father in the ’80s.
• Based on the true story of the kidnapping of Adam Walsh, son of John Walsh, host of "America's Most Wanted" (1988).

2) It was THE best TV movie ever. You would think after making this movie,parents would be more cautious of the wear abouts of their kids. But youstill hear about so many child abduction cases throughout the USA. I thinkevery police station or places that post missing children notices in thecountry should have a picture of Adam on their missing child wall. I don’tthink that there will be a greater TV movie made better than this. Goodacting and a great history of what happened to ADAM. I still cry at the endwith the funeral services. A definite A+ movie. I can’t believe this movieis 21 years old now. I was 4 years old when this came out. I first saw thismovie when I was 6 and still have the movie.

3) To this day, I still watch this movie because I have it taped on vhs andit’s still one of the best tv movies ever made and it still makes me cry.They should really make more movies like this one now because everyday achild goes missing. Every year, they have the "Missing Children’sNetwork"telethon so why not make more movies too.

4) I remember when this TV movie aired I was in kindergarten and in fact myteacher even suggested that all of us small children watch this movie withour parents. Every parent with a small child feared that this tragedy wouldhappen and what a nightmare it would have been to have a child abducted andmurdered. The whole country was at this time bringing the missing childrenissue to the attention of people. All of this panic and awareness because ofthe abduction and murder of a little boy named Adam Walsh in Broward County,Florida. Thankful that this boys father John Walsh brought this case so muchattention and awareness that a movie titled Adam was made for TV to expandthe concern for children all across America. This movie is sad due to thedeath of a small child but brings a good message of awareness and concernfor our children and any victim of crime for that matter. I wish somenetwork would show Adam again I would like to see it over.

5) THe movie of Adam based on the tragic tale of Adam Walsh isheartbreaking. It chronicles the tragedy of a young boy's life who wassnuffed out from under us. His death was not in vain because hisparents became advocates for missing children in real life. The movieends with photos of missing children. The tragedy of missing child isoften worse than knowing their fate. This film is faithful to thestory. Daniel J. Travanti and JoBeth Williams play Adam's parents andthey could not have done a better job. THe film may be over 20 yearsold but it is still very effective in bring human emotion to a storylike Adam Walsh. He became the symbol for missing children. When Reveis reading those letters from people who have been through the hellthat the Walshes have been through, it is heartbreaking. Rather thanwallow in self-pity, they pursue justice for others who have beenthrough the same. THey realize that they are not the only ones. TheWalshes lives changed forever when Reve went to inquire about a lamp atthe mall. She turns around and their little boy is gone forever. Iremember the scene where they go to the car, leave the doors unlocked,and prepare if Adam comes home. That's probably the most memorablemoment in the film.

6) It’s a shame these made-for-TV movies are hardly getting a second chancenowadays, but a few have one thing in common: inspiration throughwillpower.ADAM is one such movie, and to this very day, it remains as powerful as itgets! This chronicles the movement of awareness from a fictional JohnWalshto deliver the message to America about lost children following atrue-lifesituation that shatters our hearts. It is a struggle for hope andaccomplishment that results into a winningly emotional, and lesson-filleddrama for all parents who raise young children. Walsh, as many of us know,hosts the long running and highly acclaimed AMERICA’S MOST WANTED. Here,he’s the important role in the care of this film, making him (and thisfilm)a benchmark example of support for the nationwide communities, and to thefederal government. This one is so compelling, and so inspirational thatitwould be way too difficult not to recommend it. And the fact that ADAM isvital to the importance of our society would require a mandatory familyviewing. Keep it up, John!

7) This fall will mark 20 years since the first airing of ‘Adam’. While JohnWalsh now hosts ‘America’s Most Wanted’ as well as his own talk show, inmyopinion, he has become ‘America’s Most Admired’. I will take a show like’AMW’ over any reality show airing today. I believe that society canbecomemore educated from this show than from a show depicting marrying a totalstranger of eating raw flora on some deserted island.

Huzzah for ‘Adam’, John Walsh, and ‘America’s Most Wanted’.

I can remember watching this movie when I was about 6 or 7 years old &I can also remember the emotional impact that it had on me as I watchedknowing that it was all based on a true story . . . The things theWalsh family has done over the years in response to what happened toAdam has REALLY had an ENORMOUS impact on the way cases like Adam'shave since been handled! The perseverance & determination of the Walshfamily (e.g. Adam's father John Walsh & his role in the TV show'America's Most Wanted') has definitely not only saved the lives ofother children (and I'm sure adults also), but has also deterred thistype of behavior from many other sick individuals that would havecommitted similar crimes! They truly are heroes!!

9) This is a landmark film which should be screened at regular intervalswith an updated list of missing children following each showing of themovie. I remember the film vividly as there was a story in the localnewspaper of a person who recognised children from the photo list andeventually these children were reunited with their family.

Daniel J Travanti and JoBeth Williams are excellent as Adam'sdistraught parents and the film strikes the right balance of suspense,tragedy and eventual hope.

I applaud John and Reve Walsh for their courage in turning their ownpersonal tragedy into a crusade to protect other children and otherfamilies from the same fate as theirs. God bless them.

