Pas aussi pourri que le film d'avant,mais qu'est ce que je me suis ennuyé !

*

*

different tastes I guess...

Author: bill smith from Canada
16 August 2012
 

Wow. I don't get the love this movie is getting here. I would argue that the Rotten Tomato reviews are more objective. Just my opinion- The trouble with this movie for me was the screenplay; the dialogue and characters are just not believable. The sudden outbursts, the random conversations- they were just bizarre. Oral sex on the bus, spitting on, and threatening a teacher without repercussions. It all lacked reality. The random animations, direct to camera speaking, and shaky camcorder feel didn't help. Watch Season 4 of the Wire if you want to see powerful, yet accurate, character portrayal and dialogue associated with this topic.This just seemed forced, in-your-face, and came across as trite. Again, just my opinion.

Author: alexulumend from United States
14 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was well acted yes-very. but there was not one single character who was a true stoic and kept coming back to embracing the positive and evolving as a human even the main character who was wise and kind yet was a coward in the end why must all the people in this film who are not drones who do have a conscience who do desire greatness also be doing actions that are so destructive and negate anything admirable within even though they are aware? the writer of this film has a very one sided bleak point of view that is weak the writer gives no hope thanks but we don't need another reason to slit our wrists.Tell the truth yes but than show people what to do with the truth -to use the truth as a tool to overcome, to know what to oppose to learn what is worth fighting for. guess what?

there are people in life who have been through very dark times and overcome them and are better people now.... another unrealistic aspect of this film is that no one has any regret I understand why some of the people harmed themselves with self loathing acts but when you have a realization that it is no longer what you should do or want to do you also have a period of feeling upset that you did that, the girl who was a hooker she would in real life have felt a period if not for years and years of deep sadness to anger to shock that she had allowed herself to be treated so horribly by others and herself yet in the movie she just goes from being totally screwed with to screwing herself over to being happy and healed just like that. we did not need to see suicide as the answer in this film because it is never an answer. again the writer makes an angel a hero out of someone who chooses to do the worst acts of all to themselves.

That's not heroic.. weather you harm another or harm yourself it is just as wrong. Worst of all was the torture and murder of an innocent cat.That was by far totally disgusting and the reaction in the end was "well the kid felt like the cat" again the writer trying to show some "honesty " by that as answer to harming and killing a totally innocent being-that was the biggest load of crap in the whole film-that sort of behavior is psychotic. I personally have had a very hard life myself, I have been violated, I have been abandoned as a child, I was homeless, I have overcome drugs and this is why I feel this movie is misleading un-realistic and weak because with all that happened to me I never harmed an innocent animal and I did feel horrible for any self destructive things I did after I realized they were wrong and I did not obviously kill myself as an answer.This film is not brave and frankly it could have been.

It chose to show those who harm and than those who realize the harming is going on but do very little about it.Everyone -every single character just acted like their were stuck, frozen in self pity,smothered by disappointment, paralyzed by pain.We can not choose what happens to us most of the time but at some point after we can always choose what we do about it.This film is just a dead end and a cop out.I wish I had not wasted my time watching it.

Author: Winston Lee from United States
18 July 2012

Having notable celebrities, an "emotional" storyline with a obvious, cliché message, tragic characters and cheap sappy music playing in the background and other bait that of which the Oscars or any award show would consume is the case of The Detachment, a 2011 indie film which won several awards.

We often see this type of deprived, artistic and emotional piece about a substitute teacher trying to help illiterate or with poor grades, poor or terrible school filled with stereotypes and bullies that at first, terrorized and bully the school and having one teacher turn it around in the end, well the director seems to get a great idea to make another annoying high school drama film or more specifically a teen- angst film.

Tony Kaye who is known for American History X tries to convey his elements of his previous films and try to make the most melodramatic and artistic movie that seems to be derived from other movies related to this.

I am not sure what the director is thinking, the fact that we see thousands of films like these and people tend to get suckered into the bad melodrama and the obvious plot lines with poorly drawn characters with terrific actors performing them. I mean how did they get people like Adrian Brody, Christina Hendricks, Bryan Cranston, James Caan to even Lucy Liu — seriously, she went out of her way to get this terrible role? I felt like this was just a money deal for them and they were just told what to do.

I don't want to begin what the film is about, I seriously doubt the plot would even care less as well; it's about a clinically-depressed substitute teacher who's been moved to the most illiterate and bad school that of which is being sold off (or trying to) by Mr. Mattias (Isiah Whitlock Jr.). Adrian Brody plays the substitute teacher, Henry Barthes who is this clinically depressed lemon (as one of the students called him) who isn't like the other teachers although the fact that the other teachers don't fend off the bullies are just as much as him.

Anyways, after his father had passed away, he lives a fellow irritating, homeless female student, Erica (Sami Gayle) and has to teach a class full of stereotypes and bullies who try to imitate and scare off the teacher.

The film is mainly about this substitute teacher drifting off from classroom to classroom attempting to connect with his fellow students while dealing his own personal demons as well. Oh there is also a overweight artsy student that loves photography, taking pictures of Mr. Wiatt (Tim Blake Nelson) who has gone insane probably because of all the bullying.

The film consists of so much stereotypes and bullies that I am baffled why people actually like this movie. I mean, the first few minutes when the Brody character comes to class, there is a stereotypical black person with an attitude problem that threatens him and in the next scene, we also see other teacher, Ms. Sarah Madison played by Hendricks being spit on and threaten to get "gang-bang" by a black girl. It's really baffling that people think this film is "powerful and gripping" even though the writers of this film clearly play the "racism card" of having all to most black people in the school that have either an attitude problem or presumably be in some gang threatening teachers. It's like every teacher in the school are wimps that don't stand against them, even other movies that related to this plot have gangs in the school and there are less emotional people in those movies.

I cannot stress how irritating this movie is, everyone in this movie is either an annoying, irritating human being or some pathetic, emotional person that does not have an inch of hope on improving their students. I like the fact that the director try to convey Brody's character feelings through him looking straight at the camera and the cheaply done artistic chalkboard drawings that attempts to convey some emotional impact. It felt like the director just wanted to have this movie be drenched with awards and have a melodramatic message and theme, terribly implemented to make it dramatic to the audience.

In the end, people who think this movie is even good is either have bad taste in movies or some sucker who get cheaply suckered into the melodrama and say things like "the movie has a gripping subtext that of which could easily related to real life or not." So the fact that everyone in this film is some kind of bully or some helpless person relates to a bunch of people online? Wow, where did I see that be implement in a dozen movies that has been produced years ago? Seriously, I do not see the slightest thing right with this movie and I am usually prone to these movies.

