ajsolidus This movie is offensive to everything that is comedy. The title itself is misleading and it continuously tries to compensate for an obvious lack of actual story. There are a lot of things that I can say about this movie, but I don't want to waste your time like this movie wasted mine. Some of these reviews give 5 stars up, I even read a 8 review. These are obviously greased reviews and I would take them with a grain of salt. I also think that it may have been a little racist at some points (I didn't want to say it, but some of the stuff is just on that line). There is one thing about this movie that made me laugh, if you look at Albert Brook on the poster they have for IMDb they obviously photo shopped it so that he would lose 20lb!(hahaha)Besides that its not funny or remotely entertaining. DO NOT WATCH!

Armand Albert Brooks in his skin. and nice script. irony, politic comedy, innocence of a comedian front the reality of close worlds. result, an isle, out of trend, interesting, sarcastic, strange. and useful lesson about humor in a cold, hypocrite universe. it is exactly that kind of exercise to understand the other far from classic definitions. because, like Gulliver travels, it is only picture of Western society in which humor is almost convention. sure, the large parts of salt, the simple ingredients, the role of seed for reflection about yourself no makes it comfortable, but not is the purpose. the desire can be to reflect deep confusion of values, need of talk with the other who is only mirror for yourself.

gregeichelberger Originally published on Jan. 16, 2006:In an inspired cinematic premise, especially in these times, Albert Brooks plays himself as a comedian asked to find out what makes a large portion of the world laugh.Of course, execution of this concept leaves a bit to be desired, but it does have its fairly funny moments, especially in the opening moments, when Brooks aspires to be the lead in a remake of "Harvey." He fails to impress the director (Penny Marshall) with his desire to be "the new Jimmy Stewart," and Marshall's phony, "I liked your work in 'The In-Laws'" doesn't help his ego, either.At home, he receives a letter from the State Department asking for him to be part of a special commission deigned to found out what Muslims construe as comedy. He goes to Washington DC, meets former Tennessee senator Fred Dalton Thompson (TV's "Law & Order"), and agrees to travel to India and Pakistan to see what makes the population laugh (despite his assignment to write a 500-page report on the topic).He leaves his lovely wife, Amy Ryan ("Capote," 'War of the Worlds") and cute-as-a-button daughter, Laura (Emma Lockhart, "Batman Begins") for a month's adventure - not for money, but for the opportunity to be awarded the Medal of Freedom ("the nice one - with the colored ribbon").Brooks makes the point some might bring up that India is basically a Hindi country, although over 100 million Muslims reside there (also, it's doubtful Brooks, as a Jew, would have been welcome in some of the more militant Middle Eastern countries).Anyway, he soon begins his patented celebrity whining on the flight to New Dehli, as he and his two State Department escorts, Stuart (John Carroll Lynch, "Gothika") and Mark (Jon Tenney, TV's "The Closer") are forced to fly economy class, and are then stuck in a rundown office. During these interior office scenes, Brooks keeps passing a roomful of phone operators ("There are two spin cycles on that machine," "Welcome to the William Morris Agency," "This is the White House, how may I direct your call") in another funny bit.After hiring a lovely Indian woman, Maya (Sheetal Sheth), Brooks begins asking people on the street what makes them laugh. He is given answers from "I don't know," to "I don't speak English and please don't touch me," to a long and involved joke about being happy and laughing. Not garnering anything from this effort, Brooks decides to put on a comedy concert for about 300 Indians. This segment is pretty funny, as well, as few in the audience understand the comedian's humor (he tells a lame Halloween "Gandhi" joke, does a really bad ventriloquist act and the old "changing the improve" bit) and have little or no reaction to it.Later, he sneaks into Pakistan and does the same routine for a group of stoned "budding comedians" who do not speak English (it's a huge success), accidentally starts an armed conflict between the two countries and is offered a part as a Hebrew man who moves into a mostly Muslim apartment complex in the inaugural situation comedy from al-Jazeera, "That Darn Jew." The bottom line of this movie is that Muslims really don't laugh a whole lot, especially if the jokes are not funny (I guess that could be said of most anyone) and they do not get the subject. It could have been even more biting and daring, but I suppose Brooks (who wrote and directed, as well) didn't want to rock the boat too much.I've liked most of Brooks' work (he was great in "Broadcast News" and deserved his Oscar nomination; and "Defending Your Life," "Lost In America" and "Real Life" were terrific films), and while some jokes fall pretty flat here (as does the weak subplot of Maya and her Iranian boyfriend), this is still decent work.Yeah, I would have liked to have seen him do his stand-up in Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt or even Saudi Arabia, but I understand his reasoning (sort of). Plus, I laughed more often than not, so, as a comedy, it did its job for the most part, at least in my opinion.

Blueghost Other reviewers have got it wrong. This isn't dry intellectual humor that'll have you laughing hours later after you think about the line. This is vapid and uninspired humor that was horribly executed and horribly shot.The camera angles are uninspired, the music is canned, the acting and overall film are simply poorly directed. Lots of master shots, few if any cutaways. There is absolutely nothing here to accentuate the humor in the film. It's bland as can be.The one scene that had some humor in it was left on the cutting room floor, and the other comedic sequence cast some aspirations on international rivals.The real crux of the matter is that the film presupposes that somehow humor is not universal. It also demonstrates a kind of intellectual high-brow naiveté about the middle east. Ironically enough the film was allegedly aimed at a western audience and trying to bridge social divides, but falls miserably flat on its face through lack of zest.The other aspect is that this is, more likely, a test market film that needed to recoup its losses. It was shot with a minimal budget, and had production values to match. What was being tested here (the director? the viability of shooting a low budget film in India?) I have no idea, but it's market appeal has all the earmarks of a film that is ready to have its return and market analysis fast tracked to the studio heads and marketing department.Why on earth there would be more than 100 reviews for this film is beyond me. What's even more puzzling is why there would be praises heaped onto this thing when it was intentionally half baked.Did I mention the ending? Well, I can't, but it's not funny, just like the rest of the film.