10) When somebody ask me what is my favorite movie of my childhood, I willsay this one. I saw It when I was ten or something near that. It'sfully impressive to me that kid – as we called it Adam – have sameyears that I.

I was a kid, just like Adam. I liked go to big shop whit my mom hen Iwas a kid, just like Adam was. And deep shocking me when in the movie Irealized that Adam was dead. It's kinda very emotional and very seriousmovie and so close o reality and base on the true events.

I search google very hard but I haven't find where can I download it! Iknow this is TV movie, but it's best what TV can offer to us since then'till now. Anybody who have this movie, can plese may upload on thewarezBB and tell me on my e-mail: dancemacabre@net.hr

2) I'm getting really tired of people who don't like a particular filmgenre giving bad reviews of movies belonging to that genre. I don'tlike gory horror films, so I wouldn't review (or see) something likeHostel or Saw. But somehow people (and reviewers) delight in puttingdown romcoms, not because there's anything wrong with the films, butbecause it would have to be something absolutely extraordinary to evenmerit a "satisfactory" from them.

That's why it pisses me off that Adam and Steve hasn't gotten thecritical acclaim that it deserves. I honestly feel that most of the badreviews were of people predisposed to dislike it just as they'd bepredisposed to dislike any new romantic comedy, gay or straight.(That's not to say that it hasn't gotten its fair share of goodreviews, and deservedly so!)

Yes, the romantic comedy genre has been done and done again, and notalways well, but I can count the number of GAY romantic comedies on thefingers of one hand. All Over the Guy, and Adam and Steve, and…? Howmany others follow the formula of two people who meet cute, fall inlove, face some kind of crisis, and then overcome it in a tear andlaughter filled climactic scene? Yes, I'll admit it. I'm a sucker for agood romcom. I can see While You Were Sleeping any day of the week. Butas a gay man I've been cheated of this genre, always having tosuperimpose my own boy/boy couple over the boy/girl couple in the film.

Adam and Steve is the film I (and others I'm sure) have been waitingfor. One of the funniest (admittedly crude at times, Thank you Farrelybros) and at the same time most gloriously romantic romcoms ever, andthis time it's a boy meets boy, boy loses boy, boy gets boy back story!The chemistry between Craig Chester and Malcolm Gets is palpable, andthank you openly gay hero Chester for casting another gay man to playopposite. As Chester says in the film commentary, he and Gets don'thave to worry about "playing gay" but can simply play the characters,and when they are in bed together or sharing a romantic moment (lots ofkissing in this film), you don't have to wonder if they felt odd oruncomfortable. It's obvious that they didn't and don't.

Parker Posey and Chris Kattan are along for the ride, Ms. Posey givingyet another lovable quirky performance that's made her the indie queen,and Mr. Kattan showing himself a real actor and real person, somethingthat his usual over the top roles don't allow him to do.

If you don't like romantic comedies, don't see this movie. But ifyou're like me, someone who loves the genre but has felt cheated out ofhis own romcom, by all means BUY the DVD because this is a movie you'llbe watching again and again.

3) Adam (Craig Chester) and Steve (Malcolm Gets) have an embarrassing onenight stand in the late 80s. Then the movie fast forwards to 2005. Theymeet again but have no recollection of their earlier encounter. Theyfall madly in love…but then Steve remembers. Can they survive this?Also Adam’s best friend (Parker Posey) falls in love with Steve’s bestfriend (Chris Kattan).

This is no masterpiece. It has its dead moments and there are somepainfully unfunny moments–and where the hell did that two-steppingsequence at the end come from? Still it works more often than itdoesn’t and is easily one of the best movies I’ve ever seen dealingwith a gay couple. When it’s funny it’s hysterical and some of theobservations Adam and Steve make about being gay and in love are VERYaccurate (Chester and Gets are gay in real life so it adds more to thelines–they speak from experience). Also Chester wrote the script ANDdirected it as well as starring in it–this guy is very talented.

Acting is good all around. Gets and Chester are just great andperfectly believable. It’s always great to see Parker Posey and she’sjust wonderful (catch her outfit at the two-stepping). Even Kattan isgood–he annoyed me totally in SNL. And the supporting cast includesJulie Hagerty, Sally Kirkland and Melinda Dillon–all are just great.

I saw this at a sold out viewing at the Provincetown Film Festival. Thedemand for this was so great they had to ADD an extra showing! This isthe most truthful movie I’ve seen so far about gay life and love. Notperfect but damn close. A must-see for gay men.

4) What a fun, funny, sharp-witted, incisive film about the rocky road toromance. And how brilliant that it’s about a gay couple– a committed,monogamous gay couple who look very much like real gay human beings (asopposed to the broad caricatures usually seen in film and television).Is it possible that this will be the first "gay" date movie thatstraight couples will go to and laugh with?

Maybe that’s hoping for an America more open-minded than it is, butcertainly the open minded heterosexual partners are in for a good time.

Kudos to writer/directer Chester for creating what is an impressivemosaic of styles. In lesser hands the film, with everything fromemotional honesty to slapstick comedy to over-the-top (and I do meanWAAYYYY over-the-top) camp, should be a mess. But somehow scenes offirst love are actually made sweeter all the more by the slapstickrunning gag that accompanies them (sorry, no spoilers here!).