Author: jnanasakti from United States
2 June 2012

The movie does not achieve it's objective to show what a state of "detachment" is; how it comes about and how it is dealt with. The problem is both script and direction. It's scene after scene of tremendous conflict, a lot of which I would say is exaggerated. Every f-in character is conflicted. The movie tries to round out some humanistic side - but the main problem is that it pushes too far in every scene. Granted I'm all about reality and the gravity of the human condition and being real...but in trying to achieve that, this movie overshoots - big time.

Reviews that give this movie high markings are from people who are impressed with the cast just for who they are (and they are great actors), and the desolation depicted. Rating on movie on it's ability to execute - the script and direction suck. Like I said, there's a reason the movie wasn't released in theaters...with such amazing cast - the movie must be pretty f-ed up not to make it to release and it is.

Author: lukas8 from United States
15 August 2012

I had high hopes about this film, but it left me feeling annoyed.

First, the positive. The cinematography is attractive and the scenes are well constructed visually. If you are looking for open-ended existential questions, you will find a few of those. If you are looking for Adrian Brody to do his sad eyebrow face, you will not be disappointed. There are a few cameos by other great actors, if you are in to that sort of thing.

Now, the negative. This film does not offer any valuable insight into any of the problems that it addresses. It gives a sensationalist portrayal of the difficulty of being a teacher in a failing school, the apathy of students and teachers, and the aftermath of childhood abuse. It emphasizes each of these problems without offering any kind of understanding beyond the expression of listless angst. All the vague statements that Adrian Brody says into the camera are certainly less than the sum of their parts.

I don't expect all films to offer insight. When the subject matter are issues that people care deeply about, it is nice, but if a film doesn't offer insight at least it can offer entertainment. Well, not this one. The story is aimless and meandering. The child actors are not believable.

Instead of watching this movie you might consider just sitting in a corner to think about how bad life can be, and then blame it all on parents without really trying to understand the situation. Same effect.

Author: bdem from United Kingdom
22 July 2012

I'm afraid I have to count this among the few films this year that I was quite excited by but ultimately left me disappointed.

I found a lot of it was quite cheap (mostly from a good deal of the melodramatic acting on display) and throughout the film I couldn't wrap my head around the choice of shooting.

The camera-work felt very out of place. For example, one scene could have five or six different angles with one using grain, another with use of quick zooms and then another with quick pans and the culminating effect felt very fake, as if belonging to a run-of-the-mill TV crime drama. It genuinely hampered my viewing of the film.

Adrien Brody does well enough despite wearing almost the same facial expression for most of the film and the few touching moments of the 97 come from his interaction with Grandpa. There's chemistry there but there are simply no sparks between other characters.

There are a few good cameo performances from Bryan Cranston and James Caan yet they don't seem to add anything to the film and this is amongst dubious performances from the supporting cast (Marcia Gay Harden, Christina Hendricks and Betty Kaye). There was a lot more to be left wanting from them. On the other hand, that's possibly the result of the writing as their characters don't feel overly convincing.

I hate singling an actor out as the worst but I can't not mention Lucy Liu who overacted just about every second she was on screen. She was the main culprit of the melodramatic acting scattered amongst this film. Cringe just about does it justice.

One of it's bigger problems is that it tries to handle too much. Education, youth, family problems, childhood trauma and prostitution amongst others and the result is that none of these issues are tackled full-on instead being treated bit by bit.

Bryan Cranston said he took his part in this as he liked the script and believed in it. I don't doubt his judgement, personally, but if that's the truth then I'm very surprised by the film's execution of it. A long way off for a director who (just about) gave us American History X.

I loathe being so negative about a film, one of which there were elements to like, but I guess it stems from the great sense of disappointment and dissatisfaction Detachment left me with.

Author: Bob_the_Hobo
21 November 2012

Mr. Barthes (Adrian Brody) is a wandering substitute teacher assigned to work at a high school that seems to be imploding with every waking second of its being. Teachers and counselors alike burst at the seams as they argue and fight about their futures, taking their counterparts with them on a long, angsty look at high school life.

Alright, I know, this is a deep and fulfilling movie that "I just didn't understand". But high school is pretty normal. The nicely built brownstone that the film takes place in just doesn't seem like a reasonable nesting place for gangsters and prostitutes. The faculty here are people that would have been fired long before they scream and threaten students in the way they are portrayed. High school just isn't this angsty.

Adrian Brody does an admirable job. He's a fine actor and proves himself worthy of his string of recent independent films. But his performance never seems live enough to keep you interested. His dead demeanor matches the rest of the film's depressed atmosphere. My complaint is not that the film is not happy, but rather that it never grabs you, except when it shows you some blood or sex, where you tend to be too repulsed to notice.

Brody seems to be the main character, but the film is more of an ensemble with several fantastic character actors. James Caan has some perfect scenes as a...teacher? Councilor? Who knows, he just seems to be the only character with any interest in his job. We suspend the reality that Lucy Liu would be long fired when she screams at students for not applying themselves. Marcia Gay Harden loses her job. Maybe. She spends most of the movie being sad about something, that was probably it. William Peterson and the exceptional Tim Blake Nelson are underused.

This is an experimental film, and the results are probably what the people behind it expected, perhaps wanted. But "Detachment" is off- putting in a bad way, and never seems to latch on to exactly what its message is. If it is perhaps that we are so detached from reality that we are a paradigm for these characters, then why bother to watch the movie?

Author: mittens-and-matches from Seattle
5 September 2012

First lets start off with the good:

- Cast: Wow, great cast...Adrian Brody, Christina Hendricks, Bryan Cranston, James Caan, Lucy Liu.

- Acting: I generally like Adrian Brody. He is perfectly cast for this part. Generally there is nothing to complain about regarding any of the acting in the movie. Very well done.

- Dialogue: Good dialogue is important. Especially for a movie like this which is entirely character driven. Adrian gives some nice moving speeches and James Caan has some quite witty humorous lines. Overall, the dialogue is good.

- Vision: The creators of the movie were trying to create a movie that showed the reality of hopelessness in struggling urban school environments. I understand the 'detachment' they are trying to convey and applaud them for trying not to dress it up to much with a Hollywood tale. However, there are some problems with the execution of the vision which leads me to...

The bad:

- Script: If a strong script is important to you: avoid this movie. The story relies on sucking you in to the emotional performances of the characters to create its meaning.

- Poor directing/Tries to hard: Unfortunately, many of the scenes are a little over the top. In its attempt to make us feel we witness scene after scene of extreme behavior. The chance to connect with the subtle emotions of real life drama are lost and we are caught up in a melodrama. The movie tries hard to make you "FEEL" something. Its a little like a sales pitch for sadness. I found myself getting annoyed at certain moments like I was in a live showing of Dave Letterman and the audience 'laugh' sign pops up to tell you what to do only here its this is your cue to "feel this _____ emotion".

