One of my all time favorites.

Boring

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Based on the 1882 novel of the same name by F. Antsey, this is a hugely enjoyable comedy. It was one of my favourite childhood films and it held up remarkably well. It has a strong and very witty script by British sitcom veterans Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais and it is very well directed by Brian Gilbert. It may not be on the same level as "Big", another film from the same year which covers much of the same territory, but it is still enormous fun. I think that it is second only to that film as the best of the many body swapping films of the late 1980s. I enjoyed it considerably more than the underwhelming 1948 British version written and directed by Peter Ustinov.The film stars Judge Reinhold as Marshall Seymour, an up-and-coming 35-year-old executive vice president at the Chicago department store Vigar and Avery. He is so ambitious and determined to succeed in his chosen profession that he is unknowingly neglecting his 11-year-old son Charlie, played by Fred Savage. While it is not expressly stated, it is pretty safe to assume that his obsessive work ethic is what lead to the demise of his marriage to Charlie's mother Robyn. Charlie feels a little unloved by his uptight, neurotic and mostly absent father and, while he is disappointed that Marshall misses his concert, he is not terribly surprised as this sort of thing seemingly happens on a regular basis. However, their worlds get turned upside down when they switch places due to a magical Tibetan skull, as you do.Reinhold is hilarious as Charlie and his excellent performance perfectly captures the enthusiasm and immaturity of an 11-year-old boy. He brings a great deal of childlike innocence to the role and the awkward way in which he walks suggests that the small for his age Charlie is having a bit of trouble adjusting to life in Marshall's gangly, 6'2" frame. However, Savage steals the show as Marshall, who gets the short end of the stick. Although he recalled his own childhood with great pleasure, he soon discovers that he was viewing it through rose coloured glasses and that life can be tougher for a child than many adults realise. Savage was one of the best child actors of his generation and it is easy to see why he was given the lead role in a TV series at only 12. Although he is playing a 35-year-old in the body of a child, his performance nevertheless seems very natural. Savage is able to convey Marshall's maturity and occasionally obnoxious tendencies extremely well. He plays the material straight rather than sending it up, a mistake that many lesser (and older) actors make it comes to comedy. Savage and Reinhold have great chemistry and this makes the film's premise seem all the more believable.Gilbert's great eye for casting is not only on display with the two leads but with respect to the supporting cast as well. Corinne Bohrer, whom I have always thought deserved bigger roles, is very good as Marshall's girlfriend Sam, who is likewise feeling a little neglected because of his work schedule. The same is true of Swoosie Kurtz and David Proval as the art thieves Lillian Brookmeyer and Turk, who desperately try to gain possession of the skull throughout the film. It also features great performances from Jane Kaczmarek as Robyn, William Prince as Marshall's boss Stratford Avery and Beverly Archer as Charlie's teacher Jane Luttrell and, in smaller roles, Richard Kind, James Hong, Elya Baskin and Gloria Gifford.Overall, this is a great feelgood film which entertained me almost as much as it did when I was eleven. There is a nice exploration of the father-son relationship and a few touching moments between the laughs.

I vaguely remember enjoying this film as a child. Watching it a 2nd time now as a middle-aged man sheds a whole new light on this outstanding piece of work. There are parts that I'm sure I didn't find humorous back then that were absolutely hysterical this time around. Very subtle adult themes that went over my head now struck me as very clever. I'm very happy to have stumbled upon this movie again. I highly recommend this film, especially to those that remember viewing it back in the 80's. I've found it to be more enjoyable than Big or any of the other body swap movies of that time.

I liked this movie. I thought it was cute. I think it was just what people needed. A nice little family movie with a bit of a cheesy plot that you can watch for a movie night with kids or if you're babysitting and the kid is wearing you out and you know a movie will calm him down. I don't care if anybody disses Vice Versa. I liked it. Plus when I first saw it I had already had a crush on Fred Savage...

