billyfish

I'm not sure what they were going for with this movie, comedy or drama. Either way, it's a major fail. It's too stupid to be a drama, and it's not funny enough to be a comedy. But there IS a lot of senseless blood, if that's your thing.

It pains me greatly to say this, because I've always loved anything Danny McBride has done. But this one is a big swing and a miss. I kept waiting for it to get funny, since the "dramatic" events were so idiotic (and yet unfunny). However, the comedy never showed up.

Now if you think it's hilarious to watch truly comedic actors Luke Wilson, Kaitlin Olson, and David Alan Grier get their heads blown off or bashed in (in not-at-all-funny ways), you are in for multiple treats!

Skip this one and go see something either funny or dramatic. This one fails miserably to be either.

This film was actually engaging up until the point where the heroine gets the evil wrongdoer in a room with his henchmen, and she lets them all live! What bullshit! This guy kidnapped her husband and used him to extract stem cells, and she has a gun on them all, and lets them live! At that point I stopped the movie and felt very cheated. She had not hesitated to kill various henchmen up to that point, but when she has the guy who masterminded the whole operation, apparently she feels sorry for him and allows him to continue to live, and to continue to try to kill her. Ridiculous. Stupid movie. Don't waste your time. I need ten lines so here they are. Stupid movie.

What a stinker! In spite of a promising and somewhat creepy beginning, this film soon devolves into an unintentionally funny sequence of ridiculous events that leave you rooting for the killers to put the idiotic protagonists out of their asinine misery. A guy with an ax attacks your front door, you have a shotgun -- so naturally you abandon the half-destroyed front door and hide in the closet, so you can shoot your best friend when he comes in to check on you! Mind you, the best friend deserved to get his head blown off. He walked into a house where obviously something nefarious is going on, but instead of turning off the loud stereo and calling his friend's name (of course this would have pretty much ended the movie with no further bloodshed), he leaves the music blasting and sneaks up on our "heroes" who are crouching in the closet with the shotgun. Hilarious! Then it gets even better (worse). You just killed your best friend, there are at least three psychopaths who have all already been INSIDE your house, so what do you do? Well, of course, you abandon your unarmed and defenseless girlfriend in an open house and go out with the shotgun to crawl around in the bushes.

I was incredibly bored and sat through this whole woofer, but at the end I was very worried that the hapless couple would NOT be killed. Luckily, they both were, more or less, putting them -- and US -- out of their idiotic misery. Do not waste your time -- what a dopey movie.

It's making fun of people who pretend they live in the time of Shakespeare! It really wasn't that bad; in fact, I was chuckling throughout the movie. I especially enjoyed Chris Wylde's over-the-top performance as Sir Rank. He was deliciously bombastic, conceited, lame, and overacted his role as far as I think it would be possible. I loved it. I think Owen Benjamin's understated wise-cracking character was perfect and oftentimes hilarious. Frankly, the rest of the cast was just a backdrop for these two. No award-winner, this, but I certainly enjoyed watching it. Seems like most of the other reviewers had high expectations, which I didn't have...

Aside from the fairy-tale ending, this movie had many realistic moments, especially those concerning a successful lawyer dating a down-on-his-luck neighborhood mechanic with a criminal record. Naturally all her friends looked down on her new boyfriend because he was not a professional, even though they tried to set her up with a series of losers -- who were overplayed as such to make a point.

All that said, many of the characters and situations in the movie held the ring of truth, and the acting was solid. OK, it ended up with the bad guys going down and the good guys winning, but even so it was a fun and fairly realistic ride. The protagonists were likable and the settings believable. If you think feel-good movies are sappy, don't watch this one -- but it's hard not to feel good to see a father win his three little girls back from his pathetic ex-wife and her drug dealer boyfriend...

First of all, let me say this was a very watchable and entertaining movie, full of action and enough noise to keep even the most sleep-deprived insomniac wide awake. I enjoyed it and would even like to see it again, this time with earplugs, in order to catch some of the nuances I no doubt missed in the first viewing.

That said, this movie, like most movies these days made from literary works, has little to do with the original story other than lifting the characters' names -- without adopting their original personalities or characteristics. Ritchie's Holmes, alas not surprisingly, has more of a "Snatch" hoodlum in him than anything Conan Doyle wrote. Although it's true that the literary Holmes was no cupcake, and dabbled in "fisticuffs," this Holmes looked more like Jason Statham than the intellectual and quirky sleuth of Baker Street. The fight scenes (and there were many) were long, drawn-out (although full of action), and unbelievable.

