Light hearted. Shallow. Hilarious.
927379
Light hearted. Shallow. Hilarious. If you like fashion, celebrities, shopping, not eating, trust funds, rehab, sex, and drugs you'll enjoy this book.
3917749
It's kinda cute, but it starts to feel stupid and trite because there's never an actual name or description of the real thing so the "playfulness" gets lost in the author trying too hard to be funny, including the stick drawing of himself.  My teenager is an aspiring scientist and I thought this would be a really cool book for him, but it's not and so I'm sending it back within 5 minutes of opening it...
It's positioned as a really fun collection of explanations -- from the jacket: "Have you ever tried to learn more about some incredible thing, only to be frustrated by incomprehensible jargon?  Randall Monroe is here to help."  Hmmm, not really...  Actually, you'll have a few chuckles and then realize that you're more "frustrated" than before because you have no idea what he's talking about in all the cute simplicity.
Here's one of the "incredible things" where the author substitutes "incomprehensible jargon" with silly words and cute drawings:  "Bags of stuff inside you", which is the human body (not exactly jargon) and "bags" that depict body parts.  So let's say you actually wanted to learn something fun about some "incredible thing" like the human body, here's a test: "Extra part - this doesn't seem to do anything.  Sometimes it has a problem and doctors have to take it out" (an appendix, haha!), or here's another one "Body plan holders" - These parts hold lots of plans for new people.  Each plan is made from the pieces of the plans used to make you.  These parts also control how your voice, hair, and body grow." (um, I think those are ovaries with eggs that carry genetic material, but you wouldn't know it from his description...).  So... very cute, but not worth the wrapping paper and ribbon I was going to put it in.
1178023
The premise of this book is that an international law has been passed  taxing people for the level of happiness they have in life.  Our protagonist, who is never named, receives a very large bill which he does not expect, despite receiving multiple notices about signing up for payment programs.  He is genuinely shocked by the amount and sets out to right the wrong that must have occurred.

Our protagonist lives a very simple life.  He has a part-time job in a video store.  He has one friend with whom he has regular contact.  This friend can best be described as a Debbie Downer.  Other than work he spends most of his time at his apartment watching movies and eating take out.  He actually comes across as someone of a simpleton, as in one scene where he derives great pleasure from scraping off a sticker from a counter, a task which takes twenty minutes.

The only really enjoyable parts of the book are the main character interactions with Maud, the woman assigned to his case to explain to him why his bill is so high.

I found this book neither hilarious nor especially thought provoking.  The bottom line (potential spoiler) is that one is about as happy as they allow themselves to be.  However, our protagonist is merely content, which I do not believe is the same as happy.  He also seems to have no insight into how mundane his is to the outside observer.
4056807
The story revolves around a heart broken French chef (writer, actor Edouard Giard) who came to America to meet a woman he has been having a long distance relationship. On his arrival he is jilted and left alone. Drowning his sorrows in a dive bar he meets a halfwit who befriends him and after some nights of senseless drinking he suggests Giard meet up with an escort to take some of that rejection pain away. Together, the chef, halfwit and escort decide to start an escort service hidden under the guise of a gourmet pizza delivery service. And hilarity ensues. Or does it? For me this was largely a fractured funny bone of a film. It tries hard and it does have some comedic value, but it misses far more times that it hits the target. The actress who plays escort is the best of the lot. She delivers her lines well and doesn't look like she is acting. The rest are wooden and unrefined. There are some funny scenes that I chuckled at, they just weren't there enough for a good comedy. They tried. They really tried to make a film. Yet the production quality is amateurish. Set photography is poor quality. The acting is forced more times than not.

