In films like You've Got Mail, where you can almost predict how it's going to turn out as soon as the opening credits appear, then it is up to the writers, director, and actors, to get us to enjoy the journey to the end credits. Nora and Delia Ephron's script succeeds because they know their characters well, and give them a can't miss plot device. Tom Hanks is believable as the head of a gigantic bookstore chain, as is Meg Ryan as the owner of a small children's bookstore shop. As the guy who is putting Meg out of business by opening a chain store close to her little shop, Tom Hanks character comes across as the arrogant person who only goal seems to open as many bookstores as he can, and make as much money as he can in doing so. When he is talking to Meg Ryan on the internet, we see another side of him, and learn that possibly, he's not the evil guy you think he is. Of course, in person, Meg hates him for what he is doing, on the internet, she falls in love with him. This is what makes the film work, as their reaction to each other in person is completely different from when they talk on line. Some people may quibble that the ending is not very believable, but face it, do you fall in love with a person because of who they are, or what you think they are? I think this question is answered quite adequately.
Add a Review
-
AlsExGal11 July 2015I really liked the original better - 1940's "The Shop Around the Corner". However, for a modern romantic comedy this one hits the spot. It alters the means of communication between the mismatched couple to email from letters. This film has Joe Fox (Tom Hanks) as the heir to a Borders-like bookstore empire whose family is opening a new store near his pen pal Kathleen Kelly's (Meg Ryan) small children's' bookstore. It is the same as its predecessor in that the pen pals actually know each other and do not like each other. It alters the basis of the disagreement to be that of Fox's big impersonal business delivering goods at a discount with the price being a largely anonymous and unknowledgeable retail staff versus Kelly's personal service and first editions that carries a large price tag for the paying customers. It turns out that, even in Manhattan, people prefer to buy discount with the result being the end of Kathleen's store. The movie keeps things interesting with several little side stories and unanswered questions. Did Joe's grandfather ever date Kathleen's mother? Did Kathleen's employee Birdie (Jean Stapleton) have an affair with Francisco Franco in her youth? Why and how did Birdie decide to buy all of that Intel stock? Then there is the whole issue of Joe's serially monogamous dad (Dabney Coleman) that plays out quite humorously and the fact that Joe has an aunt that is thirty years younger than he is. Considering Joe's mother had to be a victim of his father's philandering at some point, Joe seems to take his dad's personal habits quite casually. A very moving addition to this version of the story is Kathleen's identification of the store with her mother to the point that, when the store does finally close, she considers it to be much like her mother dying all over again.
The only thing that really bothered me was the issue of Joe and Kathleen seeking other relationships while seriously involved with other people to the point of living with them and not letting on that there was anything amiss. This seemed a bit underhanded on both their parts and somewhat undermined their likability, at least to me.
Now I wrote the paragraphs above several years ago. The technology was relevant to the year it was made -1997. Of course today, everybody would be texting one another, and Joe's bookstore would probably be just as extinct as Kathleen's since Amazon managed to put not just the independent bookstores out of business, but big brick and mortar chains like Border's. Of course, that is not the point of the film. The point is love finding two people who on the surface seem completely mismatched in every way, and who, on top of that, are competitors. -
God only knows why it's taken me so long to see this. But God I wanted it to be this kind of movies. I wanted it to be this kind of movies so badly.
(8/10) -
mosmanic21 February 2004Romantic comedies are not everyone's cup of tea; after all, who would want to watch unrealistic stories about ordinary people 'coupling' when we are offered such wonderful everyday experiences as ten car pileups, hordes of people being slaughtered in a hail of bullets while shopping, goblins, explosions, vampires and intergalactic spaceships?
But the majority of women, and many of those men who do not see themselves as the Governor of California will surely find much to like in this charming eye-moistener.
