Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Framescourer I had some hope held out for this comedy, on the face of it a surreal satire on TV makeover shows. It doesn't work out particularly well, although it's sabotaged almost form the start by the insipid Jimmy Carr, whose character (improvised, as most of the roles are) makes tart, self- conscious gags and then proceeds to tongue-lash everybody else. I managed 30 mins of this film in which time I'd seen some of the better small- screen sketch faces from British television go through their moves. Stephen Mangan is the pick of the bunch (Carr could learn some lessons from him about being a boo-him-from-the-stalls baddie) and it's always a surreptitious delight to see Felicity Montague. Even if I hadn't determined on an early night I would have been put off by the half-hearted Gilbert & George-a-likes which just showed the limits of Debbie Isitt's imagination. 2/10

arieliondotcom What is a minister to do? This movie has all sorts of things I should be protesting...a LOT of nudity. Full, frontal, male and female, bouncing and jiggling, wiggling weenie, nudity. So do I say don't see it because of that? but God made us naked and the nudity is never jeered or leered over in the immature style of Benny Hill. The people just happen to be naked. It's a part of the plot, whether their lifestyle which is supposedly welcome will even be included since it was never approved of, and whether they will have the courage of their convictions to have their "naturalist" wedding their way or not.There is homosexuality. But there's never a push for a pro-gay agenda, no sexually deviant behavior, no lurid double-entendres that I could tell. Just a sweet couple who happen to both be male and very funny. Perhaps homosexuals might find it offensive as yet another stereotype but it isn't done heavy handedly or cruelly, just a bit broadly.The most objectionable part (other than the naked ones) was the use of the "F" word.So what's a minister to do? Well, if you'll keep it as our little secret, I'd say that married couples should rent it, view it in the privacy of their own bedrooms and laugh themselves silly. But order it through an online source so you don't have to show your face to a clerk.It's very funny, and very sweet, like a live-action Wallace and Gromit movie. It's just a shame there was all the nudity (which is why I deducted one point) because I can't admit watching it, much less recommend it to anyone I know. It's a guilty pleasure, but a very, very funny one with a sweet, memorable story you'll enjoy if you can get past the bouncing body parts.

hpmons I was expecting this to be fairly decent as I've seen virtually all of the actors in other comedies, but after watching it I certainly wouldn't want to see it again. However, since it is apparently improvised I didn't give it a lower rating, as there were some genuinely funny moments, but these were few and far between. The improvisation made the film feel like it had a lack of direction. Robert Webb said this movie was a regret, and certainly his couple were the worst - the only joke was that they were nude. The other two couples were a little better, one wedding was based around musicals, the other around tennis. I felt that this film had so much more potential, considering the actors involved. While I wouldn't consider anyone's acting bad, I simply didn't find the film particularly funny, or romantic, and a lot of the characters were just too flat and not properly fleshed out (such as the gay wedding planners).

future48 Christopher Guest can breathe easy, his crown as the Master of improv feature films is under no threat at all. Aware of the positive reviews that "Confetti" had generated, I was anticipating a well-conceived, superbly performed laugh-fest that was a cut above. Was I ever in for a rude shock! Martin Freeman, Jessica Stevenson, Julia Davis and Alison Steadman alone may hold their heads high. These performers acquitted themselves well in spite of overwhelming opposition from an under worked concept, a total lack of effective direction or judicious editing and a cast of over-actors, out of their depth and intent on caricaturing their roles to within an inch of their life. Without the entire tennis-themed nuptials, you would be guaranteed a slightly less awful film, so woefully bad was each teeth-grindingly drawn out scene involving these dull and unwatchable characters going about their irritating and unconvincing lives. It was a great shock for me to later learn that the actress who limped along as the female half of this unpleasant partnership, was actually a graduate of the highly esteemed RADA. As for the actor (and I hesitate in labeling him thus) portraying Josef, such inexcusable miscasting and lack of conviction has rarely been seen since Keanu Reeves was afforded the opportunity to mangle the bard in "Much Ado About Nothing". This film is laboured, unoriginal, heavy on predictability and stereotypes, and yet full of wasted opportunities to be genuinely fresh and amusing. I noted that a fellow board user gushingly stated that he had not seen anything as funny as "Confetti" since "The 40 Year Old Virgin". That about sums it up for me!