Three words sum up what's wrong with this movie, Joe Don Baker. Serously, what the hell was that? It's like a bad version of Dr Dolittle made by acid heads. I actually saw this movie in the theater as a child and even at the tender age of 6 asked my Mom if we could leave and began crying when we didn't. This movie sucks!

Paul Weiland, who directed City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly's Gold was, of course, the perfect person to make a James Bond spoof starring Bill Cosby. This is also supposed to be the sixth movie in a series of films where they never made any other ones. People never like that - ask Buckaroo Banzai.

Weiland would one day tell The Guardian, "It was a terrible mistake. ... When anyone gets into that position (Bill Cosby's position of power in the 1980s), they are surrounded by sycophants and no one tells them the truth. But Cosby just wasn't funny. I couldn't tell him directly. I'd say it feels slow, and he'd say, "You worry about construction, let me worry about funny.""

Leonard Parker (America's dad at one point, Bill Cosby) is out of retirement and battling Medusa Johnson and her army of vegetarians. Joe Don Baker plays his boss, a similar role that he would play in the Bond films.

When the film was released, Cosby himself said that he was so disappointed with it that he publicly advised people not to waste their money on it. The dude wrote and produced it. He should know better. The Coke product placement is also near-constant, which upset so many people.

Cosby accepted his three Razzies - worst actor, worst screenplay and worst picture - on Fox's The Late Show. I love that he had the ego to demand that the three Razzies he earned be specifically made out of 24 karat (99.99%) gold and Italian marble, which Fox paid for. Maybe he could have used the sizable money he made as an advance on this movie instead of taking more for so very little.

At least one person moved on from this to do something better. Cinematographer Jan de Bont would go on to direct Speed, Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, Twister and The Haunting. We won't discuss Speed 2.

I love the IMDb but I've noticed a very sad trend... seems like users here feel they have to defend truly terrible movies. Just look at the user reviews for "Hudson Hawk" or "Ishtar" and you'll see titles like "Not As Bad As They Say," "Under-Rated Classic," and the offensive "I LOVE This Movie."

Grow up! It's not a good idea to rescue trash cinema from the dumpster. Let's be adults and let films like "Leonard, Part 6" get the treatment they deserve. And oh how this film deserves a lot of treatment... "Leonard" is a movie with no redeeming value. Bill Cosby stars as a secret agent who has to save the world from an evil woman who blah blah blah... why bother? The movie tries to be an action film while simultaneously spoofing action films. (Schwarzenegger would later fail at this with the nauseating "Last Action Hero") What we're left with is a mess of a movie and Cosby- one of the all-time great comedians- can't even get one genuine laugh out of the deal. I have a passion for bad movies- B-Movies, exploitation flicks, horror films, you name it- but this movie lacks the impact to even be bad. It's just stupid.

How stupid? At the time of the film's release Cosby himself went on TV and asked people NOT to see the movie because it was so bad. I cannot think of a single instance in the history of Hollywood where an actor- or anyone- has done ANTI-publicity for a movie. Bill said this because he cares and he wanted to save you time and money.

So do I. While it might be tempting to listen to the revisionist reviewers who want to impress you with their outrageous opinion and 10-star ratings sometimes its better to just turn the page. Now let's all go someplace else and do something different and forget we were ever here.

GRADE: D-