Recensioni degli utenti

Goldie Hawn is a wonderful comedy actress; Steve Martin is a wonderful comedy actor; Neil Simon is a wonderful comedy writer; and New York City is a wonderful place to use as a setting for a movie. Yet, this movie is a clunker; it's as flat as a pancake, and an overcooked one at that. Although certain scenes do provoke a laugh, in general this movie simply is not funny. The story is a pure Hollywood comedy potboiler, that is, a formula movie and a poor retread of the 1970 original, which itself wasn't the funniest movie either, but that's for another review. The idea of everything going wrong during a trip is nothing new, but if properly treated it can produce laughs. But in this movie the things that go wrong are so absurd and contrived that the laughs are lost. What happens to the Clarks would not and could not happen to anyone else, hence the movie becomes irrelevant to the audience and loses its meaning as a satire or parody. John Cleese provides some humor as the hotel manager but his presence is limited and in no way comes close to rescuing this movie from its essential banality.

I despise Goldie Hawn usually, and I found her very funny and touching in this movie as a supportive wife who's sacrificed her career for her children and now hopes to "suck the marrow" out of life.

Steve Martin, as always, is hilarious. He is partially reprising his role in the BRILLIANT "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" with a vengeance in this film. His attempt at controlling his demeanor at the car rental place by keeping a big smile on his face was really funny. "This sign should say 'We have car.' honey!"

The homage to "Mrs. Robinson" looking through Goldie Hawns' legs at a sheepish looking Steve Martin took me by surprise as well.

And, what more can you say about John Cleese? The man is nothing if not funny in everything he does. He is the anti-Fawlty in this movie, and he has a fairly juicy part as well, so look to him for some great laughs as well.

Don't listen to all these people with no sense of humor. This isn't a classic film, but it's MUCH better than people have been saying. A little cheesy, a lot of fun.

Almost didn't see this, based on reviews here. Glad I did, it was a very entertaining film, with many genuine laughs. The only way I can explain the ton of bad reviews here is that I think the movie industry tries to hype every movie as if it was the absolute best ever made. It raises our expectations too high.

This isn't a "great" movie, or a "blockbuster," but is was solidly entertaining throughout.

I have always been a big fan of Steve Martin, and hilarious 80's comedies like 'Trains Planes and Automobiles', so thats why I decided to rent this film. And I can tell you, I was not disappointed! Its not an hilarious movie, but it is funny from beginning to end. The mishaps that Goldie and Steve go through are sometimes predictable, but are always good for a chuckle. And John Cleese just steals the show. I have not seen the 1970 version, but I found this one pleasant and light hearted. I love watching 'endless mishap' comedies like National Lampoon's Vacation and 'Trains Planes and Automobiles', and this is another one to add to my collection. Steve Martin, you are king! And I can;t understand everyones negative comments on this film - maybe they were expecting just too much.

Unfortunately, this movie is so bad. The original Out of Towners was manic and very funny, of course they used the script written by Neil Simon. For some reason Neil Simons script is not used in this film so it falls flat time and time again. Even the audience I was with never laughed. The direction is very slow and tedious and when there is a joke it is given away so the joke dies i.e. The couple having sex in the park. They announce it is a lighting ceremony for New York, well we all know the lights are going to come on and we will be able to see cute and mugging Goldie & Steve do a bit of slap stick. The whole movie winds up being like this...a joke is set up and given away. Why isn't Goldies hair ever even messed up in the movie. You will also notice every close up of Goldie (they use a very intense soft lens). I suggest you rent the original with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis, that's if you want to laugh.

Steve and Goldie have a fast-paced fun romp throughout Gotham. Cleese's in-drag antics brought audience to hysterics. Recommend it as a break from the more intense titles recently released.

Anyone who saw the original 1970 movie knows how an excellent cast, script, and director can put together a comedy masterpiece. By the same token, it's easy to see how the opposite of that can create another insipid Hollywood bore-a-thon! This movie was pathetic! Had it not been for John Cleese (a comic genius), I would have walked out about 15 minutes into this dreadful waste of celluloid.

Neil Simon wouldn't write another screenplay for this version (he said that he couldn't improve on the first), and I'm surprised that after this cinematic fiasco he wouldn't sue for defamation of humor!

Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis did such a wonderful job in the original, what were the producers thinking about when they cast this one? How could the director and editor look at these scenes and think any of them were funny? I don't know, but one thing I do know---it's no surprise why foreign and independent movies are becoming more and more popular.......

