Good job burying Aniston in the script, because she won't amount to much, and OD'ing us on whatever else is left. Not one genuinely funny moment. Too malicious for romance. Too lost for drama. I'll leave it as 90's puffery.The chemistry between Mickey and Hope, the couple we're suppose to cheer for, was non-existent. The brotherly relationship between Mickey and Francis was undercut, well... by the acting. Besides Aniston, the very little of her, this film provides nothing that works. What was this film trying to portray, what was the message, what was the point? Answer: its Sex In The City meets Friends minus the talent, the writing and the humor.

This is, as the summary says, one of my favorite comedies, despite the flaws pointed out by others. The reason is that it works as a metaphor for life better than it does as a literal story--parts of it are a stretch. But I think it is a wonderful comedy with some great things to say about relationships and life.A big part of why I like it is the writing, which strikes me as natural, believable, and unforced--which is certainly aided by the acting performances. Some of the lines are simply hilarious: "You don't want to cheat on your girlfriend with your wife?" Or "That's an interesting theory. I hope you didn't hurt yourself coming up with that one," just to pick two. I also mostly like the acting performances. Burns and McGlone play off each other very well, and if McGlone's character can seem a bit over the top, I think that's a directorial choice to help make the point. And for those people who don't care for Maxine Bahns, I think she's better than she is given credit for. She has some moments that are just terrific, like when she first pops over the front seat of the cab and introduces herself with the story of her friend under the sink. This was the performance that convinced me that Jennifer Aniston really can act well--the scene where McGlone says he wants a divorce is wonderfully played by her-- that mix of anger and hurt and shock are portrayed beautifully. And John Mahoney is great, as is Cameron Diaz. The structural parallels are also terrific, as they illustrate the differences in the two couples. Shopping in a thrift shop as opposed to an upscale boutique, the contrast in apartments, etc., are all great devices to illustrate and underline the differences between the two brothers and couples. And using McGlone's driver as a kind of chorus worked very well, at least for me. In conclusion, this film is a ton of fun, and conveys meaning beyond what one would expect from a romantic comedy (if I have to categorize it). Is it flawed? Of course. But for me, this is a film that transcends its flaws and works on a number of levels, both literal and figurative. I highly recommend it.

While I can't say there's any real moral compass to the storyline (with everyone cheating on everyone else), if nothing else EDWARD BURNS can consider himself a Long Island Woody Allen--because the story told in brief vignettes is exactly the sort of tale that Allen likes to spin about ditsy relationships and dysfunctional human beings.It may lack the more subtle wit and dry humor found in some of Allen's works, but it's safe to say that if this had been penned by Allen Hollywood would be jumping all over it with awards.As it is, EDWARD BURNS as the older brother--a cabbie aptly described by another as probably the only English-speaking cab driver in the city of NY--is excellent, even if some of his motivations aren't crystal clear, like the casual decision to go to Paris with his girlfriend when both of them are clearly broke. MIKE McGLONE is fine as his financially solvent but mentally challenged brother who works on Wall Street but is hopelessly in love with a trashy blonde, CAMERON DIAZ, in another one of her bubble-gum roles.None of it rises above the level of a good TV script and the language is pretty salty throughout, dealing as it does with SEX almost exclusively. But Burns directs it at a good pace and it moves briskly to a satisfying conclusion which finds him reunited with his girlfriend after a series of misunderstandings.A pleasant way to spend an hour-and-a-half but don't expect anything great. Burns and McGlone were much better in THE BROTHERS McMULLEN the previous year.

a disappointment. I loved "The Brothers McMullen", it was well written, had an interesting storyline, and was a realistic portrayal of modern "romance". I am not really a fan of romantic comedy since it permeates American television with its pablum, and is disingenuous.Nevertheless, I gave this film a shot. What a mistake. For some reason, whether it is the actors or storyline, it just doesn't work. There are a few funny lines like John Mahoney, when he is commenting on Burns' latest girlfriend: ..."she looks like she is from one of the islands"... Also Michael McGlone was very good in "The Brothers McMullen" but here is portrayed as a complete imbecile. The Cameron Diaz character is unsympathetic and trashy.Amanda Peet is a good actor but could have been given a more significant role. The Aniston character is the same as always. Actually the female characters in this film were superficial and wooden, whereas in "The Brothers McMullen" (mostly a guys point of view) the characters were well-developed. Maybe he should write male characters, mostly; I could say the same about Nicole Holofcener, who does some interesting female characterizations, but cannot write parts for men that are realistic (thereby turning it into a "chick flick" so you alienate the male audience).Well, this film alienates the female audience in the same manner. I liked "Sidewalks of NY" but that was mostly because Stanley Tucci was in it; the Heather Graham character was also portrayed as a somewhat clueless female.That being said, skip this one. Watch "Brothers McMullen" instead. 1/10.