If you are looking for a T&A film, it is okay, just scan the newspaper or something while it plays in the background. If you are looking for something to give you belly laughs and leave you with a smile, then look elsewhere. This slice will leave you looking for Zantac. This film is not even listed on IMDB. Really? I can find information on UCLA film school shorts on IMDB. That should make you wonder just who cobbled together this worn out shoe of a movie. It sounds like I hated this movie. I did not hate it. I expected more from it. All I want from a comedy is to come away with a some laughs and a smile and feel my valuable time wasn't wasted. Edouard Giard owes 2 hours of life. I'll settle for a double Amaretto on the rocks to help me forget this one.
1542186
I was expecting to like this better, but the humor was a bit too broad for me. The characters were silly & so exaggerated. Fine, but I wouldn't waste my time.
1605967
I enjoyed the beginning of the book. It was chock full of quick-witted banter that made me chuckle. But when I reached the middle of the book, a question came to mind: Why am I bothering? The book is not funny. It's mildly humorous. There's nothing about the story or the language that is particularly uplifting or edifying. I decided to stop reading and move on to something more beneficial to me.
2559180
Hugely enjoyable rubbish. Will not improve your life but will make you laugh on a bad day.
8657
Firstly, let me just say that I enjoyed this book for what it truly was:  a quick, mindless read.  It didn't take a lot of thought to breeze through it, and I actually laughed a few times.  But to advertise this as a modern-take on Pride & Prejudice is just downright silly.

There was no reason whatsoever for the author to bother using P&P as a basis for her story.  You could easily change the names of Darcy and Elizabeth to Jason and Amy or Thomas and Beth, and I'll bet you would never have seen any connection to P&P.  The author essentially took the names from P&P (not even the characters' personalities, really, just the names), took the basic love/hate relationship aspects of the plot, and wrote her own novel.  I truly have no idea why the author didn't just write her own novel with her own unique characters.  It seemed lazy to use P&P as a basis, and I'm saying this as a devoted fan of all things JA/P&P, including modern remakes.  This would have been a MUCH more enjoyable story had it been an original novel without placing the characters in the restrictions of beloved characters like Darcy and Elizabeth.  I saw nothing about these two that resembled Darcy or Elizabeth.  Jane was just about the biggest diversion from Jane in P&P.  Caroline's catty-ness was heightened to a very high degree, making her very flimsy in terms of her characterization.  Honestly, most of the characters were pretty flimsy with little to no development.  It's a shameful way to "modernize" Jane Austen's characters.

Also troubling was the stereotypical token gay guy in the novel.  Every gay stereotype you could think of was used for Lou Hurst.  Sure, he's a fun character but you really get absolutely nothing else about him besides his token flamboyant characterization and, oh yeah, Lou giving Elizabeth tips on how to please Darcy.  Give me a break.  The lowest moment of the entire novel was when Lou comes over to have a slumber party with a pouting Elizabeth where they braided each other's hair and sang into hairbrushes.  I'm not kidding.  Just because a male character is gay does NOT mean that he is automatically considered "just one of the girlfriends" who enjoys typical tween antics.  A gay man does not equal female.  Disgusting stereotype.

I also don't understand how the author was able to provide a 5-star review... for her own novel, even if she was just providing some background info on it.  Makes the rest of these 5-star reviews seem super shady in their reliability.

Overall, I would probably suggest taking a pass on this one.  There are SO many other P&P remakes/sequels/modernizations that are infinitely better than this one, that actually use elements of the original P&P in unique and interesting ways.  This one fails to do that in every possible way.
2594854
Both of Tucker Max's book are hysterical there's no denying that, but I feel like they lack a sense of theme and are purely, comical short stories. If you're looking for something with a little more depth, but still make you laugh, check out [...] - it's free so it's not going to hurt your pockets.
3431646
Been there, done that. This borrows tone and trajectory heavily (HEAVILY)from Forrest Gump, but doesn't do it as well. While this is decent escapist literature, it doesn't rise to the level of good science fiction (pulp, that is) or the Tarzan series. It is a reckless vomitus of the author's comedic imagination that fails on several levels.

