Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars! But most people here seem to hate it. I am thoroughly conflicted as to whether or not I should rent this.
I'm a big Keeley Hawes fan, and that's how I stumbled across this movie in the first place. Can anyone tell me how big her part is?
...rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell...
It is a significant part, I would say, although only Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon have truly big roles. I loved the film and trust Ebert implicitly, but it will surely not be everyone's cup of tea. Mixed reviews should not be an argument, anyway, because it is your opinion that matters. If you have a sense of humour, rent the flick. :)
shareThanks for the reply.
And I do love a) Period films and B) British humor. I also like films about filmaking, so if anyone would like this movie, it would probably be me.
...rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell...
[deleted]
No, you shouldn't. Believe me, I really thought the movie would be funny with people such as Coogan, Fry and Anderson and for the first 27 minutes or so, it was. Clever, good conversational humor, like the opening where they talking about the teeth. But just when the birth scene is over, the movie more and more delves into a momentum of nowhere-land and sooner rather than later, it has become so boring I almost fell asleep.
I haven't read the novel, but apparently it was unfilmable. Well, they sure as hell still could have TRIED better than this! I'm not a fan of mockumentary in general and was let down when I realized this had almost zero to really to do with the book and more just parodic "behind-the-scenes" *beep* .
*beep* this movie, it warmed me up real good at first, but then trapped itself into a corner it didn't have to trap itself into in the first place.