DrGerbil I am surprised at what poor reviews this film has gotten. I myself liked it very much.It's very irreverent, very politically incorrect, and I can see where it would offend a lot of people. However, I didn't think it was mean-spirited at all, and it encourages us to think about our faith and what spirituality means to us.I enjoyed seeing Woody Allen out of his comfort zone--wearing Western clothes, and as a character named "Tex"--and, although I am sure that this film didn't make much money, I thought it was adorable.I hesitate to recommend it, though, since it is a very very dark comedy. One of the cast members (I think Fran Drescher) compared it to "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World." I would definitely avoid it if you're offended by anyone poking fun at religion.

zelluloidparadies 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...

lolalaska This was a surprise. A friend taped this from an HBO showing (2007). It is hysterical in a 'Mad Mad Mad Mad World' sort of way. Lots of 'star cameos'; quick references that warrant watching over and over to get them all and to id a few of the cameos. Fran Drescher is a scream. I had never heard of this "it's got Woody Allen in it, but it's not a Woody Allen movie" little number. Very funny, irreverent with great potential to be a cult classic. Difficult to track down for purchase. A must have for the sarcastic at heart. Not for children, however most of the comments and references would fly over the heads of most under about 6-8 with the exception of the classic finger reference.

Merwyn Grote The recurring image in this lame satire of religion is that of a severed human hand with the middle digit sticking contemptuously upward. Its symbolism is unmistakable. It represents God's contempt for mankind, man's contempt for man, the film's contempt for God and most definitely the filmmaker's contempt for the viewer. Giving someone -- everyone -- the finger is the level of the sophistication that PICKING UP THE PIECES strives for. What little publicity the film got before it was eventually dumped on cable (without a theatrical release) centered on the fact that director Alfonso Arau persuaded Woody Allen to star in the film. And I suspect that the prospect of appearing in "a Woody Allen film" must have helped persuade the rest of the cast of name actors to sign on as well. Obviously nobody read the script first and most probably someone, perhaps everyone, was soundly bamboozled. PICKING UP THE PIECES represents a career low point for all involved.Woody plays a transplanted New York butcher and part-time magician, living in Texas with his adulterous wife, Sharon Stone, who is largely unrecognizable behind slapped-on makeup and a horrid red fright wig. When Woody accidentally(?) kills Stone, he tries to cover it up by dismembering her body, which he hopes to bury in the New Mexico desert. But the bulk of the story is centered on a small border town where Stone's severed hand ends up and is implausibly mistaken for the hand of the Virgin Mary. Inexplicably, people who pray to this piece of forensic evidence have their prayers answered in the form of miracles. This "holy relic" turns the town into a tourist trap overnight and the miracles bring out the worst in everybody. In the right hands, this could have been a smart, cynical and possibly even insightful comedy. And to Arau's limited credit he seems to be imitating Robert Altman's soft, chaotic style of pseudo-realism in the juggling of several story lines. Unfortunately, Arau doesn't have Altman's talent and he is not helped by Bill Wilson's malevolent screenplay. This is an angry film, but there is no clear vision of just what it is angry about.There is no reason that the obscene hand would be capable of conveying miracles -- especially selfish, pornographic ones -- yet it undeniably does. But the miracles are just as easily rescinded, but remarkably enough they return when the ones who receive the miracles prove themselves to be wholly unworthy. The film views the concept of miracles with undisguised disgust, but nonetheless suggests that they are possible. But miracles are seen as evidence of God and therefore the trashing of miracles trashes God. This is a film full of bile, not just against the concept of God, but against Catholicism in particular and anyone with religious convictions in general. The film seems to be saying that miracles/religion is for morons, but all people are morons so they get what they deserve. The film's only moral belief is hatred for moral beliefs. I can understand why Woody Allen would be attracted to this film, since it embraces many of the pessimistic atheistic beliefs that he routinely trots out in his various films. But in his movies, Woody leaves room for doubt; he is very agnostic in his atheism. There is no God, he seems to say, but quietly adds, I may be wrong. That makes his films very human and not just bombastic. Plus, his films are humane, his characters, even at their worst, are unpredictably human. That comes through in Woody's sequences in PICKING UP THE PIECES, but is absolutely missing in the rest of the film, indication that Woody wrote much of his own dialogue. The scenes without Woody or where his character is a small component are petty, vulgar and vapid. As such, Allen comes out relatively unscathed. Plus, it is a bit of kick to see Woody strutting around in blue jeans and a cowboy hat, driving a pickup truck and going by the name Tex. The rest of the cast is not nearly as lucky. From Lou Diamond Phillips barely memorable cameo to Fran Drescher's grotesque bit as a viscous, screeching nun, the cast is trapped playing ugly people in an ugly film. There is not a likable, or for that matter, interesting character in the entire film. Yet, there is something strangely reassuring about a film that goes out of its way to convince the viewer of how vile and amoral the world is. Films such as PICKING UP THE PIECES, have a gnawing desperation to them, like the filmmakers are so insecure in their world view that they can only validate it by trying to pull everyone with their heads in the clouds down to their squalid level. It is not enough to believe in nothing, that nothing must be shared.