Blueghost Other reviewers have got it wrong. This isn't dry intellectual humor that'll have you laughing hours later after you think about the line. This is vapid and uninspired humor that was horribly executed and horribly shot.The camera angles are uninspired, the music is canned, the acting and overall film are simply poorly directed. Lots of master shots, few if any cutaways. There is absolutely nothing here to accentuate the humor in the film. It's bland as can be.The one scene that had some humor in it was left on the cutting room floor, and the other comedic sequence cast some aspirations on international rivals.The real crux of the matter is that the film presupposes that somehow humor is not universal. It also demonstrates a kind of intellectual high-brow naiveté about the middle east. Ironically enough the film was allegedly aimed at a western audience and trying to bridge social divides, but falls miserably flat on its face through lack of zest.The other aspect is that this is, more likely, a test market film that needed to recoup its losses. It was shot with a minimal budget, and had production values to match. What was being tested here (the director? the viability of shooting a low budget film in India?) I have no idea, but it's market appeal has all the earmarks of a film that is ready to have its return and market analysis fast tracked to the studio heads and marketing department.Why on earth there would be more than 100 reviews for this film is beyond me. What's even more puzzling is why there would be praises heaped onto this thing when it was intentionally half baked.Did I mention the ending? Well, I can't, but it's not funny, just like the rest of the film.

OldAle1 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.

MartinHafer 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.

kenzokeith He should be looking for comedy anywhere on earth he can find it, and hopefully learn a thing or two. There was one good joke in the whole movie, and I can't remember what it was because I was bored to tears the rest of the time. But the worst part wasn't the lack of comedy, it was the poor writing. It was one of those films where plot devices were either wasted or completely absent. And it seemed to avoid any type of climax. The entire movie kind of farted around and eventually there's a "blink-and-you-miss-it" ending where it sort of makes a little sense. I found myself longing for the spoon-fed, cookie-cutter, predictable yet efficient Adam Sandler style comedy plot. I only gave this two stars because I sat through it all and didn't have to leave the room. Bad.