The leads are extremely appealing, the dialog is well-realized, and therealities of dating are sharply realized in a film that walks the fineline between maudlin and frank but rarely feels dishonest. That’s goingto sound ridiculous in the context of a film that includes achoreographed dance-off featuring a drag queen, but the movie is wiseto use broad strokes of humor to help otherwise clichéd movie devicesgo down easier. Additional kudos to Parker Posey, who becomes theheterosexual equivalent of the "Jack" character on "Will & Grace." Hercomic contributions are note-perfect.

Chester has commented that the use of comedy has a role in helpingstraight audiences better accept a budding romance between men. I hopethat’s true, because this film deserves better than the "cult" or"gay/lesbian" dungeon in your local video store.

5) Romantic comedies are formulaic and predictable. Still, there's such athing as a "superior" genre film, and Adam & Steve is one of thelamentably few that rate that description. Although it's a gay romance,there's nothing that made me as a straight guy remotely uncomfortable.I do think the fact that gay actors played gay characters made things abit more fluid- much better than, say, "Jeffrey," which featuredstraight actors overacting gay.

I laughed a lot more than I remember doing at any Rom-com in recentmemory. Parker Posey really stole the show for me, but I've always beena fan of hers. The romantic aspect of the film is campy and farcical tothe point of absurdity, and hence didn't bother me too much- and thejokes are constant and quality.

If I were to register any criticism, it would be of the generic plotdevices- hidden identity, comical misunderstandings, the obligatoryRom-com chase-across-town-before-it's-too-late. But as I said, it's agenre film, and well done for what it is.

6) I was fortunate enough to see this film earlier this week at theTribeca Film Festival. I was expecting something mildly amusing atbest, but was pleasantly surprised to find that the movie is a realscream — wildly funny, and while some of the humor is raunchy (inparticular, an early scene that depicts a one-night stand that ends inembarrassment), the film overall is also rather sweet and sentimental.In addition to a witty script, the film features quite a bit ofslapstick, visual humor, and even a big musical production number.Writer/director Craig Chester is Adam, and Malcolm Gets (probablybest-known from Caroline in the City) is Steve; both are excellent.Parker Posey is quirky (but then isn’t she always?) as Adam’s fag hag,and Chris Kattan is annoying (but then isn’t he always?) as Steve’sstraight roommate.

7) This movie follows your basic romantic comedy storyline, except thecharacters are gay and there is only one crazy, yet still possible,coincidence. It shows NYC off while pulling off the fairytale. Somenudity would have been an added bonus. The film’s energy carries itthrough. There are some great one liners. The only thing I noticed thatwas out of place was the NYC taxi picking up the passengers on LongIsland. The cast worked well together and it was a great blend of knownand unknown talent. You’ll laugh all of the way until the end.

It shows a point of view of life in NYC and post 9/11 NYC that emergeswithout hitting you over the head with it. The supporting cast isremarkable. Both families were fun to watch, but the cursed family wasunique and put a real smile on your face.

Think "When Harry Met Sally," only with 2 guys.

Parker Posey and Chris Kattan are incredibly funny without beingoverbearing, as they are merely supporting characters.

The beginning of the movie is *so* funny, you may have to see it a fewtimes to catch everything that happens. There are plenty of otherscenes that are also so heartily LOL funny, you might miss something inthe follow up dialogue.

It is a fantastic, light comedy about two people falling in love.Dysfuntional families, straight best friends, yup…all there. I didn’tnotice the clichés because I was too busy laughing.

ABSOLUTELY my favorite comedy of the last few years. I can’t wait tosee it again. Oh, and you will never hear "Obsession" the same way everagain.

9) I attended the premiere of Adam and Steve as part of Outfest ‘05.Knowing little to nothing about the movie, other than the fact thatChris Kattan was in it, I went in with an open mind, not knowing quitewhat to expect. What I got was a lighthearted and extremely funny, gaycomedy. While the film did touch on many social mores and taboos, itthankfully made light of them. Trying to find extreme social commentaryin a romantic comedy is silly! I’m just happy that a film like this gotmade. Hopefully some of America has their eyes open enough to exceptthis film as they would any other indie romantic comedy, not mindingthe fact that indeed, the lead couple is gay!

10) Craig Chester wrote, directed and stars in this comic love storybetween two men: a New York City shrink and a klutzy Jewish tour guidewho meet and fall in love–but will the recollection of a disastrousdate 17 years ago ultimately come between them? Chester is brash andbrave and goes out on a limb here, resulting in a gay-comedy betterthan most. The movie has fun being outré, with ballsy, bitchy humor andan occasional moment of seriousness (a good balance), yet itsimagination is stunted, with a fantasy hoedown bit right out of"Jeffrey" and far too many lapses of taste and judgment. Chester'sslapstick scenes needed to be reined in, particularly a hopelesssequence with his "cursed" Jewish family and also the poorly-stagedgross-out scene 10-minutes in. The film has funny elements andperformances (by a most curious cast) and some of it is very sweet. **from ****

This movie follows a day in the life of 2 Dublin Heroin addicts, Adam and Paul. Adam is the taller and slightly smarter of the two while Paul is his sidekick.
Since they were small boys, Adam and Paul have withered into two hopeless, desperate Dublin junkies, tied together by habit and necessity. A stylized, downbeat comedy, the film follows the pair through a single day, which, like every other, is entirely devoted to the business of scrounging and robbing money for drugs.