Tales of this ilk can easily be mawkish, but this one largely avoids the trap, thanks to an intelligent script, the believability of the lead pair (as well as the supporting cast) and good pacing that leaves the denouement until the closing shot. -
el729 November 2019You've Got Mail represents the tail end of the golden era of romantic comedies, during which writers and directors were trying to get an angle that would work for a more cynical movie-going public. Nora Ephron, with her rapier wit which she often hid within a cinematographic soft glove, was one of the more successful filmmakers of the later period. This film is a remake of The Shop Around the Corner from an earlier rom com era, so there are layers to the references in this movie, and if you catch them all, some of them are quite ironic. Especially the unintended ones, though. The script updates the story of the big retailer putting the small retailer out of business even as the two proprietors fall in love by recasting the retail stores as bookstores (this was actually a very big deal in the 90s) and the pen pals are corresponding via email rather than snail mail this time around. Looking at this film all these years later, you can't help but marvel at the fact that the filmmakers had written a romance about a big box bookseller winning the girl by utilizing a tool that was destined to put him out of business one day. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan both have a great deal of personal charm individually and solid chemistry together, so the movie works on that level. Some aspects of the film aged less well than others. For example, the opening scenes that show Hanks and Ryan seeing their lovers off to start their days, and then sneaking back to their laptops to emote at each other via email, are played as cute hijinks, when today their actions would be recognized as an emotional affair. It's immediately clear that neither one is involved with a suitable lover, and then those lovers very conveniently (and somewhat ironically) develop a connection with each other, but still. This movie is somewhat of a time capsule, and still worth a watch with that in mind. Hanks and Ryan do a better job of selling the idea that these two can overcome his rampant trampling on her livelihood through their personal connection to each other much more successfully than the script manages to do.
-
Pleasant, warm-hearted fluff reworking 1940's "The Shop Around the Corner" (remade initially in 1949 as the musical "In The Good Old Summertime"). Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan reteam for the second time as rival bookstore owners in New York City: she operates a Mom & Pop bookshop, he's opening another outlet in his retail chain nearby. They lock horns over business, yet are unaware they are also each other's internet pen-pal. Slick and occasionally too-cute, too cookie cutter, but also an entertaining picture nicely set during the holidays. Ryan can't help but radiate personality and charm, though Hanks is curiously rote here (and he looks tired to boot),. Terrific supporting cast certainly helps, with Greg Kinnear, Parker Posey, Jean Stapleton and Steve Zahn making up a bright ensemble. Engaging, if you're not too demanding. *** from ****
-
SRVforever30 December 2005I'm from Germany and I love this film! It makes me happy to just watch it! When watching this film one comes to think why in real life such beauty in words and moments can't be achieved! The film does'nt get boring, even if watched for the 23rd time! It's pure magic - you could endlessly listen to the conversations, the beautiful music and enjoy the excellent acting! Other films try to come in too trendy with freaky music and sexual content(not that there's anything wrong with that) - but it's not a feelgood movie! Besides the puns and the lovely warm hearted atmosphere does the rest! To everyone who hasn't yet seen this movie - rent it, buy it - enjoy it!
-
hello-181-89341329 June 2022Technology aside it's sort of a horribly story morally speaking. Two unhappy people who aren't brave enough to breakup with their partners. Having someone out you out of business from a generational shop your mom started, yet it's no problem in the end. I remember liking it in '98 but the values just don't hold up to todays romantic standards.
-
NPilbeam18 December 1998I've been starved for a great romantic film and YOU'VE GOT MAIL more than sated my appetite! I'd rank it right up there with CASABLANCA as one of the most romantic movies of all time. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan have more chemistry than a High School Science Department! This movie was warm, funny, smart, and sexy. Tom and Meg light up the screen and Tom Hanks is the perfect hero! The movie was 2 hours long, felt like 10 minutes, and I didn't want it to be over! This is a definite keeper, and I can't wait for it to come out on video so I can watch it again and again!
-
deedee021 July 2023Time has not done You've Got Mail any favors. It's not the David vs Goliath shop battle or the life with only AOL that hurts the movie. It's the script.
The positives are the scenes of a Sex and The City-like glamorized NYC and the phenomenal cast.
