Save yourself 95 minutes of your life. Don't ever think about watching this "tv series" where No one will ever laugh at their sill* jokes. This is that typical movie for people with difficulties! What were these people thinking of when they shot the movie? Have they ever watched it thereafter? Only watch it, if you have followed the TV series of these guys, if not, of course you will understand this will never fall under "movie" category, either under "comedy" Again, there hundreds/thousands of movies to watch out there, still can't understand why I chose this one! They ask 10 lines to review a movie, where 1 line will be enough with this one. Don't waste your time and money!

Really, save yourselves from this movie. It's just about two "friends" in the show business spending 70% of the movie making fun of fellow actors and trying to impersonate/imitate other famous actors. Not funny at all, and some scenes take about 15 or more minutes of stupid conversations/imitations like you would have with your old buddy from your childhood. Better just call your friend and you could try to imitate Pacino and laugh at your horrible performance. If this two actors are really funny, then they should had the possibility to improvise more and flow with the jokes. And if they were actually improvising, then they are not funny in any way.

As with their first "The Trip", I've had ambivalent feelings about these Coogan/Brydon travel/food/comedy serials. This new series follows much of the first. If you loved the first, that's good news. But the program is a mixed bag to where you really have to call out the good and the bad. First, the good. Coogan and Brydon have a great personal chemistry that comes off in the series as something unscripted. The locations are gorgeous, and the soundtrack adds to the grandeur of place. The series is also somewhat groundbreaking in introducing a genre of travel-food- comedy, which has its merits. The restaurants featured in the series are researched and quite extraordinary. And the literary trail of the likes of Byron and Shelley add a cultural relevance to the program where, I would have to say, I would enjoy partaking in such a Magical Mystery Tour myself. Next, the bad. If you removed the impersonations of Michael Caine, Sean Connery, etc., 70% of the program would be on the cutting room floor. There are few themes of humor in the program, and they are mercilessly beaten to an absolute pulp. Can you imagine spending a week-long vacation in Italy with a friend who basically ran the same gag everywhere you went? This makes the program the Beavis & Butthead of the BBC set. If the gag gets old or doesn't work for you, the show has little else to offer you besides a few good visual scenes with the sound turned off. Like the Magical Mystery Tour, the show's arc comes off as rather aimless and without a real destination. If the joy is in the travel, and some of it is, that would be one thing. But if there's no joy in bad impersonation banter of actors from years gone by, there's too much to redeem itself. As a whole, the program offers glimpses of creative ideas and possibilities while failing to execute to their potential. Injecting an actual scriptwriter might have seemed anathema to the program's vision and goals, but there are few programs I've seen this year that so sorely could have improved with just one decent writer.

source: The Trip to Italy

I'm really really disappointed, like, I bought the movie thinking that it is a very very good movie based on the high rating (7.3/10) and, simply it's not as close as good as it was given. The starting scene was nice up until the part of the dialog when they were sitting in that restaurant making funny noises and impersonating other actors with such a sarcastic voice. Nonetheless, the guy apologizes for his mate's loud voice, but they were shouting so loud, like, there wasn't a human being sitting there, wasn't it supposed to be a general place? Just saying, don't mind me. I liked the effort that was put into making that movie the cameras and everything else and I do appreciate it but what was it all about? I mean the story, it almost had no particular point, it's basically a complex I wouldn't personally know what is going on, I mean as a person who's watching the movie, all I saw is a guy married to a woman with a 2-7 months old's baby crying-voice while she was calling him at the beginning of the movie, but then he showed his friend the photo of his daughter and she's about 2-4 years old. I don't know if many of you noticed that but I did. That was not well put AT ALL!! I personally did not enjoy the REPEATED dialog about literature and the voice making thing and that, every time they would go to a restaurant and sit down for a meal, like the film producer ran out of ideas of what would the dialog talk about in the first place... I am really sorry if that was kinda harsh but, I'm a critic and I would really really like for the people around here to give the movies the rating it deserves so that, it would help the buyer make a better decision and you'll be doing all sides a favor. Cheers!

This movie was so bad, it prompted me to write my first review ever. It was a complete waste of time and money. I went with two friends and we all wanted to leave after 15 minutes but we stuck it out and it never got better. It was so bad it was ridiculous!!! Sound was terrible - couldn't understand what was being said, poor character introduction - didn't know who was who or why they were even in the movie, no plot - just two guys riding through Italy eating food talking to each other about meaningless drivel. One guy having a one night stand with a stranger while going on and on about his daughter. The other guy having his own family problems but we never are told what they are. Stupid humor - none of us could understand the humor including my husband who loves stupid "guy" humor. I don't know how this movie got even one good review.

This could have been such an extraordinary film. However, the magic of Italy is largely lost on these two total air-heads. They are too involved in egotistical denigration of each other--to sense the depth of the place. No doubt, the whole film is improvised--it has no idea where it is going. As for the much- lauded humor, it's mostly sophomoric. For people who think they're smarter than they are. It's a 2-hour film--we left after an hour. I'm giving it a 2 for cinematography and gorgeous locations. Otherwise, it merits a 1. Save your money and time: avoid this fluff.

