Best movie of this year hands down!

Best movie ever!

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

First, those supposed to be smart viewers don't tell me that I don't get the movie because I'm not a thinking man.The movie is supposed to be a parody and satire. The main character is supposed to be the butt of joke in the movie.Alberts Blook playing himself was a big mistake. The idea of parody is to copy and twist a well known and respected character. Outside of US Albet is virtually unknown. Inside US Brook is practically unfunny. So we ended up with an unfunny character played an unfunny character to portray unfunny comedian.In the whole movie, Bloook goes around to do his unfunny act and shout "look at me, I'm so unfunny. I'm supposed to be unfunny and the audiences in the movie don't laugh with me. It's supposed to be that way so that it's unfunny and the audiences in the movie theater don't laugh at all. It's intended to shoot that way to show my higher intelligence, which is rat brain."It's painful to watch.

This is in many ways a thematic "sequel" of sorts to Brooks' first feature, 1978's "Real Life" -- Brooks essentially plays a version of himself, using his own name, and is making a documentary/essay type film -- so it's best to get comparisons out of the way quickly. It's not as good. But since Real Life is to my mind one of the funniest films ever made and along with Brooks' next three films, a masterpiece, this isn't exactly damning.I hate using the phrase "acquired taste", but if those words do have any meaning then surely Albert Brooks' works as writer-director-star all qualify for the adjective; his reviews have always been divided, the box office always mediocre-to-poor, his fans though as fiercely loyal as any. I count myself as one and am happy to report that after the disaster that was "The Muse", Brooks is back on firmer, funnier, and generally more interesting ground. The satirical premise here is that the US State Department, in trying to find new ways to open dialogs with those angry Allah-worshiping folks, have commissioned a study on what makes people laugh in the Muslim world. Right away Brooks is in his element as the simultaneously arrogant and egotistical, yet self-deprecating and depressed paranoid entertainer -- he learns very quickly that he's hardly the country's first choice for this mission, something that gets repeated often throughout the film. It's all the more humorous and (coincidentally) fitting that the head of the project is played by none other than 3rd-tier recent presidential candidate Fred Thompson, and that Brooks is first sent to predominantly Hindu India (I guess we'd like to know what makes the Hindus laugh too, they're important and they might hate us some day).If you know Brooks, you'll know that much of the humor from here on out will be subtle, low-key, and most of it at the star's expense, but the larger issues of American and Hollywood arrogance in the face of a different culture are never more than a moment's thought away. The bulk of the film has Brooks and his comely multilingual Indian assistant interviewing people on the street (the vast majority of whom speak excellent English, but strangely don't know Brooks' work at all, apart from Finding Nemo, staging a pretty unsuccessful standup show, and illicitly visiting underground Pakistani comics. Some of the best scenes involve Brooks' assistant's boyfriend, a jealous and insecure lover with both a suspicion of and fascination with western culture that is mirrored in Brooks' complex fears of him – as a potential terrorist (for no reason at all) and just as a boyfriend with a potentially dangerous misunderstanding.This all gets a little stale and wraps up rather unconvincingly, alas, but Brooks fans shouldn't fear, the man still has it – he may need some new ideas or insights to bring him back to the level of Modern Romance or Defending Your Life, but at least he's got me laughing again.

I really enjoyed this film but unfortunately, I don't think most people would. The comedy of Albert Brooks is often very dry and subtle and this film is the "Lawrence of Arabia" of all dry films! The laughs are definitely there, but it takes a special sort of person to appreciate it. If you have enjoyed Brooks' films such as LOST IN America and REAL LIFE, then you should appreciate the film--that style humor is definitely present. If you are looking for the Brooks of such films as FINDING NEMO, MOTHER and DEFENDING YOUR LIFE, then you may be very confused or disappointed by the film. That's because, at times, the humor is very painful and subtle--there just aren't belly-laughs in this film.The story begins with the US government asking Brooks to take on the job of going to India and Pakistan to try to discover what makes the Muslims laugh. The thinking is that through this, we can understand their culture better. The problem is that Brooks has no idea how to do this and the government goes about this in a real half-hearted manner. So Brooks, with no understanding of the culture, just blunders in and has no idea what to do. The problem is that the American agents assigned to him are idiots and his Indian assistant, played by Sheetal Sheth, is too nice--telling Brooks that the Indians love him and that he is funny when he truly isn't.Now this brings me to a part of the film that will likely lose a lot of viewers. I understood that Brooks intended this segment to be completely unfunny and the jokes were truly awful as was his delivery, but the part of the movie when he does a comedy show for Indians is hard to watch. Again and again, he tells unfunny jokes or jokes that are impossible to translate to this culture and every attempt bombs. This is done in a very, very long and tedious part of the film. It's supposed to be tedious, but many in the audience will probably hate this. The problem is that Brooks ISN'T a great stand-up comedian--this isn't his forte. Instead, his dry and subtle humor is and his choosing to do such a painful and long comedy routine is definitely tough going for the audience. I appreciated it, but it was also a good place to go to the bathroom or get some popcorn.Aside from that, I found the film thoroughly enjoyable. His "fish out of water" concept worked well and much of this was due to three factors. First, his deadpan delivery and style was easy to like. Second, his assistant (Sheetal Sheth) was terrific. Beautiful, adorable and sweet--she was a great "straight man" to Brooks and truly lit up the film. Sadly, on IMDb they forgot to credit her--though she should have gotten second billing! Third, the way the film ended was wonderful--and couldn't have been better. It ended on a very, very high and cynical note--especially for audience members who are aware of the political situation between India and Pakistan.Overall, I really liked the movie. If it hadn't been for an overly long stand-up segment, I would have given it an 8. I understood Brooks' idea for doing it, but I really think it went on way too long and was way over-the-top. Still, a nice film for anyone wanting a different and cerebral comedy--and don't mind that there are very few "big laughs".NOTE--After initially writing this review, I looked over the other reviews and found TONS of negative reviews. This didn't surprise me--as I said, the style humor is definitely NOT for most viewers. However, a few of the comments were very unfair. First, one knucklehead said "this is typical of ALL American films". This is insulting and uneducated to say, as Brooks' films (in particular, this one) are completely unlike other American comedies. This is like saying "The Teletubbies" is like ALL British television! Sure, it's British, but certainly not typical. Second, some said it was offensive and made fun of Indians or Muslims. I disagree and think this shows some rather "thin skin". In the movie, Brooks was actually the object of almost all the humor. The film did NOT say that Indians or Muslims were humorless--more that Brooks totally misjudged them and was an idiot for how he assumed people around the world all laughed at the same themes in humor (such as his terrible ventriloquism that NO ONE from ANY country would have liked). Sadly, such misguided criticism of the film DOES make many Westerners think (incorrectly) that Muslims or Indians have no sense of humor! The film is gentle in its attitude and self-deprecating. Sure, I can understand and appreciate people not liking the film, but stop reading intent or your own prejudices into the film that just weren't there.

What a wasted opportunity!! Dreadful, a gag free 90 minutes that never raises a smile. Albert Brooks wastes everyones time with being 'intentionally unfunny' with poor material performing to blank faces and disapproval. There's nothing of any depth here. On paper it must have looked lazy, vacuous and empty, devoid of any substance so why bother to make it? Giving him a project after Finding Nemo seems to be the only reason this was made. DREADFUL. An unfunny attempt at comedy, what's more unappealing than that. Given the potential of the situation, this could have been revolutionary, instead it's as funny as listening to a spoiled rich westerner complaining about flying economy. Low I.Q.Crap.