Remake of the dreadful 1970 Jack Lemmon-Sandy Dennis "comedy" about a couple from Ohio who go to NYC (for a job interview for the husband) and have everything go wrong. The original was sick, morbid and had the very annoying Dennis. This one is funny, not hilarious, but funny. It has a better cast (Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn are comedians--Lemmon and Dennis weren't), and has John Cleese who is hilarious as a snotty hotel manager--his dead pan delivery of all his lines really worked. Not a masterpiece but not the disaster I heard it was--for instance the previous Hawn-Martin movie "Housesitter" was much worse. This moves quickly, has an excellent music score and the stars are both in top form. Worth seeing.

I am a big fan of the original movie with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis. So you can imagine how excited I was to see what they might have done with it. Unfortunately, it turned out that instead of seeing what they had done WITH it, I was saddened to see what they had done TO it. I have read many places where Troll 2 is considered the worst movie ever made, and I agree it is pretty cheezy. But as far as a really bad movie, this one out-does Troll 2 in every possible way. Shame on Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn for accepting to make this abomination! For one thing, it has nothing remotely akin to the original script of Neil Simon's. The basic premise is similar...New York, job interview, mishaps. That's about it. The comedy(?) is nothing but stupid slapstick crap that I often refer to as cheap and easy. I like Steve Martin, but I keep wondering why he keeps doing these horrible remakes of good classics (e.g. Cheaper By The Dozen). I issue this review as a warning against seeing this waste of time. From here on, watch it, but at your own risk. Don't say I didn't warn you!

Dealing with the misfortunes of married couple Henry and Nancy Clark as they are vexed by distresses while staying in New York City for a job interview . Director Sam Weisman boasts a good cast such as Goldie Hawn , Steve Martin and John Cleese . Being an amusing comedy of an unfortunate couple who decides to embark on a simple business trip to New York . It deals with a sympathetic marriage living in the small , quiet town of Twin Oaks , Ohio , they're Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, then both of whom travel to New York City to a job interview and along the way everything that could go wrong does . Throughout their tumultuous journey , they are thwarted by every tourist nightmare obstacle as retouring to Boston, and there resulting in swindle , robbing , missed trains , cab mishaps , mugging, maxed credit cards , as well as the hotel hasn't honoured the reservation , among others. As their unexpected adventure does throw up a few very funny set-pieces . When they take you for an out-of-towner, they really take you !. They fell in love 24 years ago... and in the next 24 hours, they'll remember why !.

An enjoyable Manhattan melodrama with great performances from an excellent couple : Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn , as they play a likable Midwestern marriage , including laughters , funny incidents , amusement and entertainment . Neal Simon's script is , as always , both fun and wholesome. Steve Martin's acting is magnificent and Goldie Hawn is nice , as well . As Steve Martin suffers the mounting indignities with the skill acquired from acting urban neurotics for most his career . They are well accompanied by a fine support cast , such as : John Cleese, Cynthia Nixon, Joe Grifasi, Jack McGee, Josh Mostel , Sabella and even Mayor Rudolph Giuliani . It was remake of classic 1970 by Arthur Hiller with Jack Lemmon , Sandy Dennis .

The motion picture was competently directed by Sam Wesisman but with no originaly , because of being a simply copy from a very better original. Sam is a good craftsman who made all kinds of genres with penchant for comedy and drama . Weisman was born in New York, and attended Yale University, where he began acting in and directing plays. He then started working as an actor on the New York stage and, moving to Los Angeles, took a recurring role in TV comedy series 'Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman'. After several other television roles he took up directing such shows as 'Moonlighting' and 'L. A. Law' and in 1994 made his big screen debut with the sequel to 'The Mighty Ducks' titled "D2: The Mighty Ducks¨, and other comedies as ¨George of the jungle¨, ¨Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star¨, ¨Bye bye love¨, ¨What's the Worst That Could Happen?¨ . Rating : 6/10. Decent and acceptable comedy . The movie will appeal to comedy enthusiasts and Steve Martin , Goldie Hawn fans .

Married Ohio couple Henry (Steve Martin) and Nancy Clark (Goldie Hawn) are in a rut. Their daughter left medical school to pursue acting. Their son leaves for his European trip and they face the empty nest with dread. Henry lost his job and hasn't told his wife. He has a job interview in New York City and she surprises him by joining him on the trip. The plane is forced to land in Boston and Henry is desperate to get to his interview the next morning. Mr. Mersault (John Cleese) is the annoying hotel manager.

