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
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
4
WendyA.Mar 24, 2006
Very dull, flat, overly talky, and not the least but funny.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ElizabethC.Mar 1, 2006
People seem to either love or hate this film. I found it really frustrating. This is basically two films - the 18th century story of Tristram Shandy and the "mockumentary" of the making of the film. There isn't really much of a People seem to either love or hate this film. I found it really frustrating. This is basically two films - the 18th century story of Tristram Shandy and the "mockumentary" of the making of the film. There isn't really much of a narrative, but I understand that this is true to the book. There is some witty interplay between Coogan and Brydon at the beginning and end. Some of the period scenes are hilarious, such as Tristram's explanation of why this is called "a cock and bull story". Yet the viewer may become impatient with most of the modern day sequences, which aren't really insightful or all that intersting, and the lack of a story line. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
HenryW.Jul 17, 2006
Has its moments, but it's not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. It sells itself as a mocumentry although the mockumentry elements feel forced and unrealistic compared to Christopher Guest stuff. Biggest problem is that it's not Has its moments, but it's not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. It sells itself as a mocumentry although the mockumentry elements feel forced and unrealistic compared to Christopher Guest stuff. Biggest problem is that it's not actually funny. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DanC.Jul 21, 2006
I know this is supposed to be the height of dry British wit, but I found myself looking at my watch and wishing it were over.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AmeliaS.Dec 29, 2006
This must be the first film that I found bad while Roger Ebert did not. I expected great British comedy from Tristram Shandy - what I got was a film with only several funny moments that was confusing, repetitive, and ultimately, a film of no This must be the first film that I found bad while Roger Ebert did not. I expected great British comedy from Tristram Shandy - what I got was a film with only several funny moments that was confusing, repetitive, and ultimately, a film of no consequence. Films should leave a viewer thinking, daydreaming, wondering, wanting to be a better person, or questioning themselves. All I felt at the end of this film was "Thank God it's over!" Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ElizabethP.Mar 22, 2006
A few good laughs, a few clever points to make, but overall pretty boring and pointless. And I say this despite usually liking British humor. No cohesive story, which I'm sure is very fitting, but doesn't leave you with very much A few good laughs, a few clever points to make, but overall pretty boring and pointless. And I say this despite usually liking British humor. No cohesive story, which I'm sure is very fitting, but doesn't leave you with very much at the end of the film. Don't listen to the critics on this one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful