GetPapa Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Manthast Absolutely amazing

Brenda 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

moonspinner55 European and American characters intermingle in London for comedic Neil Simon stories underlined with pathos or sentiment. Simon's somewhat-withered adaptation of his play is seemingly an extension of many ideas or characters from his theatrical feature "California Suite"...and one that is not above copping ideas from other movies as well. Julia Louis-Dreyfus is an American on her honeymoon without a husband; Madeline Kahn is another tourist who goes out on a date with Scotsman Richard Mulligan (dressed up like David Niven in "Separate Tables"); Michael Richards and Julie Hagerty, in town for Wimbledon, are sidelined by slapstick-y bad luck; while actress Patricia Clarkson reunites with the ex-husband she still holds a torch for, Kelsey Grammar (playing gay). Simon's rhythm hasn't changed over the years: he sets up a joke wryly, detonates the joke dryly, and then delivers a comeback zinger. The whole movie is a series of zingers, most of which are met with stony silence (this is one sitcom that could use a laugh-track). Apparently cast with an eye on the NBC-TV market, the picture could really use some headier talent (Clarkson does well, though the supporting cast making up the staff get the biggest laughs). Louis-Dreyfus has an amusing bit telling a lie which gets bigger and bigger, and Richards' pinched nerve (while an easy target for visual jokes) has some funny repercussions. The TV production is rather cut-rate (as is the score and photography), however it's a relatively painless comedy--albeit one that is passed its prime.

DKosty123 This t v made production has a cast of lots of talent, but no script and sequencing which makes little sense. If there are any entertainment values in this, it is if you want to see a cast member & a little cheeky British humor.Michael Richards is a good physical comedian. This film takes him & disables him after the first sequences with a bad back. That pretty much sets the mood for the abuse that the script makes of the cast. Kelsey Grammar is a good verbal comedian- so have him somber because he has an incurable disease.The only near chuckles in this a a couple of cheeky sequences in Richards room after he is prone with the bad back. Other than that, this film has little to offer. Interestingly there is a sequence in front of a building in London when a bus with a banner about a US state, Pennsy. drives in front of the building on the street. That makes me wonder if that was deliberate, or did they do some back drop filming in the US?

jax713 It's hard to believe this was written by the famous playwright we know and love. Not only does London Suite lack humor, it lacks intelligence. All of the characters are based in stupidity which makes their ensuing plot lines a yawn to watch. The only thing notable about this story is that something so boring and silly could come from the pen of one of our wittiest and most cosmopolitan writers. I suppose there is an audience somewhere that can find entertainment in watching people's ignorance dominate their behavior, but it's not my cup of tea. The real shame is that a talented and eclectic cast of comedic actors was assembled for this un-funny script and it is so very obvious that they are each working very hard to find the essence of their character. No doubt, in the end, they realized they didn't have anything to work with and their futility comes through loud and clear in their delivery and body language. Don't bother with this unless you want to see how even a great writer can go bad.

Mickey Knox The most important thing i can say now about London Suite is that, as a comedy, it's supposed to make you laugh. Well it didn't even make me smile. Not only once. Not even smile. And with that i say it all. I mean be serious! Is that humour?? No way! Every assumed gag is pointless and stupid, the actors play horrible, and that's not all. The worse thing is that it's not original. The idea looks a lot like Four Rooms. The same thing: 4 totally different stories, that happen in the same hotel. Only that in 4R they're presented one by one, and here they are all together. And in 4R they had something connecting them, and here they don't. And in 4R there was the genial Quentin Tarantino on board, here it's a bunch of talentless crew that manages to create one of the worst movies i've ever seen. Although the cast seemed promising: Elaine and Kramer from Seinfeld, Kristen Johnston from The Third Rock From The Sun, and Kelsey Grammar from Fraser and Cheers.So if you by any chance have the chance to see this movie, DON'T. Chose anything else, but this one. Otherwise you'll waste 2 hours of your life. And life is too short to be wasted.Vote: 2 out of 10.