I don't like the couple's bickering. I don't like them period. This is Planes, Trains, but without the sweet charms of John Candy. Steve Martin is basically the same guy. She's a pretty horrible person and slightly dumb. She's supposed to be adorable but she's entitled and annoying. The bickering stupidity of one liners could work if I actually like these people. I don't think anybody is likeable. I can't believe that Mersault is in the service industry. That's not to say that these are not expertly crafted zingers. It's just that I really don't like anybody. It makes it difficult to like the comedy.

Every time I think about that movie, I always laugh over John Cleese's character, Mr. Mersault.

He's rude, sophisticated in the outside, but he's also a transvestite who loves to dress in ladies' clothes dancing to Donna Summer's Bad Girl! And when I hear Donna Summer's song, it reminds me of John Cleese.

Another scene I liked was when they were in the limo, and a drugged Steve Martin describes his wife as being "Frisky!. He tells his wife to say that word as well as Mr. Mersault. The hotel manager loved that new word, "Frisky!".

Years ago, I went to see John Pizzarelli in concert. Afterwards, I met him & told him I liked him the movie. He started singing "That Old Black Magic". Here's the zinger, I told him that his performance was very "Frisky"! Pizzarelli laughed at my comment!

That made the movie funny for me!

An empty nest couple from Ohio (Steve Martin & Goldie Hawn) travels to the Big Apple and has many misadventures as they reevaluate their relationship and lives. John Cleese plays a hotel manager.

"The Out-of-Towners" (1999) is a remake of the 1970 comedy, which I've never seen. Critics are too hard on it since it gives ya what ya pay for: A fun hour and a half with a spirited cast and quality locations.

The film was shot in Massachusetts (Arlington & the turnpike) and New York City with some stuff done in Los Angeles & Santa Ana (the airport).

GRADE: B-

I loved the original, Jack Lemmon at his best. Great story, typical Neil Simon script. I'm not a Sandy Dennis fan, but she was very good in this role, surprisingly.

Two of my favorite comedic actors are Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin. I grew up on them. But, they just don't cut the mustard in this remake. I can't place my finger on it, but it just isn't funny. It's not just the writing, it's the actors and their direction.

I was so excited when this movie was released. Who doesn't love John Cleese? Well, I don't in this role. I did enjoy seeing a great stand-up comic, Steve Mittleman, in a cameo role in the early portion of the film. Mittleman was one of the funniest comics I remember from my childhood days.

This movie is a waste of time.

Granted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.

In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like "The Jerk", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.

To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.

In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original "Odd Couple" again.

As was the original, the remake of "The Out of Towners" is a comedy about a series of mishaps that befall a naive Ohio couple when they venture to New York City. Their plane is rerouted to Boston. They fail to catch a train from there to the Big Apple. Then they rent a car, which they wreck minutes after arriving in Manhattan. Things go downhill from there.

'Fine' as 'fine' can be, this new version of Neil Simon's tale of city lunacy has its moments, mostly thanks to the brief but welcome stiff upper lip of John Cleese, but doesn't offer much more. Hawn and Martin are perfectly decent as a team, but it's Cleese who steals the show. He steals every scene he appears in and outshines both the film's "stars" whenever they appear in the same shot. Also, director Sam Weissman offers a good looking comedy, with plenty of cityscapes and chases, especially during the night time up at Central Park. The bit of our leads under the bridge in the shadows is actually rather beautiful. Directing and Technical Credits are Average, nothing special... In fact, the Whole Film has a "Nothing Special" kind of Feel about it, no one except the three Principle Performers seem to be trying very hard, but If you Accept that Going In, you'll have a Lot more fun with it.

Overall rating: 6 out of 10.

This film so NOT funny - such a waste of great stars, who seem to be caught up so in their own stardom that they forget. Only shining moments belong to John Cleese as the hotel manager who likes to dress up - you almost fall out of your chair with helpless laughter when he dances to Donna Summer's "Bad Girls" while wearing high heels, a mink coat and a dainty hat. The rest: FORGET IT!

Can you recommend an entire comedy based on two funny moments? I fear not. But I am forced to argue with my self about it: This movie does have some laughs in it, compared to many other comedies that do not, but there just aren't enough. I am reminded of the old saying that if you enjoy a movie, tell your friends to go see it, no matter what the merit. And while i did enjoy most of this light-headed entertainment, there are so many things keeping me from recommending it.