Overall, I found myself feeling like Rick Groen of the globe summed this movie up the best saying: "Ultimately, Detachment invites us to feel precisely what it warns against, detached." I enjoy curling up with a tub of ice cream and feeling depressed about life as much as the next person. However, I need my movies to be the whole package if they are going to take me there. Here about halfway through I found myself wanting to skip ahead some scenes because they were boring me. Indeed I felt a little detached.

Want to watch something that deals with similar subject matter yet doesn't overdress it? Watch HBO's series "The Wire" with a 9.5 rating on IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0306414/

Author: Connor3820 from United States
25 November 2012

I had high expectations for this film. Tony Kaye had not come out with one since the excellent "American History X" almost 15 years ago, In which he took on some very controversial issues and made a very ambitious and thought provoking look at how racism effects individuals. With "Detachment" it's as if he tried to one-up his last film, which resulted in a pretentious, contrived roller coaster of emotions and extreme characters. This film is a fine example of simply too much going on. The film is well cast, but that doesn't save a bad storyline. Stylistically the film must have been shot on a DSLR, and it looks as if the operator walked around with it freely in his hands for most of the movie, due to shaky camera work.We have numerous characters that are all dealing with what would seem to be their rock bottom. Instead of taking a few characters and delving into what brought them to this point, we have a movie that goes 0-60 in the opening scenes and stays that way throughout the whole film. There is no down time, it's just a constant bombardment of extreme conditions and emotions, which just doesn't feel real and is definitely not wholly believable. The reason I didn't give it a lower rating than I did is because It kept my attention the whole way through, but it wasn't for the right reasons.

Author: Chris L from France
30 July 2013

Tony Kaye draws up in this Detachment a dark portrait of a teacher's job and the US educational system, and delivers a striking but unfortunately not totally convincing movie.

The film's interest lies mainly in Adrien Brody's totally nuanced and excellent performance as a troubled teacher on the verge of breaking point, within a very good cast perhaps a bit too under exploited.

As for the script, it's not uninteresting, far from it, but the omnipresent darkness turns boring: after the hour mark, the viewer has enough of seeing all those depressed teachers and this completely depressing prevailing fatalism.

The other big problem is the cinematography, a lot too stylized, clearly lacking coherence in its approach and ultimately turning out to be too messy, serving the story badly.

Celui ci ultra pénible...il y a de "l'humour"

*

*

We gave up after 12 minutes (veinards!!)

Author: David O'Mahony from Malaysia
11 September 2012
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Its obsessed with sex, its crass, neurotic and just not credible. The characters are contrived, and my wife and I wished we gave up earlier than minute number 12. I'm sure there must be some New York families like this, but hopefully not too many, because this is a poor fabrication of a pathetic scenario that left if not caring what is going to happen next. We have lived in France - and never met anybody as bizarre as the characters here. The credibility of the customs scene is around zero- I've never known anybody that stupid. The wanna-be Woody Allen directing left Woody Allen looking good - and I don't like Woody Allen. We soon found something else better to do with our lives than waste it on this film.

Author: Chris Byrne from United Kingdom
27 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When I read the blurb on what this film was about I thought 'Hey, Chris Rock, French people and a funny meeting with the future in/out laws. Sounds good to me!' How wrong could I have been? I know for a fact that this film is NOT a true representation of how French families behave and find it difficult to believe that a French person wrote it! Some may consider me to be a bit of an old fuddy duddy for not particularly enjoying unnecessary swearing in films but to have to read them in wonderful HD was a bit beyond the pale for me!

 Maybe I'm lucky and have only ever met decent French people, who knows? Would the 2 sisters in this film really have behaved and sworn the way they did had they been in Paris? Not very likely so why should we believe anything about the film if they do it in New York? Chris Rock played the straight man and throughout the film looked lost and confused. I honestly think that most of the time he was wondering what the hell he was doing in the film in the first place? I have rated this film as a 1 but only because Zer0 was not an option. All in all a MASSIVE disappointment and I will not be in a hurry to go and see any more films involving any of the same cast.

Author: shadrian1983
6 June 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is probably the worst movie I have seen in my entire life. Chris Rock is not funny at all in this movie. I can't even believe it's him and he agreed to play this role. It's nothing like his normal comedy. It's endless and crazy. All of the characters are horrible as well as the acting. I did not laugh out loud once. The girlfriend of Chris Rock is so super hard to listen to and watch. She is just so crazy and the acting is so bad. The only thing that is good about this movie is the name because it felt like it was 2 entire days long. If I hadn't paid for the movie I never would have finished watching it. We just kept hoping it would get better and it never did.

Author: thucy1 from France
30 December 2012

Oh my god. It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen in 30 years. What is very rare with me, I wanted to leave the theatre quickly after the beginning of the movie. The last time it happened to me it was 30 years ago, I was about 14. But this time, for the first time in my life, I left the movie theatre one half hour before the end, because I couldn't stand it any longer.

I saw that movie because one of my colleagues like "2 days in Paris", and this one was its sequel.

Right from the beginning, I was dismayed by the vulgarity of the movie. The character played by the french actor July Delpy (who is also the director of the movie) is vulgar and insane, telling with crude words her whole sexual life to one of her colleague.

But the worst came after : her french family came in New-York to visit her and her husband. Her father doesn't want to take a shower more than once a week, he was arrested at the airport because he had a lot of french sausages hidden under his clothes. Her sister and her sisters' partner are sex-addicts and drug users. The whole family is a bunch of asocial, immoral, ill-mannered and childish people.

Well, one could say : it's just a farce. But the problem is that it's not shown like that. They seemed to be a typical french family, a kind of primitive tribe coming in a civilized world, the US.

I didn't expect to see that kind of french-bashing coming from a french director. But True, Julie Delpy left France a long time ago and live in the US since many years now. Seeing that movie, I understand why : she seems to despise her former country and her former fellow citizens.

I can imagine some US french-haters seeing that movie in the US, laughing loudly, and thinking : "I always knew that the french were like that, and it's a french who tells us, so it must be true !" I felt insulted, as if mrs Delpy had spit on my face. I'm not chauvinistic, but I don't like to be insulted, as anybody else I think.

Author: dragokin
27 January 2013

After watching 2 Days in New York i simply don't wan't to see the prequel. What amazed me, though, is that every single member of the cast did an excellent job. Even the script offers a fair amount of funny situation which leaves you with the question what went wrong.

In my case this ended up with Chris Rock (otherwise not my cup of tea) creating the most lovable character of them all. The French family visiting is a bunch of logorrheic maniacs. It actually didn't matter where they came from, since their behaviour has nothing to do with geography rather with psychiatry. Smaller characters break up this verbal orgy once in a while...

