User reviews

With every other mildly successful TV show or movie from the past being revamped, remade, or reimagined, it's not a big surprise that "The Honeymooners" would get a 21st century update.

Now, having said that, I believe this was a huge waste of an excellent opportunity. Now, I really don't care that the four main characters were reimagined as African-Americans. Hey, if it's a good movie, James Bond could be Black for all I care. This movie, however, given the script, was not worth making.

In fact, let's all just agree to erase this film from our collective memories. The REAL "Honeymooners" movie needs to wait about five to seven years for JOSH PECK from the Nickelodeon Show "Drake & Josh" to get old enough to step into Jackie Gleason's shoes. If you have never seen Peck before, watch the show. He oozes Gleason's influence (he is even an accomplished pool player as seen in one episode).

Of course, this is all my opinion which is probably not worth the time it took you to read this, but thanks anyway.

i watched this movie a few hours ago, thinking it would be good, i'm a fan of Cedric the entertainer and the old 50s show. but half way through when i realized that i nor anyone in the audience had laughed at all, not even a small chuckle, i thought "i thought this was supposed to be a comedy" it was OK to watch once, but its not a comedy as it was meant to be.

Cedric the Entertainer was not a good choice for the part of Ralph kramden, he tries to hard to duplicate Jackie Gleason, he should have just made the part his own and did what came naturally. Mike Epps wasn't as bad as Cedric in his portrayal of Ed Norton. All in all it really isn't a comedy movie, its not funny at all, just a bad imitation of a classic 50 TV series.

I usually watch remakes with an open mind, but this movie was a big disappointment. It was an awful waste of the talents of two very funny comedic actors. The script is lacking in so many ways. Cedric the Entertainer is not allowed to be as creative as we all know he capable of being. Also, I am a huge fan of Mike Epps, but his role this movie did not do it for me. Mike Epps, in my opinion is one those under-rated geniuses of comedy like Eugene Levy. Mike Epps can be great as a side-kick, but the script doesn't allow Cedric to play off of Mike's humor. The jokes were lame and mostly unfunny. The other characters are so far over-the-top that they don't work. "The Great One" is probably turning over in his grave on this one.

Even a very funny man who brings so much to every project he does,like Cedric the Entertainer can't save this poorly written film. I've seen funnier funerals than this. There were only a handful of people in the theater where I saw this film. By the time it was over I was all alone, everyone else had the good sense to get up and leave. This film is headed straight for IMDb's worst films list. Where it belongs. The very thin set up of Ralph and Ed wanting money to buy houses for Trixie and Alice, and move from the "hood" grew old very quickly. There was no secondary plot, and the set ups for ways to get money were childish and stupid, not funny.

I have higher expectations for a movie than a bottom-of-the-barrel sitcom episode. I didn't want to go but the group voted for this one. I'll be reminding those who voted to see this movie about their poor taste when we vote for the next movies to see.

The producers, writers, director, movie executives, etc. should hang their heads in shame. They knew it wasn't funny when they released it. The test audiences, if there were any, must have been ignored.

Why does Hollywood release this kind of junk and then wonder why movie attendance is down? Why do actors sign up even after reading the script and knowing this will be a second-rate movie, at best?

You cannot improve on perfection. Most authorities consider the original TV series to be one of the all-time great sitcoms ever made. Its keys were its appropriateness to its era, and the brilliant cast.

While I certainly appreciate Cedric the Entertainer's considerable talents, with all due respect to him, he is NOT Jackie Gleason, and the other members of this cast cannot hold a candle to the likes of Art Carney and Audrey Meadows.

Here's a tip to Hollywood:

Instead of trying to make every TV show into a movie, why not show some creativity and actually come up with something NEW? If you need a reminder, remember Tom Arnold's horrific remake of McHale's Navy.....or the God-awful remake of Sergeant Bilko of a few years back. You can't do better than the original, now or ever.

If I could give this no stars, I would.

