I went into this movie not expecting much at all, and was surprised that I actually enjoyed it very much. I thought Sandra Bullock was hilarious and adorable. I can see why people would think its mediocre at best because its not the most original of movies, but I cant see why people despise it. I also cant see why there is all the hate for Sandra in it. I enjoyed it much more then the proposal and the Blind Side.
shareI didnt think it was that bad. It defiantly wasn't the best Bullock film, but a good little movie anyways.
sharei have to agree. i thought many parts of this movie were seriously funny, and the performances gave by the actors didn't bother me (meaning they weren't terrible). it's not thought provoking, but i enjoyed it. =D
Publication is a self-invasion of privacy.
-- Marshall McLuhan
I want to like it, this is such a great cast! But there is no continuity in Bullock's character. She seems young and naive, then she's all over the guy before they even talk. She occasionally has a New York-esque accent. She has no luggage, although she was crossing the country.
I live in one of the cities they were allegedly in, Oklahoma City, and it could not look less like my city :) We do actually have some cliff walls in Oklahoma way south of OKCity on Highway I-35, almost to Texas, but nothing remotely like the mountains and desert where the "hospital" is. (what was up with that bridge thing outside of the hospital?) They didn't even make an effort to make it look like OKC. It is so humid here, you can almost hold a cup up on a clear day and get a drink :) (Ergo no desert). The same mountains also seem to be in Galveston, which ... oi. No. And Colorado looks just like OKC and Galveston! Noooo!
I love Sandra and Bradley and Thomas is always hilarious. These actors deserve better than this random tale with its inconsistent characters and plotless plot. If you liked it, that's cool. I think it's rude to tell someone they are dopey for liking something. If it made you happy, that's great. I just wanted to tell why I didn't and maybe see what you all saw in it. *I think it might have made more sense if Mary were younger or less obviously beautiful (hello, did you see those legs when she was in the tub?)... i just don't buy her in this role. That said, again, i love these actors and i have put the flick on pause but will return, because i love the three actors i mentioned (and am trying to remember all the things i've seen the apple-carving gremlin-driving guy in. OK, here i go, back to the show....
It's a bad film, guilty through the director's ineptness of it's own undoing. Not terrible though, but weak all over. The locations were ridiculously inaccurate, the character development and story arcs were simply propped up and left to hang, and the last half of the film was so contrived and cheesy and poorly structured that it just broke the film in two. Several examples of the deal breaking ending of this bad film:
The deaf girl was unaccounted for in the well - really? No one noticed that one of the children was missing? That is just ridiculous.
Falling into the well - no one was critically injured plunging down a 40 foot hole in the ground, just splash and crawl out of the water and all's great? Absurd.
And it would be a piece of cake to cable rescuers down a simple hole, the rescue would have been no problem at all. In fact the cable rig was in place for the dramatic emergence from the mine, but no, an army of rescue professionals with all the required tactical equipment in place stood around up top, clueless, because the story line required it. This is all indicative of bad film making, because it wrecks the story and authenticity of the piece.
Bullock was quite good, but she was trying to force fit her role into the script parameters and it didn't play out. They should have reworked the script to accommodate Bullock's obvious discrepancies with the written character of Mary, because the fact is she is an attractive and charismatic actor whose natural physical and expressive qualities exceed the role. (Most camera jockies like Cooper's character would jump at the opportunity to be stalked by a Sandra Bullock type.) At the same time, she was totally believable as a quirky, introverted, windbag genius. Tom Church really helped bridge the film's weak points, he's a great actor who did the best he could with the material. But I would not rehire this director to ever do another major studio film. He really blew it.
I liked it as well. But that doesn't mean it still isn't a really bad movie, because it is. But I enjoyed it.
sharei saw it last night without high expectation and i surprised myself that it was quite good
this movie had a lot of bad reviews when it came out maybe because of sandra's blond look, or maybe because of her character being silly, or maybe because of her silly outfits (especially those red boots), but, hello, it's a comedy, lighten up, people, have a good laugh
didn't really 'love' sandra... but enjoyed the movie a lot!
www.somewhereinblog.net/blog/tuklifiedblog
Yep, me too. It's not the failed rom-com I was expecting. I think they've actually tried to do something a little different and for me it works.
share