Author: chaz-28 from Rockville, MD
26 August 2012

French tourists are obnoxious, loud, dirty, and oblivious to anything other than their petty concerns. I was under the impressions these are adjectives for American tourists when they venture over to the Old World; however, according to Julie Delpy's new film, 2 Days in New York, French people are truly garish. Five years after her similar effort, 2 Day in Paris, a busy and crowded New York apartment is the setting for a very disappointing movie.

Marion (Delpy) and Mingus (Chris Rock) live together with a modern, blended family setup. Marion has her toddler from a previous marriage and Mingus shares custody with his own elementary school aged daughter. They live in a cramped apartment somewhere in Manhattan but appear to be financially stable. Mingus hosts a few radio shows and writes for the Village Voice while Marion is a conceptual artist who is about to open her first solo show in a ritzy art gallery. The show opening is the impetus behind the invasion of the unbelievable French relations.

Marion's father Jeannot (Albert Delpy) arrives with his other daughter Rose (Alexia Landeau) and her current boyfriend of the day Manu (Alexandre Nahon). Instead of comedic cultural insights or witty observations, the audience is saddled with farce and stupidity. They are delayed in customs for attempting to smuggle in 40 pounds of sausage and cheese. They cut their toe nails at the dinner table, use Mingus' tooth brush during some off-screen sexual tryst in the bathroom, and latch on to a middle school level running gag that Mingus's name rhymes with cunnilingus. I have been to France multiple times…where the hell were these people hiding?

Marion's art show is based on two themes, photographs of ex-lovers waking up in the morning showing how a relationship develops over time and the auctioning off of her soul. To the highest bidder, she will sign a contract whereby her immortal soul will be owned by another person. Sound familiar? It should; Bart Simpson sold his soul to Milhouse in a Simpson's episode. Way to dig deep for creative inspiration there Julie.

A film with Chris Rock and Julie Delpy with New York City as a backdrop has so much promise. Why oh why did Delpy write and direct a script which is unfathomably horrible? There is a sub- plot involving a lie about a brain tumor, the relentless antics of the French family, and the noticeable bad acting from Delpy. She was wonderful in the Before Sunrise/Sunset series, but perhaps she was distracted by he director role this time.

Stay far away from 2 Days in New York, it will just let you down with thoughts of what might have been.

Author: Patricia756 from Italy
15 January 2014

I like Julie Delpy and her previous body of work but this film turn out to be terrible. It seems to me because she is now an established successful author that she fells it is time to rest on her laurels and start to repeat the formula she used before to be successful, over and over again, pushing it to the extreme thinking it would work, it would be funny. Well it isn't.

The film seems to be promising at the beginning but soon began to be quite annoying, the characters are very stereotyped but not in a funny way, in a unimaginative cliché way, It seems to watch another Delpy film but one you have seen before, it's uncomfortable to watch and after a bit it gets so tedious that my mind started to wonder somewhere else and my body followed soon after . I rarely stop watching a film in the middle of it unless I feel it is not worth the time I spend watching it.

No need to say that the association with Woody Allen is inappropriate, to say the list; some people may not like Woody Allen but undeniably he is never cliché even when he talks about cliché and he has never done a film that is the copy of something already done, jet keeping his distinct and unique style. Going back to the subject, describing this film in few word I would say that it is very disappointing, not recommended to anyone, especially to Woody Allen's films lovers.

Author: Kinoymas from Spain
7 August 2012

I loathed this film as much as I loved 2 Days in Paris, a fun, intelligent and original film which I highly recommend.

I wonder what went through July Delpy's mind to write and direct a story in such a manner as to make it look like a long version of the Marx Brother's crowded cabin scene. There were way too many unbelievably stupid characters and way too many banal conversations going on at the same time. It was exhausting and, worst of all, boring. Not even the usually funny Chris Rock managed to save the day.

I will try and forget I ever saw this film in the hope of picturing a "and they lived happily ever after" whenever I watch 2 Days in Paris again. Fat chance...

http://the9thscreen.blogspot.de/

Author: Manos Petropoulos from Greece
15 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I saw this film trusting the acting skills of Chris Rock...

Although this film was a really disappointment...

Boring,boring,boring and nothing to offer film is all i can say in a few words.

A sex-addicted old man,a psychotic girlfriend, a sister walking around naked and a man that tries to tolerate them...

Really bad script and even worst characters make a movie that it turns to be difficult to watch till the end.I made it cause i was curious to figure out if there was a point of all this.But the result was that i spend one and a half hour watching a big nothing

Author: Nakesdotter from Öland
8 August 2013

Okay... So I've seen Julie Delpy's Before Sunset, Before Sunrise and 2 days in Paris and enjoyed them. Sure, the films are very "chatty" but all in all pretty entertaining. Thus, I decided to watch 2 Days in New York. The film is just under one and a half hour and for approximately one hour and twenty-five minutes I was tormented by these maniac (and not the charming kind of maniac) french characters that were supposed to be her father, sister and the sister's boyfriend - who happens to also be Marion's (Julie's character) ex. It's pure horror. Really. At several occasions I very seriously considered just turning the film off, but I have this idea that every film I start watching deserve the chance to get better. Well... this one did. The last five minutes were actually pretty okay.

That's it. Five decent minutes out of ninety. Not really a good result, is it?

7.1 / 10 pour cette daube !!!?...ça repasse aujourd'hui

*

*

over-rated piece of cheese.

Author: redsweater from Denmark
27 June 2003
 

lately i've seen nothing but references to The Ring everywhere i go. people talk about it when they speak about their feelings and dreams, as if this movie were something thought-provoking and not just a crap of cheese. honestly, i've never seen something so cheesy in my life. the original wasn't the most fantastic thing in the box, but at least it wasn't too pathetic, over-acted and trying to be more high brow than the story is.

Author: Matt (acrappa) from San Diego, CA
26 March 2003

This is the only movie (other than Dreamcatcher) in which I wished all of the bad stuff that was happening to the characters was happening to me instead. It is amazing how poorly this movie is executed. It's rare that a movie can make Air Bud and Baby Geniuses seem like Oscars material, but The Ring does the job.

Author: fbessoles
15 April 2003

It has to be understood as an offense to any savvy viewer who caught the Japanese version of the movie, 'Ringu'.

I am aware of the fact that US crowds do not go for movies that do not cast large-breasted blonde psychotic women, but this is a little far-fetched for this story. The movie is meant to be solely based on psychology thrills and brain scare. The American version of the movie does not help in this at all, as all goes into the image and the special effects. Event he plot has to be altered and worsened: the little boy becomes a depressed child with a 6th sense who calls his mom by her first name.