This movie has all of the charm of a 2nd grader playing around with a video camera and just as much plot. The story begins with a charming love story that has no root in reality and does not improve after that. At least the film is consistent. The movie tries hard enough to make the audience laugh but the end result is a series of jokes that are extremely predictable. I think its safe to say that just about every line in this film was a plaid out cliché. Its hard to believe that people were actually paid to create this movie. I guess it stands as proof that if the paycheck is big enough, someone will be willing to do it. I had actually never seen a film in the IMDb bottom 100 before, so at the very least I can now say that I have.

The movie needs a new title. Thanks Hollywood you have just destroyed the concept of a TV Show that was one of my favorites. On the way of out of the theater people were bitching and asking if they could get their money back.

Idea....rename the movie it has nothing to do with the TV series.

Where is the feeling that you use to get after watching the honeymooners.

What happened to creating a movie that depicts the era that the original was filmed in.

What happened to casting? The characters in the new movie are nothing like the TV series.

This remake should be renamed or removed. Its a load of crap!

Take a handful of talented people and instead of being creative upon the original TV concept, one decided to re-make the concept into a very different and un-creative way.

Sorry, but not even close to capturing the magic that the Honeymooners had....

The cast is great in their reading lines and playing their parts, but the film itself wasn't depicting the 1950s that made the original Honeymooners such a successful offering of the times.

This film did take some of the better known lines made into a cultural awareness from the original TV series but perverted them into something that wasn't close to the heart of the flavor of the TV show.

A remake, or movie version, of a TV show is nothing new. However, lets keep some similarity here. The first big change in "artistic" change that I noticed recently was Dare Devil where The Kingpin was played by Michael Duncan. I love his work, but Kingpin was a huge WHITE GUY. Now we have The Honeymooners in which the families are BLACK. What the F***. Even in this day of political correctness how can they expect us not to notice that. Even in all the other comments I looked at no one mentioned this. Come on! Enough is enough. This would be like re-filming Patton with Morgan Freeman. But, given that no one seemed to "notice" the characters of this movie are of the wrong race I would be willing to bet no one would say anything if Freeman was portrayed as Patton. And, with that I say lets make a movie about President Lincoln, played by Bill Cosby, proclaiming slaves are free, and they can be played by Philapinos.

Do not be fooled by the ratings shown in IMDb. This is a nice, funny movie just like it is supposed to be. Cedric The Entertainer and Mike Epps are really good. Perhaps you would like to see Gabrielle Union in more serious projects especially after the "Something The Lord Made" (I know I do). Regina Hall is cute as always. I liked it in its own way. I am really trying to understand you guys why you hate this movie so much and why you give a dead-serious crappy movie called "Are We There Yet?" 4.1 rating. I mean HAVE A HEART!!!. First of all, you cannot expect miracles from these sort of movies. They are not masterpieces of cinema. They are cash-cows of Hollywood Film Industry. The leads are not real actors. They are entertainers (Hence, Cedric The Entertainer). Second of all, it is not a good movie, but definitely not a bad one either. And it utterly and totally much much better than "Are We There Yet?". Third, I just cannot believe that you could be so cruel and vicious, it is breaking my heart. Just for that reason, I am going to give this movie 10 points so its rating could rise a bit against "Are We There Yet?" (4.1) which is the crappiest movie of all times.

All right, I know very well why people hated this movie. Its because its called "The Honeymooners". The movie itself is quite entertaining and Cedric, Mike Epps, and John Leguizamo gave very funny and likable performances. The chicks were all right too and the plot was overall interesting. I mean, you knew the outcome the whole way through, but the fun part of this movie is not knowing how they'll reach the end result. It's a light hearted comedy that delivers good jokes and good spirits. I found it to be a lot better than Cedric's last movie, Johnson Family Vacation, which was really not funny at all. Its a shame that he when he actually puts out a good comedy performance he is shunned. However, its easy to see why.

The biggest mistakes the makers of this movie made were naming it "The Honeymooners" and naming the characters the same names as characters from the classic series. The movie is very reminiscent of the show, but its NOT the show. Its nothing like the show.... But it is a good movie in its own respect. Granted its not the best movie you'll ever see, but it IS an enjoyable comedy that many can enjoy, that is, unless you look at it as what its not, "The Honeymooners". This movie accomplishes everything a good comedy should- genuine performances, good casting, fun and comical storyline, and a slew of good jokes. This is not a bad movie, its just a bad remake for a show that really didn't need to be remade.

