I saw this last night in a preview screening, and I thought it was better than I expected it to be. I am not a huge Ray Romano fan, but I still thought his and the other performances in this movie were really good. The movie, of course, takes no real chances, but it's still a decent comedy and it is good to see a comedy that doens't rely on gross out humor and other lowest common denominator elements to generate laughs.

Huh?

The film OPENS with a shot of a naked man running through the main street of Mooseport! A joke that's repeated later in the film.

And what about the underwear gags?

IMO, this film is the pits. 105 minutes, and not ONE laugh. A good cast (minus the horrible Christine Baranski) wasted.

I guess Hackman had a boat payment due...

Damn! I was hoping this film would be good. I am rooting for My Man Ray.

The naked guy running and the panty joke later on were hardly main parts of the movie. I found the humor for the most part of the movie to be more intelligent. I enjoyed it, and I am not a particular fan of Ray Romano at all, and the group I saw it with enjoyed it as well, so take that as you will. To each their own, I suppose.

But when I made the comment about the humor in the movie, I was thinking of a run of really, really bad movies lately, like My Boss's Daugher, The Duplex, and the sort that think by being gross and over the top they can be the next American Pie series. Welcome To Mooseport does not rely on that type of humor to propell the movie.

MPAA Rating:
PG-13 - for some brief sexual comments and nudity

If you knew you weren't going to like the naked guy running around in the beginning, you should have heeded the rating. Or were you hoping to see Maura Tierney naked instead (well, I would have rather seen that too, but that's beside the point!)

Did this movie get delayed for some reason? I could swear I saw a trailer for this movie in early 2003.

Nope, it didn't even start filming until May 2003.

Man-Ray is in this film!? Now I have to see it!

I saw the Sunday preview as well and I have to say that the movie was pretty awful. Its not that funny, and neither is Ray Romano btw, and the acting isn't that good either. I also found it to be extremely drawn out and overly long. They could have cut about 20 or 30 minutes from the film easily. Im actually sorry that I waited in line to see it. What a disappointment.

I really want to see this, so I'm still holding out hope. It definitely has a great cast and what looked like a great premise. Guess I'll see what the tomatometer says on Friday before making a decision of whether or not to blow money on it over the weekend.

I've never understood the popularity of Ray Romano. I do not find him funny in the least and his voice gets on my nerves.

A young Ray Romano was very good in Frankenstein and the Harlem Globetrotters meet the Mummy and the Washington Generals, so I'm looking forward to him in this one.

I can tell you this: even though I found the movie to be enjoyable enough to come away from it with a postive feeling, it's not overly great. It's one of those destined to be a TBS favorite. Not that's necessarilly bad, but the movie really takes no new chances or breaks any new ground.

And I did find the setting up for a sequel to be kind of a groaner for an ending.

BTW, did the election committee head guy remind anybody else of Gollum? I kept on waiting for him to talk about how much he loved his "precious."

Man Ray?