Reviews

I didn't even want to watch the movie in the first place - I got talked into it, and I'm so glad I did, because I happened to love it! I wasn't a big Tina Fey fan, but she was really quite funny, and of course Steve Carell was great. The plot and the dialogue were both hilarious through and through, but what really sets it apart is that anyone can watch it and enjoy it. Whatever genre you like - comedy, romantic comedy, action - it'll keep you entertained. It was a bit reminiscent of "Get Smart," a perfect blend of action-adventure and comedy. Very funny, yet at the same time suspenseful. It's not really meaningful, like "Oh, my God, I'm a different person now that I've seen this," but it's a lot of fun.

This is about a guy named Tim who's about to get a promotion at his company. He's told to come to a dinner his boss is hosting, where the tradition is to bring an idiot with a special skill so everyone can make fun of them. Tim doesn't think that sounds very nice and plans on not going when he randomly meets Barry, who fits the part of "idiot with a special skill" perfectly. However, Barry turns out to be way more trouble than he's worth, and nearly ruins Tim's life.

If you want to see a movie that makes you laugh so hard it hurts, I highly recommend it. I won't give them all away, but some of the scenes were absolutely hilarious. Sure, it was low comedy, slapstick, most of it, but the laughter it induced was cathartic, therapeutic. However, it wasn't by any means a great movie. It's probably not going to be remembered in years to come.

I guess there were two main things I found wrong with it. One is that it dragged on for way too long. We (the audience) kept asking, When's it going to be the dinner part, already? The exposition/rising action took too long. Also, the standards of morality some of the characters had were pretty annoying. Why did Tim's girlfriend have such a problem with him bringing Barry - Steve Carell's character - to the stupid dinner? It was a weak scene when she started getting on his case about it - "I don't know you anymore, the Tim I know wouldn't do that." Give him a break. He's just trying to do his job, make a living. And these idiots are such idiots they don't even realize they're being made fun of.

The ending was pretty stupid, too. This is a comedy: it obviously ends happy. Though it shouldn't: Tim loses his job, all because he tried to stop the idiots at the dinner from being made fun of. That was pretty dumb. Overall, the story wasn't terribly intelligent, it wasn't haunting or life-changing, but many of the scenes were laugh-out-loud funny, and I suggest seeing it just for fun. Don't expect it to be wonderful - just expect to have a good time watching it.

6/10, good comedy, dumb story

As a huge fan of the entire Harry Potter series, especially the sixth book, I have to say I become more disappointed each time I watch it. The main focus of the director and screenwriter was to make it funny and entertaining, and so they let the overall point of the story fall to the wayside. They go through important scenes too briefly, leaving little room for character development, and spend too long on scenes that have no value to the story as a whole. The book was about the pending final battle with Lord Voldemort, and the funny scenes, and the parts dealing with the characters' various relationships, were added in as comic relief. The movie was the opposite. It was all about entertaining the audience, and the important parts were just stuck in randomly. They really overdid the romance and the consequential drama, focusing way too much on that aspect of the story.

For example, when Ron gets poisoned, and he's in the hospital wing, Slughorn tells Dumbledore that the poisoned mead had actually been meant as a gift for him. However, further debate as to who is the actual culprit is cut short by Lavender rushing into the room, screaming "Where's my Won-Won?" And Lavender also interrupts an important conversation on the train about Snape trying to help Malfoy by drawing a heart in the glass. Oh, and not to mention the extra seven or so minutes taken up by Hermione crying into Harry's shoulder after Ron and Lavender kiss for the first time. Even when Harry does go to Dumbledore's office to learn more about Voldemort's past, Dumbledore wastes time asking him if he's dating Hermione Granger??? Stupid, pointless scenes like this waste important time that could have been used in moving the actual story along!

And what, what, what was that scene with the fire at the Burrow? That took about ten minutes, and was completely pointless. In the time they use up doing pointless scenes like that, they could have been showing other memories of Voldemort, discussing other Horcruxes (how is Harry supposed to know what they are in the seventh movie?)Dumbledore could have been showing Harry what the prophecy really meant, why he and Voldemort would have to face each other in the end, how Harry had the power that the Dark Lord knew not of. Instead, time was wasted on scenes that won't even matter in the next movie.

Also, if they wanted to include more action, why not have more of a battle at the end? In the book, the Death Eaters and Harry's friends put up a huge fight. Why not have that... instead of the stupid fire scene?

Probably one of the biggest problems, though, is that now Harry won't even know what the other Horcruxes are in the next movie. Important time is going to be wasted figuring out what they are now, which means other valuable scenes could be taken out of the next two movies. This movie was definitely the weakest in the series and set the seventh one up for failure, in my opinion.

I just saw this movie yesterday and thought it was great. I don't understand why it got such a low rating. It was inspirational how all of the characters were such fighters - the parents and the children in the main family. There was such a will to survive. Also, I really liked the character of Dr. Stonehill - eccentric, brilliant, and intensely logical, but not really as heartless as he seems at first. I liked how in the end a lot of people who seemed to only have their interests or monetary interests at heart, really did end up caring about the Crowley family in the end. It seems like a cliché story, but it's so much more than that; it's entertaining, enlightening, and heartwarming.