The story is quite creepy and mean. A woman (who is cheating on her boyfriend) falls in love with the man (who is cheating on his girlfriend) that destroys her family business. This is a Hallmark movie gone wrong. There is so much deceit it is difficult to cheer for either character and find anything charming about them. A woman falling in love with her manipulator is pretty cringe worthy in 2023.
Watch it for the acting, time capsule of what life was like in 98, and the imaginary NYC life. -
captaincalamityclam27 June 2020Firstly they are both deceiving there partners behind there backs, he is a fat cat evil businessman intent on destroying any other opposition without regard. She had a perfectly interesting business that local community love and respect. He basically gaslights her by knowing he is the other so called anonymous emailer yet she has no clue. Pretty blooming nasty all round.
-
Clare-521 December 1998This movie was so much better than I expected, which was a simple romantic comedy with predictable "pass each other in the street" scenarios throughout. I was pleasantly surprised to find a love story that touched my heart. Kathleen's vulnerability and pride in her mother made me cry and Joe's sensitivity and devious behavior were so very sweet.
I didn't think that Tom Hanks & Meg Ryan could pull off a romance better than they did in Sleepless In Seattle but I am happy to be mistaken. -
RobTheWatcher9 May 2022Aside from the fact that both leads in this are essentially cheating on their significant other, this story line was pretty enjoyable and good overall for a movie in 1998. It was good enough to watch.
-
Weirdly creepy and startlingly out-of-date remake which capitalized on Sleepless in Seattle nostalgia at the time. Now that I know this is a remake of a romcom from an earlier era, some of the scenarios make more sense and I can see them being delivered in a TransAtlantic accent, but I couldn't get over the bizarre sadistic sociopathy of Joe Fox knowing that Kathleen Kelly was unaware of who he was but choosing to brazenly manipulate her, ending in a twisted romantic finale ("i was hoping it was you!"). I think IRL the female lead would have exploded and pummeled such a twisted sneak. Unless of course she was so beaten down by losing her business that she'd accept anything.
Avoid unless you're a woman with no self-esteem, or a creepy internet stalker male who likes to catfish. -
Altaira13 June 1999I'm not usually drawn to the stereotypical "cute chick flick," but while You've Got Mail unabashedly falls into this category, I still loved it. Mail is a clever story, cleverly acted by Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks. I enjoyed it more than their last joint project, Sleepless in Seattle simply because the immensely likeable pair were onscreen together so much more. Some will dub the movie predictable and sappy, but hey, I wasn't looking for deep psychology, just a friendly feel good. If that's what you're after, Mail delivers. Hanks and Ryan have the greatest onscreen chemistry I've seen, and the last half hour of the film is right on target. While the happy ending was inevitable, I was curious to discover exactly how it would occur. Sugar-coated it was, but charming and thoroughly enjoyable!!! A few bits of dialogue were a little too cute for my taste, but overall, You've Got Mail is more sweet than sugary.
-
Criz30 March 1999This warm-hearted little film suffers from a unique problem: the director's bizarre interpretation of what constitutes relevant information. The film ends abruptly, with no attempt to tackle the most central question, how can a woman trust the guy who has destroyed her livelihood--and enjoyed doing so? Instead, we are treated to weird, pointless details such as the fact Joe Fox's father and grandfather keep reproducing with younger and younger women. The writer seems to get a kick out of introducing Fox's eight year old aunt and her playmate, Joe's four year old brother, and watching the reactions of fellow characters. The problem is that this needless display of Viagra virility takes time away from the central plot, allowing the director to skimp in a horrible fashion.
-
BChase25 January 1999I was pleasantly surprised to find "Mail" not to be a rehash of "Sleepless." Ryan and Hanks do work exceptionally well together! Three-quarters into the movie I was wondering how they would ever pull off a romantic and yet believable ending, but the scene at the garden was one of those perfect moments in filmmaking. It just rang true and consistent with the story.