"Freaky Friday" was about a girl and her mother who switched bodies and had to cope with the outcome for a brief time period. The girl took the job, the mother took school. The film has been remade at least twice that I can think of off hand, once in 1995 for television with Shelly Long, and again this year with Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan.The formula was put to bad use in 1987's "Like Father, Like Son," which starred Dudley Moore and Kirk Cameron as father and son (respectively, of course) who swap places after a freak accident. A year later there was a movie about a father and son who swapped places and tacked work and school. It was called "Vice Versa," and I consider it the greatest of all these films.What is Hollywood's fascination with swapping parent with child? It almost surely has something to do with cash. But, alas, I do not think that it is the fascination with swapping parent and child as much as just swapping in general. These body swap films were extremely popular during the 80s, but lately we've been seeing a revival of the formula, with Rob Schneider in one of the worst films of 2002, "The Hot Chick," and then the "Freaky Friday" remake.There are lots of action films released every year. There are lots of comedies and dramas released every year, too. But I think you will be hard pressed to find the majority of those action films all about a guy stranded inside a building being taken over with hostages. I think you will be hard pressed to find the majority of dramas being about Mafia families. It will be even harder to find the character's name in the action film to be John McClane every time around, and every Mafia family's surname to be Corleone.Basic formulas are used again and again, of course. But there are only so many times you can use the exact same plot, down to every last inch, and expect it to work."Vice Versa" does work, thanks to a pretty clever little script and great acting, by both Judge Reinhold and Fred Savage, whose role in "The Princess Bride" proved he good be a sweet little kid, and whose role here proves that he can be a sarcastic 30/40-something alcoholic.Marshall (Reinhold) is a Chicago businessman who has no time for his 11-year-old son, Charlie (Savage). So when Charlie is sent to spend the weekend with his dad, things don't go so well -- until they make a wish that they could trade places, and an ancient Oriental antique grants their wish.Marshall works at a big department store in downtown Chicago, host to all types of gadget and toy stores. Charlie, in Marshall's body, goes to work, and Marshall, in Charlie's body, goes to school. They both realize that they both have it tough and, in the end, overcome differences to learn to appreciate them.Sounds sappy, huh? Sounds by-the-numbers? That's probably because, in a sense, it is. The film is a lot like "Big," released the same year, and a lot like "Freaky Friday," only with different genders in the leading roles. But I believe it's better than both films for a few reasons. 1. Tom Hanks gave a great performance in "Big," but acted more like an 8-year-old than a 13-year-old in a man's body. Fred Savage, as Marshall, not only pulls off the adult role, but Judge Reinhold convincingly portrays a fascinated 11-year-old. Because of this, it's actually a lot more believable and a lot more funny.2. Charlie, in Marshall's body, does not come up with wonderful ideas for new toys, and does not wow the company chairman with his genius, straightforward designs like Hanks did in "Big." It was not only a convenient plot ploy, but also wholly stupid. "Vice Versa" actually presents a much clearer image of what a child would do in a man's body -- make mistakes, nearly lose his job, go into the department stores and start banging on drums and shooting arrows. (Don't ask.)This is not only a fun film, but a much more honest film than "Big," which I enjoyed but not nearly quite as much as "Vice Versa." "Big" actually had some sexual amorality in it (13-year-old doing it with 30-year-old, etc.), and despite Tom Hanks' great performance, he did not convince me that he was a 13-year-old inside a man's body, but rather a younger child. All 13-year-olds know what women mean when they say that they want to sleep with them."Vice Versa" doesn't resort to typical plot turns. It also has a lot of fun with clean morals, and it came out the same year as "Big," meaning it didn't rip off its success like a lot of movies did thereafter. This is an honest family film as straightforward as Charlie is in Marshall's body. And though it may be copying old formulas in a lot of ways, in my own humble opinion, it succeeds far past the others.4/5 stars.John Ulmer