9/10, I highly recommend it.

I don't know who to complain about more. I saw this movie just for fun, not expecting anything wonderful. But I didn't realize it would be absolutely horrendous. And it wasn't just one element of the movie that was horrible; it wasn't just the acting, directing, or writing. It was a combination of all those factors. The screenplay was clichéd from the start. Ronnie, more of a brat than a troubled teen, reluctantly arrives at her dad's house along with her overenthusiastic little brother. Their divorced parents talk, "We hurt them, you know." Ronnie walks down to the beach with a pout on her face, "My dad made me come down here for the summer - not like I wanna be here." She runs into a hot local guy, who for some strange reason takes an interest in her, despite her attitude. It's already something any 15- year-old who wanted to write a book or a screenplay could think of on their own.

Then, of course, there are little subplots. The baby turtles - I left the theater to go get a snack, that scene was getting too dumb - the friend who doesn't want to put up with domestic violence but has nowhere else to stay; the return to piano playing. Besides all of this, we have a girl who decides she's in love with a sweet, rich boy who's too ideal for real life - he helps the environment, works as a mechanic, is a volleyball star, lives in a huge mansion, accepted to Columbia but bound for Vanderbilt in the tradition of his family. Of course, Ronnie decides she's "in love" with Will after only a week of dating him.

The next twist in the story comes when the dad (Greg Kinnear was the best actor in the movie) collapses and is rushed to the hospital. Ronnie, bitch that she is, becomes angry at her dad for lying about his disease rather than supporting him. But she reconciles with him soon enough. Now this is a complete 180 from where the girl was at the beginning of the summer. Of course, a person completely changes in one summer - classic story.

This movie has two plot formulas: two family members who are half a step from estranged becoming gradually closer; and a girl meeting a boy, hating him, liking him, getting angry at him, breaking up with him, and getting back with him. Two formulas mixed together.

All right, so this is a very formulaic movie, you get it. But, as I said before, that's not the only thing wrong with it. Miley Cyrus is very disappointing as an actress. Not that I think she's so talented to begin with, but I thought she might have stepped it up a bit now that she's leaving behind Disney stuff for "serious" movies. I was so wrong. She acted like her character in "Hannah Montana:" a brat with a sarcastic sense of humor. Her expressions during her dad's death (horrible scene anyway) and funeral made the saddest scenes amusing. She really has to take her acting to the next level if she wants to be taken seriously - or maybe she doesn't have the potential. Either way, her acting was barely mediocre in most parts of this movie. But, if you don't care about the bad acting, inexperienced directing, or cliché screenplay, by all means, watch it.

I started randomly watching this movie one day, although I hadn't intended to watch it when it first came out. I never read the book. I thought the movie would be pretty dumb, which it was - I mean, it wasn't brilliant. Who would have expected it to be? It was formulaic in its plot - you knew exactly what was going to happen next after every scene. You knew she and the journalist guy were getting together. You knew she was going to have a falling out with him and with her best friend. You knew she was going to get offered her dream job. You knew she was going to reform and everything would work out in the end. It was absolutely, utterly predictable. But...

It was funny. The main character is so cute, funny, and innocent, and although you want to be annoyed with her, you can't help but feel sorry for her and hope for the best (and, of course, you know the best is going to happen). This movie is fun, lighthearted, and entertaining, though formulaic and cliché. I recommend it not because it's brilliant, not because it's a masterpiece, but because it's fun.

I can't believe that I thought this show would be good when I started watching it. From the very beginning the script has been cliché to the point of being sickening, the acting has been mediocre, and the characters have been shallow and unlikeable.

The main problem I have with this show is its characters, especially the adults. Their immaturity, especially that of Amy and Ashley's mother, is unnerving. She is lazy, whines and complains, and does not want to do anything to help her children. One of the dumbest dialogues on the show has taken place between her and her boyfriend David. He calls her, says, "We need to talk." She asks, "Can it wait till tomorrow?" He says, "Not really. Are you pregnant?" She says, "Are you drunk?" He says, "I asked you first." That's only one out of dozens of examples of how terrible the script is. Their dad is even worse; he virtually abandons his family, then expects to be welcomed back with open arms. He also tells Amy off for trying to escape her duties as both mother and daughter and go out with Ben for the night, even though he hasn't been present in their household for months. However, he does hit an important point: Amy's immature. So, why, why, why did she keep her child? She doesn't want him! She says she loves him, then she complains about him! I think the worst message this show could have possibly sent is that for a 15-16 year old girl to keep her baby is a good idea. Yet some of the characters are adamant that Amy take care of her own child. Even her own parents encourage her to do it if she wants. What a terrible message to send.

Most of these characters are not even stereotypes, because there is NO ONE like them. If there are people out there like them, they are quite unique.

