It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Was unaware of this, and believe me as much as I love movies, I feel no shame about that. However, this is a must-see for those of us who crave escape into silliness occasionally. The Naked Man is the wrestling moniker of a mild mannered chiropractor with a brutal, but golden touch played by Michael Rappaport, Brooklyn's answer to Gary Busey. All he seeks in life is reunion with his father, a stern pharmacist and believer in pills, and to be a provider to his "best girl" and soon-to-be-born son. However, chilling tragedy strikes in a hilarious Ethan Coen way which sends our back stretcher on a wild mission of revenge in his wrestling persona aided by Delores, a biker babe liberally pierced. Their targets are Sticks Verona, a drug kingpin played by an always funny Michael Jeter, and his driver of the huge semi that he lives in, an Elvis clone who lives on peanut butter sandwiches with bacon. Also, the jewel in the cast, a chain smoking detective wearing a six month shirt and a raincoat that even Columbo would Goodwill, is played by that unique actor Joe Grifasi. There is a long, dialogue-free, classic scene of the beginning of his day that is a gem. Half a load on will get you through the awful parts to the good stuff which is inspired. Shameless fun.

When I saw this movie, I was on the one hand overwhelmed and on the other hand very disappointed. It is a tragic and in some parts surrealistic comedy that is standing close to Bertolt Brecht's theater dramas and his V-effect and the German Dadaism-Artists. It may be considered as a sequel or even as a conclusion of other Coen - movies OR as just a big piece of humbug. I myself was thinking between these two aspects for a long time. And I came to the conclusion that everybody has to decide for himself. The thing that was really fascinating were the characters: real types - to speak in the traditional language of drama - not complex protagonists made me think about the sense of this movie. And to come back to the title of this comment: It is really a thin line between a very complex piece of film-artwork and rubbish. Decide for yourselves!

I rented this movie with promise and anticipation.I put it in and enjoyed the 1st ten minutes of it.But then whenever Stix entered and murdered the family, the plot just died and kept going down with it.Some parts were somewhat funny, nothing that would make me bust a gut (no pun intended)I did enjoy the wrestling scenes, except when he started going crazy on all the wrestlers, it was kinda corney.This movie had my eyelids going down.Out of five stars prolly 1 1/2It had a good start to it and then the bottom dropped out on it. Had potential...keyword...HAD

Of course, this isn't a Coen brothers film, but it does have a strong connection to their films with Ethan Coen contributing to the script (but not producing) and with the Coen's storyboard artist J. Todd Anderson directing and also co-writing. As to be expected, it's not as good as a full Coen brothers effort, but worth a look for anyone who is a fan of the Coens (as I am).That said, it's not a great movie. It does have a pretty funny central concept, but to me, it never seemed to completely get off the ground. J. Todd Anderson directs the film in a similar style to Joel Coen, but he isn't near as good as writing funny dialog. There is some stuff here that people with a weird sense of humor (like me) will appreciate, but mostly the film is meandering and pointless.Definately not on the same level as the Coen brothers' classics, but worth seeing for anyone who likes the Coens, or weird comedies in general.