First of all this movie has super passed my expectations of how terrible it is. One thing I couldn't get passed was Rachel McAdams' weak performance. It was fake, exaggerated and poorly paced.
Overall, I knew I wasn't gonna watch a Godfather like quality to begin with, but still it was a huge disappointment for what I had in mind.
In addition, many scenes were poorly edited, awful music playing very loudly during the scene that u can't even hear the dialogue.
I agree it was poor, but hardly on account of Rachel. It starts, as always, with a bad script, that doesn't set you up to like or root for anybody, throws in a few stupid side characters, and spirals downhill from there. How can you like a movie where you think all the characters in it are immature, dumb, hateful, selfish, cynical. etc, and then proceeds to throw bad actors into the mix. Rachel is the best one in the movie, which is not saying a lot. Anybody would look bad surrounded by what and who she has to deal with in this movie.
But then everyone says, "hey, it made a lot of money", so look out for more like this.
She's a great actress, but in this film, she didn't have much to work with. As stated, the script was terrible. If you've seen her other films (Mean Girls, Red Eye, The Notebook), you'll see she has great talent as an actress.
shareI think she had a LOT to work with... just nowhere near enough. This story would have been a whole lot better had McAdams had a talented character actor to work with, instead of just an iconic actor like Channing Tatum. Tatum, like most iconic actors, works well in flicks where he doesn't have to get out of his comfort zone, but this one took him well beyond his credible range of emotions, and whom do the critics blame? him? Not even. They blame the actress across from him who can act... and probably only because she wound up having to tone it down enough to make his attempt at acting as credible as it became. She's that good an actress, while he is not, at least not yet.
[deleted]
Yea all the characters in this movie were kind of horrible ppl, lol. Even Leo was a complete moron.
shareI really can't help but question people's view of rating a movie/script and acting. While the movie was not great and was pretty damn corny- probably the corniest chick flick I've seen ever and I love chick flicks. But the script wasn't horrible just because the characters weren't likable. I'm pretty sure at least half of them weren't supposed to be. And I just think people can't tell the difference between a character they don't like and bad acting.
The only bad acting I saw was Leo friend- the girl that he worked with. But it could've just been the awkward lines they gave her.
The hardest thing to do in this world is to live in it, so live. Be brave, for me
Actually the script was bad and was horribly acted! , and as previous posters had stated poorly edited, Channing Tatum was the stand out over the top bad actor that I found, I admit i am a movie buff and dont watch many chick flicks, I tried to see the good in it and could not. This film is like fodder for the masses. 6.6, in my opinion on imdb usualy caters to a somewhat decent film, this has been over rated by way too many chicks wanting to see Channing Tatum.
Also the other film to me (this one I see as a good example of film making, that is rated only 1 point higher on imdb) is Blue Valentine people should watch that before they judge this so highly.
Looking at this board, I do not see that it was Judged so highly at all. The overwhelming tone of the posts is critical, and for good reason. I, myself, have posted many that agree with your opinion. I believe it made money for 3 reasons:
1. People expected another Notebook, which it was certainly not.
2. It was a masterpiece of good timing, opening at a time where there was little competition, and nothing in this genre.
3. You are correct, sir. Girls wanted to see Tatum's bum, and when that word made the rounds, along with the first 2 points, well, ring those cash registers!
I agree with each and every one you. Bless you all!! It was one of the biggest pieces of fluff that I had ever suffered through. It lasted for almost two hours because they didn't know how to end it.
probably the corniest chick flick I've seen ever and I love chick flicks
I gotta disagree with you. McAdams' acting was pretty spot on for portraying a person with amnesia. I found it kind of scary how well she captured the sudden drastic change in personality of an amnesiac.
I do, however, agree quite heartily that the editing and the soundtrack helped ruin what could otherwise have been a much better story than it became.
She was so fake before the amnesia when she was supposed to love wutzhisface.
I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.