London Suite

Ironically, I was in London in 1996 for a few days in the summer. When this film aired on television, I was excited. It had a great cast but when it came to air. It was embarrassing to watch. This is one of Neil Simon's weakest stories. I am sure he could have come up with something better and interesting to entertain us. I felt embarrassed for the great cast like Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Jonathan Silverman. They had a crazy story. I was surprised by Rolf Saxon who I love playing Julia's brother-in-law living in London with his wife. You could see they were trying so hard for the audience. Despite Rolf's brief appearance, he goes uncredited and that's an outrage for me. I liked watching Madeline Kahn and Richard Mulligan but felt it was too awkward. The worst was Patricia Clarkson, Kristen Johnson, and Kelsey Grammar. I am sorry but it was so hard to watch them. I liked Michael Richards and Julie Hagerty together but felt that they could have used a better story. I liked the brief appearance of British actress, Janine Duvitsky.

This is a total bomb. The play on which it is based is also a bomb, considering the source. The baker's dozen of super talented actors could not save this monument to mediocrity. It truly screens like the very definition of a made-for-TV movie, only from the eighties rather than 1996. It's almost as if Mr. Simon was trying to squeeze out another "Suite" as excellent and successful as the first two . . . oh, wait . . . I guess that might be the point (?!?), but apparently the only point. A very constipated mash-up of retro-'60's dialogue and '90's comedic sensibilities, there is awkwardness to be had at nearly every turn.

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.

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.

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?