Invention of Lying, The
	Rating
	Type	Video On Demand
	Audience Rating	PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
	Release Date	2010-01-19
	Actor	Ricky Gervais; Jonah Hill; Jeffrey Tambor; Jennifer Garner; Fionnula Flanagan;
	Director	Ricky Gervais; Matthew Robinson;
	Length	100 minutes
	Special Price
	Lowest New Price	$3.99
Categories
Romantic Comedies  Warner Bros.
Similar products
Couples Retreat Love Happens Whip It! The Time Traveler`s Wife The Informant!
Description
From Ricky Gervais, the prize-winning creator and star of the original BBC series "The Office" and HBO's "Extras," comes a new romantic comedy. "The Invention of Lying" takes situate in an alternate reality in which lying--even the concept of a lie--does not exist. Everyone--from politicians to advertisers to the man and woman on the street--speaks the truth and nothing but the truth together with no thought of the consequences. But when a down-on-his-luck loser named Mark (Gervais) suddenly develops the capability to lie, he locates this dishonesty has its rewards. In a world where each word is assumed to be the absolute truth, Mark effortlessly lies his way to fame and fortune. But lies have a way of spreading, and Mark begins to realize this things are getting a little out of control when some of his tallest tales are being taken as, well, gospel. Together with the entire world now hanging on his each word, there is only one thing Mark has not been effective to lie his way into: the heart of the woman he loves.
Customer Reviews
Slowest Movie Ever   2010-03-10
By Lady M (USA)
ricky gervais obviously pressured this cast to sign up for his movie. there is no way all these talent actors and actresses would have read the script and actually wanted to be in this movie. it must have been a favor. it's horrible!
A misrepresentation (not the comedy you think it is)   2010-03-08
By C. Johnson (Florida)
I wish I had known that this was a movie about an athiest's view of our world rather than the sweet romantic comedy it was sold as in the previews. People can believe in what they want to -- I just wish I had known before viewing the movie that the message of the film was to belittle those us of us that have faith in God and the afterlife. I guess I should feel "happy" the movie attacks all religions and not just Christianity. I feel sorry for the actors that took part in this film. If they believe that life is just the brief time we spend in the flesh, I really do feel sorry for them.
An Office Curse?   2010-03-08
By Chris (Allen Park, MI United States)
There seems to be some curse involving the creators and cast of The Office (UK & USA) when it comes to motion pictures. There is the occasional exception (Steve Carrell in The 40 Year Old Virgin) but otherwise it seems like those involved with The Office really shine on their respective shows and not on the silver screen. Ricky fell very flat with this one. The Atheist argument aside this was just not funny. I agree with many other reviewers- Ricky should stop making films and stick with TV and his Podcasts.
It Had So Much Potential!   2010-03-07
By M. Richardson (TN)
On one hand, this little film exceeded all my expectations: I expected a stupid, insipid one-joke comedy that would be forgotten in a week. This is what the trailers led me to believe. Well, the trailer lies. I've never seen such a complete disparity between what the trailer led me to expect and what I actually got. This is one of the most thoughtful comedies I have seen in a long time. It is also one of the most disappointing. But wait, didn't I say it just exceeded all of my expectations? I did indeed. But it is disappointing because it is easy to see how much better this film could have been. Buried under an almost childish need to shock the audience (and, thus, a lack of self-restraint), a lack of understanding of the film's central gimmick, and a lack of nerve to explore this film's more radical implications is the skeleton of what could have become a comedy masterpiece. Unfortunately, it is not. If you've seen the trailer, you know basically what the film's big gimmick is: the people in this hypothetical world are unable to lie. There's no concept of truth or falsehood, because nobody has ever needed to make the distinction. These people can't conceive of any other kind of reality. This has some implications which lead to a number of the film's funniest jokes (while I do not want to ruin these for people, I will use one as an illustration: commercials, since they cannot lie to the audience and manipulate them psychologically as real commercials do, are nothing more than a spokesman for the company in question begging the consumer to please buy their product, even though (in the case of the spokesman for Coca-Cola) it will make your kiddies fat. The film is filled with this kind of witty ribbing.) It would have been easy to fill the film with increasingly crass and outlandish jokes resulting from the condition of this world. The film avoids this, however, and maintains a level of self-respect I would never have expected of it. This gimmick is only a springboard, however, for a deeper subject: religion and humanity's need for some level of self-deception. This is really the heart of the film, and it is totally unexpected. It touches on a whole host of philosophical issues (is lying ever bad, or are there times when it is more ethical to lie than to maintain the solemn truth? what is the nature of the connection between religious belief and morality? Do humans at core require some level of self-deception to be happy? And just what is the nature of happiness, anyway? Even if religion is untrue, isn't it still preferable for a dying old woman who is terrified by the thought of eternal nothingness to believe in an afterlife and be comforted and profoundly relieved in her last few minutes of life? And what is the nature of love and sexual attraction: is it more prudent to follow your emotions or to provide your children with superior genetic material? And what do we mean by 'superior' genetic material-- superior in what sense? etc. etc.) I could go on. The film is brimming with all sorts of questions. Unfortunately, it never goes past merely hinting at these questions, and it never explores the implications of its atheistic message. It seems as though, having gone so far as to say that God doesn't exist, it is afraid of pushing any further and alienating its audience any more than it already has. Was this due to a legitimate lack of nerve on the part of the creative minds behind this film, or was there pressure to tone down the atheist stuff by the film's financial backers? I don't know, but this is about as honest as a big-budget studio film can possibly get. It could have been more honest, though, and consequently more insightful. This should have been an independent film. And the creative minds behind this should have more fully explored the implications raised by it. I mentioned a lack of self-restraint: it is obvious that the intended scenes are supposed to shock the audience with the jarring way people just spout whatever is on their mind. But they don't always do this, especially when it would be inconvenient for the plot. And the inability to lie does not mean that people would have no self-restraint. The film goes overboard to shock us, but it grants later on that these people CAN restrain themselves. So have they also not evolved the ability to feel shame? Where does it end? How different are these people? I really wish, instead of trying to shock the audience South Park style it would have just laid out the rules coherently and stuck to them. It would have helped the film tremendously. The film winds down with one of the most formulaic endings I've ever seen to a romantic subplot. It is sub-blockbuster. If they couldn't pull off a love story that was believable at all, they should have left that element out of the movie. The film is really a mixed-bag. It's an intelligent high-concept romantic comedy with a witty satirical edge and some uproariously honest and brilliant scenes, but which suffers from a formulaic romantic subplot, a lack of nerve, and a childish compulsion to shock the audience, even at the cost of the film's internal coherency. I would still recommend seeing this, though: it is still a hundred times better than the vast majority of comedies out there (with a few notable exceptions, such as Pleasantville or Groundhog Day, two films which had the nerve to probe below the surface and found water). See it, and try not to get too offended. It isn't out to insult you.
Can I rate it at zero stars???   2010-03-07
By Laura T. Weber (Irvine, CA)
This is a sad excuse for a movie. I'd prefer to rate it zero stars because it wasn't worth the time it took to take it out of the packaging and put it into the dvd player. I'm disappointed that Jennifer Garner would allow herself to be associated with this project. It's a two hour rant about how telling the truth is a bad thing, lying is a wonderful thing, and believing in God in absurd. This is not entertaining by any standard.