The story evolves from at least six different comedy classifications and probably more: the road movie, buddy, slapstick, sex-oriented, physical and the dumb and dumber type. The problem is, the characters are the only thing going for the movie, for the screenplay is dearly week and pale, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that, so it is up to the cast to bring in the humor. They do, to a certain extent, but their purpose in the plot is constantly changing. For instance, the Goldie Hawn character, during one of the movies "Dumb and Dumber" syndromes, is stupid on an airplane, smart in a hotel, witty during a selected joke, sly while scheming a blackmail plan and tender while looking at her spouses relationship with her. You have to keep the characters consistent, if not, all comic purpose is non-existent.

This type of movie seldom works. Earlier this year we saw Ben Affleck and Sandra Bullock doing the same sort of things in "Forces of Nature," last year's "The Odd Couple 2," also a Neil Simon remake. There are tricks filmmakers can use to make a successful movie like this, but they are hardly ever used.

The film stars Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn as a middle aged couple who just experienced the cold move of their son, the husband lost his job, and the wife is having a mid-life crisis. Things are not going well, and they only get worse as they make an occupational tip to New York, but their train leaves them behind after their airplane is delayed.

The characters go though lost of tragic events while they try to get to their destination, but when they do get there, all the problems are solved, because this is the kind of movie that would do anything no madder what to contain a charming and uplifting ending.

The movie as a whole isn't all that funny. But the two selected laugh riots come from the sex oriented type humor. The first scene takes place in a sex-therapy session in which out of towners become mixed up in. The people there have many problems. One man masturbates seventeen times a day, another woman has sex with too many people, she is called the "Sexaholic." The other scene develops from the couple have sex in a dark, lifeless park, only for the mayor to light up the grand opening right in the middle of their doings.

If you chose to see the movie, don't be surprised if you enjoy it. I liked some of the film, but not quite enough to recommend.

Someone should tell Goldie Hawn that her career as a teen-age gamin ended thirty years ago.

This is one of the worst films released in years, an unequivocal disaster in which the two leads give themselves over to a frenetic exposition of their trademark tics in an effort to make up for a bad script and bad directing. This thing should have been smothered at birth.

I hope John Cleese got paid a lot for having his name attached to this disaster. He is the only performer who came through this stinking mess more or less unscathed, his only fault being a failure to realize that the rest of the cast would sink the picture.

Well, it is a Steve Martin movie so of course you will laugh!! There are some very funny parts to this movie. It does, however, have a tendency to stop on a dime and go the other way - From humor to serious relationship discussions. But, ultimately, a Steve Martin/Goldie Hawn combination...with a touch of John Cleese...add to a fun movie that will make you laugh out loud!

I laughed exactly once and smiled exactly once. The rest of the time I was amazed at how awful this movie truly was. I was never a big fan of the original, but it is magnificent next to this version.

I don't know why so many people are slamming this movie, I thought it was hilarious. Goldie Hawn, Steve Martin, and John Cleese make the movie very, very funny. A decent sense of humor is all one needs to laugh from beginning to end.

The Out-of-Towners is one of the better comedies I have seen. With a stellar (but not Oscar-worthy) cast, the Out-of-Towners is a classic to me. Acting in terms of Martin and Hawn (they play a stressed-out, overdue married couple who's kids have been sent to college) is good, but not spectacular. Martin is talented, (as he shows here), but he cannot carry a film by himself, which is where John Cleese comes in. Cleese is a uptight, cross-dressing hotel manager with a presence that takes the movie to the next level. This is a movie that is helped by its directing and writing, as many of the funny moments (which are clever and well thought-out) should be credited to the writers more so than the stars. This and Bringing Down the House are the best Steve Martin films I have seen since Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.

but a truly moronic remake of a bright, acerbic, top jack lemmon film that actually had a plot and moved through it; this is steve martin after he stopped being funny anymore, walking through a series of stupid skits- a la wow, wouldn';t it be funny if the car they rent has a gps they can't understand and they drive through a fish market; hello? overall very slow, disjointed, bad one-off skits, and instead of being unlucky and chipping a tooth martin and goldie hawn are incredibly stupid; hard to imagine a bunch of Hollywood cokeheads sitting around thinking the rushes were funny, entertaining even; also missing the good origmal music, the period scenes of nyc that are fun to see decades later; remember snl- and the thing about martin looking funny and making odd expressions was that it was the kicker to really good line; take away that and the frill are stale and fall flat