Her-Excellency Have you ever literally cringed? I felt like doing so at many times during this film. Let's call it a movie, as I think 'film' should be reserved for something better.To begin, I WANTED to like it. I really never followed Rose Byrne, but I liked her in X-Men, and I have liked Anna Farris in a couple of things. The first twenty minutes or so however should have been a clear indication that I really wasn't going to, and I should have cut my losses then and there. But no. I watched until the sleep-inducing end.NONE of the characters are very likable although their unlikeablity ranges from mild unlikeability to extreme dislike. Nat (Rose Byrne's character) is a total witch and you get the idea that no matter who she is married to, that won't change. Her husband, played by Rafe Spall is the most likable, again, of unlikeable characters, and is portrayed as dumb, uninteresting and a moron sometimes. Simon Baker's character is just dull, uninteresting, and it felt like the actor was just calling his scenes in. Anna Farris looked pretty bad and her character was such a tremendous pushover you kind of wanted to slap her. Oh, and a special mention to Rafe Spall's character's best friend who should win an award for most annoying supporting character EVER. Note to the makers of this film: YOU CANNOT have a hit if most of your characters have almost no appeal whatsoever.The premise too was just bad-awful and you know it is a movie while watching it because in the real world no real person would act/react the way any of these characters acted in several of the scenes. The comedy itself wasn't HORRIBLE, it just wasn't really THERE. There are literally NO laugh-out-loud moments, although there are a couple of cute 'haha', funny scenes. Mostly though, again, you just feel as if you have to cringe in embarrassment for the fake (in every sense of the word) "people".The ending is so ... trite ... but fits the entirety of the movie well, in that nothing about it is any good.All in all, I wish I had skipped it.

Julesecosse This film is inappropriate, politically incorrect and at times even offensive; but, occasionally it is uproariously funny, to the point of tears (for me at least).For some unknown reason I am a fan of Ana Faris - maybe it's her total American cuteness which catches this bloke from across the pond; I'm not sure, but I do like her in movies.I wouldn't recommend this movie to those of a sensitive nature; and it certainly isn't one I would take my mother or grandmother to; but is probably more in the age group of my son and nephews; the 20 to 35 year old demographic would probably find it apropos to the current times and funny.Contrary to what I have read in other reviews; I would recommend concentration as there is the odd nod to the leslie Nielson movies such as Airport and the Naked Gun series where things happen in the background separate to the main story; admittedly though they are not that frequent.

Troy Putland Some rom-coms can be too formulaic. Not I Give It a Year. Sometimes the lead man is funnier than the lead woman, or vice-versa. This film is chock-full of laughs, mainly stemming from Rafe Spall's stay-at-home, laid back, but often lazy book-writer. Less so for his newly-wed, Rose Byrne, who's an uptight office worker. They clearly don't match, and they obviously have feelings for other people. The gags make IGIAY more than enjoyable, as they're outrageous and often embarrassing. Hats off to the foul- mouthed Minnie Driver who's Bryne's sister, and Stephen Merchant, Rafe Spall's misogynistic best friend. The American love-interest Anna Faris and Simon Baker fair less well, but happen to be involved in two of three best scenes of the film.

HoldenSpark Sometimes when you wonder where comedy could possibly go from here, from this moment in time (I'm writing this review Sept. 6, 2014) (in the afternoon) along comes a movie like this that reaches out into new comedy ground and invites you to see it.This is an exhibition of modern art. Something new and fresh. One of the things that makes for great art is when an artist takes up an artistic theme that's already been covered many times by other artists but then presents the very same theme in a new way.Its hard to think up something new using the same tools other artists have used for years and years. Originality is a rarity and as such, when someone presents something new, it often creates impressions among those who view it which can vary greatly.This movie moves comedy down the road a bit. It takes risks that other movies simply haven't taken before. Not in this way.One could look here and see nothing new at all. They could comment that there's nothing new here to see.Another could look at this and find it confusing. They're not sure if its good or bad and so they pry it apart - looking at it in pieces instead of as a whole. Their comments about it could seem disjointed if they can't fully see whats going on further down the road.I see this movie as a familiar theme presented in a new way. A new way of making you laugh. Which is really really hard for a new work of art to do.I found it fresh and stimulating. And hilarious. I laughed my way through it, from beginning to end. And I was disappointed when it ended cause I didn't want to have to leave these new screen friends, just yet. Cause where could I ever find them again? I'm not sure I could have laughed so loud and so often if I wasn't as old as I am. This is an adult comedy. What makes it so great an art piece too is that it offers not just one, but at least two different and distinct meanings to the phrase "adult comedy", one of which is entirely new.New modern art right here. Worth looking at. Look again.Enjoy.