Anyhow, you may go for the American remake if you are the kind to be scared by movies with subtitles. However, if you were delivered with a brain and some artistic sense, you'll go for 'Ringu'.

Author: taleee from Indinapolis, IN
28 May 2003

Ok, this movie is like too bad to even rate. Father of the adopted girl was reading his lines as he gave his big speach, YOU CAN even see his eyes darting back and forth over the cue cards instead of looking at the other person.

The clips seemed to be outtakes or sophmoric effort of film school 15 min shorts. We had the blood / drain scene, the pulling of a finger nail from a well, the lit tree on a hil and water pooling on the floor.

Needless to say the parts they stole from other movies says it all. BAD BAD BAD

wasnt even scary and typical ending. Just a sad movie over all and I wasted 4 bucks. Where is my RMA on this tripe

Author: varden_longraf from USA
19 July 2014

Absolutely unbelievable more and nothing really creepy about it at all just a bunch of psychobabble about some those running around terrorizing found it more of a sleeper film than anything horror involved. Its almost like the writers were stretching for a plot and couldn't quite grasp how to draw the viewer into it including me. After about 30 min of this film I really found the only horrific part about it was it wasn't over yet. Even the draw up to find out the reasoning for the terror occurring was more of a huge disappointment a complete waste of time. This film was more of a one time watch and never again I have better things to do then waste my time with garbage like this again.

Author: andrew_banks3 from Austin, TX
9 November 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had such high expectations for this movie. I guess the moviemakers did not share my expectations. Don't get me wrong, the music, photography, directing and some of the acting (the heroine's) are good. I just don't get why they didn't do more with the story. Now of course it is a remake, but the original must have been better than this! Let me be more to the point. The story is absolutely awful. It makes you think that all these clues are going to add up to something. It could have been really clever.

But about 15 minutes into the movie the clues have become so absurd that there is no chance for the villain to be anything else than a ghost. How original. Now here's the really dissatisfying part. All those clues you were paying close attention to? They don't mean diddly squat! They really don't lead to anything. You could have taken all the clues, changed them completely into some other clues, tacked on the ending, and it would have been just as good a fit. The simple truth is that it's just some mean monster terrorizing and killing people. And all those clues that could have at least revealed a tragic motivation for this disgruntled ghost's vengeance end up being utterly vain: the monster is just evil.

That's all there is to it. It came up from who knows where, always has wanted to hurt people, and always will. That's why none of what I said is really a spoiler. If the clues meant something, then telling you about them would reveal the ending. But this ending might as well have been put at the beginning, because all going through the middle is just a waste of time. The movie is a scare machine. It is mechanical, cold, and shallow, filled with mere fluff. A string of one cheap thrill after another. If you like this kind of movie, it would be cheaper and just as satisfying to go have yourself electrocuted (gently, of course -- as the movie shows, you can die from electric shock).

Author: hoytyhoyty from Australia
13 July 2014

This film is just an embarrassment.

Naomi Watts I couldn't care less about, but Brian Cox? Brian, really, WHAT were you doing in this? Were you that hard up for cash?

I need to clear up some nomenclature. The original - i.e., the real film - is NOT called 'Ringu', somebody made that up. As far as any direct translation into English goes, it is simply called 'Ring', not 'The Ring', just 'Ring'.

The original is a terrifying masterpiece.

This film is just a mess.

And then, and THEN, not content with trying to remake one film that could not possibly be remade, they tried again with DARK WATER. ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? There is no way, NO WAY AT ALL, that Dark Water could ever have been remade.

And the same goes for Ring.

See the real film, the Japanese one. If you can't cope with films with subtitles, consider getting an education, or moving to a country with an actually functioning social system that will GIVE you an education.

At least I saw it at the cheap second run place.

Author: driffma from Richmond IN
16 February 2003

Movie Review for The Ring By MaxD

Roger Ebert said of the movie Pearl Harbor, that is was 'a two hour movie crammed into three.' I mention that only because Gore Verbinski, director of The Ring, performs a trick of time manipulation similar in scope and power. He manages to make two hours seem like four. Essentially he has crafted a test of human mental endurance: How long can a mind be subjected to the insanely boring?

The Ring tells the tail of a cursed videotape that kills who ever watches it precisely seven days post viewing. Whoever watches the tape gets a phone call right after the tape ends. A whispery voice, says 'Seven days.' (It is interesting that every one who gets this call knows that it means they have only seven days to live. No one ever thinks to ask, 'Seven Days what? Who is this?). Our heroes are a divorced single-mother of a withdrawnchild-professional-journalist-torn between her career and motherhood-type, a withdrawn child who draws weird pictures and is mildly psychic, and the slacker-video expert ex-husband.

The journalist is put on the case by a grieving sister confused by the mysterious circumstances of her daughter's death. 'You ask questions its what you do.' Says the grieving sister to the journalist. Great. From there on we know that at the very least the journalist and the withdrawn boy-who draws eerie premonitory pictures will see the tape. That much does not shock us. What is shocking is the fact that no one takes the news, 'seven days', too hard. We might expect this from the journalist, she is used to working with deadlines, but what about the kid? Or how about the slacker ex-husband? In fact no one really gets too worked up about it at all.

The Ring begins much the same way Scream, a superior movie to be sure, did, with one minor variation. Instead of one young teenage girl alone in a big house out in the middle of nowhere, there are two. Actually there are other variations in this scene. For instance, Verbinski opted to substitute snappy dialogue with the utterly banal. He also managed to remove any tension or malice from the opening scene or any scene. We, the audience, are never scared, we are never made to jump, and we never, ever care.

What is on the cursed tape? It is supposed be like someone's nightmare. However it is full of images that are not as menacing, disturbing or scary as they could be. I will not bore you with the details I wish the film had not bored me with them. Actually I will bore you with one detail. Embedded in the images are the all clues an enterprising journalist with a mildly psychic son, and a video expert ex-husband need to unravel the motives, and origin of the malevolent force behind the tape. The son however is no help at all. While he is obviously in contact with the malevolent force, and could provide some valuable information to the other heroes, he is a cliché.

He is the disturbed boy who voices his deeper revelations through cryptic drawings. This means that to the rest of the cast he will only speak in sentence fragments, nods and grunts while trying hard to look mysterious and somewhat beyond.

