Picturehouse Entertainment | Release Date: January 27, 2006
6.0
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 62 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
34
Mixed:
10
Negative:
18
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
vaughtexJul 27, 2015
I feel compelled to write a review for this in the hope that it serves as a warning to others. Hopefully, it will reach people before they embark on the loss of 90 minutes of their life they will never get back. Honestly, this is the worstI feel compelled to write a review for this in the hope that it serves as a warning to others. Hopefully, it will reach people before they embark on the loss of 90 minutes of their life they will never get back. Honestly, this is the worst movie I have ever seen.
I love Rob Brydon, Steve Coogan et al. On paper a fantastic idea. In reality it is the most pretentious, indulgent mess I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through.I stuck with it through the entire run time, hoping it would develop and become "hilarious". It rarely makes much sense as the 'storyline' turns into inane rambling. It is dull. So dull, at around 80 minutes I felt myself slowly picking out the set design and small background details of the film, instead of concentrating on the content, my gaze then drifted to the edge of the TV, admiring the right angles then onto the wallpaper behind the TV itself, counting the pattern and admiring the matching on the seams. It was infinitely more interesting.
I don't understand how this film got past the studio, it feels very much like a personal joke that no one else gets. Maybe they needed to shift some money out of the studio and made this in 3 hours, that's honestly how it feels. A deeply boring, unfunny pretentious mess. Avoid like the plague.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
WontadmitIsawthisFeb 17, 2006
This review is for the first hour of the film, because we left after that. Simply put: Dull. Not funny. Not interesting. Not clever. Not diverting. Yes, it's tongue in cheek, but only in attitude; there is no real shared joke behind the This review is for the first hour of the film, because we left after that. Simply put: Dull. Not funny. Not interesting. Not clever. Not diverting. Yes, it's tongue in cheek, but only in attitude; there is no real shared joke behind the deadpan. Example: a woman screaming in childbirth for minutes on end while men ignore the noise and instead fumble with a huge pair of forceps, squashing a canteloupe prior to trying it out on the newborn baby's head. That is funny? The only good thing I can say is that the theater gave us our money back (which is why this rating was not a zero). By the way, I have walked out on about three films in my life, including this one and Mel Gibson's religious snuff flick, which was just about as funny as this one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JulioMar 6, 2006
Nothing to do, this film is waste of time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
SteveC.Sep 11, 2006
This film was bloody awful. I'm really shocked it got so many positive reviews, it's really a bad movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DavidH.Feb 23, 2006
This is unquestionably the worst movie I've seen. It starts with a boy having his penis injured (A female audience member laughed hystrically), then continued with a prolonged "Woman giving birth scene," with endless yelling and This is unquestionably the worst movie I've seen. It starts with a boy having his penis injured (A female audience member laughed hystrically), then continued with a prolonged "Woman giving birth scene," with endless yelling and flailing about, while the men in the next room are strangely unaffected. I didn't get the joke... Very sad. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
BillA.Mar 23, 2006
Don't always trust the criticis. Worst movie I have seen in a LONG time. Only the 3rd movie in my life (am age 63) that I have walked out of.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ClayM.May 1, 2006
If I was alone I would've walked out.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JonathanC.Jul 16, 2006
Comparing this to Spinal Tap or Monty Python is a disgrace to those classic films. I don't know what film these critics watched, but it certainly wasn't the one I watched. Worst film of the year.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JohnN.Jul 24, 2006
I love the fact that DVD's allow you to get English sub-titles so that you can understand British movies such this. Be that as it may, I really found the humor lacking in this film. Oh yes it was creative a "the film within the film", I love the fact that DVD's allow you to get English sub-titles so that you can understand British movies such this. Be that as it may, I really found the humor lacking in this film. Oh yes it was creative a "the film within the film", but ongoing jokes such as war injuries to the genitalia were just plain dumb and not funny. I find British humor a bid odd, but I still get a good chuckle out of Rickey Gervais, Monty Python, Fawlty Towers etc... I just couldn't find any reason to get interested or laugh at this one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DeWayneP.P.Feb 18, 2006
This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I left the film after one hour, and I have never done that before. I give it no higher than a 0, only because I didn't get my money back from the theatre!. This film demonstrates just how This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I left the film after one hour, and I have never done that before. I give it no higher than a 0, only because I didn't get my money back from the theatre!. This film demonstrates just how deeply rooted comedy is to our cultural language; and if you understand the British (and who really does!...just kidding!) then this film is a scream! If not, then join me and scream in horror as you run for the exits! Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AndrewT.Mar 12, 2006
A few laughs, but really not enough ideas here for a movie. The worst movie I have seen at the theater in a while. Goes to show that the critics are wrong sometimes.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KarenLApr 5, 2006
No Vince S., you miss the point. It doesn't matter what the filmmakers were trying to do, or were trying to say. The bottom line is that they ended up with an extremly dull, unfunny movie. If we rated movies based on the filmmakers No Vince S., you miss the point. It doesn't matter what the filmmakers were trying to do, or were trying to say. The bottom line is that they ended up with an extremly dull, unfunny movie. If we rated movies based on the filmmakers intentions, every movie would be a masterpiece. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MarcK.Jul 22, 2006
Thank God I waited for this on DVD! This is one of the worst American releases in 2006, and was an absolute bore. I gave it a "2" only because it had a couple of funny jokes. The "regular" people's ratings are much more accurate than Thank God I waited for this on DVD! This is one of the worst American releases in 2006, and was an absolute bore. I gave it a "2" only because it had a couple of funny jokes. The "regular" people's ratings are much more accurate than what the critics said about this one. But if I can't trust the critics, how am I going to pick out movies to rent anymore? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AldoB.Jan 29, 2006
A film about nothing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
paddyc.Dec 18, 2006
Ambitious project, pitifully executed, leading to a confused product, despite a potentially great ensemble and a marvellous source.
0 of 0 users found this helpful