This is severly underrated.

It was a good movie, but it certainly wasn't amazing. That doesn't matter though. I don't think you'll get much from it if you expect a masterpiece of a film. I enjoyed it for the simple fact that it was Adam Sandler in another of his usual comedies; and an all around nice story as well. People's expectations are too high.

And I never knew Winona Ryder could look so pretty. :P

This movie is meant solely for Adam Sandler fans. The original 1936 film, directed by Frank Capra and starring Gary Cooper, is a far superior film. In fact, this 2002 version of "Mr. Deeds" is perhaps the worst re-make of all time. The original film was funny, charming, and had sincerity and depth. Gary Cooper's Longfellow Deeds took his $20 million and tried to help impoverished, hungry, and (often) homeless people who had been displaced by the Great Depression. There is no such dramatic balance or sense of desperation in this 2002 film. Moreover, Sandler's character comes across as insincere and lacks the charm and warmth that Gary Cooper showed. In the original, Jean Arthur also gave a genuine, multi-dimensional performance as the romantic interest. Wynona Ryder and Sandler had no such romantic chemistry. The 1936 film is a 10. The 2002 Mr. Deeds is a 1 or a 2.

Only problem is, a statement like this encourages an ego in the many teenagers in existence who are into films that are more on the "classic" or critically acclaimed side and pushes them thus into believing that they, because of this fact, must be especially mature and intelligent individuals, as opposed to the more or less lazy and boring typical teenager but with an pseudo-intellectual complex that they're almost always revealed to be.

Young kids are mindless by nature anyway, and so this stuff is tailor made for them.