CHARACTERIZATION; The characters are fleshed out, but you aren't given a reason to like them, much less identify with them and root for them.  This is true of ALL the characters. Sympathy is created equally for all and is therefore, universally inadequate. In short, these characters have no HUMANITY. They are all ridiculous charicatures of situations people envision themselves or others in at extreme moments. Forrest Gump, on the other hand, had his Jenny with her debilitating eccentricities that he continually suffered through, and his ultimate humility in the face of a parade of world figures. We like Forrest Gump. We admire him.

RATIONALE; Both Forrest Gump and The 100 Year Old Man face us with the need to suspend disbelief. Forrest Gump presents a scenario where a boy with a previous deformity overcomes it to the extreme and builds the rest of his life on the strength of physical prowess. 100YOM takes a child and makes him an explosives expert at 10, later sequeing into an intuitive understanding of nuclear physics and atomic explosions. Again, looks like the Swede borrowed from Winston Groom but didn't do as well. When Groom needed a plot twist, he created a satisfying logical construct or at least a possible one. Jonasson just pulls stuff out of the air. There's no objective reason for anything. An elephant flattens a guy, a life-long criminal decides to give it up and hide behind bibles--it's all farce. Grooms approach was fantasy-comedic; Jonasson goes straight to Monty Python.

In fact, if you like Monty Python or any of the theater of the absurd you may love 100YOM. For my part, I found it derivative and tedious. What Groom did masterfully in 257 pages, Jonasson feels the need to drag out for over 400.

The last thing to criticize is the lack of pay-off. Gump ends up with his and Jenny's love-child son creating a genuine heart-warming moment. The 100YOM ends up with an 84 year old moron and all he can drink.
1050000
This book is awful. Too light on content, and far too jokey. This guy belongs to that species of writer who think: (a) Every book simply gets better if every line is somehow fashioned into a gag; and (b) Gags are VERY handy for padding out your book if the task of building real content into your work is just too inconvenient.

This wad of paper (ok, book) is from the shadowy realm of Pretend Advice: wordy and patronising, but with lots of 'good humor' filler to take away the sting of learning very little. A step-by-step guide should actually take you through a process; this book is just a series of very generic instructions that only have real meaning to someone who has already learned the process being described. Kaufeld conceals this deficiency by cleverly assaulting the reader with a relentless barrage of mindless chitchat and a forest of exclamation marks. This gets on your nerves like a hyperactive dog that never settles down.

I expect any defence of this kind of style to run along the lines of how helpful and positive it is to incorporate humor... how the objective might be to 'keep it light'... that we'll help our reader to be less daunted... etc. That kind of argument is standard in this modern age of philosophic fluff, but isn't convincing. It's like celebrating a flash flood by pointing out how vital water is to life. But as we all know, in many aspects of life, less is more. Many humans learn this wisdom by adulthood. The point is, zealous presentation can never make up for lack of content. This principle applies to a fun, introductory-level popular book, as well as a doctoral dissertation. "Yes, it wasn't so helpful, but oh it was funny." If we find ourselves saying that about any kind of a REFERENCE guide, then sorry: it's a fail.

As a previous reviewer points out, we may not be able to suggest any wonderful alternatives, but we can provide advice that helps avoid wasting money and reading-time on books like this. And speaking of books like this, I'd like to disrecommend another well-padded joke book disguised as a helpful computer guide: David Gulbransen's "The Complete Idiot's Guide to XML". Both these books are thinner than they appear; do not waste your money on them!

These guys really do seem to believe that we are true dummies and complete idiots. Evidently (I have bought both their books) they are correct.
2769862
I'd give this two stars really, though I stuck an extra one in for Rob Schneider's performance.

Cheesy ancient treasure in modern times causing a 'body swap' between a middle aged man(criminal) and a high school girl(tramp).  Until the actual 'body swap' happens, you'll have to put up with about 30 nearly intolerable minutes of high school cheerleader crap, watching girls go to the mall and shop and act like the complete airheads they are supposed to be.  If you haven't turned it off by that point (it was a close thing for me) then it does actually start to get funny, once the 'accident' happens.

