Morti di salute

I judge the worth of a movie by how many times I want to watch it and I never seem to get tired of this one. An outstanding cast coupled with a delightful mix of period and real history add to the enjoyment. In addition, the director has an excellent sense of timing, the movie is well costumed and the music often lends itself well to comic moments. Of course, an overwhelming element of sex adds to its irreverent charm. The leads read(pardon the cliché)like a who's who of fine acting. Anthony Hopkins, John Cusack, Mathew Broderick, Dana Carvey and Bridgette Fonda head an excellent cast of character actors. If you look closely, you might recognize one of the "cookoo cookoo" Pigeon sisters from the original Odd Couple playing John Cusack's aunt. If you have any more doubts just remember the words of Nurse Graves " An erection is a flagpole on your grave".

It probably happens to everybody: one comes across a review on IMDb, looking for some info on a movie that one considers a personal favorite, and what does one find? A rating that points more toward the lower end of that rating spectrum and numerous devastating reviews, that point both thumbs (and probably the big toes as well) downwards. Of course everybody is entitled to their own opinion and taste, but in the case of "The Road to Wellville" I cannot help but to break a lance for a film that deserves a little better than what it has gotten thus far.

The actors shine throughout. Matthew Broderick has never played a more likable character since his "Ferris Bueller's Day Out", Tracy Lind and Bridget Fonda sparkle with feminine beauty and although one can tell that Anthony Hopkins was not altogether comfortable with his role, comedy being clearly not his first line of work, he makes the best of what he's given to work with. Same goes for all the supporting cast, who are throughout quirky and likable (including Colm Meany, who has never played a slimier character), and often look, as if they had stepped out of a "Asterix"-comic-book.

Before the disastrous "The Master of Disguise" technically ended his career (and, yes, later associating himself later with Adam Sandler wasn't a good idea either; not for Carvey or anybody else on this planet), you basically couldn't go wrong with Dana Carvey. A virtual chameleon of his trade, Carvey's various roles and guises only had one thing in common: they were always funny as hell and usually stole the scene. Such is the case in this movie. Carvey's George Kellogg is an epitome of grime, sloth and human rot (though not without the vulnerable child at the core), which keeps the viewers emotions of utter revulsion and amusement at a 50/50 level.

Special praise must go to Jacob Reynolds, playing the young George Kellogg. I say it as I see it: he's uglier than a blind horse. But not in a repulsive way, but rather so ugly, that one could stare at his strange features and over-shaped head for hours without getting tired or repulsed. Though his retrospective scenes are rather short, he steals every one of them.

So, why the low rating and plenty negative reviews, I wondered. Well, for one I can understand that some people might not feel comfortable with the scatological humor (of which there is galore). Without having done any research on it, I could imagine that this kind of film would have been more popular in Europe than it might have been in the United States. Often I found myself reminded of French comedies a la Claude Zidi and, since we're speaking of potty-humour, of course Monty Phyton. The main criticism I would place on the director himself. No doubt, Parker is a master of his trade but you can always tell that he was uncomfortable to let his comedy (a field which Parker isn't exactly at home, perhaps with the exception of "Bugsy Malone") deteriorate into slapstick or farce – which the movie is essentially, and there is nothing wrong with that. Parker seems to have aimed more in the direction of biting satire, throwing in moments of seriousness (as in the story of Fonda's dead baby or the troubled history of Kellogg with his adopted son), which seem unnecessary, out of place, almost forced.

And now, more than 20 years down the "Road to Wellville", the movie has aged exceptionally well and is just as enjoyable as it was when I first saw it. The story and message is still as contemporary as it was, perhaps even more so. Think self-appointed health-gurus, militant vegans and fitness crusaders, who'll argue that you'll die healthier if only you forsake all earthly pleasures. In fact, not too long ago, I found myself involved in a random conversation with a vegan. I listened silently, as he told me about his excellent health – and of course that I, as a "meat-eater", was clearly on the doorstep to death. While he prattled on, I measured his skeleton-like appearance, the hollow eyes and a skin-tone that had already a slight hue of greenish (no doubt due to a lack of Vitamin B12). By the time he had seemingly finished his sermon, I nodded in agreement – I mean, what else can you do? – then moved on. And while I contemplated which steak-house I was going to visit now, I found myself subconsciously whistling the movie's title-melody. And don't try to tell me, if you're a friend of the culinary world and well-being, that you don't have a distinct desire for a hearty piece of meat after watching "The Road to Wellville".

Technically a 7/10, though it ranks among one of my personal Top-50 comedies.

I can't believe some of the reviews I've read on this site about The Road to Wellville. Some people complain that it was crude and disgusting, others complain that it didn't have a coherent plot, and still others whine that it wasn't historically accurate (concerning Dr. Kellogg's methods). Those reviewers clearly missed the boat.

As for those who thought the movie was crude and disgusting, what did you expect from a comedy set in a turn-of-the-century health sanitorium run by a well meaning but eccentric doctor? Such a movie is bound to contain scenes of patients vomiting, getting enemas, and having a sexual tryst or two, just as undoubtedly occurred in many health sanitoriums at that time. Furthermore, none of those scenes were graphic, so I don't understand anybody being offended by them.

As for complaints that the movie didn't have a coherent plot, it didn't need one. It was a comedy, not a drama! The health sanitorium setting was a perfect vehicle for satirizing turn-of-the-century attitudes about health, and it was the dialogue and comedic situations that held the movie together and kept it moving, not its plot.

Finally, for those who complain that the movie wasn't historically accurate about Dr. Kellogg's actual methods (such as his character's use of electric-powered machines for health therapy), the movie was a comedy, not a biography! It was meant to elicit laughs, and in that respect it was a smashing success. I haven't laughed so much during a movie in a long time.

Some people should take Sargeant Hulka's ("Stripes") advice and "lighten up." Good comedy is not dependent on plot or historical accuracy to be entertaining; all that matters is that it's funny, and Wellville was one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen.

I just can't believe the comments I read here. Pure crap? Come on! One of the worst films ever? Pah!

This film is good, well written, well directed, and really funny. What else can I say? It seems like whenever a film with real humour is made by a well-known director, it's viewed as bullsh...! While plain stupid comedies (Pretty Woman etc..) are praised by many, elegant and clever ones like "Road to Welville" are considered as crap... I just can't believe it.

I feel saddened that such a good work is being flamed. Maybe it's because it didn't reach its public... Or that the whole purpose of the film is being missed by the majority of the public... Or that people think Parker should only make serious movies... I don't know.

It's not the first time I'm so deeply amazed by the way a film is perceived by others, but gee...

RTW is by all means a very funny movie. Sure, one can find it disgusting in some details, but it is nothing more than a point of view. On the formal side, you cannot say much against it: it has an excellent cast, superb costumes and buildings, it almost captured this long gone time. And, by the way, these stupid gadgets and therapies, they were real, they didn´t invent anything. OK, the story could be a little bit straighter, but thats all. Otherwise, RTW is holding a mirror for the health and fitness obsession of our times and one should be able to laugh about that too. All in all a good one. I´m sorry for those, who cannot like it because of their prudery, rest of you just try to watch a little bit more open - minded.