I found myself wishing for these over-the-top action scenes to be over so Holmes could make some clever deductions from obscure clues. I was sadly disappointed that there was very little of the latter in this film. This is a Holmes on steroids (and not the occasional cocaine that the true literary Holmes was known to have sampled). It was the Holmes of "Snatch" or "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels," not the genius detective as played best by Jeremy Brett in the British Sherlock Holmes series.

In short, although this is a competent action film, full of explosions and clever fight scenes, it is NOT worthy to be attached to the name of the great Sherlock Holmes character. As long as you know that going in, and you don't care, then you will thoroughly enjoy this film. Sherlock Holmes purists -- get ready to hate!

Hard to believe the extremes of the reviews of this film. It's either genius or crap. I found it somewhere in between, and I have to say I enjoyed it, owing mostly to Omar Epps. I believe he's one of the best actors in America right now, and his performance in this movie really made it watchable as far as I'm concerned. Many of the characters were not developed well, and were two-dimensional at best. Rappaport's character, and in fact all the white supremacists, were mere cut-outs and actually painful to watch. I didn't get the good guy/bad guy (name your race -- I think it depends on who's reviewing) theme at all. I think Epps was the protagonist and naturally he was shown in a better light than most of the other characters, black or white. There was some intelligent dialog and some inane dialog. However, it was overall an interesting film and I'm glad I saw it. Not perfect by any means, and with its share of clichés, but a good film nonetheless.

When I saw the names of Ewan McGregor, Colin Farrell, and Tom Wilkinson, I was excited about watching this film. Then I saw that Woody Allen had directed, and my expectations went down. I half-expected another whiny, self-absorbed mid-life crisis treatment, but I was very pleasantly surprised. If I hadn't seen his name, I would never have guessed Allen directed this movie.

McGregor and Farrell start out as two happy-go-lucky brothers living in London, but soon one gets deep into gambling debt and they both turn in desperation to their rich uncle. His solution is to ask his nephews to do something horrible for him in return for the bailout. Meanwhile both young men are attempting to have normal relationships with their significant others. The actual crime itself, and the very different effects it has on each brother, occupy the rest of the film. It's a dark film, nowhere near as glib as most Allen films, and the character development of the two brothers is excellent. Both McGregor and Farrell turn in excellent performances. It's nice to see Woody Allen step outside his traditional boundaries and come up with such an engaging film.

The only reason I put this stinker on was that I saw Thomas Kretschmann while flipping through the cable channels. The story centers around a hangdog office worker who suddenly gets kidnapped by assassins who tell him his father was one of the best, so they are going to train him to be an assassin. These guys (and girls) really put the "ass" in assassin -- twice! I was quite disappointed as the movie got more and more ridiculous. Jolie was so bad (worse than usual I mean) that I was almost embarrassed for her. I'm sure she laughed all the way to the bank. I have no idea why Kretschmann was in this film -- he's had so much work since The Pianist that I can hardly believe he needs the money that badly. I can say the same for Morgan Freeman and Terence Stamp. Too bad. I like McAvoy, but with such a ridiculous story line, horrible writing, and some truly wooden performances, he never had a chance.

30 years out, this has got to be good, dirty fun! Michael Caine plays a straight man throughout, as the modern man kidnapped by real-life pirates of the Caribbean, but he's fun to watch, in spite of how flat the rest of the characters are. I haven't read Benchley's book, but I'd like to believe that it was a bit more realistically painted than this comic-book version. David Warner is completely wasted as the pirate commander, but even so he is an interesting presence on screen. One has to believe that this is a movie worth doing again, perhaps taking it both a bit more seriously and a bit more tongue-in-cheek. The 17th-century pirate lingo was not researched carefully (of course), but that in itself would make for a compelling new version of the story.

Even with all its pitfalls, it's still a watchable movie and I found myself (guiltily) enjoying it. Not bad for a 30-year old movie. I think you'll get a lot more yo ho hos out of it if you watch it with a bottle of rum, me heartie!

The main character, Chris, started to annoy me almost immediately and the feeling grew as the movie progressed. Who would be so self-centered and selfish that they would burn their money? At least leave it under a rock for some poor traveler to enjoy! He travels by bumming rides (and food) from others -- how hypocritical can the "self-sufficient" man become? He's happy he found a straw hat in a field -- are we supposed to respect him for that? Perhaps if he had had the skill to make the hat himself, he might have earned some grudging respect. Then he hikes "into the wild" in Alaska (after having bummed yet another ride) and settles in an abandoned bus. He's nothing but a gigantic parasite, going on interminably about how evil money is, while at the same time enjoying the fruits of other people's labor (and money), even if some of the items have been discarded. I wish he had never found the bus, but had had to live under a tree. How long would he have lasted then? To top off his irresponsible behavior and total selfishness, he simply disappears without informing his family, causing them no end of emotional stress. I'm sorry, this character was just an asshole. I'm only halfway into the movie right now, but having read other spoilers, I know he eventually dies, apparently in a senseless fashion. I perversely find myself looking forward to this event, as horrible as that sounds. I cannot believe that this movie was nominated for an Oscar. It's a silly movie about a completely unlikeable and annoyingly naive fool who in the end gets what he deserves.

I found myself getting into a virus-less rage myself after the really stupid crap started happening. The first 20 minutes or so were quite good, so when the film went south -- quickly -- it was all the more disappointing.

The typical end-of-the-world-type virus wiping out most of Britain was pretty well done, as was the US military coming in to handle the recovery. Then two incredibly implausible, nay, downright idiotic,things happen. A virus survivor -- possibly a carrier -- who should be under tight security, is basically left alone in a warehouse so that her husband can wander in and get infected. After the outbreak is discovered, the city (London) is supposedly "locked down" -- which apparently means you crowd a bunch of people in a basement with big windows on all the doors, and then only lock the front door.

Once the infected husband basically walked right into the "quaranteen" area, I had to turn this stupid piece of garbage off. Did a six-year-old write the script? Don't waste your time. I'm with some of the other posters who find it incredible that this dog got a 7.1 rating out of 10. Most of the people who voted must have been infected with their own mind-fogging virus. I only gave it a 2 for the first 20 minutes.

How refreshing to see a movie that is creepy all the way through to the end, without relying on some sappy supernatural "explanation" for all the evil. Joshua as a Machiavellian child prodigy makes mincemeat out of his unsuspecting and clueless parents (not to mention his grandma and uncle). This movie will raise the little hairs on the back of your neck again and again, and remains faithful to its premise, which is very refreshing in these days of the "devil made me do it" (literally) cop-out ending. The director makes us uneasy with the sheer evil and total absence of remorse displayed by Joshua, and it seems all the more terrible since his parents don't suspect a thing. There is a little religious mumbo-jumbo thrown in (Grandma takes Joshua to an evangelical gathering), but this is secondary to the plot and just demonstrates how the opportunistic child uses this weakness in his grandmother to further his destructive agenda.

First blood, second blood, third blood. After about the 50th dose of blood and gore, the movie actually becomes funny (and therefore more enjoyable). Stallone, who actually can act, apparently chose NOT to in this tired continuance of the Rambo story. For those who want to see body parts blown off, shot off, cut off, or PULLED off with bare hands, this is definitely your movie. Otherwise, the plot is stupidly unbelievable and unbelievably stupid, the dialog idiotic (when even present), the acting weak, the characters totally unsympathetic. When Rambo gets chewed out by a goody two-shoes missionary for saving his and fellow missionaries' lives by killing some scumbag pirates, you actually WANT the missionary to get dusted. Unfortunately, he never does.

I can't believe so many people actually enjoyed this stinker, and some had the nerve to compare it with Blackhawk Down. That is nothing short of blasphemy. There might have been more ammo expended in Rambo, but that's where any similarity ends. The group I was with actually spent the entire second half of the movie laughing at the comic-book violence spilling all over the screen. I have to admit it was a guilty pleasure after sitting through the excruciatingly boring first half of the movie with its silly plot line and wooden characters. Also, one wonders how Rambo was able to stay stocked up on "Just For Men" hair dye out in the middle of the jungle.

One thing I'll say about this movie -- it makes the other Rambo movies look a helluva lot better in every way.

Why is Willem Dafoe in this movie? It demeans him. It starts well enough, with two Irish blue-collar brothers ridding the world of some Russian mafia scumbags. However, it soon devolves into the worst kind of bad acting, improbable situations, and ridiculous developments that you've ever had the misfortune to see. Ron Jeremy is one of the best actors in the film -- that should tell you everything! He's actually better at playing his scumbag role than Dafoe is.

