Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

ben hibburd Gene Wilder's Haunted Honeymoon is an honourable failure. The film is written and directed by Wilder and it contains a-lot of the same visual and comedic motifs associated with his earlier collaborations with Mel Brooks. Whilst I understood what Wilder was going for I felt the film missed the mark both in its comedy and plot. The film was incredibly dull, after watching the film I can barely remember any genuinely hilarious scenes.Gene Wilder plays Larry Abbot a neurotic horror radio presenter, who returns to his family castle where he grew up after getting engaged. He decides to take his fiancée Vickie Pearle (Gilda Radner) back home for the marriage. To cure Larry of his neuroticism his uncle decides to scare the irrational fear he has, out of him. There's also a badly underutilised murder mystery plot that's going on in the background, as someone wants to murder Larry.Gene Wilder is as always his charming self, he carries this movie, and I would hate to of seen this without him, because it would of been a total disaster. The rest of the cast is pretty forgettable. Dom DeLuise seemed like he wasn't interested in the film and that came off in his performance. Terence Stamp was wasted in the film, he had very little screen-time. Gilda Radner had a decent amount of chemistry with Wilder but nothing noteworthy.In the end this film, has many scripting issues, it's a film that want's to be its own film, whilst having the same comedic tone as a Mel Brooks film. The plot barely makes any sense and even when it does it's not interesting, and to be brutally honest this film felt like the unfunny b- roll material left out of Young Frankenstein. The only reason I would recommend this film is for Gene Wilder who shows again why he was an incredible on-screen talent.

mark.waltz A notorious flop during its initial release, it was the third and last pairing of Gene Wilder and Gilda Radner, and sadly her last film. It's basically a spoof of the Red Skelton "Whistling" series, casting Wilder as a cowardly host of a 1940's radio mystery show who ends up involved in murder himself. He's heading home with fiancée Radner where the greedy family awaits and family matriarch Dom de Luise fears for "her" life. It's another road to the old dark house where every cliché dating back to the silent era is used to create chills and laughter. De Luise is actually two characters, one where "she" turns to the camera in the opening and says, "It's not what you think!"While de Luise won awards for "Worst Actress", he's actually very funny, performing amusing version of "Balling the Jack" with Gilda who never got that one film role to rise above standard comedy. Radner is likable, perky and untraditionally attractive. Why Mel Brooks or Woody Allen never grabbed her up is a mystery in itself. Add on Jonathan Pryce as a sinister members of the family and other looking eccentrics, and you've got the recipe for old fashioned popcorn movie. No modern classic, but not the disaster that it's been labeled as.

Theo Robertson If you watch the opening title sequence you can easily understand the problem with the rest of the movie : A transvestite falls dying against a window consciously telling the audience " It's not what you think , it's not what you think " . Seconds later something stirs in the bushes back to camera , the figure turns and we see it is a werewolf - then the action cuts to a radio studio ! And that sums up the movie . Camp transvestites are not laugh inducing while sequences that reveal the previous action was part of radio play is akin to someone waking up and discovering it was a bad dream . Bad dream sequence = bad movie I know that fusing comedy with horror is never easy but when you've got some talented people behind and in front of the camera you should demand more . Gene Wilder directs and he worked on YOUNG FRANKENSTIEN . Trying to tell me he forgot everything he knew from that classic comedy horror ? I also couldn't noticing that most of the cast are British . You'll recognise most of their faces if not their names and you can't help but notice their absolutely atrocious American accents ! I really do hate it when American actors try ( And fail ) to do British accents and we've got a trans Atalantic role reversal here . Trying to tell me Jonathan Pryce couldn't have done better ? I won't waste any more words on this movie except to reiterate that it's a lazily written , badly acted and hugely disappointing film

MillenniumFilmBuff I was brought this movie for £4.99 over a decade ago when I was still a youngster.. and I must say its a very underrated film. Most films are underrated. Its only the hyped ones usually which are overrated.The basic premise is that Larry Abbott and Vicky Pearle are radio stars who are due to get married - but then it becomes clear something isn't quite right with Larry and a doctor becomes involved in a plot to cure him, yet it might cost Larry in the long run. However, it becomes apparent that a plot is being set to kill Larry Abbott after an attempt on Aunt Kate's life fails.The cast are fantastic and old fashioned which is just what makes a film what it is - Dom DeLuise is wonderful as are Gilda and Gene! I don't know why so many people slate Gene Wilder. He is a good actor and there is nothing wrong with his direction. The comedy isn't half bad and the murder plot might not be anything new but its still a decent storyline. As for plot holes, I couldn't see many. The villain is truly menacing and it becomes pretty obvious who the villain is early on during this feature because clues which are not subtle at all are thrown in but its still entertaining and it does have some great comedy moments.Yet, there are still a couple of unanswered questions and things to mull over at the end which makes it somewhat symbolic. Not a bad film by any means at all and certainly worthy of today's cinema.