The difference today is that Adam and Paul already near rock bottom have finally run out of luck, credit and friends.

Stylistically, Adam & Paul is a cold, contemporary take on classic, physical comedy. Thematically, it is a minimal, Beckettesque fairytale about two baffled, vulnerable children in the grip of forces too powerful for them to handle; vulnerable, lost, sometimes pathetically optimistic, but always profoundly damaged. Adam & Paul is not a film without hope; it is a tender, unsentimental and very funny testament to the persistence of the human spirit in even the most damaged and marginal of people.

Some of the sequences within the film have been beautifully captured, in particular a scene shot on the Millennium Bridge, which very aptly depicts the mood through its sluggish and dreamy chops between shots. The techniques, used wonderfully, portray one of the very rare moments in the film when Adam and Paul are oblivious to the inevitability of their fate, blissfully happy in their drug-induced state.

So what of ‘Adam and Paul’? Well, it is too funny to be depressing, too bleak to be great, yet deeply touching in its handling of the subject matter, and on that account worth watching.

You’ll never look at Dublin in the same light again.

• While shooting this movie, the director also had to keep shooting commercial video clips, his regular money job, because of the very low film budget.
• The two lead actors, Tom Murphy who plays Paul (the short one) and Mark O'Halloran who plays Adam (the tall one), were told by the local Garda ( Irish Police) to leave the set as the Garda thought they were real junkies looking to steal items from the set.
• The film’s unit was tiny – one truck for camera, props and make-up and one minivan for the cast and crew.

2) One of the best films at the Berlinale Film Festival. Gritty,disturbing with doses of black humour thrown in. The characters arelikable and the film never dives into emotional manipulation. It’ssocial realism at it’s finest, creatively shot and brilliantly acted.Poignant and unforgettable.

The dynamics between the two characters are fascinating. Childhoodfriends, thrown together since age fourteen, living on the streets,without hope, full of despair, Adam constantly berates and yells atPaul but there is above all, a deep, lasting bond between them. Theyare despicable characters in so many ways, but there is such tragedy intheir eyes and so much despair in their bones, and you end up feelingfor them, and a certain innate understanding and empathy. They’reoutcasts with zero future. They’re the "pathetic" people we walk pastand ignore every day, and, in the film, they mesmerize.

Somebody said to me it’s like Trainspotting without the humour. I’d sayit’s like Trainspotting, but without the over the top camera tricks,visualizations and the like. There is more social reality and despair,ala Mike Leigh. There is humour, but on a more subtle level.

It sticks with you.

3) Finally, a good Irish directorial debut.

A day with two harmless Dublin junkies.

Good, solid movie that lingers in the memory after viewing. The twoleads are very good handling the varied scenes which move from comedyto drama to violence. Both men are ordinary decent addicts – there’sfar worse characters in this movie. Good direction too from Abrahamsonwho made a good black and white short back in the early ’90s (in asimilar style). If you like Jarmusch and Leigh then you’ll appreciateAdam & Paul’s humour. Many long scenes where characters spout veryfunny dialogue. Some scenes were difficult to watch particularly themugging of the guy at the bus stop. Many funny scenes especially withthe Bulgarian, the bread in the shop, the garage robbery and theencounters with the homeless. One thing for sure – this movie won’t bementioned in Bord Fáilte’s next tourist brochure. Why can’t other Irishmovies be this good?

Adam & Paul is one of the best movies of the year.

4) Adam and Paul are two likable losers. They wake up sick and need to getsome money together to score with. As they get more strung out, theirobjective becomes more difficult and the people they meet only hamperthem further.

I’m a recovering addict myself, and as such I recognised the charactersin this film and that made me giggle. I thought it was well acted anddirected. Its portrayal of a users life was so spot on, I think thewriter must have had a habit at some point or at least lived in thatworld as one for some time. Saying that, its worth mentioning that notall addicts turn into losers. I never stole or ripped off anyone. Smackis so cheap now that its possible to keep a substantial habit togetheron even a warehouse workers’s pay and I have friends that have verygood jobs that were in the same boat. You’d be surprised! Keeping yourlife together is dull though and no-one wants to watch a film aboutthat.

I don’t think this film has any deep message, other than ‘a heroinaddicts life isn’t nice’ but it has some good laughs and is veryentertaining.

The only film I can make a comparison to is Trainspotting, but its verydifferent from that and in my opinion better (Trainspotting was a bittoo trippy). I hope it does just as well at the box office.

I can’t wait to get the DVD!

5) It takes some work to make anyone feel sorry for junkies but ‘Adam andPaul’ is a film that succeeds beyond any expectation. Yes, it shows theappalling lives of two junkies who have clearly been ‘down so long’they have pretty much lost contact with reality, but it also makes youlaugh, for even in their lives there is sometimes something amusing.

