Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Abegail Noëlle While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

framptonhollis This meta masterpiece of comedy is among the most unique and hilarious films of the 21st century so far. Focusing on the filming of a legendarily "unfilmable" novel, Winterbottom's farce is shot like a documentary.The cast acts very natural and their chemistry with one another is captured with a stunning realism, and the atmosphere is reminiscent of a behind the scene featurette directed by Robert Altman (in the later years of his career, for this film reminded me especially of "The Company").Humor and hijinks gleefully burst when things grow to become extremely complicated, polluting the stage with jealously, hidden affairs, and conflicting ideas. While keeping a very realistic atmosphere, "A Cock and Bull Story" manages to get as many laughs as any comedy that is NOT limited by such boundaries. Within the final half hour, there are some more dramatic moments, and these blend into the comedy naturally and effectively. "A Cock and Bull Story" masterfully captures the often chaotic and slyly comic atmosphere of filmmaking-it is a wonderfully funny film that works as a modern day "8 1/2".

smccar77 "Tristram Shandy" is first and foremost a cock and bull story. The comedy is not delivered via a typical linear story arc or by humorous turns of phrase that are funny regardless of context. Rather, Shandy explores the ideas that humor and insight into the human condition can be gained through a film that is highly self-referential and that breaks the rules of conventional storytelling. Beyond this, the film tries to create subtle shifts in audience mood through some seemingly blatant manipulation. These are not easily accomplished goals for a ninety minute film. In fact, Shandy hinges on several assumptions that it makes about who are watching the film. If a potential viewer finds that they, for whatever reason, cannot abide by these initial assumptions, this film will be experienced as a painful bore rather than a nuanced study of the interaction of life and art.The first and possibly most important assumption is that the audience member watching the film will immediately engage the characters and scenarios without having much context. Such an engagement is similar to joining a group of stranger's conversation while at a bar. The bar's convivial atmosphere encourages socialization but actually braking into a new "world" without much prior context is difficult and sometimes uncomfortable. Shandy requires that one take the initial plunge into another "world" very quickly. If one does enter the Shandy world, they are rewarded with rich, sarcastic, and dynamic characters. If one chooses to remain aloof and simply watch the film, then the film quickly degrades into the boring obnoxiousness of being at a bar with a loud and distracting table of strangers.Secondly, Shandy functions when the audience does not pass immediate judgment on the characters. There are no real stock characters to be found here. As such, each character has a variegated personality consisting of positive and negative aspects. Again, think of the bar situation. If one introduced themselves to a table of strangers and then judged them all as boring within thirty seconds, the outcome would be awkward to say the least. Shandy works when the audience interacts with the characters as if they are new acquaintances. Just as new people in our social spheres reveal their personalities over time, the characters in Shandy develop throughout the course of the film. In addition, just as we decide if new people in our social spheres are "good" or "bad," Shandy's characters gain depth if we put them through this extended judgment process.A final assumption is that audience members are able to detect and appreciate fast paced and unexpected sarcasm. In all honesty, this is by far the most difficult challenge to the viewer. As mentioned above, the audience is being asked to quickly loose itself in the context of a somewhat banal world of these complex characters. Now, the audience is also being asked to keep on the lookout for humorous quips and behavior patterns derived from the above mentioned context. This is possibly the least valid of the assumptions. Most audiences are willing to suspend disbelief and loose themselves in the moment (at least I hope they do), yet asking a bunch of strangers to join you for some inside jokes after interacting with them for five to ten minutes is bound to cause problems. Some members of the audience may not want to be included or perhaps miss many of the jokes and humor due to lack of context. If one does realize what is expected of them, the film has a wonderful ability to manipulate and tickle you with some rather brazen tactics. For example, the actor playing Tristram is being visited by his girlfriend and newborn son. In addition, the previous night, the same actor is portrayed as kissing a lovely production assistant. The audience is given the briefest of contexts for establishing the Tristram actor as a lecherous jerk. In a following scene, the actor, director, story writer, and crew discuss how to make Tristram's father's character more appealing to the audience. In the end, the group decides that a scene involving the father holding and caring for his infant son would sway the audience to like him. Following the meeting, the actor finds that his son is crying and takes a minute to change his diaper and sing to him. The lecherous jerk is almost immediately given a "get out of jail free" card due to his kindly actions. The connection is ridiculously blatant. Film crew discusses how to make an unlikeable character more likable and then an unlikeable character does the very same thing. As audience, we are outright told what to expect and yet when it happens, the tender feelings that develop become surprisingly normal. In addition, one is tickled upon realizing the manipulation and the success of the manipulation.In regards to technical notes, Shandy is by all means a professional film. The camera work, editing, pacing, sound, and acting are all very well done. Shandy potentially falters by asking a great deal from an unsuspecting audience. It could be construed as a design flaw that a film practically needs a user's manual before watching. That said, if one does take the time to fulfill the assumptions of the film makers, Shandy is a very humorous look at the idiosyncrasies of a particular group of people.On a personal note, I will be recommending this film to my friends and colleagues. It is somewhat challenging as an experience, but leaves the viewer with the feeling that they just finished a well cooked good meal. I would rank this a 7.5 if possible.

Andrew Steve Coogan, having wowed all with the send-up of Reactionary England that is Alan Partridge, ponders what he will do next.Stephen Fry, channelling the hurt of the Native Americans dug up in the excellent TV show QI, communicates with Partridge via telekinesis. He suggests they show off by making a literary adaptation.This is a joke.Partridge protests at the last paragraph, insisting that "A Cock and Bull Story" is considerably more amusing than it. I smush him. Nonetheless, the film became legion, making lots of people watch.Somewhere, a young man vomits.

Martin Bradley A movie about the making of a movie and the movie in question is "Tristram Shandy", the novel they said was unfilmable and which isn't filmed here. It begins like a deconstruction of the novel in filmic terms, part Tony Richardson's "Tom Jones" and part Karel Reisz's version of "The French Lieutenant's Woman" but it soon abandons that approach in favour of a reasonably straightforward account of the film-making process in which the two stars of the film within the film, Steven Coogan and Rob Brydon, play themselves or rather are acting 'characters' called Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon since this is fiction and not a documentary. It is never as funny or as 'post-modern' as it thinks it is and somehow it is the 'Tristram Shandy' sequences which come off best. Still, it is as idiosyncratic as anything Michael Winterbottom has done, self-indulgent and bold at the same time. It will do until someone actually films "Tristram Shandy".