AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

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

claudioarias In the first place, I clarify that this is a automatic translation of my original language review, in Spanish, so that I request excuses by any spelling mistake. I believe that although it is a good adaptation of "Don Camillo, little world", does not happen of one movie to spend the short while. I believe that make a new version, and suggest to Roberto Begnini for the role of Don Camillo, and somebody like Danny De Vitto or Joe Pesci on the Peppone's role. Terence Hill, is well in the role in that version of film, but I don't believe that is sufficient like equaling the original movie of 1952. Some of the jokes they are not understood for the American audience that it does not know in general almost hysterical humor of the Italian cinema.

gridoon Terence Hill does a surprisingly adept job of directing this film (according to IMDB, it was his first effort behind the camera), but there isn't much of a script to support him; most of the laughs are supposed to come from seeing a priest do such "outrageous" things as cheating at cards, roller-skating in his church and organizing amateur soccer games. The spirit of the film is just too gentle for a successful satire. At 120 minutes, it's also overlong - especially since the dramatic incidents don't build out of each other. It does have a beautiful score by Pino Donaggio. (**1/2)

Stefan Kahrs This movie lacks the charm and the warmth of the original stories by Guareschi. Transporting the context 30 years forward into present-day (that is: 1980s) Italy was probably the right thing to do, since the distance in time wasn't big enough to film this as a period piece, but turning Don Camillo into such a cool dude rips the heart out of these stories. Mario Girotti plays the character in Trinity style, aloof, quirky, dead-pan; but this Camillo is barely recognisable as the passionately caring priest of the books. I don't think the earlier Camillo incarnation by Fernandel was right either (e.g. Fernandel's Camillo was not physical enough), but at least it exuded the required warmth. A cool Don Camillo creates another problem: what happens with his constant little battles with Peppone and his party? Peppone's communist shenanigans are similarly toned down and as a result the antagonism between the two sides does not ring true - at least not to the extent the stories require. Thus, this film version also lacks the tension, conflict and hatred between the two camps. Perhaps there was some sensitivity here towards the American market: no children's movies with real communists in them, please!A few changes to cater for the international market are also embarrassing: the two soccer teams are called "Angels" and "Devils" (in English!) and a couple of the songs performed in Church are in English as well. This is situated in rural Italy!

Wizard-8 This is quite an atypical vehicle for Hill. Though I've never read any of the original stories, apparently they are short stories. This may explain why there is no central plot here, and there being a mass collection of vignettes instead. It may also explain why the tone of the movie is so wildly inconsistant - sometimes it's melancholy, sometimes goofy, sometimes dead serious, sometimes of a (and quite violent at times) slapstick nature. I guess it's supposed to be a comedy at its heart, but I didn't really find that much humorous about it, though there are one or two smiles here and there.