This movie is a light hearted comedy that doesn't take it self at all seriously and can be amusing to watch in the same way that other Sandler/Schneider films have been.  Though I wouldn't consider it one of the better of the "Happy Madison" productions; its forgettable.
4132591
I guess if you're in the mood for some mindless, silly flick, then this little fluff piece might work for you.  It's a little tired (man finds his boyfriend cheating and goes on a series of predictably comical dates until...) nothing.

That's right, nothing.  It ends with a thud.  I got tired of the whiny lead and his ceaseless "dates" in this movie with little plot and no story.  It reminded me of "Lie Down With Dogs" which was similarly semi-entertaining and similarly without point.  But "Dogs's" pacing was better as well as its ending.

I didn't recommend "Dogs," even though it's better than this.  I wouldn't bother with either.
1647481
Waking up in Reno Directed by Jordan Brady is billed as a "feel good comedy" on the dvd but its anything but its a somewhat average, trashy soap opera of mishaps featuring one dishonest character after another. This one while it gave me three or four laughs are the kinda laughs you get when you see some get a pie in the face, that its cheap humor with limited value.

A group of buddies on their way to Reno find out that one of their spouses has been cheating on one another, amist this dsyfuctions, accusations of infidelity are exposed and peoples

so called values are burned to the ground.

The one actor that sticks out here as a sore thumb has to be Charlize Theron, which can be basically characterized as the "whore" of the movie. She has sex with her hubby Roy Kirkendall (Patrick Swayze) both in and outdoors. Roy is as dumb as they come, honestly, he cant even see her own cheating habits on him with his best friend, Lonnie Earl (Billy Bob Thornton) when the truth comes out.

Billy Bob though gives the best acting here, playing a loney husband whose wife doesnt want to give him the love he so desires. The guy is an utter wreck trapped in a loveless marriage

explaning why he cheats with other women including prostitutes.  Natasha Richardson as Lonnie's wife, Darlene isn't much better than Candy (Theron). In fact she is more SHALLOW

than her often complaining that her husband isn't romantic enough yet accepging superficial gifts likea  diamond in exchance for love.

As you can see its anything but a feel good comedy, a couple of laughs are very few and between the ugly characters and predictable storyline so don't waste your time.
3848990
The topic of this book is important, and I think the general message is intact. However, it seems to me that the author is forcing her comedy. When writing about serious topics, yeah, it's great to keep it light-hearted. But I just feel like she tries to be funny in places where it's not needed or appropriate. (And her sense of humor is really corny and cheesy, which does not help.)

For example, she tells a story about a woman, Wanda, I think, who hired a hitman to kill a cheerleader on her daughter's cheerleading squad. (This girl was the best on the squad and Wanda wanted her dead so that her daughter could advance in the ranks.) After she told this story and then related it to her message, she referred to this woman as "Wacky Wanda." Really? "Wacky" is not an adjective I would use to describe a homicidal woman. It just fell flat totally for me after that.

I think I was expecting more substance overall. This feels like one long blog post to me.
3674653
I really wanted to like this book after hearing about it and watching the YouTube trailer for it featuring Mario Batali; the trailer was hilarious.  Unfortunately, the book just didn't measure up - it was the literary equivalent of a comedian bombing on stage.
 Basic joke formulas were continuously recycled throughout the text:
- fictitious foods with goofy sounding names
- fake recipes with heavy use of gross-out humor
- liberal use of profanity as an (attempted) humor enhancer
- fictitious quotes attributed to famous people
It's 7th-grade level stuff that's repetitive, lowbrow and not particularly witty but some people are into that kind of thing.  But for a parody book that's actually GOOD, I would direct you to John Hodgman's "The Areas of my Expertise".
2522570
I had high hopes based on the synopsis, but unfortunately it turned out to be a shallow ridiculous story with pointless vulgarity (although to be honest I hardly ever find a point to adding vulgar descriptions to a story). If you like the dumb and dumber or similar slapstick movies, you'll probably enjoy this. Otherwise it was a waste of my time and $2.99.