Too much of everything

Redundant and unnecessary.

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Before I get into the actual merits of the film, it would be extremely remiss to not preface that with the real reason behind how and why this film came to be in the first place, a remake of a French film that was made only 3 years prior. For those of you who don't already know, Gerard Depardieu is basically a living legend in French cinema, so why not for American cinema too? Surely the whole world will love him just as much as the French do! In a mouthful, that's taking a lot for granted.Personally I never understood the mass appeal of this man in France. He's an A-list actor there, and while I don't begrudge him that, he's also become a bit of a phenomenon. In fact, you really don't have the American equivalent. To make it clearer, Americans really don't have ONE guy upon who's shoulder they can rest the entire history of American cinema. Gerard Depardieu is basically that guy in France. He's essentially to film what Elvis Presley was to music. This film was the film that was intended to launch Depardieu's acting debut in America, and make him a household name in America, so after being almost universally panned by critics, why didn't it work?Of all the screenplays they could have chosen for an American breakout feature, this one really was a curious choice. It's a film that deals with an incestuous, pedophilic subject. Europeans find this cute and funny, and the idea of older/younger relationships, as well as coming of age stories were a bit of a guilty pleasure over there for awhile, whereas those type of themes tend to creep out most Americans to the point where they would have trouble appreciating the comedy and irony in this type of film. That being said, even in Europe this type of pseudo-sex comedy was already on the way out by the mid 90s anyway. The "pseudo-sexual" aspect in and of itself is at the core of this film's lack of appeal to an American Audience. It's NOT really a sex comedy. It's PG rated with little to no sexual intrigue, so it's not going to appeal to young adults, and it's sure as hell not the type of thing most Americans would want to show to their kids.So how did the "Americanization" of this massive cultural disconnect go? Simply put, not well! For starters, French humour relies heavily on character comedy. As such, erratic mood swings and exaggerated reactions are common in French comedies. The end result is, Depardieu's acting comes across as forced; he overacts basically, and in combination with his thick accent and scripted English expressions that only a native English speaker would say, it comes across as extremely awkward and wooden. It's like trying to tell a joke in a foreign language when you barely understand the words coming out of your mouth. It's hard to distinguish when he's trying to be funny or when he's trying to be serious, and unlike actors like Michael Caine, he's bad at blending the two.One thing I find quite funny is how they tried to soften Depardieu's character in the American version to make him more likeable. For example, in the original, he beats his daughter twice, and he beats the woman he met at the resort once. All times in a matter of fact way as if not intended to illicit any type of audience reaction. Not so in the American Version. How's that for a cultural disconnect? In this version he comes across as more silly and light hearted, whereas in the original he comes across as a bit of a crank with a serious anger problem, and not likeable at all. There's definitely a "please like me!" aspect to this film which you'd probably only pick up on if you saw the original, but I definitely couldn't stop thinking about it, watching this.So how did this film compare to the original? Believe it or not, I still thought this film was slightly better than the original. Even though most of the scenes are essentially copy and pasted, this director staging the scenes more naturally and less forced. In the original, one plot premise is constantly feeding into another. He also quite sensibly cut out the violent altercation where Depardieu punches out the resort's cook, right before he undergoes his failed attempt to rescue his daughter. In the original he's whisked into an ambulance, and never gets charged for commiting assault, whereas in this film he's brought back to the guesthouse to sleep it off. Again, much more natural and less forced, this being the most extreme example of that.Ultimately though, neither are very good films. I suppose it didn't hurt that Katherine Heigl is much more attractive than the girl in the original film. Opposing that are things like the speedboat scene which in this film is more over-the-top than in the original, plus the entire premise itself comes across as forced, moreso in this film, especially when Depardieu's character spontaneously starts singing a song about little girls, completely oblivious to the fact that everyone at the resort thinks he's a pedophile. The scene that really kills it for me though in both films is the scene towards the end where the father is hiding in the bushes feeding lines to his daughter as she speaks to her male love interest in the film. So needlessly ridiculous.

Entire concept gross. A daughter pretending that her father is her boyfriend for any reason is disturbing and she needs therapy. Even after her dad learns of this she is more concerned that he keep her secret (she's okay with everyone in the entire resort thinking he is a child molester while) because she does not want to lose the guy. How self-centered is that? And then he goes along with it because he does not want to ruin her first chance at love. I would have ruined her first chance at love and any chance of leaving her room for the rest of the summer. The daughter is a little brat and I couldn't deal with this movie and finally walked out of the room. Anyone who finds this movie funny needs their head examined. I would say this ranks as being one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life.

A teenage girl (Katherine Heigl) on vacation in the Bahamas with her divorced father (Gerard Depardieu) tries to impress a potential boyfriend by saying that her father is actually her lover.There are a number of strange things about this film. Fans of director Steve Miner might be interested, and Katherine Heigl fans may want to see her first big role. And then there is Depardieu, who was huge forever but might not have been as big in America. I first saw this film, as many people did, when it first came out, but it actually is more enjoyable now (2016) because of where those involved ended up.But really, is it not strange to make a family film about an accused child molester? We probably should not be laughing at a man who is repulsing his friends because they think he is sleeping with a child (who also happens to be his daughter).

This is another case of Hollywood Arrogance presuming to eclipse French Style. The original, Mon Pere ce heros, was one of the most charming films of 1991 so naturally the accountants in Hollywood thought they could hire Depardieu and phone the rest in. They did, however, take the precaution of hiring Francis Veber to write an English version albeit one utilising virtually every word of the original. Depardieu brings his Gallic charm and Katherine Heigl shows all the promise that is now paying off. The thing is that when the French make a sort of Lolita-lite they get away with it because the 'dirty French postcard' thinking works in their favour; here the Hollywood idea of lightweight subtlety is to have Depardieu (totally unaware that his daughter has let it be known he is actually her lover), prevailed upon to play and song 'something French', launch into a spirited version of Thank Heaven For Little Girls. See the original.