I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

This film is one of those films in which the elements fail to come together. It is clearly an attempt to recreate the lightning in a bottle of The Sting some years earlier. However it does not measure up for a number of reasons.Firstly the truly boring title does the film no favours. It is not surprising the audience stayed away despite this having obvious star power. Like The Sting the main stars are a couple of con men. The comedy is very broad, almost slapstick at times. This tends to undermine any tension in the film. And I'm not convinced that either Caan or Gould have any aptitude for this kind of broad comedy (and neither, I think, do they, if their subsequent career moves are an indication).However, there are certain times when nastiness creeps in, the most obvious example is when Gould is locked in a safe. Yes, that's comedy gold, having a man almost suffocate to death.Not only are the con men much more buffoonish than in The Sting, but they are also more contemptible. When we first see them, they are stealing money from ordinary members of the public. Why on earth would we be sympathetic to their escapades from then on? While in The Sting the objective was to rob another (and worse) villain, here the target is a normal bank containing real people's money. An attempt to show the manager as corrupt and lecherous does not undermine the fact that the bank contains real people's money and at a time when banks could go out of business.Ultimately, no one really cares about these two thieves and whether they succeed in their venture.

This movie is painful to watch except when Diane Keaton is on screen. It was interesting to see Carol Kane and Kathryn Brody in the cast. And what a cast. Many actors I recognized in a really stinky movie. Its beyond me how this project ever got made. Thin plot, not funny, not exciting. I wonder what they were aiming for. The best I can say is its not offensive unless you tire of juvenile humor. Grabbing at girls with big cleavage, chasing around, bad singing.....This movie is just painful to sit through. I watched this because Diane is in it. I guess its to be expected that a person's early work can be less than classic. A person has to start somewhere. I'd suggest skipping this movie.

Made on the HELLO DOLLY set, this bumbling farce looks sensational and in some ways is actually as lush as DOLLY itself. With a spectacular cast and some very funny lines - and especially the genuinely hilarious NOBODY'S PERFECT song - H&W somehow just misses being really really good. Any opportunity to see Carol Kane on screen is a must. Barely released in 1976 this film is worth seeing in glorious widescreen, just for the visuals around the DOLLY set. It actually looks as though you will see Streisand singing somewhere in the background. It is probably the only two million dollar film with a three million dollar set. Deserving of a lavish DVD release it could easily become a collectors item for many reasons...if only the comedy was genuinely one of them. The ideas are all there and the cast and the lushness, but you just fell it is all a bit forced.

This is one of my all-time favorite James Caan movies. Its not laugh out loud funny but has many humorous moments. No sex or profanity so if thats what you like in a comedy, leave this one alone. Otherwise, be entertained for 90 min. James Caan and Elliot Gould have such good chemistry together I'm surprised they haven't worked together since.