Willem Dafoe as an openly gay, long-hair hippy psychotic FBI agent is insulting to anyone who is not certifiably paranoid. Later in the film, the scenes when he is "conducting" the crimes he is investigating are so ludicrous that they are actually amusing. Amusing, and embarrassing. I hope they paid him well for this particular buffoonery. Willem, hang your head in shame! Yakovetta? Who decided that was an Italian name? One of the Russian mafia bosses (a man) was named "Petrova" -- a female name. The writers of this travesty are idiots.

I have to say this is one of the worst movies I have ever finished. There are a few more that I've turned off, or walked out of, but after finishing this one, I felt soiled. I can't believe that someone told me this was a good movie.

The soundtrack was not bad, but I felt embarrassed and ashamed for the musicians, as the music was overly grandiose for the trivial and idiotic scenes it was attempting to embellish.

The moronic scene where the moronic "Funny Man" Rocco has died, and the moronic Irish brothers pray over him, is, well, moronic. I overuse the word purposely! It's insulting and incredibly amateurish. A high school film student would have done better.

I can't believe that Dafoe can sleep at night after having made this incredibly horrible film. I bought the DVD on a discount rack, and I'm going to throw it in the trash where it belongs.

Thomas Jane probably signed up for this film based on his experience in the engaging and very watchable sci-fi movie "Dreamcatcher" (also adapted from Stephen King). One can't help wondering if Jane was disappointed when he saw the final cut of The Mist -- I certainly was.

It's hard to imagine how people will react in this kind of a fantasy situation, but one hopes they will do better than depicted in this film. The dialogue is as unnatural as the spooky things outside in the mist -- and just as inhuman. In fact, the dialogue was the scariest feature of the movie -- scary to know that professionals are getting paid to write this drivel.

The special effects were good, and the action scenes were exciting. Some characters' reactions to the extraordinary events were, however, simply foolish and laughable. You can always tell when dialogue is failing when the audience laughs at a point where they're not supposed to be laughing. This happens several times in the movie.

The film is not totally unwatchable, but you definitely won't be missing much if you skip it. If you have low expectations and want to see a couple of good creepy scenes, it's worth the bargain matinée price of admission.

First of all, let me say I don't generally like Woody Harrelson, but I thought he did a superb job in this picture.

Billy Crudup plays Pete, a likable cowboy who returns from WWII to work his own land with some cattle he buys using his GI salary. Harrelson plays "Big Boy," his best friend; they both are averse to working for "Jim Ed" (Sam Elliot in a rare bad guy role), who owns most of the town and environs. It's a typical plot, with the little guys pitted against the fat cat, but one which is developed in a very realistic way. There were no gun fights or barroom brawls -- incredible for a Hollywood western! And the little guys just get by -- they don't somehow crush the fat cat. Quite refreshing.

I'll stop my praise-fest to say that no real Pete could be as stupid as this one. His would-be sweetheart Mona (Patricia Arquette), who couldn't wait for any of the GIs to return and married the first guy who asked her (her hubby works for Jim Ed, of course), flirts unabashedly with both Pete and his best friend Big Boy. Unbeknownst to Pete, who still holds a candle for her, she closes the deal with Big Boy, yet continues to lead him on. Meanwhile, Penelepe Cruz plays "Josepha" (she is obviously Mexican-American, and therefore should be "Josefa"), who loves Pete and waited for him throughout the war. Needless to say, she is HOT. Pete is obviously blind and does not see this.

This is where I have to stop and protest. Since when does Arquette come anywhere near the beauty of Cruz? Let's not even discuss appearances; in the movie Josefa exudes innocent and virtuous yet sexually attractive energy, whilst Mona is obviously nothing more than a cheap slut. Nevertheless, Pete is obsessed with Mona. Almost totally unbelievable. You feel for Pete, yet at the same time you condemn him for his blindness and stupidity.

Eventually, after he gets slapped in the face about a million times, Pete comes to his senses. Even in this reversal, the movie represents reality, because there are smart people who become stupid through the miracle of LOVE, and yet at some point see the light.

I was not prepared to enjoy this movie to the extent I did, having read a lot of reviews, but I have to agree with those who endorse it. It's well done and leaves you feeling good. A most enjoyable film.

First comment: I wish I had the 115 minutes back. And I usually LOVE Keitel. Truly dreadful, perhaps more so since I simply cannot understand where the director was trying to go.

Second comment: don't read the rest of this if you don't want to read plenty of spoilers!

The set-up is impressive: young Ruth (Winslet) travels to India on a lark, goes to see a "live guru" as a joke, and ends up in a cult-induced trance. Her parents and family, clutching at straws, hire high-priced "cult exiter" PJ Waters (Keitel) to unbrainwash her. For 10,000 Australian dollars, he promises to turn her back to reality in three days, once they've tricked her into returning home to pay her last respects to her father (who of course is not really dying). It is emphasized that Waters is a highly respected professional who is renowned for his impressive success rate with cult victims. They then entrust Waters to take the voluptuous Ruth out to a remote shack and leave her alone with him for three days. Waters arrives from the airport exuding confidence, professionalism, and charisma.

So much for the set-up, which I repeat was quite good. It is therefore all the more disappointing, and yes, actually shocking, that the whole thing turns into a teenage high school movie almost immediately. Waters hardly waits 24 hours before he's humping Ruth. Given her sexuality and beauty, this is not shocking. However, rather than admitting he made an unprofessional mistake and moving on, Waters turns into a love-struck idiot who acts like a person who has taken leave of his wits. He continues to pursue Ruth, even when she tries to push him away by humiliating him (dressing him in a red dress and lipstick) and by insulting him. He is like a high school puppy who is pining after the pom-pom girl. It's embarrassing to watch.

As Ruth tries to run away from the shack, Waters pursues her, still with the red dress on, and for some unfathomable reason, ONE cowboy boot. The sight of Harvey Keitel stumbling in the outback in a red dress, lipstick smeared all over his mouth, and walking unevenly on one lizard-skin cowboy boot, mumbling "Ruth, I love you!" is one I will make every effort to forget as soon as possible. I kept waiting for some semblance of what might really happen to occur, but the ending was just as stupid and nonsensical as the aforementioned events.

I guess this is one for the cult audience (pun intended) and will be shown in "alternative" theaters for years, no doubt. The first half of the movie is so good that it makes it all the more painfully disappointing to watch the second half. The joke's on us, dear viewers.

I can understand why Duvall, one of the premier actors of our times, can sit back and look at his body of work with supreme satisfaction, and be more than willing to try new things. I can also understand why he went out and got himself a girlfriend 40 years his junior. He's due. What I can't understand is what he was trying to do with this film, other than spending some time working with his girlfriend. In a dual story about a aging hired killer and tango dancing, neither subject is developed to anything approaching interesting.

Duvall, as usual stellar as an actor, has not given himself very good material here. He goes about his job as a plumber would approach a leaky faucet; this attitude is commendable, and he sells it, but in the end his assassination job is almost as interesting as fixing a leaky faucet. Many twists and turns in that plot could have been developed into good suspenseful material (with another excellent actor, Ruben Blades, playing a supporting role). This is never explored, though, and we are left unmoved.

Similarly, the sequences with tango dancing are also never fully utilized to their full effect, and Duvall, who is supposed to be the central character, is barely shown doing any dancing at all, and his suppressed love for his real-life girlfriend never catches fire.

As a result, both plots are pretty much glossed over and what we end up with is two sub-plots, neither of which is satisfying. I love Duvall and watching him do almost anything is almost always worth it. Nevertheless, I'm afraid I have to say that this one fizzles and never sizzles.

Tom Cruise as the soulless professional killer asks who cares if any particular person dies -- one might ask the same question about this story. I'll admit that for a slam-bang action movie it was shot well and the physical effects did not defy the laws of physics as Hollywood is so fond of doing. Of course, the story line defies all laws of probability, and as such is so typically Hollywood that you could set your watch to the ending if you're appropriately cynical (as I became, eventually).

When Cruise tells cabbie Foxx to pull around the back of the building to the alley, of course the body that "accidentally" hurtles out of the window exactly above where the cab is parked lands smack dab on the cab. Compared to the rest of the story, this colossal coincidence seems perfectly routine, if not expected. Never mind that the meek and mild-mannered cab driver masquerades successfully as a professional killer to a gang of killers, a cop who is looking for him ends up in the same elevator with him later on, and lo and behold, Cruise's final victim ends up being a pretty lawyer whom Foxx had ferried across town just hours before (and also never mind that the beautiful and driven lawyer gives a disheveled Foxx her card and tells him to call her). All of this crap could only happen in a Hollywood movie. I was embarrassed for the writers, but they not only are unashamed, but proud of this kind of garbage!

If you want to lose yourself in an action movie that has less intelligent conversation or story development than a Spongebob episode, watch on! Otherwise, skip this slick, fast-moving fairy tale.

Notice I didn't say "Ahead of it's (it is) time." Sorry, I just have to be different and use the English language correctly.