It’s grim and the words ‘with hilarious consequences’ are not going toappear in my review, but the film does show there is still somehumanity in them, particularly in the scenes with their pal. Yes, theircondition makes them dislikeable people who are always on the look outfor money to steal and people to scam from, but we are asked toappreciate that there is a glimmer of hope: no matter how dim.

A must see film, but make sure you’re in an optimistic frame of mindbefore you go in, because ‘Adam and Paul’ will take its toll on thesunniest disposition.

6) This is a beautiful film made in Dublin which I have just seen in TelAviv at the Israel Irish film festival, in the presence of thedirector. At first I did not think I would enjoy it, it is, after allnot an endearing subject but the longer it went into its 83 minutes,the more I enjoyed it. This is the story of two homeless heroin addictscalled Adam and Paul but which is Adam, which is Paul, you never findout. Similar to "Waiting for Godot" but filmed in a great number oflocations rather than a single room. Although its a sombre subject, youfollow a single day in their lives (and the death of one from anoverdose) but the film is much filled with humor in a style reminiscentof Laurel and Hardy. The dialog is simple, in very short sentences,which is accurate of these folk, and there is, I warn you, much use ofthe word f**k which gives the Hebrew subtitlers a lot of grief. All thecharacters are believable and are based on the lives of real Dubliners.The script was written by the taller addict. How do they eat, how dothey go to the bathroom, how do they survive? You follow their livesand ultimately you yearn for one of their scams to survive in orderthat they "earn" some money but then you realize that it would not bespent on food but drugs. They meet a varied collection of other loserson their travels and I could add a spoiler by revealing the funniestone-liner in the film – when they meet a man they think comes fromRomania – but I won’t. Another funny sequence is outside a gas stationwhere they are supposedly watching for the police during an attack onthe station by two men with baseball bats, pure L & H. The photographyis superb, stark, revealing of slums, the direction brilliant. Thedirector was forced to take jobs making commercials to earn a livingwhilst making the film. As to which one is which, the directorconfirmed that they were interchangeable and, probably, a singleentity. This is the sort of film most English-speaking film-makingcountries could not make, they lack the observational powers of thiswriter and director. If you get the chance to see it, don’t miss it.And better in a cinema than on television where it will lose much ofits qualities.

7) One of the first comments in the movie becomes the corner post of theirony of urban life. Paul states "I feel sorry for those Bulgarians.."while living in conditions that are as bad as anywhere. The actors dida great job, and you feel hungry and cold and angst with them. If thedirector’s intention was to get viewers to feel empathy for the maincharacters, it works well.

The setting, the boy’s hometown neighborhood, provides links to theboys’ past and some later conversation gives an indication how theirstate of affairs came to be. The pace is a bit slow, but dramaticrather than boring. Making movies about junkies, it’s easy to bedramatic and provide impact, this one does well. Not as graphic as itcould have been, but definitely satisfying. Entertaining and quitesobering, probably a good watch for any 14yr old urban male as aneducation of consequences.

A film about two messers with much to live for and very little to love.

The two characters wake up on mattress in the middle of a field inwhich one of them finds themselves glued to;

Things cant possibly get worse for these to but that’s all that seemsto happen to these to supposedly harmless and unintentionally wittydegenerates. The new breed of dubs who have hit rock bottom but seem tostay down there in a hopeless dead-headed fashion.

The dialog and characters melt into an almost beckett-like feel, butdon’t be fooled there is no particular art in this, but sheerdesperation and hopelessness.

Both characters are met with hostility and mistrust almost everywherethey go.

One f**k up after another leads them into some kind of divine miracleof two bags of heroin that literally falls out of the sky.

The hardest thing about watching this film is working out whether it isa tragic- comedy or the lines and characters are actually played theway it would have been in real life. God know, if you have ever livedin Dublin these lads are all over the place. Lads who came from nothingwith nothing to give the world let alone themselves but somehow survivein a frowned upon but reluctantly accepted way of life.

The movie struck a note with me and left me feeling sad and hopelessfor our two leads. i guess there is no hope after all.

Like Intermission it had that ‘real dublin’ feel to it but i’d say evendarker.

It deserves to be seen so far as it was probably made for a couple ofhundred thousand euro’s as the performances are strong and varied.

‘this is not a commercial movie and ‘i don’t think it will make much ofname for itself but it deserves to be seen by those who wouldappreciate it for what it is.

A slice of bleak reality in modern day Dublin city.

9) I can see where this movie would be rather difficult for people whohave never had an addiction of *any* sort to understand. I however havenever actually met *anyone* who has never been touched in some way byaddiction…too alcohol, drugs, gambling, shopping, eating what haveyou…I was once *very* close to where Adam and Paul were…actually Iwas *exactly*where they were! Thankfully, for me, my story had a muchhappier ending then theirs but reading the other reviews it was veryclear the people who are empathetic for people with addictions andthose who are not….you know who you are! I really think if you canget off of your high horse long enough…a mere 83 minutes! You will*Love this movie*!

10) This is a touching and frank portrayal of a day in the life of twoDublin junkies called Adam and Paul and their modern day "odessy"around Dublin, a Dublin not often seen on screen.

