In my opinion, this is possibly the best movie of Terence Hill. It's funny (the kind of funny you don't laugh loudly but you smile very often) and it is also a warm-hearted comedy with human and credible characters. I think Hill is a very good director and I like the script and the way of describing Camilo and Pepone, both with virtues and shortcomings but above all human beings fighting from opposite sides (Church vs Communism) and at the same time trying to understand each other. I really think the comparison with the films of Fernandel is not necessary, this film is made in eighties and, as another reviewer comments, the times had changed. Nice score and nice (underrated) movie.

In the first place, I clarify that this is a automatic translation of my original language review, in Spanish, so that I request excuses by any spelling mistake. I believe that although it is a good adaptation of "Don Camillo, little world", does not happen of one movie to spend the short while. I believe that make a new version, and suggest to Roberto Begnini for the role of Don Camillo, and somebody like Danny De Vitto or Joe Pesci on the Peppone's role. Terence Hill, is well in the role in that version of film, but I don't believe that is sufficient like equaling the original movie of 1952. Some of the jokes they are not understood for the American audience that it does not know in general almost hysterical humor of the Italian cinema.

Terence Hill does a surprisingly adept job of directing this film (according to IMDB, it was his first effort behind the camera), but there isn't much of a script to support him; most of the laughs are supposed to come from seeing a priest do such "outrageous" things as cheating at cards, roller-skating in his church and organizing amateur soccer games. The spirit of the film is just too gentle for a successful satire. At 120 minutes, it's also overlong - especially since the dramatic incidents don't build out of each other. It does have a beautiful score by Pino Donaggio. (**1/2)

This is quite an atypical vehicle for Hill. Though I've never read any of the original stories, apparently they are short stories. This may explain why there is no central plot here, and there being a mass collection of vignettes instead. It may also explain why the tone of the movie is so wildly inconsistant - sometimes it's melancholy, sometimes goofy, sometimes dead serious, sometimes of a (and quite violent at times) slapstick nature. I guess it's supposed to be a comedy at its heart, but I didn't really find that much humorous about it, though there are one or two smiles here and there.