It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

This is a total bomb. The play on which it is based is also a bomb, considering the source. The baker's dozen of super talented actors could not save this monument to mediocrity. It truly screens like the very definition of a made-for-TV movie, only from the eighties rather than 1996. It's almost as if Mr. Simon was trying to squeeze out another "Suite" as excellent and successful as the first two . . . oh, wait . . . I guess that might be the point (?!?), but apparently the only point. A very constipated mash-up of retro-'60's dialogue and '90's comedic sensibilities, there is awkwardness to be had at nearly every turn.

One has to feel that Jay Sandrich, as director, has to be responsible for the weak performances from this collection of usually reliable actors. With the exception of Michael Richards and Madeline Kahn, the credited actors turn in truly shocking performances. As for the Scottish and Irish accents from Richard Mulligan, Paxton Whitehead and Jane Carr, words fail me. These are trained actors?Thankfully, the uncredited William Franklin, was, as ever, the consummate professional. If he watched the rushes, he probably requested to be left off the credit list.How Simon must have shuddered.

Ironically, I was in London in 1996 for a few days in the summer. When this film aired on television, I was excited. It had a great cast but when it came to air. It was embarrassing to watch. This is one of Neil Simon's weakest stories. I am sure he could have come up with something better and interesting to entertain us. I felt embarrassed for the great cast like Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Jonathan Silverman. They had a crazy story. I was surprised by Rolf Saxon who I love playing Julia's brother-in-law living in London with his wife. You could see they were trying so hard for the audience. Despite Rolf's brief appearance, he goes uncredited and that's an outrage for me. I liked watching Madeline Kahn and Richard Mulligan but felt it was too awkward. The worst was Patricia Clarkson, Kristen Johnson, and Kelsey Grammar. I am sorry but it was so hard to watch them. I liked Michael Richards and Julie Hagerty together but felt that they could have used a better story. I liked the brief appearance of British actress, Janine Duvitsky.

The most important thing i can say now about London Suite is that, as a comedy, it's supposed to make you laugh. Well it didn't even make me smile. Not only once. Not even smile. And with that i say it all. I mean be serious! Is that humour?? No way! Every assumed gag is pointless and stupid, the actors play horrible, and that's not all. The worse thing is that it's not original. The idea looks a lot like Four Rooms. The same thing: 4 totally different stories, that happen in the same hotel. Only that in 4R they're presented one by one, and here they are all together. And in 4R they had something connecting them, and here they don't. And in 4R there was the genial Quentin Tarantino on board, here it's a bunch of talentless crew that manages to create one of the worst movies i've ever seen. Although the cast seemed promising: Elaine and Kramer from Seinfeld, Kristen Johnston from The Third Rock From The Sun, and Kelsey Grammar from Fraser and Cheers.So if you by any chance have the chance to see this movie, DON'T. Chose anything else, but this one. Otherwise you'll waste 2 hours of your life. And life is too short to be wasted.Vote: 2 out of 10.