Adam and Paul have reached rock bottom and spend their entire daywalking around Dublin trying to beg, borrow or steal enough money tosecure their next fix. There are some bittersweet moments of comedythat come from tragedy in it's rawest form with both of the lead actorsturning in excellent performances as the down and out Adam and Paul.

The fact that the film makers manage to get the audience on the side ofAdam and Paul is a testament to how well written and acted a piece thisis. It's hard not to empathise with them as they struggle to find theirnext fix.

This is a story that will stay with you.

"I’m going to slice you like a turkey" says one of the victims to thekiller. "I don’t scare easy and I’m pi$$ed" says another.

The girls run around like descendants of Rambo, claiming they are goingto kick some a$$. Oh yeah, that’s real scary, watching chicks act likethey have been shot up with a gallon of testosterone. Why do women haveto try and act like men?

The only scary in the this movie is the acting, the direction, and thefact that it was ever made. This movie is an embarrassment to thehorror genre.

Avoid at all costs!

2) I gotta agree with all the negative reviews prior to this one. Thismovie is one of those movies (of which their are hundreds) that makesya wonder…… Who in the hell read this script and felt that it wasworth investing money into….. I mean, how does absolute, uselessgarbage like this even get get made? Why even make something thisuseless? I mean…. The horror crowd (who this film is obviously aimedat) will hate it. There’s ZERO scares… ZERO gore…. ZEROsuspense…. Stock cardboard characters (all in their LATE 20’s I’msure but they’re playing HIGH SCHOOL kids!) being played by stockcardboard NON actors….. G-Rated violence…… The T&A fans will hateit as there’s really ZERO nudity (it’s basically just cop-out impliednudity)…. ZERO sexiness (which is pretty pathetic since some of theactress’s were quite pretty)…. The "internet horror critic" crowdwill hate it because…. Well… They hate everything anyway (but inthis films case the "hate" will be well deserved).

This film is as GENERIC as they come and is a complete waste of time onevery level. It’s sad to spit on people’s hard work but c’mon… Ifyou’re gonna make a "killer in the woods" horror flick…. At leastdeliver on SOME level!!! This movie delivers on NO level.

AVOID IT.

3) A guy with a shady past goes on a "graduation" trip with his friends.There’s a killer in the woods and picks them off one by one and blahblah blah. Surprisingly minimal amount of gore, NO suspense (hint towhoever came up with the spoiler heavy play on words title, youstink!!), and the film’s 90 minute running time is endlessly crammedwith unneeded filler. The acting is horrible, the end reveal that youknow is coming STILL doesn’t make a lick of sense when it finallyhappens. In conclusion, my eyes have seen a glimpse of hell, thy nameis "Adam and Evil"

Eye Candy: Allison Warnyca as the sheriff’s wife gets topless

My Grade: F

Where i saw it: Starz on Demand (available till September 15th, 2005)

4) Wow. Another clunker from Canadian "auteur" Andrew Van Slee. At leastthis one is somewhat watchable, unlike his earlier epic "TotallyBlonde."

The scariest thing about this entire movie is the teeth of the actors.Instead of rehearsing, the director must have thrown a teeth-whiteningparty. Almost every character has teeth that look like chiclets whichhad been soaking in bleach for a week.

The plot line follows that of "Fiday the 13th" — the only difference,and it's huge, is that instead of watching the kids die one by one inimaginative efx sequences, all of the violence takes place off-camera.A shadowy murderer appears, the victim reacts, and we see the bloodyaftermath. The entire efx budget seems to have been spent on a bucketof fake blood and a number 4 paint brush.

Most of the actors are good, but a few are grade A hambones. Thecharacters are entirely generic. In fact, none of the human charactersare as interesting as the farm tools used by the killer. And we don'tget to see those farm tools act… just the aftermath.

The dialog is atrocious. The opening character set-up is a long,labored discourse which makes it clear to anyone who didn't alreadyknow that teenage boys like sex. They also call each other "dude" alot. It seems dated, but hey, maybe Canada's teens are on some kind ofculture curve. Another ten years and they'll be getting into hiphop.

There's a big surprise ending which I won't reveal. Anyone who makes itthrough this piece of dreck, even on fast-forward, deserves theminiscule thrill of the revelation.

The ending sets up a sequel, apparently intending to rip off"Halloween" in the next installment, since they blatantly ripped offthe theme music to set it up.

If you're tempted by the premise, skip this turkey and rent theoriginal "Friday the 13th" instead. Even if you've seen it fifty timesit'll still be more exciting.

5) A group of teens head out on a camping trip to celebrate their highschool graduation, but their party mood is short lived when theydiscover that a masked killer is hunting them down one by one. Now justwho is this killer? Is it the two shady fellas who followed them, thepark's grounds keeper, the sheriff or is it his unfaithful wife. Butthere's one thing that's haunting Adam's mind and that's the killerknows that of his terrible secret involving accidental death of afamily.

Um, I don't know what to really make of this travesty of a hack job.But I can tell you it's simply textbook stuff all round that's merelyplain ( err, but quite a dud more often) for what it is. Ugh, really Ithink I am being quite generous overall on this particular amateurishindie horror effort. What takes form here is a very typical backwoodssurvival slasher with just too much talk and innuendo and far toolittle action and gratuitous nudity. Which can be quite sad for thelack of skin, since there is some nice eye candy on show. It just seemsto promise more than it actually delivers, by teasing us with such tameexcuses for horror.