Another problem I have with this series is the unintelligent way it tries to show that teenagers aren't ignorant about the rest of the world. When Ricky is talking to someone about finding his own place to live, they say, "Well, with the real estate market being what it is..." When the news arrives of Grace (the most annoying, most idiotic character of all)'s father's death, Adrian says, "Not another terrorist attack!" before she finds out exactly what the news is. Brenda Hampton, the creator, producer, and writer, gives no indication in any of the episodes that she knows what life is really like for American teenagers. She doesn't know what she is talking about. I've seen plenty of dumb shows, but this has got to be the worst.

I've heard this movie described as "brilliant" and the ending as "the best I've ever seen" and even "one of the best in movie history." That is completely exaggerated, because this movie isn't even close to brilliant. It's mediocre. The plot is entertaining the first time you watch the movie, and even comical in some parts, but if you actually pay attention to what is being said you will realize that a lot of it doesn't even make sense, especially the idea that Aaron has multiple personality disorder.

The fact that Martin actually believes him is surprising because in the scene where they first meet Aaron tells him that he saw a figure in the room where Rushman was murdered before he blacked out. Later the other person in the room, the one who killed the archbishop, is determined by Martin and by a psychiatrist to be his other personality, Roy. So he saw the other person...then turned into him? This may make sense if Aaron is schizophrenic as well, believing he sees Roy and talks to him. Later, when Roy makes his first appearance to Martin, he knows perfectly well who Aaron is and everything that happens in his other personality's life. However, when Aaron is asked during the trial if he knows who Roy is, he says he does not. So Martin should not be so surprised when Aaron/Roy reveals that they are the same person.

That element of the story bothered me the most. What also annoyed me is how Aaron/Roy's story was never fully explained. If he did commit murder on purpose, why? Is it because of the sexual abuse? Did he have a disturbed childhood, or was he lying about that? It's up to the viewer to decide. I also didn't like how Martin Vail was never characterized completely. Is he an arrogant jerk, a genuinely kind and compassionate person, or both? Is he an arrogant jerk who's trying to reform? The tag line of the movie is "Sooner or later a man with two faces forgets which one is real." Who is this referring to? Rushman is said to be two-faced because he acted like a saint in public but was a sex maniac who took advantage of the vulnerable, but the story is never seen from his point of view, and we never receive evidence that he forgot which side was real. Aaron is also two-faced, but he knows this. Martin Vail, however, does not appear to be two-faced. The only evidence of a change in his character is when he starts to care about Aaron after at first insisting that he was not really interested in whether or not a client was innocent. However, there is little sign of an actual personality change or that he is forgetting which side of himself is the real one.

The one redeeming element of this movie is the acting. Richard Gere, Laura Linney, and, of course, the remarkable Edward Norton are all very convincing as their intriguing, albeit inadequately explained, characters.

So if you like courtroom dramas despite what little sense they make, I guess I recommend it. However, don't be surprised if you find it isn't very well-done. I watched it with high expectations and was quite disappointed.

I finished reading the book (an instant favorite) only about two weeks before I first saw the movie, which I honestly didn't think would do the book justice. I gave it a chance, however, and I was pleasantly surprised. Not only did Anthony Hopkins shine, but for anyone who read the book, the movie leaves little room for disappointment. It covers all the main points of the book and remains accurate. The only major thing they changed was that Mr. Lewis-the American senator who attended Lord Darlington's international conference on Germany- became Stevens' new employer, not Mr. Farraday. The ending was very good, too, especially because Stevens and Miss Kenton are both crying when they part, possibly for the last time. The movie overall captures the essence of the book because you can really understand how Stevens is feeling: he looks back on his life and realizes that it meant nothing. It's devastating and if you're particularly sensitive, you'll probably cry.

I first saw this movie last summer, and, finding it thoroughly entertaining, have seen it several times since. Though creative, the plot did run a little too fast at times. For example, it was unclear how often Kitty's affair with Charlie lasted (in the book, it was several months). I realize though that it would have made the movie longer and that it was quite long already.

Strangely, I have to say that I prefer the movie to the book here. The movie does let us know what is going on between England and China during the 1920's, which is something the book does not do. Also, when direct quotes from the book were placed into the script, they were put into scenes in which they were more appropriate.

Despite its tragedy, this movie managed to make me laugh. Kitty finally fell in love with her husband, and then he died? She named her son after him, even though he was likely not the father? Irony like that is not something you see every day, and I couldn't help but find it amusing.

Also, you can't help but be awed by the scenery. It is strange, not something you're accustomed to seeing, yet very beautiful. There is one scene towards the end where the sunset is so simple yet majestic that it makes you want to cry.

The actors are all compelling and you can't help but feel the way each character does. You will feel sorry for them and at the same time you'll want to shout "you idiot" at the screen. In the end, you'll probably end up liking them all.

Devastatingly beautiful scenery, brilliant acting (Naomi Watts is pretty bad at fake crying, but otherwise she was quite good)and a few interesting twists make this movie worth seeing at least once.