AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

morrison-dylan-fan With having enjoyed watching the Santa Cluse Movie with my family for quite a few Christmases,and having also heard lots about his "troubled" double act,with the great Peter Cook,I,was keen on seeing things that Dudley Moore had made.When I heard on some sites that this film had been used as the "insperation" for a Bollywood film that a friend of mine enjoys and,that Moore also stars in the film.I felt that due to this,that it was worth picking up the film.The plot:Three very different men (one is an estate buyer,the others a hit-man,and the last one is a cheating husband!),with very similar sounding last names each book themselves into the same Venice hotel.The only problem for all three of them is that the bellboy cant remember whose name is whose.So when some gangsters come to the hotel wanting to kill the hit-man,the estate buyer-and the cheating husband are both mistaken for him..View on the film:One of the things that surprised me about what writer/director Mark Herman did with the film,was to not turn it into a Zucker-style comedy,but to actually make the story pretty solid,and to keep the film at a very lean 75 minute running time (though the ending is similar to Its a Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad World-that Zucker would later remake into Rat Race.).With the cast,I feel that all three leading men gave good performances,and were each given some strong set-pieces for each of them to shine in (Moore getting tortured!,the surprising hit-man romance,and Richard Griffiths mistaking a mansion seller,for a prostitute.)Final view on the film:An entertaining short-and-sweet comedy,with an enjoyable screenplay and good performances from the three leads.

bob the moo Three different men check into a Venice hotel for very different reasons. Melvyn Orton has come to look at property being sold by Caroline Wright. Maurice Horton has come to meet a blind date that has been set up by a dating agency. Mike Lawton is a professional hit-man who has come to do a job. On their arrival each man is due to get information delivered to the hotel but the similarity of their surnames combined with language difficulties sees them getting the wrong contact information without knowing it. So Orton goes to view a house and finds himself held by a mobster. Horton thinks he is on a date with property seller Wright while Lawton thinks he has to kill Patricia Fulford (who thinks she is on a blind date).Although this film produced the odd laugh from me, I found it very difficult to get past how very contrived and forced this farce was for the most part. It is a very dated British comedy that is rather predictable and very silly, those with low expectations might not be too disappointed because it occasionally amused me but there wasn't a great of wit here and everything was painted in very broad strokes. The characters are obviously thin and the comedy is supposed to come from all of them talking to one another at cross-purposes. At first this is a little funny but after a while it gets a bit tiresome and there isn't a great deal to distract as it moves forward. However I must contest those that call this the worst film they have ever seen; it isn't that bad – basic of course but it is weak, not terrible.The cast mainly have little to do apart from act confused. Brown and Wilton are probably the best of the bunch and even they are not that good. They manage to produce interesting characters and are better for it. Moore has nothing to do of value and this is a poor thing to remember him by. Griffiths is amusing and works reasonable well with Kensit, but they don't have good material to work with. They all try hard to make the most of what they are working with but generally there isn't much there other than mugging.Overall a faintly amusing farce but one that is far too contrived, forced and obvious to really be that funny. I can understand why many viewers hate it but it really isn't that bad – but it is pretty damn weak throughout but maybe if you are in an undemanding mood you'll get tickled by it a bit.

Robert D. Ruplenas Take 3 Englishmen -1. Michael Horton (a philanderer indulging in a surreptitious tryst) 2. Mike Lawton (a hit man assigned to rub out an Italian mob boss) 3. Melvin Orton (a mousey junior manager on a property-buying assignment for his overbearing boss)and put them all in the same Venetian hotel with a bellhop who has great difficulty with the English language, and you have what promises to be a raucously funny good time, and 'Blame it on the Bellboy' delivers on the promise. This rousing comedy of confused identities comes right out of the tradition of the great British Ealing Studios film comedies of the late 50's and 60's (the same tradition 'A Fish Called Wanda' purported to come from; I found this movie a LOT funnier).My only complaint is that some of the grim scenes of mob violence would be more at home in the 'Lethal Weapon' series; in a farce like this they seem jarringly out of place. However, beautiful Patsy Kensit's presence more than compensates for this minor complaint (she was the blonde secretary in Lethal Weapon 2, remember?).On the whole, an A++ recommendation

Rachmaninov EXCELLENT movie, strong acting and beautiful music!