The mistake Gore Verbinski makes, well the most important one anyway, was to think he had a film more important than he really did. At the heart of this film is a Friday night teen horror flick. He misses this and instead tries to make a film that is deeper, and more mysterious. He cannot do this because he is, after all, working the script he was given. The result is a ponderous film, that tries to beat into you, with clichéd shot after clichéd shot (the film uses every cinematic convention in the horror filmmaker's arsenal), that it is a film with depth and originality. On top of that he steals from truly engaging suspense/horror films: Psycho, Halloween, The Exorcist, Scream, The Sixth Sense. I am sure I am missing others, but I hope you will not fault me their omission. After all, about 20 minutes before the film was to roll the blessed credits, I had pulled out my cell phone and began playing brick attack.

This film is a disappointment!

Author: movieman1964 from Toronto
4 January 2003

I went to this film prepared to be spooked, but was very disappointed! It was campy and a cheap rip-off of all the other horror movies I've ever seen. Its weak attempt at fear falls flat. It had obviously lifted elements of The Others, The Sixth Sense, Blair Witch Project, and believe it or not The Invasion of the Body Snatchers; but still did not come anywhere near matching their expertise. This film is without a doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Author: Buddy_Ackerman from New Jersey
23 October 2002

Pathetic waste of time. 2 very, very short scenes slightly disturbing, but absolutely Not Scary. A wanna-be Poltergeist, Sixth-Sense, Urban Legends, film with NO originality. High expectations Zero results!!What exactly did the damn RING have anything to do with this garbage film? I wouldnt even recommend anyone rent this crap.

*

*

What a waste of time

Author: steventot from Slovakia
8 June 2013
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After seeing all the good reviews on this movie I was expecting something really great. But it ended all too bad in the end. The movie is just too "stupid" . Some minor spoilers ahead , be warned! Why would ever a special commando unit go to a window when there are shots fired? Why would a specially trained commando unit go and cry on his dead friend to wake up and leave the suspect unguarded? Why would a spec ops leave his gun on the floor if he is surrounded by enemies ?

And so many other questions came to my mind during watching this. It was like every scene had something badly done. In one scene enemies open a door on one floor while the whole building is filled with wooden walls , injured spec ops screams like little kid from pain , but heck the enemy is def and cannot hear him screaming so they start to search (while being few meters from the screaming guy).Few minutes after he screams painfully again but the movie shows that the whole floor hears it.Why are there so many unbelievable stupid moments in this movie ?

 I understand its an action movie , but it should have at least some real elements to be believable. To me this was like a "commando from the playground" . The plot is nonexistent and the whole movie is filled with fighting scenes so unnatural and unbelievable that I wonder what the other reviewers actually saw !? Some ppl might complain that Expendables is the same , yes in unbelievable action moments , true , but it has some kind of humor and the whole is more like a comedy .While this movies tries to be dead serious. The only thing laughable ,is the sea of cliché and silly moments. The special effects are so unreal as well. If you shoot someone in the eye with a sniper rifle , the body will fly away and decimating the head.In this movie the victim just stands still , leans forward then drops on floor like he was shot with a freaking paint-ball gun. Awful , and wish I had never seen this garbage.

Author: jkb226 from Jeonju, Korea
27 August 2012

I saw the ratings on IMDb for this movie which was 7.8, and I was really expecting a great movie since 7.8 is a pretty high rating. However, things turn out a little weird since the beginning of the movie. A SWAT squad just goes out for an unofficial mission to wipe out a whole building that has a reputation of being a killing floor? WTF??!? and everyone in the squad is equipped with a M16/M4 for an in-door mission? Does the director even know what SWAT stands for? The plot is so terrible that I can go watch a porn and say it had a good plot.

The action was a little entertaining at the start of the movie, but it gets boring every minute as the movie goes on. How the gangsters fight with the main character is just ridiculous. Did they all go to the same gym to learn how to fight? This is just a Ong-Bak rip off with the worst story ever.

This movie is one of those 'one-dimensional films'. Devastating plot, too much fight scenes, worst directing. I wanted to give a 0 but 1 was the lowest rating.

Author: ylagge
4 November 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

To begin with, I can't believe those high rating and reviews, specially that one who wrote the best action film he's ever seen (clearly he has not seen anything). This movie has a lot of problems, specially when they make a retard special force team, i get that the story was that they get wiped out, but they looked so terrible, dying in every stupid way. I have seen plenty of military tactic movies, if you think that was good, i feel sorry for you. Also about the fighting style,

I learned that was Indonesian Pencak Silat, but it was rather slow and predictable moves, nothing like old school Hong Kong martial art movies that comes with a variable of fighting style. One of the final scene when they face Mad Dog, he was UNKILLABLE, at one point I got bored and can't believe all the critical hit he took and he kept going, the fight got too long and lost its sense, it should have ended at one point when he got a tube stuck to his jugular, I mean, come on! Losing blood like that and he kept fighting like nothing?

I normally don't write a review but I had to here because I can't believe all those people with the high rating.. I watched all the old school martial art movies, specially 70,80,90's Hong Kong Kung fu movies and all the other military tactical films, this one just gave me a face-palm.

Author: joshuá mulder from Germany
31 July 2012

OVERrated in all aspects... If you are looking for INDONESIAN VIOLATED ACTION or COMPUTER GAMEISH MOVIES, then this is your flick. The rest of this production is below every level, story is really the poorest ever, and all the performances are below any level. It's a shame that so many people rated this movie far beyond reasonable figures. The script is so thin and predictable. No other actor with Hollywood fame could have bring this production to a higher level. I love you all no matter you all gonna hate me because of my review. Another proof that ratings are very personally and sometimes dubious. But real movie fans are gonna watch all they meet on their path of moving images and are reading all reviews, starting with the lowest rated comments...

Author: emily1005 from United States
1 June 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As I only suffered through the first 45 minutes of this film, it's not really fair for me to write a review. But I just wanted to warn others out there who may be like me - people who have a medium tolerance for violence - that this is one of the most horrifically violent movies I've ever seen the first 45 minutes of. I have walked out of 3 movies in my life. This is the 3rd.

If you love non-stop action, little dialog and a plot that does not really matter, this movie is for you. If you need a plot to justify the violence, this is NOT a movie for you.

I heard from my friends who stuck it out that I missed 2 pretty awesome martial arts sequences, and I was disappointed about that. But the constant (and I do mean constant - balls to the wall- one killing spree to the next with virtually no interlude) explicit and no holds barred violence was too much for this viewer.

Author: mgbaltodano from Costa Rica
24 August 2012

Author: Kostas Chiotleis from Greece
9 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Leon, Golden eye, Matrix, Kill Bill..those was great action movies. This one is a real waste of time. No plot. No dialogs. Only unrealistic - power rangers stile - karate scenes. **No real spoilers there since there is no plot but just to be sure..** A SWAT team (which is totally unprofessional ,feels nothing about tactics, have no radio communication, NO equipment (flash grenades ,night vision,shields etc) but they seem every last one of them is karate specialist and can handle pretty well an axe and a sword) enters a building (unknown reason) which is full of thugs (about 200 people , every one of them it seems to be a karate specialist or something and every one is more than happy to kill himshelf attacking a swat team with a knife or a sword ) and then a masicure comes. 30 minutes of gunfight (every thug in the building has his own assault rifle ) and for the next one hour no one seems to has firepower (not even the police) and uses his fighting skills and axes and knifes and swords to fight. That's all. Nothing more in this move.

Author: ashortall from Kent, England
16 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

From the outset, characters talk in their local tongue, followed by English subtitles at the bottom of the screen. these disappear so fast that I struggled to keep up with conversations at some points.Admittedly there was around 15 minutes of total speech, but the conversations were so boring that you got tired of it after a few seconds!The fighting skills were superb admittedly, however there is such a thing as too much of a good thing! At one stage you see 2 main characters fighting mad dog. At a rough guess they should've broken his legs, arms and several other limbs around 20 times... each! But he kept getting back up. This was a little too much for me.

I couldn't help but think they put a plot in after finding a lot of martial artists wanting to make a movie about beating each other several shades of blue.Overall very disappointed, don't waste your money unless you like movies such as the house of flying daggers. See Battleship instead, better action and a better plot!

Author: Jayakumar J
7 June 2012

One of the worst movie I have ever seen. Please don't rely on IMDb rating for this movie.I guess the makers of this movie has spent huge money on making false positive review to increase the rating.Wasted 2 hours in my life.Story line is pathetic. The wrong people shooting police in the public and still no one questions them, Isn't this impractical. This movie is thus another kids play, but the makers call it "Best Action movie" , What a good joke. This movie is another junk in the name of action movie.My personal advice is not to waste your time, Instead watching this movie you can jut relax back at home.Don't get cheated by looking at the IMDb's high rating for this movie.

*

*

My word this movie is bad.

Author: pipbeale from United Kingdom
26 December 2009
 

Oh My! this was a waste of time. Although I think the acting is fine, the direction fine etc what really is the point of this film? It is not funny, I cared for none of the characters, there is no drama and it moves so slowly.
 I honestly wanted to stop the DVD but i persisted, I wish i had not.With all the flash back stuff as well and everyone looked exactly the same age, not 20 years younger! man, im going to get my mates to watch this.Definitely one of the worst films ever, maybe the worst of all time.

I thought better of Rachel Weiss as well, and although Isla Fisher is cute and I think has a nice rom-com future in front of her, i wish they had both stayed well clear of this work!

Author: dzlz105 from United States
3 September 2009

Don't waste your time seeing this movie. Its plot is far-fetched - what 10-year-old wants to know the seamy story of her father's love life as he's in the midst of divorcing her mother? Does this writer know any children? The premise is slimy.The acting is embarrassingly awful. Everyone reprises roles they've done elsewhere, except for Kevin Kline. How did he end up in this movie?And, worst of all, this movie is too long.

I noticed it was written by Albert Brooks. I have not enjoyed anything he's done since "Broadcast News" (I think that was the name -- it had an excellent Holly Hunter in it). Wait -- "Mother" also had a few good scenes.
Anyway, Albert's creative days are over. He should have been put out to pasture years ago.

Author: Jack_and_Pike from North Carolina
26 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

...and the kid's a total caricature.

What child, watching her parents get painfully divorced, would say something like, "Daddy, I just want you to be happy" !??!?? Sure, wreck my life, scar me emotionally and mentally, ruin my faith in the future and in any kind of security. I just want you to be happy. Sacrifice my life for yours. OH WAIT. That's what PARENTS are supposed to do for their children.

Watching this guy try to live his life without any guiding principles, how repulsive. So much worse than those tragic police chases of the disoriented older and no longer safe driver who somehow took the wrong exit and is now traveling into traffic in the wrong lane of the highway. Wrecking innocent lives left and right. But don't worry about other people. Just do what feels right. Follow your heart. It doesn't matter how you screw up your own life, or anyone else's.

Right and wrong exist independently of what people think or believe. You know it in your soul the way you know red is a color, and "this many" is a number. No matter how many people you get to tell you that you're OK, you're doing the right thing, the feeling of wrongness will never, ever go away. The continual need, even demands, for affirmation and acceptance of these damaging actions and lifestyles demonstrate the truth. No words put into a child actress' mouth will make it better. It is one more lie into a never satisfied void. Only the truth will set you free.

This movie was a disgusting train wreck, a farce. Stay home with a copy of "The Death of the Grown-Up" by Diana West, and be afraid. Be very afraid.

Author: Spaceygirl (melanie.diesel@bbraun.co.za) from Johannesburg, South Africa
18 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Awful, awful, awful!!!! NOT my choice, I have to stress. I don't DO rom-coms, and now I know why. With a thoroughly unlikeable main character and weak and clichéd female leads, "Definitely, maybe' sucks! The only high point of this turkey is Kevin Kline. I think Mr Kline thought he was in another movie altogether! He shines in all his scenes, which are few and far between. Isla Fisher and Rachel Weisz struggle vainly with their pathetic characters and bad lines but with sparse characterisation one is unable to empathise with either of them. Ryan Reynolds is incapable of putting in any kind of performance. Yes, he's pretty, but hello! He CANNOT act!!!!!!! His character is so unlikeable, I'm surprised he managed to pull ANY kind of girl, let alone the quality women who seemed to fall for him. The script is laughably predictable and Miss Breslin, though good, is also clichéd and the ending is pure shmaltz. Please Hollywood, stop insulting us with this tripe.

Author: s_b_n_s2 from USA
22 August 2008

I was simultaneously stunned and relieved while watching this movie. While, it's an ugly reminder of America's (and in particular, New York's) decline in morality. It's an open testament and reminder to the loose morals of the modern-day Democratic Party and its most ardent followers - which is a very good and timely reminder to Americans as we're going to have to choose our next President very soon.

Much of the movie gravitates around Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and how young supporters adulated and followed him in New York that year, particularly the character played by Ryan Reynolds. What is a bit amazing is how blunt and biased this movie is in its liberal political proclivities. It's so pro-Democrat that they even had old Bill Clinton himself run by towards the end of the film. And one of the movie's 'heroines' worked for the laughably liberal 'Amnesty International'. Republicans are made to look stupid, albeit subtly.

But most importantly, especially in light of John Edwards' recent adultery scandal, this movie is an ironic reminder of how the Democrats will lead us nowhere nationally. Even the Ryan Reynolds character in this film got disillusioned by Clinton. George W. Bush is briefly lampooned at one point in this film but whatever his shortcomings, we didn't have to put up with a bunch of blatant moral failings like Clinton. If you're conservative, take note of how the liberals don't even care filling a poor little girl's head (played by Abigail Breslin) with a bunch of rubbish about messed up relationships. That struck me as bad taste.

A divorced parent's fantasy

Author: shralper@hotmail.com from Texas
25 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I saw this story as some sort of divorced parent's fantasy. If you could just sit your 9 year old daughter down for a couple hours and explain how "complicated" adult life and relationships are, surely she would understand why you and mommy divorced. This includes telling your daughter about sleeping with other women, boozing, smoking, etc.

Of course, your child would suddenly understand and accept that daddy wants to put his penis in another woman other than mommy (note the first 10 minutes of the movie the little girl talks continuously about how a man "thrusts his penis into a woman's vagina", as she has just learned sex ed at school and can't stop talking about it. Funny? Not really).

Not only would your daughter understand you, but she would INSIST that you hook back up with that hottie from your younger days and drag you to her house (instead of dreaming that you get back together with mommy so your family is intact).

Yeah, right, dream on. Keep telling yourself that's what your daughter would do. And oh yeah, your little girl also won't have any problems hearing that her mom had a lesbian relationship with another one of your lays from your younger days, and slept with your roommate to boot. Naw...it's all good. She'll understand.

Seriously, pass on this one. It's also heavily pro-Democrat, as the lead character spends the 90's working for Bill Clinton. At least at the end, even this shallow, self-absorbed character is disgusted at Slick Willie's inability to tell the truth, even though his loser friends about brag about how they would vote for him again in a heatbeat.

And that's the ONLY reason I'm rating it a 2. It's the only redeeming message in this mess.

Author: loveduxoxo from United States
25 June 2008

This was one of the worst movies I have seen. The beginning made me laugh a little. But after the first hour, it felt like the whole movie was repeating itself. And it was so clichéd me and my friends were yelling at the At the T.V. When I saw the commercials I thought the movie might have more of Abagail Breslin. But it showed her in 2 scenes for a total of five minutes. This movie was like the writer was writing the script, and then went in a coma and continued it with a different plot! (comedy/drama) which is boring. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. Don't waste your time with this movie, If you want to Abagail Breslin, go see Little Miss Sunshine

Author: dallas_viewer from Dallas/TX/USA
29 July 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me qualify that. If you loved 27 Dresses or Dan in Real Life, you'll like this movie. It has the same contrived feel, the same "no one would ever say this stuff in real life" dialog, the same chemistry-free pairings. Within 10 minutes of watching this mess, I was bored and annoyed.

The acting was horrible--though kudos to Isla Fisher for giving it her all under the circumstances, I loved that "Marisa Tomei" kind of quality she had--but how can you really "ding" actors when the scripts they are given are so lame? Reynolds--who I suspect couldn't act his way out of a paper bag, let alone this pile of pooh--admittedly had dialog that no man should have to say. Note to writers of "romantic comedies": Men are not women. Most of them do not talk like women. We do not want to hear them talking like women. (Also, were RR's eyebrows shaped? Because that was just a bit too "metrosexual" for my taste.)

Even Abigail Breslin, the little girl, pretty much phoned it in. There was a scene where she flops onto her tummy in bed, pouting, and suddenly she kicks her feet a bit--not in a natural "I'm having a tantrum" way, but more like she was thinking, "Oh, wait, it would be a good touch if I kicked my feet here."

There is no character development in the movie. Everyone is extremely superficial, annoyingly so. Some events make no sense. (Why did Will get fired for one faux pas in an industry riddled with scandal? And just what all happened, job-wise, between "then" and "now"?)Timing is deliberately kept fuzzy. It's hard to tell how much time has passed. (For example, Will looks about the same to me at the start of Clinton's campaign as he does at the end of the film.)

If you can find a scintilla of originality in this movie, let me know.For example, we get the usual "I want to see your face first thing when I wake up in the morning and last thing at night" spiel at one point.Then we get the done-to-death scene where the female friend tells male protagonist (who's about to propose to another woman) to practice proposing on *her* first, and as he gets to the "I love you" part, his voice trickles off and they stare into each other's eyes for just a moment. And you just know where this is all going...

Why do I torture myself with this dreck?

Author: Roy from United States
14 February 2009

I liked the lead character played nicely by Ryan Reynolds in the beginning of the film and the premise had a certain appeal. Having not seen a good romantic comedy in a long while I thought I'd give it a chance. But when April entered the scene it went straight downhill. It's really hard to root for your hero or leading man when the 'obvious' from the start winner of his love and affection is a cold, nasty, self consumed and snide, neo-conservative witch. Yes. April truly is a girl you can hate. As my mother use to say when I was a boy.

 'Beware of women with thin lips.' If only she had lost some of that snide, quick to judge attitude by the end of the picture. If only April changed in some endearing way, maybe showed some inkling of compassion and social responsibility by wearing an Eco shirt or something to demonstrate the expansion of her heart and mind. That would have helped. But there was no arc at all in this picture. Not even for the lead character, Will. In fact I liked him better in the beginning of the picture than I did in the end before he turned into a subservient mushball to Ms. Razor lips.

When the movie began he had passion, dreams and ideals. By the end of the story we see a lonely hearted cynical Will shaking his head with self righteous disapproval at Bill Clinton all because he doesn't stop in the middle of his run to speak to him after Will calls out, "I worked on your 92 campaign." We're suppose to assume that the president would actually jog go over and sit on a park bench to chat with Will? Invite him to lunch? Please get real. A quick wave is about all you can expect from anybody in his position, especially in the middle of a run. Check out Holiday for a good romantic comedy with characters you can actually care about.

Author: DarkVulcan29 (DarkVulcan29@aol.com) from United States
5 March 2008

The previews made me think this is a comedy. But I laughed a little bit, and then the laughs just quit coming has the movie went on. It's like this movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be, a comedy or a drama. And what happened to Ryan Reynolds here, He managed to save two bad movies from extermination, with his comic timing, and his playful wittiness, and the films I'm talking about are Blade:Trinity(2004), and Waiting(2005), which would not be memorable if not for him, but he just did not have it this time around, it appears for this film, he just quit trying to be impressive.

He plays Will Hayes, a thirty something political consultant, who's going through a divorce, one day decides to tell his 11 year old daughter(played with such charm by Abigail Breslin) on his life, and how he met her mother. Has it goes through the 90's. And it goes through 3 possibilities, Rachel Weisz, Elizabeth Banks, and lsla Fisher. But I grew weary has the journey went on, It really became too predicable . I left this film feeling depressed, and annoyed. Although moments between Reynolds and Breslin are sweet, and the three actress's do alright also. Other then that this has nothing else to go on.