That's all I can say to describe this film. Now I can appreciate it not being another wannabe Hangover movie but come on. How can this be described as a comedy? Yes there are a few funny grunt moments here and there but the whole thing just comes off as annoying. By the way The Machine? How many times does a character have to call someone by their nickname beginning with The? The overuse of this nickname is mind-numbing, yes that's his nickname but why not just say "hey, machine" after mentioning him in the beginning? You never hear the characters in Old School refer to Hank as Hank The Tank every single time they mention him or speak to him in the movie. Why? Because it get's irritating. Now I understand that past reviewers have mentioned the deep message in the film, and while I appreciate it, it just doesn't flow well with the promotion of this movie. The title is called The Stag, set in Ireland, with the movie poster depicting what you might think would be a hilarious stag party set in Ireland. But no. Instead it's about a web designer, a gay couple, two best friends who are in love with the same woman and a guy who calls himself The Machine (which is a really bad nickname to give someone, the writers could've been a little more creative in this area) running around in the woods like...well as Red Forman would say, "a bunch of dumba****.The characters and the general idea of a stag party in Ireland is a great premise for a film. But the story is just not what I was expecting. Why not have it start in the city and then with the crazy antics with the so called The Machine all of a sudden end up in the outskirts of the city and then get lost in the woods. Simple outline just write a raunchy creative story. And I'm sorry but the whole Ruth breaking up with Davin and then getting with his best friend just seems shady on her part for not telling Fionan about it. Just makes me wonder if she can be all that faithful to Fionan after their marriage. If it was some random guy then whatever but it was the guy's best friend. Have some decency.Well that's pretty much it, as I said before the message is a great one and that's the only reason I'm giving it a 5 out 10. Without it it would just be a really stale more dramatic than comedic story about a enlightening journey through the woods.

I sat down in the mood for a nice little light hearted comedy, as the previous reviews on IMDb had promised. A look at the nine and ten out of ten scores and an overall of 6.5 gave me the idea that if not brilliant, would have some laughs and be a decent film. How wrong I was. This is the sort of film that has adopted the 'all men are useless, clueless, fools, but in touch with their feminine sides' school of film making. The main characters are clunky, inept caricatures that one could have been forgiven for thinking that they had originally been written as pre adolescent girls, not grown men. Their ineptitude was the set up for the "comedy", which was just not funny and seemed very contrived. It all just served to irritate after a very short while and continued to do so as the film progressed. The line up consisted of some rather quite good actors and i'm not sure if it was the awful script, bed set ups, bad direction, miscasting or a combination of all the above, but non of their previously seen talent could have cut through this drivel with a chainsaw. I should think most of them will be embarrassed to have this movie on their C.V's. I think all in all, the high rating given to this film must be from interested parties skewing the figures and will in time even out when more people have faced the ordeal of sitting through this lame excuse for a comedy. i would avoid this one, go paint the fence or something, it'll be more productive.

The best part about the movie was the Irish Countryside and it is easy to get a grant from the Irish Film Board. A lot of the scenes appear to have been duplicated from other movies. The jokes were stale and predictable. A lot of the actors were miscast, especially, if the movie was geared towards an American audience. There was little chemistry between the bride and groom and there was no originality to the movie. I felt little empathy for the characters as they represented everything I disliked about the celtic tiger. The movie had potential, but needed to be worked on a few months more. The budget was clearly minute, so fair play for delivering a film on such a tight budget.

A frothy romp, encompassing all those aspects of the human condition designed by a bored deity for the amusement of pilgrims trudging the road to happy destiny: nudity, the institution of marriage, and the question that has bedevilled the Boy Scout movement since Baden Powell's day: whether to jerk off inside or outside the communal tent. But for this critic the film was lifted out of the ordinary by the virtuoso performance of B. McCaughley (as B. McCaughly) as father of the bride. I thought he brought to the role a perfect balance between the gravitas, the graceful aplomb, of a James Robertson Justice and the elfin charm of an arthritic David Norris. His performance will come as no surprise to stage cognoscenti, who will not easily forget Honey, Well I shrunk the Kids (1980), or the hilarious frilly-knickers tour-de-force Under the Boardwalk (1991). And breathes there a cinema buff who has not gripped the edge of his tip-up seat throughout the thrilling 2002 suspense drama The Smoking Hoover? But it is a sad measure of the parochialism of the Irish cinema scene that this splendid thespian is nowadays better known among the tattooed and bearded roughnecks of the Oakland chapter than among the Great Unwashed in the one-and-thruppenies here at home.