User Score
6.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 31 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 31
  2. Negative: 7 out of 31
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. PatC.
    Jan 6, 2004
    3
    First Rule of Moviemaking: Don't fritter away the attention of the audience in the first 10 minutes. After one initially effective one-liner is panned by Macy's character, the show plunges into unmitigated disjointed banter involving a slew of characters and phone voices all disrupting the continuity with unrelating dialogue about things that are neither interesting nor matter. First Rule of Moviemaking: Don't fritter away the attention of the audience in the first 10 minutes. After one initially effective one-liner is panned by Macy's character, the show plunges into unmitigated disjointed banter involving a slew of characters and phone voices all disrupting the continuity with unrelating dialogue about things that are neither interesting nor matter. If I want to hear people interrupt each other, I'll watch political talk shows. I deserted this show after 15 minutes, so I didn't watch it all. If it was good from there on, a 3 is the best I could have given it, and that's the benefit of the doubt. Besides, it was my second attempt. Sorry, but abusing the audience's gift of initial attention is a fatal error. It makes me suspect some critics may be taking complimentary drugs from the movie companies before reviewing their products. But hey, the value is merely misplaced: Rent this movie as a sedative. Expand
  2. DaveS.
    Feb 20, 2001
    1
    Not even close to being funny, which is what a comedy is supposed to be about.
  3. BobT.
    Aug 3, 2001
    1
    Barely watchable and totally predictable. Stilted dialog and amateurish direction. The film is a major disappointment.
  4. JeffM.
    Feb 13, 2001
    3
    A smug, simple-minded movie that thinks it's much more intelligent than it really is, featuring yet another grating performance by the director's wife.
  5. WalterS.
    Jul 24, 2002
    2
    This has got to be one of the most overrated films I've seen in some time, and I see a LOT of movies, okay. This movies is botched in so many ways it's hard to keep track. It's almost easier to say what was good about it. William Macy's director was fantastic, both in writing and performance. The two leads (Baldwin, Parker) were great fun. Philip Seymour Hoffman did This has got to be one of the most overrated films I've seen in some time, and I see a LOT of movies, okay. This movies is botched in so many ways it's hard to keep track. It's almost easier to say what was good about it. William Macy's director was fantastic, both in writing and performance. The two leads (Baldwin, Parker) were great fun. Philip Seymour Hoffman did what he could well given the limits of his character's stereotypical drivel. And that's it. The editing was amateurish. The script was terrible. Mamet's wife? Miscast and her role was pathetic. Her fiance was just as unbelievable as a Vermonter. Durning needed a Starbucks. LiPone (who I love) was way off the mark. The local reporter had a British accent.. I mean who the f%$# was making this film? Too many subplots which are as quickly introduced and sloppily dismissed. Attention Hollywood: just because you make a self-loathing, self-indulgent feature doesn't mean it's injokes are really that interesting. Expand
Metascore
75

Generally favorable reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 26
  2. Negative: 0 out of 26
  1. Gently hilarious comedy.
  2. 70
    Mamet's jabs at Tinseltown's silken ruthlessness are quietly pointed, and the ensemble cast -- even the brittle and sometimes annoying Pidgeon (Mamet's wife) -- is brilliant.
  3. A snarling satire of Hollywood single-mindedness and its lack of any moral underpinning.