Don't listen to the negative reviews

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

For all of you bad critics.I've been looking at the comments people make on movies such as "Dough Boys" and "Never Die Alone" and all I have to say to the bad critics is a few comments. Most of you who rate these movies based on it's cinematic beauty and character, never take the time to view it for what it was meant. These movies are all great in my book, one being because they are things that I have seen since I was 8 years old and still see today, so I can relate to them. Which is what they are, stories that are told for the enjoyment of people who can relate to them and to show those who cannot, the reality that these characters lived in relation to real life situations.But since we have a lot of people who were born with silver spoons in their mouth trying to make their voices be the base of the percussion line, they can and will never see it that way. Every time they watch a movie their looking at the camera detail, the acting to be 10 stars, the story to be about white houses with picket fences and a happy ending under a rainbow, while we who relate to the story always think the movie was great because it speaks for us, it lets everyone who see's it know that these things do happen, regardless of it's budget and cinematography.So to all you bad movie critics, My advice to you is to stop watching these movies that you cannot relate to, or just stop being a critic and just keep it to yourself.Amsterdam, Holland

I will not understand Hollywoods obsession with making over old TV shows geared towards younger people. I don't want to sound like my grandfather, but why not just make a movie about two people with get rich quick schemes? Why do they feel the need to sully the classic that is the Honeymooners when almost every kid in America who saw this movie had no idea it was a remake of a good TV show. It was almost like when Gus Van Sant decided to redo Psycho. I went to see it in the theater because I was such a fan of the original. And half the kids in the audience thought they had come to see a slasher movie. They had no idea of its origin and that bothers me. Just like they are going to 'update' Have Gun Will Travel. A movie based on the 50's TV series with Eminem in the lead. Are these people kidding me?!

Harsh, Harsh, Harsh!! I am always blown away by how harsh IMDb reviewers can be!! I recently caught the Honeymooners on a movie network and decided to give it the old college try. Having seen a few reruns here and there of the original Honeymooners CERTAINLY this film would have faired better having NOT been a supposed remake of the original Jackie Gleason classic. It has little to nothing to do with the original except for names and occupations. Whereas the original took place entirely in Ralph and Alice's small and modest apartment with Ralph cooking up schemes and Alice getting angry and Ralph's boisterous loud personality this one takes place more outside the apartment with Ralph coming up with some outlandish and rather humorous schemes to make them rich.Cedric the Entertainer, who I have never been a big fan of, is no replacement for Jackie Gleason, that much is for certain. Cedric tries his hand at the loud, obnoxious Ralph Kramden but is more lovable and understandable then Gleason's Kramden. But he does a decent job and leads the film well enough to be watchable. Mike Epps takes the role as Ralph's best friend and cohort Ed Norton. Epps is not the physical comedian that Art Carney was, he doesn't even come close. Ed is far more of a backseat character and there is really no chemistry between Epps and Cedric that is needed for their wild and outlandish ideas. Epps is a really unfortunate casting job and character in the film because Norton was always one of my favorites with his bumbling but lovable personality and it just isn't there this time around. Gabrielle Union gives a stand out performance in this film. She is terrific as down to earth, and intelligent Alice Kramden. I would never think her and Cedric would have any chemistry (similar to the odd pairing of Gleason and Meadows) but Union makes it work and they are cute together. Even the scene of them meeting is endearing and sets up a very real romance between them despite Ralph's madcap ways. Union is really great in this film. Regina Hall is wasted as Trixie Norton. She has zero personality and is just always in the background. She adds little to nothing to the story and is unfortunately cast. The Nortons as a whole were a waste to the film although obviously necessary but add nothing to it. I also must mention Carol Woods who plays Alice's mother in a small role but she is terrific. She is funny and it's fun to watch her and Cedric clash which is definitely a necessity to Honeymooners humor.Despite some odd miscasting and trying to wrap your head around why this is The Honeymooners the film is fun, clean, just a nice little family comedy that is easy to watch. Sure it's fluff but it's FUN and there is some laughs to be had. The schemes and the plot are easy to follow and fun to watch as well. I know this isn't the greatest film, in fact it's pretty plain but it absolutely is watchable and there is far worse out there and I enjoyed sitting through it and I don't hate Cedric The Entertainer nearly as much as I used to and I have a whole new respect for Gabrielle Union who was really a strong female lead in an averagely written script. I think if you want a nice little fluffy comedy then you'll seriously enjoy this one but if you're expecting The Honeymooners in any way shape or form...well don't. Go in it with different expectations and give it a chance. Unexperienced director John Schultz is probably just learning the ins and outs and for an attempt like this he does adequately. 7/10

If you take into account this is a remake of a classic show, which is next to impossible to do well without offending people, it's not too bad. The movie isn't trying to be Moulin Rouge or Out of Africa. It's just a silly comedy that's designed to entertain. The fact that the players are African American give the story a fresh twist.Given that, the movie is adequate. The plots is predictable, the jokes are so so but the chemistry between Cedric the Entertainer and Mike Epps is quite good. They stop short of the extremely abusive relationship the old Ralph and Ed had which I actually find refreshing. Rent the DVD for the deleted scenes/outtakes with a very funny ad lib with these two.John Leguizamo completely steals the show and make this movie worth seeing. His lines are laugh-out-loud funny and are delivered with such off the cuff and un-selfconscience grace he leaves you wanting more. His performance his a must-see.