You won't be disappointed!

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.

The first must-see film of the year.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Comedian Brooks tries hard, probably too hard, while the script makes a hash of Hollywood satire. Playing a moviemaker in the film, actor Brooks' promising idea is to document a year in the life of a typical American family. Trouble is that he's so full of himself and his ideas, he can't leave the family alone long enough to act out their own lives. Worse, he's got a battery of distracting psychologists analyzing the minutiae (coffee cups) of the family's daily life. So, what starts out as a promising docu idea, ends up a fiasco.Actually, my little recap makes events sound more coherent than they are. All in all, the movie's really a mess, despite occasionally funny moments. No doubt about it, Brooks has an inventive flair (the space-helmet cameras, for one). But in this movie, too many of his ideas simply cascade forth, remaining ill-formed (the psychologists), or plain non-starters (the dead horse, the gynecology office). Still, the latter raise a thought-provoking question- that is, just how broad should a real life account be. Should it include bathroom trips, for example. And if a line is drawn, where should it be and why. The issue is raised somewhat in the movie, but stumbles around with neither depth nor laughs. Looks to me like a critical eye was needed in addition to the three writers (Brooks & Co.). That is, someone who could weed out the losers and shape the winners. After all, the premise itself remains a promising one. Too bad that the humorous Grodin is wasted in a deadpan role that preempts his often subtle brand of comedy. I kept hoping I'd see some trace of his churlish shtick, but it's frozen deadpan all the way.Anyway, I'm not usually an advocate of re-makes, but here, in more disciplined hands, the results could be both thought-provoking and knee-slapping. As things stand, the movie fails on both accounts.

Albert Brooks tries so hard in this fake documentary about American family life that you find yourself willing to wade through the movie's many slow moments and gags that just don't succeed. Plus, the movie can be quite funny from time to time. But, in general, I look at this like a fake documentary that was a noble experiment that ultimately failed--but is still worth seeing. After all, if it hadn't been for films like this, maybe they never would have made films like BEST IN SHOW as well as AND GOD SPOKE.Although the purpose of this documentary is to show American family life in an unobtrusive manner, ultimately, the family becomes like a lot of modern "reality TV" families and the action becomes more and more suggested by the producer, Brooks. And, ultimately, the filming takes on a dramatic impact on the family.Funny, insightful but far from perfect.

...this is one of the funniest American movies of the late 20th century, and like 'Tap' it also mines the rich vein of documentary-film arrogance. Brooks' strength as a comic observer lies in his self-obsessed insincerity, a man of riotously extreme unction. It's almost impossible to pick a favorite scene from this spoof, especially for industry insiders.

'Real life' is the perfect send-up of the worst scenario possible for a film maker shooting a documentary, i.e., what happens when your subject matter loses interest in the project before completion? Albert Brooks, as the seemingly besieged director of this 'loaf of reality' year long vigil with a typical American family, walks a fine line between egomania and neuroticism and scores with broad belly laughs both ways. Charles Grodin as the head of the suburban clan from which this film within a film emanates exudes his special brand of bland exuberance at the beginning of this captive camera stakeout inside his home(and everywhere else he may go) provided his life is depicted as letter perfect from day to day. When such is not the case and the obtrusive lenses are interfering with his job as a veterinarian, (in a sequence that has to be seen rather than described) then Grodin regards the camera presence as nothing more than an albatross and mentally switches himself off. Albert Brooks, meanwhile, never says quit. Every so-called hair in the eye of the lense is still a perfect scene regardless of the participation or lack of it, thereof, from his celluloid family. For Brooks regards this film as 'paramount'(oops) over the desires of his cast of characters. Brooks facile mind works methodically from beginning to end. From his perspective, nothing can go wrong, everything is in its place with a place for everything. So when his documentary and the human equation around it blow up in his face , his conferences with colleagues are hilarious as he tries various remedies to salvage not only his project but his self-image. Brooks is a comic delight as a man who cannot take criticism regarding his methods and his interaction with project staff are decidedly one-sided, but in the capable hands of this farceur, his myopic viewpoint is always good for guffaws galore. Real life should be this funny.