I was interested right up until they bought the house. I then spent the rest of the movie waiting for the house to fall apart.

This film tells the story of a young couple and a house. Walter is a failed showbiz agent who kills himself to work and pay the debts left by his father, who fled with the money of brokered artists. Anna is violinist and member of the orchestra directed by her ex- husband, Max, a conductor with a blonde hair only smaller than your ego. Forced to move from the apartment where they live and faced with the real estate jungle of Manhattan, they end up buying a small mansion in a deal that seems like a dream come true... a dream that will crumbling slowly, as the weaknesses of the old house are becoming evident, for madness of the two lovebirds and delight of the audience.Walter is represented by a young Tom Hanks, in a stage of his career where he made several comedies. Despite the youth, we can recognize many of the characteristics of this actor which we can see, more developed, in films of his maturity. Anna is embodied by Shelley Long, a actress particularly skilled in comedies. Joe Mantegna also has a role as Art Shirk, a quite wealthy plumber. The film was directed by David Giler and Steven Spielberg, and is the beginning of a good collaboration between Spielberg and Hanks, who will result, in the future, in some successes like "Saving Private Ryan". The jokes of context and situation prevails, as well as the hilarious grimacing of the two main actors and a fabulous (and famous) Hanks laugh, well-remembered by those who like this film. In the midst of so many good points, just one less good note: I believe the script superficially explores the comic opportunities brought about by love triangle Walter-Anna-Maestro, introducing elements of conflict very late and giving them lightly solutions at the end of the film.In the beginning, this comedy doesn't seem to have anything new or special. It's just a comedy of the eighties, a decade when this genre was very exploited and, to be honest, battered by several absolutely disastrous films. But is exactly by that, partially, why "The Money Pit" deserves to be noteworthy: because it's so good and works so well. This film, a remake of a forties comedy, is a guarantee of laughter, no matter we are watching for the first time or the hundredth time in our lives. It's a film that does't tire to review over and over again. It is always funny.

Shelley Long was so good in the first five years of sitcom 'Cheers' that i've always been surprised that she's never made more of a dent on the silver screen. Here I think is one of the few films she's made where she gets star billing.'The Money Pit' is a decent enough film and certainly has a lot of charm. Once it gets going,with all the slapstick and mishaps it's a good laugh.However I found the start very slow going and had to try hard not to give up on the film all together. There's so much set up before the fun starts and that doesn't make great viewing.If you want a fun film then this is one for you, I'd just skip the first twenty minutes.

Just like the house, the story isn't all too sturdy either. The first hour we are treated with all sorts of construction and other accidents (some of them minutely and ingeniously devised) - a lot of fun at times - and the last hour the film remembers to be a romantic comedy also, which does have its moments; Tom Hanks and Shelley Long prove they carry this.So, yes, a lot of fun with Walter and the bathtub when he... and with that disappearing carpet... and in the romcom part when the bedroom light malfunctions. And so on and so forth. I first thought about 6 out of 10, but after adding things up...7 out of 10, easily.