Pour le meilleur ou pour le pire

This movie has all of the charm of a 2nd grader playing around with a video camera and just as much plot. The story begins with a charming love story that has no root in reality and does not improve after that. At least the film is consistent. The movie tries hard enough to make the audience laugh but the end result is a series of jokes that are extremely predictable. I think its safe to say that just about every line in this film was a plaid out cliché. Its hard to believe that people were actually paid to create this movie. I guess it stands as proof that if the paycheck is big enough, someone will be willing to do it. I had actually never seen a film in the IMDb bottom 100 before, so at the very least I can now say that I have.

You cannot improve on perfection. Most authorities consider the original TV series to be one of the all-time great sitcoms ever made. Its keys were its appropriateness to its era, and the brilliant cast.

While I certainly appreciate Cedric the Entertainer's considerable talents, with all due respect to him, he is NOT Jackie Gleason, and the other members of this cast cannot hold a candle to the likes of Art Carney and Audrey Meadows.

Here's a tip to Hollywood:

Instead of trying to make every TV show into a movie, why not show some creativity and actually come up with something NEW? If you need a reminder, remember Tom Arnold's horrific remake of McHale's Navy.....or the God-awful remake of Sergeant Bilko of a few years back. You can't do better than the original, now or ever.

If I could give this no stars, I would.

The movie needs a new title. Thanks Hollywood you have just destroyed the concept of a TV Show that was one of my favorites. On the way of out of the theater people were bitching and asking if they could get their money back.

Idea....rename the movie it has nothing to do with the TV series.

Where is the feeling that you use to get after watching the honeymooners.

What happened to creating a movie that depicts the era that the original was filmed in.

What happened to casting? The characters in the new movie are nothing like the TV series.

This remake should be renamed or removed. Its a load of crap!

A remake, or movie version, of a TV show is nothing new. However, lets keep some similarity here. The first big change in "artistic" change that I noticed recently was Dare Devil where The Kingpin was played by Michael Duncan. I love his work, but Kingpin was a huge WHITE GUY. Now we have The Honeymooners in which the families are BLACK. What the F***. Even in this day of political correctness how can they expect us not to notice that. Even in all the other comments I looked at no one mentioned this. Come on! Enough is enough. This would be like re-filming Patton with Morgan Freeman. But, given that no one seemed to "notice" the characters of this movie are of the wrong race I would be willing to bet no one would say anything if Freeman was portrayed as Patton. And, with that I say lets make a movie about President Lincoln, played by Bill Cosby, proclaiming slaves are free, and they can be played by Philapinos.

i watched this movie a few hours ago, thinking it would be good, i'm a fan of Cedric the entertainer and the old 50s show. but half way through when i realized that i nor anyone in the audience had laughed at all, not even a small chuckle, i thought "i thought this was supposed to be a comedy" it was OK to watch once, but its not a comedy as it was meant to be.

Cedric the Entertainer was not a good choice for the part of Ralph kramden, he tries to hard to duplicate Jackie Gleason, he should have just made the part his own and did what came naturally. Mike Epps wasn't as bad as Cedric in his portrayal of Ed Norton. All in all it really isn't a comedy movie, its not funny at all, just a bad imitation of a classic 50 TV series.