evanhitc I am tired of discovering movies that I appreciate only to look them up on the internet and discover that I am alone in my appreciation. The Shrink Is In is an example. Rottentomatoes.com didn't even have enough reviews of this movie to give a score. It is nicely written, acted an directed. Predictable in its outcome--yes. But this is a comedy in which the viewer is supposed to root for the predictable outcome. And this had a cute conclusion.It may say much about me that when I go to the video store I pick titles--and often actors--I have never heard of. Invariably (unless Ben Affleck has anything to do with them) they are entertaining movies. Perhaps only the independent films appeal to me. I like good dialogue. If a movie can be easily fast-forwarded and nothing important is missed, nothing was there to miss. To prove this to yourself, try fast forwarding one of the Charley's Angels movies. (Maybe this is a bad example as the confusion you may encounter with these movies is that there is no believable or discernible plot.) Next, try fast forwarding any of the early Woody Allen movies, Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy for example. You'll get the picture.

Kelv-1 To me, 'The Shrink Is In' represented everything a flop had to offer. A newly wed couple doing a film together, a film that sits on the shelf for a couple of years then finding a copy of it at my local blockbuster. Surprisingly, it's a really great film worthy of repeat viewings. Everyone works hard in their roles and bring their all to it and it works! If it was released in cinemas, it could be a hugely succesful romantic comedy, I think. It has all the right ingredients too: A succesful TV star giving a great performance, her less known husband exceeding in his excellent role in every scene he's in, a strong suppoerting cast of unkown names but recognisable faces including Carol Kane, David James Elliot, Kimberley Davies and Viola Davis. The script and direction are impressive also, although both could have been improved on a little. I also felt that a lot was cut out of the script leaving a lot of loose ends to be tied. To be honest, I don't think you need a plot when the film itself is so much fun but, for those who care, the film is about Samantha (Courteney Cox), a good hearted girl who's been afraid of everything from elevators to crowded places after she was dumped by her boyfriend. When her shrink collapses, she privately takes up her jobonly to find herself getting romantically involved with a shy magazine salesman, Henry (David Arquette) while at the sametime being wooed by her neighbor who's in a relationship with french stoner bimbo who likes to be taken behind "like a farm animal". Not only that, but she's also illegally impersonating her shrink, something she knows won't end up good. Even more so when the real shrink, Dr. Rosenberg (Carol Kane) is starting to rehabilitate. This film is nothing but a good natured fun romp through this woman's romantic life and whileit may be predictable at times, it's just fun! All the actors seem to be having fun which keeps the film on a good tone throughout, excellent for repeat viewings. One great blink ands you miss it performance is Carol Kane as the shrink, especially in her breakdown scenes. The directing by Richard Benjamin works quite well even if he makes the occasional blunder here and there. The script is very enjoyable, but like I said I definitely think the film had a lot of stuff cut. Hopefully, when the filmmakers and public realise that a really great film is stuck nowhere, they will give it a special edition, with the deleted scenes.

joby-3 Courtney Cox, Carol Kane and David Arquette were all victims of a badly written movie. They shouldn't get Oscar credit but they definitely made the best out of a bad situation. The virgin writers still have a lot of work to do.This movie was a canned romance. "Loser" woman assumes role of attractive professional to get the guy who's "unavailable" either through another relationship or because he would normally be out of the woman's league, all the while ignoring the supposed "loser" who is in love with her. She finally sees the light and the "loser" turns out to be a great guy and much more perfect than the person she was chasing to begin with.How many times has that been done? There is a reason this movie didn't release to US theaters; The revenues would not have been substantial enough to cover the release costs. There's also a reason its only on Oxygen. Its awful. It even ends with a beach scene with the two "losers" together!!! Sweep Sundance and Cannes? You gotta be kidding me. Release in North America is no prerequisite to being selected for Cannes or Sundance. The only prerequisite is that there is some talent displayed. It has to hit on all fronts to be considered and this one only hit because the three stars were passable against almost insurmountable odds. Those odds being the script.

JBesman This movie is a rare combination of satire, slapstick, romantic and caper comedy. It is a satire about emotional illness and therapy practice. Courtney Cox and David Arquette are very winning as the high strung, edgy potential couple and Carol Kane is wonderful in her original rendition of the Psychologist/therapist. Arquette and Cox are extremely funny and touching and wacky-excellent physical comedians. Besides the wonderful performances, the original intelligent script and deft direction moves the action and there is never a dull moment. The other members of the cast are well chosen and believable.