Q: I cannot say this movie is a disappointment because I read some reviews before watching and it did not do as well as I thought it would have. The bar was not set that high, so the fact that my expectations were met is not saying much.

The Good: The city of New York. If you live in the city like me, you'll recognize certain places and understand that the city is supposed to be more than just a setting, rather one of the main characters. There are genuinely tender moments, humorous conversations, and plot twists left and right which all keep things interesting.

The Bad: The first thing I thought after leaving the theater was that I wanted more, but not in the positive "leave them wanting more" fashion. Certainly the good skits/scenes outweigh the bad, but there are a lot of skits that fall within the "in-between" category, too many in fact, which is what ultimately brings the movie down. Also, New York City's diversity, though hinted at though the many distant pans of the city and mentioned in conversation throughout the movie, is never really realized or analyzed to the point of doing the city justice. For example, many of the skits involve well to do middle aged whites. I mean I know the city is home to many of the said demographic but come on, Paris Je'taime's plot and character diversity makes New York City look like Lancaster, PA, or someplace really white. It is just disappointing to see the city shortchanged on its heritage like that.

Still, even after having said this, I would recommend giving New York, I Love You a view. Who knows, maybe you'll disagree with my opinion and maybe you won't. You will never know until you see it for yourself. This review is not meant to deter anyone from watching this movie, as everyone's opinion on art differs. I'm just giving you a very vague heads up on what to expect.
A: positive
Q: I mean really. This is not going to help the Australian film industry to make this kind of film with no values of any kind. Okay, if you're a stoner and have nothing better to do, then maybe. I think film-makers from here should try to show the rest of the world what great talented people we have, and this is not the vehicle for it. Come on now, this film is just tacky.
A: negative
Q: Predictable, hackneyed & poorly written. Foolishly I reasoned such a prominent cast would not be involved unless it had merit. I guess competition amongst actors is so intense these days (and will only get worse) that one cannot pick and choose much any more. Early on we were given an inkling who was was instrumental in the assassination and we had it rammed down our throats ever since. The movie lacked intrigue, giving us little insight into the victim and only one possible motive for the murder. Some of the discourse was, frankly, embarrassing! It's hard to believe anyone would even consider, let alone commit to, the spending of tens of millions of dollars to make this tripe.
A: negative
Q: The second in the Vacation series is easily the least enjoyable one, as Clark Griswold wins a trip for the whole family to Europe.

The tasteless, below the belt humor that worked so well the first time around is practically nonexistent here. That fault surely lies with director Hackerling, who's obviously nowhere near as good a director as Harold Ramis and a very uninspiring script that has only a handful of decent lines scattered around.

The cast does what they can; Chevy Chase injects some form of life into the proceedings but it's simply not enough and the very funny Eric Idle is completely wasted in a small role as a very unlucky Englishman. Some potentially hilarious moments aren't played out to their full potential and leave the viewer mostly aggravated. All depictions of Europeans are one-dimensional and almost universally not funny at all (like how the English are SOOO polite).

Apart from a few scenes, there's hardly a laugh in sight and the ending turn this one into complete slapstick. But if you're a Chevy Chase fan (like myself) the film is watchable, but no more than that.
A: negative