Sweet and savvy talking golden retriever, Bailey, is one doggone lucky pooch when his devoted owner, Constance Pennington, leaves him her entire billion-dollar fortune. Bailey is lucky, that is, until he becomes the target of an elaborately-designed dognap scheme hatched by Constance's nasty nephew Caspar and his money-hungry wife Dolores. The despicable duo's wicked plan is to ultimately gain custody of the canine so they can get their greedy paws on his inheritance. Unfortunately for them, there's a thing or two they don't know about Bailey. Not only does he have great street smarts, he has great pals too. Bailey's loyal guardian Ted, kind-hearted animal advocate Marge, her daughter Sam, and a clever border collie named Tessa set out on a hilarious madcap adventure to free their four-legged friend and put the nasty dognappers out of business-for good!
Writer:Heather Conkie (screenplay), Mary Walsh (screenplay)
Sweet and savvy talking golden retriever, Bailey, is one doggone lucky pooch when his devoted owner, Constance Pennington, leaves him her entire billion-dollar fortune. Bailey is lucky, ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Roland J (nl) wrote: An educational movie aimed at informing the American people of the spiralling national debt and the potential consequences for the next generations of Americans. Very good and informative but sadly it already feels outdated in light of the financial crisis.
Leonard D (au) wrote: A good adaptation of the comic from visionary director Zack Snyder, even though it's not perfect. Never even read the comic, but maybe I will one of these days.
Joel R (ag) wrote: "BANANA OIL!" - This about a man who acts like he's from the 20's, despite the fact that he lives in modern times. It was very cute.
Tim F (fr) wrote: As much as I liked watching Maggie Cheung traipse around in tight latex for two hours, the film didn't do much for me. Felt kind of 'intellectual and pointless' like a lot of the characters were remarking about french cinema throughout the movie....
Martin T (nl) wrote: The main themes are all obvious from the beginning, and don't get explored during the course of the film to any satisfaction. Instead we have a predictably melodramatic love story, awful music and too much makeup. The cinematography is nice, although De Sica does nothing very interesting with it. There's just nothing to the story, and no emotional weight or investment in the characters. It was hard to sit through because it's so incredibly dull and banal.
Richard D (de) wrote: An enjoyable "Cat People" rip-off from AIP.
Chris R (kr) wrote: Greatest movie of all time
Justin A (ag) wrote: The weakest of H.G. Lewis's early blood trilogy. It doesn't have the charm of the terrible Blood Feast and it didn't have the fun of the quirky Two Thousand Maniacs. This one is mostly well-acted. Not saying much, but it's easily the best of these three movies. The main character is intriguing, but a little too much depth to him that I don't think H.G. Lewis knew how to handle. This movie had the least amount of kills and it felt like the least amount of blood. Because of this, it really drags (especially in the middle). The boat scene was great and early on it had a lot of promise, but near the end you kind of want it to be over. It just wasn't a movie you can really laugh at because it's not that poorly made. Though there are several stupid moments where the camera is way out of focus for lengthy periods of time. But that doesn't really make for an enjoyable bad movie. It just makes a bad movie annoying. I say it's worth a shot if you want to see all of H.G. Lewis's movies, but I would be quicker to recommend Two Thousand Maniacs before any of them.