Just what I expected

Good start, but then it gets ruined

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

i think this could be the worst attempt at stylish editing i have ever seen. i felt embarrassed watching it sometimes. i don't mind the film being bad so much but there was a certain smugness about the 'wackyness' of the humour that was extremely off putting. There is nothing new here, even though the writing is packaged as if we have never seen anything like this before. Drawn out supposedly awkward scenes just appear boring and clunky. There were one or two nice scenes with vincent gallo and Monica from friends. A lot of space in the dialogue for them to play with it, probably more due to lack of characterisation than creative freedom. Very poorly made film that feels very arrogant. i wouldn't really recommend this film. I only watched it because i like vincent gallo but even he under performed in this lukewarm disappointment. happy new year.

Sorry,this is by machine translation.They are the appendix of this movie, and a contribution review, "Also in gold and an appointment, a certain men are them. which was visible to a work called the degree of the second 3 as for the love story which throws away and goes to a sweetheart's basis". (an overseas review is too) which was seeing performance "able to fit in and smile at a jar" etc. however a story, performance, etc. -- natural -- although they are considered to even [ of an interesting element / "even" ] if it is in a story or a division called performance -- others -- without limit -- " -- it -- . with the movie measure" -- I feel that I am not so common as it tidies up at a comedy or a nonsense word noisily again, either.then -- if it says where was interesting -- "how to exist" . -- then, I was interesting as a movie of what kind of "how to exist" -- I am . -- if it says simply [ of a movie ] As . whose "laughter" <=> "serious" and "insanity" <=> "senses" most point ., i.e., "serious" scenes, of "having been perverted" is "laughter" on almost all scenes, and is serious [ the scene of "laughter" / which is not attached with actualities and I do not leave / "serious" ], and a sight "senses" the characters to serve -- in fact --. whose place which should have slightly sad" disposition which was out of order, or should become serious [ that / at which I cannot laugh / "serious" ] but "was amusing" only in extremely. fine as this is drawn on the basis of a certain fixed law like expression -- I think that this law can also do how to catch the "necessity" for making it not entwined by conditions.About "necessity", the words of an audience rating so and so near the last are symbolic, "Distinction" with common TV drama (TV media) . . "a reason is intelligible" prepared or whose "a reason is not known" are not "the amusingness which a reason does not understand", either -- visible way . that a focus is in the place where the focus shifted just for a moment in fact -- the place (at the time) where "focus shifted when saying more "if", a focus is not in sight" -- on a movie [ like ], it does not have the division which laps also with my "reality" -- I am . complication of "laughter" <=> "serious" and "insanity" <=> "senses" which crazy each one of the insane asylum of people who divide and come out and are in not only the leading role's Vincent Gallo but old her surroundings, or a supporting player to say shows / . which sensed fun for >> when inverted -- this -- how [ "movie ] -- if it says without hiding although it is feel " reality ". with a certain independent nature, I will say whether having seen with a favorable eye from before seeing Vincent Gallo who has originality of enough only by a face has the "focus" at the time of offering "only one interpretation" of a movie in the place whose manufacturer of this work is the television persons concerned surely in itself -- enjoying -- a way -- the bottom.

An enjoyable, but weird film. Liked seeing Ann Meara - a long-time favorite from way back and always like seeing Courtney Cox. BUT, Courtney, you can do better than Vince Gallo! I really couldn't see him as a "popular" talk show host. The guy looks like a rat, with his scuffy beard, every-which-way hair and sloppy clothes. Couldn't casting have shopped around for somebody more believable?Otherwise the rest of the bunch a crazies was really enjoyable to watch.

I'm a Vincent Gallo nut. I love the guy and would even watch a movie of him reciting the phone book. That would probably be more entertaining than sitting through 'Get Well Soon'. Apparently this is a comedy. Coulda fooled me. The only laugh I got out of it was the sheer audacity of the video cover blurb which said it was "in the tradition of 'There's Something About Mary'. Say what?! '..Mary' was actually funny, 'Get Well Soon' isn't. And apart from that the similarity is? You tell me!Vincent Gallo ('Buffalo 66', 'Palookaville') plays Bobby Bishop, a hip talk show host. He appears to be cracking up. He leaves his show in disgrace to return to New York and look up his old girlfriend (Courtney Cox) and attempts to woo her back. Mixed up with this are various, I hesitate to even call them sub-plots, involving mental patients and Matthew Broderick's dog. It's too stupid and pointless to even bother elaborating. Gallo radiates charisma, and is always watchable, even when the material is as poor and as dull as this. And boy! is it poor and dull.The supporting cast includes Jeffrey Tambor (best known for 'The Larry Sanders Show', and who, funnily enough, was actually in 'There's Something About Mary'), Anne Meara (veteran character actor/comedienne, and mother to Ben Stiller), and Elina Lowensohn ('Schindler's List' and various Hal Hartley movies).This is easily the worst movie Vincent Gallo has been involved with. It's even worse than 'Arizona Dream' which at least had a handful of outstanding scenes involving Gallo to redeem it. 'Get Well Soon' is a tedious bore from start to finish. I honestly can't think of one good thing about it. The fact is it's an awful movie that will please nobody. Let's just pretend it never happened...