The only problem with this film is something thats wrong with many films, trying to be something else. I don't like remakes for that reason, but I still manage to find enjoyment in them by looking at them as their own films. This movie would have been far better off as its own movie. It would have worked just as well and wouldn't have received all the criticism. Its a shame that this movie is so ill-fated to already be in the bottom 100 on this site, as there are FAR worse films.

How does it compare to other remade films in theatres now? Well, its better than Herbie, but not as good as the Longest Yard. Overall, its a good time and I don't regret seeing it. Just don't expect The Honeymooners, because its not.

if crap had wings, this movie would be able to fly. And it should fly in to the trash. I'm not going to waste my time reviewing this mess. I've already wasted too much typing this. If you really want to know what this movie is like, see it. See it with a girlfriend so at least when you realize it sucks you can just spend the rest of the film trying to get laid. In fact i dare you to enjoy it. Not the sex, the movie. Maybe its not the worst but its far from mediocre. The show in itself was a rip off of the Flintstones.

Can't wait to see Cedric (The non-entertainer) replace Rodney Dangerfeild in the BACK TO SCHOOL remake. I'm sure then I'll think this movie was much better after they massacre one of my favorite 80's comedies.

I recommend seeing the old show for those who might be interested

Is this filling the ten line minimum yet?

I may be a little biased in my opinion mainly for the fact that I never cared for the old T.V. show, but this movie looked bad from the first time they began advertising it. I was forced to watch this crap by some friends, who after the movie, had to walk home. This movie doesn't really deserve a rating at all, maybe a .000001 out of 10. If you are going to do a movie based on an old show (which is apparently Hollywoods next big thing; Honeymooners, Dukes of Hazard, Bewitched) at least use actors that resemble the old T.V players. They turned a redneck T.V. show into a Ghetto Thugs ream. That's like the KKK and the Black Panthers going to a rally together, it just doesn't work out. All I'm saying is don't remake T.V. shows into movies, because its plain and simply one of the worst movie ideas ever. That's why they were T.V. shows to begin with.

I grew up watching The Honeymooners and other than using the title, character names and jobs, there is no resemblance. The script was poorly written and I seriously had to fight to stay awake or even in the room. I don't blame the actors, they did the best they could with what they were given to work with, however, if I were them, I would not add this title to their resume.

However, I'm sure the generations who didn't have the privilege of seeing the original shows, this might be OK for them.

Some things shouldn't be attempted and remaking classics such as The Honeymooners is one of those.

When I say this is the worst movie ever made, I seriously mean it! I'm not going to waste my time on this review, so I'll make it short. The Honeymooners is was my favorite show growing up, and it was ruined. Cedric the Entertainer as Raulph! I still think it's a nightmare. First of all, Jackie Gleason is dead. So the perfect ode to his remembrance was to make a film with an all black cast? Okay, not to sound racist, because I am not, but that show deserved a white cast. Why? Because THAT'S WHAT IT WAS WHEN IT WAS MADE!

Here's an idea, remake the movie Boyz in the Hood ... but give the lead role to Larry the Cable Guy co-starring Jeff Foxworthy and Ben Stiller. Get the picture?

All in all, The Honeymooners was the most terrible movie I've ever seen, thanks again, Hollywood, for ruining my favorite program.

Hollywood has a bad track record making movies of classic television shows. "The Flintstones" was okay but the sequel was horrible. "The Beverly Hillbillies" was mediocre but watchable. I could go on....

And then there is "The Honeymooners." The original is arguably the greatest of all television situation comedies. It holds up very well, despite being 50 years old, because the premise (admittedly a take off on "The Life of Riley") works so well and, mainly, because of the magic of chemistry. Face it, Gleason, Carney, Meadows, Randolph, and Kelton were a cast that could not be surpassed. They worked off each other like they shared a brain and a soul. They were the reason "The Honeymooners" is classic.