Save yourself 95 minutes of your life. Don't ever think about watching this "tv series" where No one will ever laugh at their sill* jokes. This is that typical movie for people with difficulties! What were these people thinking of when they shot the movie? Have they ever watched it thereafter? Only watch it, if you have followed the TV series of these guys, if not, of course you will understand this will never fall under "movie" category, either under "comedy" Again, there hundreds/thousands of movies to watch out there, still can't understand why I chose this one! They ask 10 lines to review a movie, where 1 line will be enough with this one. Don't waste your time and money!

The Trip to Italy A failed marriage or even a deathbed realisation that one has led a failed life pale into insignificance when compared to the feelings after viewing this film- I cannot help the sad alliteration. The prolix script which resembles desperate teenagers attempting to learn the art of conversation is stunningly bad. From the second scene I wanted to bolt out of the cinema; however, I had some obstacles (a) my fiancé was in front of me (b) I had not finished my choc- top ice cream and (c) I had not finished my glass of red. I realised I was then in film purgatory- do I leave now and cut my losses or do I show enduring tolerance and give it a go? We both stayed. We are both patient. The film: two guys trying to be funny amongst beautiful scenery and hard working chefs. Attempts at humour are reeled out via torturous mimicry and shallow homages to English poets writers and the James Bond franchise. The actors who are usually good have not turned up to this set. Their not infrequent eye contact with the audience is slightly off-putting. There are two lines which are funny. Towards the end of the film I thought that at last some suspense was being sown- aha, either the son or the father are going to be eaten by sharks (sharks in the Mediterranean Sea?) or at least drown! Surely the boat scene alludes to "The Godfather" where only one returns? "The Godfather" which is savaged by mimicry; but... There is but one reasonably strong character- the agent and well acted thank God. All other characters are insipid and uninspiring- the photographer is overly compliant, the hot boat girl is overly compliant, the waiting staff are overly compliant. The utter beauty of Italy is forced to literally background this epic and to be compliant; beautiful scenery is silent and distant- there is no dialogue between the country and the two travellers. Instead the country plays mute maidservant. There is no communication between the travellers and any locals ( an hotel employee is more or less forced to read a two-hander in a manner characterised by compliance yet again). The most successful element in this film is to plug the Mini automobile (so many sales pitches) not quite the 'Grand Tour' in the Bentley but rather a sweeping advertisement for a choppy little convertible made in Germany. Cinematography and production design are however excellent.

The best word to describe Michael Winterbottom's sequel to The Trip is patchy. There are some enjoyable laughs and jokes by the film's dual leads Rob Brydon and Steve Coogan, playing fictional versions of themselves again, but the comedy doesn't strike as frequently. Both films were originally a television series edited down into the film format. In the prequel the duo was assigned to travel around Britain to review several restaurants. They spent more time outdoing each other with their duel impersonations of celebrities like Michael Caine than paying attention to the food. They were rude, egotistical and self- absorbed and that's why it was so hysterical. Now they've been asked to do a second round of restaurants in Italy. Like so many sequels, this entry doesn't have the element of surprise but that was expected. The weakest aspect here is the thinness of the material. By attempting to deepen the dialogue and the characters it overstays its welcome. There isn't enough narrative to stop the film from running out of steam and earlier than expected. Who could argue with staying too long in Italy though? The new setting is one of the stars because this feature looks stunning. The beauty of Italy, including Liguria, Tuscany, Rome, Amalfi and Caprio, are sumptuously captured by cinematographer James Clarke. The overhead shots and wide angles are used very effectively in capturing images like the boats on the water or even the cities in the back of the frame as the camera moves away in an unbroken tracking shot. It is an incredible looking film but one must ask what Winterbottom's incentive was in making another entry. He is one of the most diverse filmmakers in the world and he doesn't make the same film twice. This isn't a radical departure from the structure of the previous entry and some of the thematic material is recycled from other films like The Look of Love, which also starred Steve Coogan as a neglectful father. At least both of the actors are very articulate with their improvisation. There is more discourse about the topics like age and death. They also frequently refer to poets like Lord Byron and pop staples like Roman Holiday. The thematic and ironic aim is that as they are so busy discussing death they are unaware of how much time they are wasting. The film's comedic flaw is in it attempts to soften Coogan's character. In the first film he was jealous, needy and unfaithful. Now the men have reversed roles. As he is growing older he wants to spend more time with his son, which adds a dose of sentimentality. Steve is also more reactionary to Brydon, who dominates most of the jokes and becomes the shallower of the two men as he cheats on his wife. It leaves the comedy feeling imbalanced and lopsided. Was anyone planning on seeing this really hoping for Steve Coogan to become a nicer guy? Coogan is a brilliant comedian and has made an art form out of playing egotistical jerks, like his signature character Alan Partridge. I wonder if the change in his character here though is reflecting the maturity of his other work and attempts to add more dimensions to his repertoire. On top of his excellent performance in The Look of Love as Charles Raymond, he was also well received as both the writer and actor in Philomena. If he is growing out of films like this it will dampen anyone's hopes for a third entry. That isn't a bad thing. As it's said in a promising early scene, a second album is never as good as the first one. While Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon are fun and draw some solid laughs from the limitations of the premise, this particular trip is still baggy and self-indulgent.