I really enjoyed this one! (And hearing Harry Nilsson's music again, used so beautifully, was icing on the cake!) -
This movie is truly a modern romantic comedy. The writing, direction and, best of all, the acting, hold your attention through 2 very enjoyable hours. I would recommend taking the plot with a pinch of salt, (is it likely that you'd be chatting over the Net with a multi-millionaire retail magnate, I don't think so!), but isn't that the way with 90% of Hollywood's output? I saw the movie with my 12 year old daughter, the inevitable ending had her trying to dab tears away without my noticing. I being butch and mid-thirties never cry at the movies, well, I never admit to it anyway!
-
aidosh9424 September 2007...except for the fact that this movie made me so happy! I'm a huge Tom Hanks fan and I collect all of his movies, and it has been quite some time since i've seen a really good and special movie of his. He's just such a wonderful actor and Meg Ryan's just... Well, she's just so great, always happy and when she's acting she always makes me laugh, cause she's just so wonderful! Let's talk about this movie: I'm gonna be honest with you, this isn't Forrest Gump or The Green Mile, but it is romantic, special, wonderful and it made me smile and wish for them to get together in the film, and in the end I was just happier then before! I think it's underrated, but everyone has a special taste, and I just loved it! I seriously recommend it to every Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan fan, you are not going to regret it! Thank you for your time.
-
ameeks9524 September 2023This rom com is pretty cute, witty at times, and has the beautiful aesthetics of New York in the '90s. Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks have undeniable chemistry and the film can be enjoyed if you don't think about it AT ALL. I can't turn off my brain so the fact that Joe (Hanks) is basically a stalker for most of the film and never reveals his identity is unsettling at best. The fact that Kathleen (Ryan) is able to continue her love affair with the man who destroyed her livelihood and the livelihoods of all of her employees is disappointing. She was forced to close her small business that was her one tie to her deceased mother, and while she was sad, I would've like to see some rage. If a man squandered my one dream/major investment in life, I would want to tap dance on his grave. The film also felt like big business, corporate propaganda. (Why was Starbucks featured so often??) I wish there would've been a solution in the plot that allowed Kathleen's store to stay open - like Fox's bookstore got rid of their children's book section so the demand for Kathleen's store would remain untouched?! Idk that could be too big brained of me to suggest. Overall, the film has amazing production design and the actors offer solid performances. The story however, is pathetic.
-
While Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks appear to be genuinely nice people, this film is nothing but a disguised attempt to make sexism and multi-national corporations look good.
Meg Ryan owns a small store that gets put out of business by a chain book store with severely uneducated clerks who earn very little money. And then she gets her coffee at Starbucks. Yeah right! How dumb is Ryan's character anyway? While she enjoys her coffee she's helping put out of business all the local mom and pop coffee shops.
Tom Hanks' character, while becoming more compassionate in his personal approach, makes no change whatsoever in his business practices. Ryan's character teaches him to be kinder, but that's all. And she decides to be with him, even though he'll go on to put other small stores out of business just like her's. What will happen to their happily ever after ending when she sees him do this to another person, except this time he does it with more "compassion?" Because Hanks' character didn't truly change (he would have had to denounce his family's business practices), the message is clear: Give in, submit to big business.
Even the very set-up of this film is sexist. Reverse the roles in this film. Suppose Hanks was Ryan and vice versa. What would audiences think of a man who fell in love with the woman who put him out of business? They wouldn't watch it, that's what. He'd be a wuss, absolutely whipped. But because it's a woman being screwed, it's ok. (Btw, I'm a man and I saw this sexism from the get go.)
This film, in the simplest terms, is a thinly disguised sexist pro big business fairy tale that's supposed to make us feel better about our losing a way of life -- the "shop around the corner" where everyone knows your name, knows the products and isn't out to screw the small guy. -
len-2110 January 1999It was hard not to give this movie a 10, but since I have only given out about 20 10's in all the movies I have ever seen - thousands, a 10 here would have been a little too generous.
Though, it is difficult to find fault, I suppose it is fair to say that the movie didn't always have full steam - especially early on. Still, even during those times, it was interesting. I mean, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. What else do you need?
Additionally, I didn't laugh very much. Not that I was required to, but this genre would, after all, be considered a romantic comedy. Despite the lack of laughs, it was as feel good as it gets.