They are also the reason the movie "The Honeymooners" does not work. In changing so much about the classic "Honeymooners" while retaining the personalities of the originals, the movie, rather than paying homage, spoofs and spoofs badly. But to pull off a spoof takes talent and timing, neither of which are an ingredient in this movie.

The cast is okay but there is zero chemistry between Cedric and Epps. The script mistakes noise and frantic action for humor and cleverness. The movie is not funny. It is not entertaining. It is stupid. It is embarrassing. It is a total misfire and not worth even a free rental. Watch a DVD of the classic "Honeymooners" instead.

Honeymooners, how about the Stupidmooners. This is about the worst film ever made. When will Hollywood learn that you can't just put stupid faces, bad jokes, and want to be actors in a sequel. Just because you name it after a great show, movie or actor does not make it good. The sequel needs to be at least as good or better then the original and this one is not even close. It was a total waste of money and I really wish that movies had a money back guarantee so that I could have gotten my money back. Yea, they'll say it was not a remake of the Honeymooners and that is why it is not true to the original. If this is true then it should not have had the Honeymooners name on it. Just another stupid movie named after a great program to get you're money by trying to make you think it is as good as the original.

This movies really bites. The Honeymooner did not listen to hip hop. Wrong cast. Wrong atmosphere. Jackie Gleeson is probably turning in his grave. So thats my opinion on this movie. I give 2 thumbs, 8 fingers, and 10 toes down. I don't know why they even thought of making this movie. They should of got John Goodman or anyone else but Cedric the Boringator to play that part. What is Hollywoood thinking of doing something like this. My dog could play it better and he got 4 legs and a tail. So please Hollywood don't make another mistake please let this one be the last. Remember we are the one who pays to see this junk so no more junk.

I wasn't expecting a good movie, and yet I was still disappointed. This movie featured almost every actor that has ever been in a crappy Black Comedy. John Leguizamo who plays the street hustler was the best part of this movie. Another display of the "not so important" parts and actors dominating over unjustly proclaimed "stars" such as Cedric the Entertainer which is the biggest misnomer ever. Mike Epps delivered his usually character that he plays in every movie he's ever in, and is still more entertaining than Cedric's character. The only way this movie would have been worse is if they put Snoop Dogg in it for no apparent reason like every movie he is in except The Wash. Bottom Line- Don't watch even if you have nothing better to do...

As a child I watched Jackie Gleason's variety show, where one of the regular sketches was "The Honeymooners". I later had the opportunity to watch some reruns of the old black-and-white sitcom with its brilliant performances.

I had high hopes for this movie, and I wasn't really disappointed. I just enjoyed it for what it was. A silly two hours with commercials with some reasonably talented actors making me laugh with ridiculous situations. But I couldn't help but think that someone out there could have done it better. After all, Jackie Gleason, Art Carney and Audrey Meadows were some of the greatest comic actors ever. No one in this movie even came close.

John Leguizamo gives a real standout performance here. If anyone is talented out of this cast, he is. But Cedric the Entertainer, Mike Epps and Gabrielle Union all give good performances too. It's just that this movie was probably on the same level as Tyler Perry or Martin Lawrence. Fun, but nothing that could be called "The Greatest".

The women working? No way Jackie Gleason would let his wife work, remember? Audrey Meadows, however, would have put him in his place if she had ever needed to work. And as I recall, she was too pretty for the role. Gabrielle Union is gorgeous.

The storyline with the dog is kind of ridiculous and miraculous. But it made me laugh.

The movie's villain is too cartoonish. But I always hoped he wouldn't get that great house and that our heroes would.

Don't expect too much, but it's not so bad.

I grew up watching the original "Honeymooners", so I did not expect Cedric the Entertainer to be Jackie Gleason, nor did I expect this "re-make" to be anything remotely close to the TV sitcom. What I did expect was to have fun and laugh, and walk away from the theater feeling like I had a good time.

Unfortunately, my expectations were too high! If it weren't for John Leguizamo's character, I would have not laughed at all. The movie overall was not funny. Although Leguizamo's character was despicable and crass, he did make me laugh! Okay, so I laughed four times throughout the entire movie, however, I walked away from the theater feeling like I had totally wasted two hours of my life and nine dollars.