The film does have a "Laugh-In" vibe, but I found it hilarious. Can anyone expand on how the film departs from the play, and whether the 1994 TV movie (which also starred Woody Allen) is closer to the original?

I naively thought the original movie version would've retained even a minor resemblance to Allen's play and couldn't believe what I was watching. Where was Father Drobney and that brilliantly absurd speech he gives to the audience when introducing the dramatis personae? Mr. Gleason was funny enough on his own and it was kind of pleasantly nostalgic in that 1960s "swinger-vibe" in the locations and editing (I'm guessing the producers were attempting to get the 'Laugh-In' TV show audience). But the play is so funny enough on its own I can't understand why they changed everything so drastically.

Agreed. But they have SO MANY great movies it kills me some days to look at the line up - but still, I'm very thankful for them ! Woke up Sunday morning, it was a rainy say - felt like just lounging around the house, reading the Sunday paper in bed kinda thing (with a good cup o' joe). I click on the TV and "Twelve Angry Men" had just started (TCM) - made my day ! Then there is nights like tonight - ugh ! AMC sometimes saves the day (or evening). "Wittness" just started (11:30pm AMC) - only thing decent all night !

This message has been deleted.

cable would suck without tcm

This was a great movie

it's not bad, what are theese people talking about. i'm loving it.