Albert Brooks is OK in vapid, slow-developing romantic comedies I guess. But Brooks has three comedic expressions he applies to every situation; pitiful, clueless and dumb. I wonder what Mel Brooks could have done with the same screenplay. Or better yet, Jerry Seinfeld.

When Albert Brooks has been considered funny? Ever? He seems to be caught between either trying to be Woody Allen or Mel Brooks. Or maybe the unfunniest offshoot of Jeryr Seinfeld / Larry David ever birthed.

Don't know about the new movie, but Albert Brooks is one of the greatest comedians of his generation. Between his guest spots for SNL in the 70's, his filling in for Carson on the tonight show, and a handful of brilliantly funny films (Real Life, Modern Romance, and Lost in America), many have called him the "funniest man alive" (including Mel Brooks reportedly). His most memorable role may be for Broadcast News, where he transformed his neurotic onscreen persona into a character we could care for as well as laugh at.

As for the comparisons to Mel and Woody... I think Mel has a totally different comedic style. He uses gags and over-the-top humor more. Woody's neurotic character is closer to Albert's style, but Woody's nebbishy loser shtick has not aged well. Albert's desperate and ineffectual alter ego still feels just real enough to be funny.

It's true that his later movies may lack the edge they used to, but Mother, The Muse, and Defending Your Life have all had their funny moments, some of them enough to make me laugh out loud. It could be that I have a soft spot for him for all the other times he's made me laugh.

The only movie I remember him in was Taxi Driver and it was more a dry humor that might cause my lips to curl a little, not cause a belly-laugh. He has always been like the guy in a disturbing movie (or in a disturbign world) who brings a moral center to a film (or the world) simply because he is a decent man who is able to make a joke that is not at anyone's expense.

I went to this movie with a thought that it might be comical, that thought was quickly dispelled. What became apparent was the lack of understanding in the world. How we can misconstrue, misunderstand and make hasty judgments from flawed facts.

This was a commentary on the fact that no matter with whom you are trying to communicate with, things can go awry. For example when Brooks attempts to tell his daughter that he bought her a "snow globe with the Taj Mahal inside" she misunderstands her Father and thinks he said it is snowing at the Taj Mahal. If we can't effectively communicate with our family, how do expect to communicate with strangers that we have no commonality with.

Brooks almost starts world war III when he sneaks across the Pakistani boarder. India is suspicious of his activity, Pakistan is suspicious and everyone becomes suspicious when he visits Al jeezer. Each side without understanding, starts amassing troops along their borders ready for war. Brooks is completely oblivious to this effect and keeps loping through life trying to make people laugh. This is an entirely satirical movie that highlights our bumblings in the Mid East and our lack of ability to communicate effectively.

The reason Brooks didn't go to Saudi Arabia is because the movie's not about finding comedy in the Muslim world. It's an ironic title. It's about un-comedy in the American world -- and much else. And we don't get it -- if we did, we wouldn't have re-elected Bush.

The U.S. military was sent to Iraq to save us from terrorism. Brooks was sent to India to find comedy in the Muslim world. Pretty much the same thing -- only deflated. India -- despite its Muslims -- is not where Muslim comedy resides, nor is Iraq -- despite a few terrorists -- where terrorism resided. Nor anything else we were supposedly looking for.

Irony is saying the opposite of what you mean. So is misleading people. Get it?