Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

jotix100 Bob Rafelson is a puzzling director. After his big successes with "Fiver Easy Pieces" and "The King of Marvin Gardens", Mr. Rafelson doesn't seem to come out with a film project that will take him back to his past glory. This is evident with the disastrous "Man Trouble" shown on cable recently.The film is a mess. Jack Nicholson, an actor who has worked with the director before with better results, plays the main role of Harry Bliss a trainer of dogs without any redeeming qualities. Harry is married to an Oriental woman and is working his marital problems with a counselor. Harry gets involved with Ellen Barkin, who is being stalked. The solution is to get a German Shephard dog to protect her. She has moved to her sister's swanky home where probably the only funny scene happens. We watch Ms. Barkin working with the dog and all her commands have to be in German, otherwise the dog doesn't respond! The others in the cast are totally wasted. Beverly D'Angelo has some good moments. Michael McKean, Saul Rubineck, Henry Dean Stanton, are seen in supporting roles.See if there is something else to watch, but don't make the same mistake we made.

Amnes With the talent involved here, it should have been a much better film than it is. Music by Georges Delarue, director Bob Rafelson...Basically it's a lightweight romantic comedy which is attempting to emulate classics comedies about a rich girl meets non-rich guy (think Katherine Hepburn) but it just doesn't have the class or punch of earlier classics in this genre.The cheap looking opening credits/cartoon are the first indication that something is amiss here. The first half is quite OK but after that, you just don't care enough about these people to stay with the film. There's something incredibly shallow about all those involved and the 'comedy' is just too obvious...problem animal, hispanic housekeeper, mismatched/deceived couples.I don't think it's until Harry Dean Stanton makes an appearance quite late in the film that you think, aaah, now we've got a movie. But it's all too late.

therm Well, I saw the movie last night and have to agree with Alex here. I think most people here expected more than just an entertaining movie. The humor is based on silly situations and conversations, and if you can't laugh about something just because it's so darn silly, you indeed won't like the humor in this movie. I can appreciate that humor from time to time, and yesterday was one of those times. I expected nothing much from this movie and it turned out good for me. And Nicholson plays it alright if you ask me (since some are of another opinion here). My opinion: a nice one for down the road, when you're out of options to do something and you just want to lay back and think about nothing...

julesrules Despite the fact that this movie has Jack Nicholson, it isn't saved by it. How much I would like to love everything Mr Nicholson does, I just cannot get used to his more "dumb" roles, like in this one, like in Prizzi's Honor and The Fortune. I think I read somewhere that Mr Nicholson is good in comedies in which the situation is funny, not the character he's playing, and I have to say I quite agree with that. I mean, As Good As It Gets is rated a comedy but, oh my god, what a difference with this one.About the film: it's weak. As I said, Mr Nicholson doesn't save it and Ms Barkin is a non-interesting person and completely miscasted for this one: she's not funny, but irritating. Anyway, the plot is weak, the "jokes" are weak and the acting is weak. I cannot even say something about the directing, because I'm not sure whether there was one...I cannot live with myself to rate a movie with Mr Nicholson less than 5 out of 10, so I gave it 5. Without him, it would probably have been 4.