Good concept, poorly executed.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

When I saw that movie in the cinema years ago, I thought all the rubbish shots I saw were a mistake of projection. Now that I saw the DVD, I know: Vittorio Storaro had no time to shoot a second angle.Neverever in a movie there have been that much cut-off heads than here. Or has the movie been shot in 4:3 (1:1,33 or 1,66) and then blown up to 1: 1,185?) Poor Vittorio. He should have given the camera credit to Mr. Smithee....The characters are silly but quite funny, and the cast is hilariously over the top. Ask yourself: Why did all these stars agree to join this movie? I don't know...

Never see this film!!I have attempted to watch this awful film about 6 times now and have failed at each attempt to finish watching it. The idea is good but not very well written. This is as bad as it gets for Woody Allen's movie career. I never really understand what Kiefer Sutherland is doing in such a low quality film nor David Shcwimmer for that matter). It is about a blind person who recovers her eye-sight when she sees a severed hand which she believes must be the Virgin Mary's. Things go from bad to worse as villagers here of the hand and its miraculous ways. Do not see this film. If you want to watch a comedy about chopped off body parts, do yourself a favour and watch the big lebowski.

It's lucky for David Schwimmer that Fran Drescher and Woody Allen were alongfor this loony ride, otherwise he would have had to take all the blame. The idea was crazy, the direction spliff-guided and the script lame. But the ACTING!Woody does his stuttering, furrowed-brow, hands in the air schtick, but this is the umpteenth time and it is no longer just annoying, it's pathetic. Fran Drescher had one day, max two, on the set and treated it as a summer camp romp,demonstrating ably that some people can build a career and a fortune on asingle act. Unfortunately, that act is on a TV set somewhere a million miles from this movie. But David Schwimmer!!?!! Oy-vey! He has one look (sensitive, troubled), onetone of voice (ordering pizza on the phone) and no clues. Again, good luck to him for making a pile from being a Friend, but an actor he ain't. Kiefer Sutherland does his best with a stupid role but still doesn't convince as comic actor. Sharon Stone is great, but doesn't have more than a couple ofminutes on screen. But people -- this isn't a movie for watching. It's a movie for lying down, eyes shut, and hoping it will go away.

Maybe it's just the mood I'm in but after a failed first attempt at viewing this film (lasted about 10 minutes) I just finished seeing the "hole" thing and thought "what a great WA film ala the pre-serious Woody phase that he didn't write! This film was obviously not done with the BIG audience in mind, but out of love for the absurd to a sublime degree. Over the top puns abound in a truly profound way. Like for instance, "You can save your ass, or you can save your soul. But you can't save both. You choose, ass....soul...etc.,etc. I can't believe the many stars in this cast (albeit off-ctr types) did this for the money, so they must have had a blast making it. And c'mon folks, tell me you didn't love to see Kieffer hung up and beaten like a pinata with fireworks going off on his body. I hven't seen cast interviews, so I'm not as informed as some of the commenteers here are, but the overall message (last words of Woody)of this movie is not to be ignored: "f__k em if they can't take a joke". Yeah, the production was cheezy, but it fit so well. The patchwork editing just may have been intentional.... I can easily see how people panned this film. But, no offense intended, maybe you take yourself a bit too seriously.PS: the quip about Jesus' party getting out of hand _was_ Lenny Bruce's comment as stated by Woody in the film.Ahhhhhh