You can say that the film is just plain scary for all the wrong reasonswith such banal and cringe-worthy dialogues. Real deflated acting froma young cast of stock characters who are either constantly horny,lazing about and when the trouble kicks in, its all about the cluelessYELLING(!) and spiting out a good quota of badass drivel like youalways do in these situations. The story and atmosphere tries for that80s slasher feel by going for a big body count, but it totally missesout on the style with its lack of brutality and gory edge. Simply thedeaths are quite sudden and reasonably clumsy with some brisk editing.There's a little bit of nudity, but it's rather a quick topless scenefrom the Allison Warnyca as the Sheriff's wife. She's probably the mostfun that the film offers! But what made me grit my teeth was that theopening 30 minutes was incredibly boring with its rambling teens toyingaround in many filler scenes that I couldn't believe I still had anhour to go. It feels like it takes too long before the real fun beginsand when it does, it gets a tad better (well, maybe more like tweenyweeny bit). From the get-go you realise the cliché filled plot is aconvolutely rushed project that's completely bled dry of ideas. While,the back-story surrounding this slasher is just very cheesy to believe.But hold on it was the film's revelation that left me stone-coldbecause of the ridiculous motive and it goes over-the-top in itsdaftness. You can probably guess the killer just before the revelationwith all the hints that crop up, but it's quite unsatisfying anddoesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it. The usualred herrings feature quite heavily with some pointless characters whoare just there for that stupid factor than really adding anything ofreal importance.

The direction isn't awful but it's just generally uninspired. What wasfar from uninspiring was the downright noisy and really loud rocksoundtrack and overstated score that at times over powers certainscenes. There are moments when it suddenly goes nuts when the filmwould break into a montage with a supporting rock song. Damn, that didget annoying. The camera-work is pretty standard and quite relentlesswhen it has to be, but when it focuses on the killer we mostly see thelower half of the body. It's looks like it was shot on digital too. Thesetting is that of campsite by a lake in some brooding woodlands. Itdoes get atmospheric in spots, which is kind of good since there's nosuspense to be found.

Well, what's there left to say; it just takes a very big slice out ofthe slasher market without adding anything special of its own.

6) This movie is very underrated. I was surfing through the comments andthere’s not ONE positive review that I saw… Now I’m not going to sayit deserves the title of a GOOD movie, but it certainly doesn’t deservethe title of a BAD one either. It’s a typical B-horror slasher flickwith maybe a few flaws and cheesy moments, maybe some bad acting hereand there. But I’ve seen a hell of a lot worse B-horror movies (*cough*Scarecrow trilogy *cough*). And it’s a B-Horror movie so it was goodfor that. If it was a regular movie it would suck balls. But half thereason people dislike it is because of its budget. It wasn’t crappyfilming but not great either. It’s unfair that major horror slashermovies like Urban Legends, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Scream,Valentine, etc.. get a chance because they have more money which givesthem more to prove. Anyway. Plot original? Not exactly. But what isthese days? So was Adam & Evil a good movie? Certainly not. Was it bad?Certainly not. It was getting bad reviews for things just as common inHollywood than in independent films. To see this movie for yourself,the place you’re most likely going to see it is Starz! On Demand.

7) My wife and I occasionally like to find the worst films we can andenjoy them in a sort of MST3K sort of way. We came across this #$&! andknew it stunk of "worst film ever" potential simply from thedescription. Oh my…what a treat of awful "filmmaking". We debatedwhether someone could set out with the intent of making a "film" worsethen this one and succeed. We came to the conclusion that it would beincredibly tough, but possible. Though after factoring in this "film’s"collection of some of the least talented "actors" (although I’m stillconvinced they were pulled directly from a local High School Theatre101 class), we decided that a worse film script might be possible…butit would be impossible to purposely find a worse cast. I don’t care howabsurd you want to get…cast a film entirely with drunks off thestreet, chimps, or computer driven AI with the sort of "StephenHawking" speech…it still wouldn’t be as devoid of talent, as badlydelivered, or as lacking of any semblance of emotion as this castmanaged to do.

An awful…bloody awful film that is hilarious in it’s awfulness.

Brody Harms is now in the running for the "worst actor to ever be puton film" (or video in this case as I believe it went straight to)award. I’m talking hideousness in epic proportions…

a sequel to a film that was a sequel to a totally different movie, herein the UK this called Halloween camp 2, and my god what an awful moviethis is!!.

it's your basic slasher film from the eighties, a load of college kidsgo camping for the weekend with interest to drink lots of beer and havelots of sex. they first stop off at a rundown bar to use theirfacilities, and are told that some murders were carried out there andmaybe they should turn away and go home.

do they? of course not, the film would be over, they go to camp. startgetting murdered one by one in 'inventive' ways before realising thatthere may be a twist somewhere along the camp path.

the film involves a sub-plot involving some randy Sherriffs wife andthey all think that the murderer is the Sheriff, but could it also bethe bloke who looks like Cletus the slack jawed yokel, who justhappened to be dumped by one of the girls on the trip. or even maybe ithas something to do with something that happened a long time agoinvolving a fire work.

whatever, the film fails on several levels, the writing is poor as isthe acting and most of all the film is boring.

avoid.

