TrueHello 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.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

csimpkins53 I don't understand why this movie has so many negative reviews. Certainly it is not as good as the original which starred the great Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis but it does have it's merits. Steve Martin is in top form, Goldie Hawn has some great lines and is cute as can be. John Cleese? Well he is just hilarious as an extremely rude and arrogant hotel manager who has some, shall we say highly unusual proclivities! It even has a cameo by then New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (as himself) who shows that he does indeed have a sense of humor as he views Martin and Hawn in a "compromising" position at Tavern on the Green in Central Park! There is also a great scene with an encounter group. This group has some sexual "issues" to discuss. Cynthia Nixon is a riot (and very sexy) as an extreme nymphomaniac! I'd jump in with her in a heartbeat (I think I'm the male equivalent of a nympho)!

U.N. Owen A(mother) AWFUL 'remake' of a film.TO 'RE-MAKE - is to redo, I.e, 'update make, au-courrant.I'm NOT 100 years old, nor close to it, however, I saw silent films as a kid - and understood them), than ls to my father.I saw the ORIGINAL Out Of-Towners, on late night TV (remember?) and loved it.I ALSO work in …media, and whilst I DO understand 'maikng money', and 'updating' material (i.e., 'property') for a 'new' (i.e., brain-dead) market, I DO NOT get dumbing-down.This is a perfect example of why 'remakes' are utterly WRONG when made by IMBICILES.If anyone reading this remembers (is SMART enough to) the original (no, I don't care how old, you are, you recall the following; A man from the Midwest gets a job offer, and has o travel (with his wife) to NYC.They board a plane, and things go wrong from there.The plane gets diverted, luggage is lost, their reservation's lost, they end up in Central Park, and he (Jack Lemmon) is (almost) arrested for child molestation,and more.That was the synopsis of the (original) 1970 plot.Now - almost 30 years later, let me ask you;Do planes STILL get diverted? - Luggge lost? - How about reservations - they never lost?So, to be honest, not much has changed (oh, the prices HAVE gone up, but, what else is new).Instead, the makers of thIs garbage think that by taking the 'bones' - an then putting up on it totally new 'skin', they can come up with a 'yuck-fest', and keep the title.NO.This is pure - unadulterated GARBAGE.

Blueghost I've laughed a films that had both Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin. And having seen the original Out of Towners years back, I think I can safely say that this film really doesn't hit any humorous chords.Frank Thornton said it best in a KQED interview back in the 1990s when he came to visit San Francisco after being invited by the PBS station. We laugh at the antics of character on stage and screen because it makes use feel superior, because we wouldn't be dumb enough to do what they have (done). He further went on to say that we wouldn't admit it to ourselves, but that is why we laugh.And when I saw this remake I couldn't help but think that some corporate hired director (who probably did some drugs) was given some paint-by-the- numbers instructions of how to direct this film based on a script that had been doctored to death and resembled nothing of Neil Simon's original work from a couple decades earlier. There's that, and the fact that the gags in this film just don't hold up. There's no motivation nor real shock value in any of them. And even a couple of the gags were in other films that came out around the same time. And when you mix all that together, what have you got?You can't fault the actors. I remember Steve Martin in lots of other films, and his performance is on par here with previous work. Ditto with Goldie Hawn who actually looks more attractive now in this film than she ever did as a young college girl in Laugh In, or as the 30-something damsel in distress during her run in the 70s and 80s. But the material both actors and the supporting cast are given to work with is pretty dismal and just not fresh. And, with all due respect to both leads, part of that may be that Martin and Hawn don't strike us the audience as the naive suburbanites from a very church conservative sector of the nation.A better film needed a different director and most definitely a different script. Or, better yet, don't do remakes in the first place.Watch at your own risk.

slightlymad22 This is the second of two teamings of stars Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin. The first had been "HouseSitter" in 1992. Whilst Hawn has aged a lot in the seven years since, Martin still looks exactly the same. Plot In A Paragraph: A remake of the 1970 Neil Simon comedy follows the adventures of a couple, Henry (Martin) and Nancy Clark (Hawn), who find misfortune at every turn while in New York City for a job interview.Goldie Hawn doesn't make many movies, so when she does, I expect a certain level of quality. Sadly this doesn't deliver as it is totally laugh free. A definite low point in the CV's of both Hawn and Martin. I enjoyed the little reference to a previous Martin movie, "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" when he failed to get a Plane and Train to New York, before renting an automobile. I also thought Alan, Henry and Nancy's son, being played by Goldie Hawn's real son, Oliver Hudson (Adam from TV's "Rules Of Engagement") was a nice touch too. However John Cleese's character, Mr. Mersault, a hotel manager, just seemed to be there to evoke memories of Basil Fawlty from his TV show "Fawlty Towers".In summary Goldie Hawn remains watchable as always, but these are not ninety of her better minutes.