That out of the way, this movie was a very pleasant surprise. Sure it has its cliché moments, such as the obligatory fight between Mitchum and Lemmon over the lady. But even that scene ends semi-realistically, with Mitchum kicking poor Lemmon's ass (as you would expect), not the good, decent guy (Lemmon) triumphing over the larger and meaner bully. I respect that choice by the director/writers. Similarly, the ending also is not a pat happy ending -- nice guys DO finish last, just as in real life! I was already rolling my eyes as soon as the rescue against all hope occurred, but then the realistic twist at the end brought me home again.

I simply cannot resist thinking that the title has something to do with whether or not Hayworth is a natural redhead! Sorry, but the double (or triple) entendre is there, and you can't ignore it! You've got the fire simmering between the three lead characters, the fire on the Ulysses, and...well, you know.

I was delighted to recognize Anthony Newley in a minor role as the bartender who introduces Mitchum and Lemmon to Rita Hayworth and her current protector. I kept waiting for him to belt out "What Kind of Fool Am I?" He was quite amusing as the unabashedly greedy go-between.

Almost 50 years down the road, this movie still retains its "fire."

This is the biggest piece of garbage I've seen in a very long time. Idiotic, nonsensical, inconsistent plot; horrible dialogue; terrible acting; scenes that are comical when they are obviously supposed to be serious, and vice versa. Where do something like 50 motorcycles appear out of nowhere in a crowded but otherwise peaceful plaza? How does Antonio Banderas jump backwards from a 25-foot church loft and land softly on his feet facing the opposite way? Why do supposedly dangerous criminals stand motionless with weapons idly in hand while Banderas beats them silly in slow motion? Why would a retired FBI agent suddenly "activate" himself, then walk around in the street muttering to himself as if he were wearing a wire? If you have any respect at all for the laws of physics -- or good acting, or even mediocre film-making -- this film will offend you.

I've seen some real stinkers in my time, but with this kind of star power, you expect a whole lot better. I can understand why actor wannabes like Banderas, Mickey Rourke, and Enrique Iglesias (!!!) are in this pile of dung, but what on sweet Earth are accomplished actors like Willem Dafoe, Johnny Depp, and Ruben Blades doing here? They must have been sampling the goods of the ominous "Cartels" mentioned repeatedly with no apparent reason. There is not one shred of artistry in this loser, and it doesn't surprise me to read that Tarantino had a hand in it somewhere. Don't waste your time.

Although this movie has the look and feel of something a high school student turned in for his film-making class final project, it is worth watching if you enjoy absurd or surreal vignettes. Make sure you don't expect to get anything meaningful out of it, however. It does poke fun at various elements of society -- I especially liked the "emergency broadcast" talk program on the BBC, which was only slightly more bizarre and irrelevant than most of these talking head programs. The Ouija board scenes were also hilarious. In fact, the more I think about individual scenes, the more I appreciate having stumbled across this film.

I don't mean to say it's a rip-off of TBC, but the comparison is unavoidable, as old chums get together for a weekend at a large manor after not seeing each other in 10 years. That's pretty much where the similarity ends, however, as Peter and his friends are far more interested in dealing with the here and now than in rehashing the past. True, the past does provide some background to the story, but it is not the omnipresent theme as in TBC. It was surprising to see both Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry play it straight -- the opposite of what you'd expect from these extremely funny men. Tony Slattery of Whose Line Is It Anyway? fame provided much of the comic relief with his bumbling boyfriend shtick. Rita Rudner (who co-wrote the movie) is also funny as Kenneth Branagh's neurotic Hollywood wife.

It's a watchable movie but there are few surprises and one can't help but feel that Branagh and Emma Thompson are not even stretching their acting muscles here. Still, I would recommend it as most of the characters are likable and the writing is good.

I gave this movie a 7 because it made me laugh, albeit not without a certain amount of guilt. In many ways it was formulaic and predictable, but the cast carried it off so well that you didn't mind. The film never took itself too seriously or tried too hard to impress -- that is always a plus. I find it amazing that Tom Green and Jason Lee have not paired up more than this one time -- the comic chemistry between them is a rare thing. This is the only film I've seen directed by "Kids in the Hall" alumnus Bruce McCulloch, and all I can say is that we should expect great things from this very funny man. Lots of belly laughs, and we're not talking about the writing, particularly. The actors pull this off beautifully, and in addition to Green and Lee, Dennis Farina, Leslie Mann, and "Scrubs" superstar John C. McGinley all make significant and hilarious contributions. A guilty pleasure, but above all a pleasure.