cathylr Probably the only film that I have watched twice in my adulthood. Set in a world where nobody knows what it is not to say the naked truth, it reveals the benefits of learning how to lie. Beyond the number of situations in which we are gaining at keeping some of the truth for ourselves, it is also about not hurting people by being too honest. I found it very entertaining, refreshing, and eventually moral.

esklepios Hard to believe that as I write, this is 9 years old. I was pointed to it by Avi Tuschman's book: Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us and bought the DVD.A satire on organized religion (but not amoral or without compassion), a satire on Kantian ethics, and the way some women and some men choose partners I found this deeply uncomfortable to watch - AND WELL WORTH IT. Not surprised some people left the cinema, I ended up watching much of it in 5 - 15 minute chunks mainly because of the cringe factor.The opening part of the film is definitely the funniest as people calmly offer their real thoughts and actions rather than polite platitudes. After that the film gets down to serious business and there are few laugh out loud moments. While the first lie emerges as a counter to job loss and potential eviction, we soon see lying being used to help the troubled, the homeless and street poor. The potential for happy myths to do real harm is touched on but not really explored, while the potential of happy myths to do some good is explored in a little more depth.For the most part the acting is excellent, though the Gervais monologue at his mother's headstone could have gone on the editor's floor. The music and choice of songs suited well and I certainly had no problem with the cinematography.If you can cope with some discomfort you will have some laughs, and certainly be left with something to think about and talk about.

fedor8 The first hour has enough great gags for an entire mini-series, in what is possibly the best religious comedy in decades. However, very typically for any (more-or-less) mainstream comedy (particularly those action-based or romantic ones), the movie deteriorates in the final chapter when plot resolutions predictably take center stage, and the gags suffer for it because they lose their priority status. Despite being a highly original comedy, it is after all a mass-market comedy with all – or some – of the usual formula trappings that go with the territory.The premise, as ingenious as it is for comedy, is flawed from a logic perspective. It can't simply be a world in which people "can't lie": this society is and has to be much more than that. An absence of lies by definition means that civilization must have gone into a weird, fairly different tangent. If there is no religion, then why count the years the same as in the Christian world? Shouldn't history be entirely different? Also, the population of TIOL is not so much just honest; they have no filter and blurt out everything – which is not quite the same as the inability to lie. They are more like the Turret Syndrome version of honest than what we normally associate with honesty. Naturally, Gervais couldn't cover all the aspects of such an array of intricacies and complexities that this premise involves, which is why on closer scrutiny there are logic holes, and not just the ones I mention. But remember that this is a fantasy comedy – and not even a TV series where he could have had much more time hence opportunity to explore this bizarre world in greater detail, meaning with more consistency.Nitpickers who moan about various inconsistencies instead of enjoying the humour all have their favourite qualms, so I am going to pick my "favourite" too: an absence of deception doesn't necessarily equate to global atheism, whereas the movie suggests that it does. What about insane people talking nonsense? Since everyone is perfectly gullible and believes everything, loonies would be believed no matter what they say. We would therefore have to assume that the world of TIOL has no insanity, which however is never mentioned. More proof that there can't be mental health issues in TIOL's silly world is that if it did have insane people, hence everyone knew about insanity and its irrationality, people would KNOW about falsehoods hence would treat every fishy claim with a "he/she must be nuts" reaction. In this case, Ricky's key premise of fooling everyone would be destroyed. I am not critiquing Gervais's decision to create an atheistic world because a) it's a great plot-device and it's the premise that moves the bulk of the latter part of the plot, and b) it's a clever observation on how deception is one of the basic requirements for religion to gain a foothold in society. Ditto Marxism, a religion Ricky has a fondness for hence didn't try to lampoon.I was pleasantly surprised that Gervais didn't come off as a pompous, holier-than-thou, militantly religion-hating atheist. Proof of that came in how he portrays religion as a comfort and a crutch, a necessary deception, one of many lies that need to be made because a deception-free society wouldn't be all that it's cracked up to be. (Perhaps, in that sense, Ricky inadvertently (?) mocks Bible's basic commandment about not lying.) Of course, later on, with his Life of Brian-like speech in front of his house, he absolutely crushes not just Christianity but pretty much all (monotheistic) religions, in what is perhaps the most hilarious segment. It reminds me of Ricky's stand-up Bible-bashing routine; many similarities there. All of Ricky's stand-up comedy brilliance comes through in that scene, and the way in which he interacts with the crowd is not an iota less genius than what the Pythons did in the said movie. Simple, to the point, masterful.Going back to logic problems, there is one very obvious plot anomaly for which Ricky doesn't have an excuse – other than needing to advance the plot in the desired direction, which to me is rarely justifiable as an excuse to break logic rules. The fact that Mrs. Affleck still refuses to hook up with him even after he becomes world-famous and extremely wealthy makes no sense. The running joke (and fact) that women choose their men based on looks (even) more than vice versa is great for the jokes and all, but Ricky takes it too far, makes it seem as if that's all that matters to her, when we know all-too well that women start ignoring physical considerations in a flash when it comes to high social status and large quantities of money – two criteria that Ricky's character meets with aplomb, that easily beat any genetic considerations. Some viewers are annoyed that Gervais chose the rom-com path. He certainly would have made a better movie without that cheesy drivel, but it's not as though the love-affair is the dominant theme by any means. Nor do I understand criticisms that Gervais sold out somehow with this movie. What do they mean "sold out"? Is he a thrash metal 80s legend to be able to sell out? He makes comedies. Get over yourselves, snobs.

hegnor Recommended by a friend i gave this movie a shot. He only told me the idea behind the plot. A perfect world where no one is lying and a guy by accident invents it. This sounded really interesting and I wanted to see the movie in a second. In my head I had a lot of different possibilities what they could have included into the movie. Unfortunately the whole movie turned out to be kinda boring. Some funny situations and scenes helped me through it but i definitely would not look it again. I was disappointed of how they took this promising idea and turn it into a boring story.Although some scenes made me smile, not a too bad rating.I recommend the movie if you do not have anything else one your watch-list and want to see a no-brainer.