9) "Adam and Evil" is a pretty good new slasher movie.

**SPOILERS**

After graduating from High School, friends Adam, (Sean Arnfinson)Yvette, (Lynsey Brothers) Rob, (Terran Orletsky) Seth, (Kevin Robson)Matt, (Brody Harms) Yvonne, (Erica Cerra) Evelyn, (Barbara Kottmeier)and Rachel (Tiffany Patterson) decide to celebrate by going down to acampground for a weekend of sex and drinking. Adam, however, is havingrecurring nightmares about a fire from years ago that killed hisparents. Once they discover there’s dead members, they try to escapebut are trapped at the campground. Figuring it’s best to find a way outseparately, they split up but all meet violent ends. Reconvening tofigure out what went wrong, they try a last ditch plan escape the campalive, and in the process discover a shocking realization about thenightmares that were plaguing Adam.

The Good News: Whoa, what an ending. This is probably the films’greatest strength: it has one of those endings that completely throwsyou and yet is seen as completely natural as well. It threw me as well,completely unexpected and very original. A solid twist, as well as themotivation for the killer’s spree. Many have said that it is a reallystupid reason, but it makes perfect sense given all the reasoning givenfor it. It expands upon earlier information given and then tweaks it sothe resolution is completely understandable and is yet unexpected. Outof the dozen or so deaths in the film, several are pretty original. Weget an arrow throw two people’s necks, a pair of hedge-clippers to slittheir throat, and two spears from a spear gun into one’s chest. Notreally a lot of great deaths, but at least they tried to have someoriginality with some of them. At least they didn’t do any of thetraditional methods of dispatching people with those implements. It’snice that we didn’t get the usual ways and they tried something tothrow us off. Normally, we hear about a death involving a spear gun,more than likely, it would be shoved into the victim or shot throughthe head. Originality was a nice touch. I was also surprised at thesuspense in the film. Since this takes place at night during a forest,we get many sequences where the characters are hiding as they hearfootsteps running around, with twigs snapping and bushes rustling andall those spooky noises you hear in the woods. With no lights, we areleft to rely on the person causing the ruckus to show themselves, andthe suspense comes when we have to wait to see how long they choose toremain hidden in the forest. Of course, that also leads to some cheapfalse scares in these scenes, but some of them actually work. Oneinvolves them hearing noises in the darkness, and begin calling out forthe killer to show themselves, and suddenly one of their party pops outon the opposite side where we expect them. A cheap scare that works.I’m still not sure where to put this, but since we get very littleglimpses of the killer, it either adds to the enigma, or irritates mebecause we don’t know what they look like. I’ll put it here since itdoes seem to make the killer a litter scarier than normal.

The Bad News: There is so little blood in this one, it’s insane. All weget in the way of blood is a small flow from a neck slit and some redaround body wounds. Very little blood at all in this one. Also, thisone has a very clichéd story in it: teens arrive at a deserted camp,tell the story of a local killer in the area, and then get picked offone-by-one by a masked killer. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to makea film with that kind of story to it, so this doesn’t score a lot ofpoints there. Also, there were tons of times I kept thinking, "Thesewere supposed to be hot teens? Why do only the women look good?" It’strue: the guys here look much worse than the women of the caliber inhere would go after. Not very realistic.

The Final Verdict: Despite this being a very bloodless film, this isstill a pretty good slasher. It’s got a lot more surprises than you maythink, and it packs one wallop of an ending. Recommended to those thatlive off the Direct to Video market, or those that like their horrorwith cheese and no blood in it. Slasher fans may heed caution with it,it’s a clichéd story that’s been done better before and far gorier.Unless you’re a completest, don’t bother.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence, Brief Nudity and a sex scene

10) *SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

I bought this video for three bucks. There’s a bloody skull, (in theshape of an apple with a stem on top), with a snake crawling through aneye socket on the video box cover. I was kind of expecting to see somesort of biblical horror flick. I don’t bother reading the back of videoboxes anymore. I find that the back of the box is usually just asmisleading as the front. Although if I had taken the time to read it, Iwould have realized that this is just another low budget teen slashermovie. So a bunch of teens head to the lake to party down. There’s amad killer hanging out with them. Soon the teens will meet their fateas they bicker and argue about the best way to survive.

Slasher movies are about the slasher, not the victims. The successfulslasher flicks, (Friday the 13th, Halloween, etc.), realize that thevictims are nothing more than vessels for future blood and gutsspilling. The star of the show is the crazed killer. "Adam and Evil"makes the fatal mistake of assuming that we actually care about thesepeople. A lot of the movie is shot like an annoying teen flick withmusical montage segments of the gang having fun. The killer is kept amystery throughout the movie and is only revealed in the last tenminutes. When the killer is finally revealed, it’s a huge letdown."Adam and Evil" is pretty pointless with lots of arguing teen scenesand not enough mad killer scenes. Most of the girls were hot,especially the "brainy" girl, and we do get a brief topless scene butit’s not enough to save this one. It can be avoided.