The movie was blessed with two great actors, a creative idea, excellent writing and directing. And, the ending was one for the ages. I might have chosen to "tweak" it a little, but it was about as good as you will ever see - assuming you like romance. I do! -
matthewreinink13 February 2024This is a decent movie with a good cast. I actually prefer this movie to Sleepless in Seattle; I think it's funnier and has the advantage of Hanks and Ryan actually sharing the screen together for more than the last 5 minutes.
The biggest problem with this movie is that it fails to stick the landing. There seems to be some commentary on big corporations driving mom-and-pop shops out of business. However, the film ends with the big corporation winning and Meg Ryan being left jobless. That seems like a weird way to end a movie but what do I know? I was expecting this movie to end with Hanks purchasing her store and gifting it back to her, or possibly closing his competing megastore. It's very odd that corporate greed wins out here and the script writers just kind of shrugged their shoulders.
There's also the questionable nature of their relationship once Hanks figures out the identity of his pen pal. I don't think most women would find it very romantic if a man they hated tried to woo them over the internet using an online alias. I'm not sure who made that decision, but for this movie to work like it was intended they should have learned about each other's identities at the same time. -
krumski12 May 2000This movie is strange. Just weird. It would seem as if it's trying to be a romantic comedy, and indeed that is what it was billed and sold as (And it's based on one of the best - the 1938 film The Shop Around the Corner, starring Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan. People, this is an absolute gem, and regardless of how you feel about You've Got Mail, you ABSOLUTELY must see it. See it! See it! See it! You won't be disappointed.)
But back to You've Got Mail. Now, I like Tom Hanks. I like Meg Ryan. I loved them together in Joe Versus the Volcano (haven't seen Sleepless in Seattle - and have no intention of ever doing so). But they completely fizzle here. It's not really their fault. The script is so hard-wired to prevent any audience sympathy or interaction. The premise would appear to be golden: two people fall in love with one another via the Internet, only to realize that in real life they can't stand each other. This is an intriguing set-up (and a savvy and intelligent update of Shop Around the Corner's pen-pal conceit); the scenes where we hear (through voiceover) Tom and Meg's communiques with each other are low-key and sweet. But. . . oh, there are so many "but"s - such as:
*Did the script really need to pair up the stars with respective live-ins (Greg Kinnear for her, Parker Posey for him)? These characters never get explored in the least, are blatant caricatures (he of N.Y. intelligentsia, she of the brash and crass world of publishing), and are dispensed of without any noticeable fanfare. What's the point? Surely, having the leads be separated by not knowing each others' identities should have been (and is) complication enough.
*Why is Hanks' character privy to the secret identity of his e-mail partner so long before Ryan's is? True, this development corresponds structurally to the one played out in Shop Around the Corner, but that's not really a fair comparison. There, the entire movie was more or less seen through the eyes of Jimmy Stewart's character, and our identification with him made us wonder how he would make use of his knowledge. Here, though, Hanks and Ryan are given equal weight and screen time; neither represents the definitive "perspective" through which the film is to be seen. As such, awarding his character knowledge which she does not possess strikes of a desire to play favorites - and wreaks havoc with the trajectory of the movie's second half. It suddenly ceases being a movie about equals and becomes more about the deliberate manipulations and evasions of Tom Hanks' character - making the whole thing seem insincere and smarmy, rather than fun or heart-warming.
*And speaking of smarmy, what's with the moral of this story? Is there one?! I mean sure, going in, we more or less figure that there will be a sappy but endearing message about love winning out in the end over personal differences. Which we're prepared for (and frankly, if you're not, you've stepped into not only the wrong movie but the wrong genre). Since, in the film, Hanks and Ryan are the heads of rival bookstores - he a large and impersonal chain, she a small, independently owned neighborhood store catering lovingly to children - we get to see their personal peccadillos played out in the world of business. This is a good idea, particularly as his chain is attempting to drive hers out of business. Problem is, no one really had the heart to make Tom Hanks the yuppie s.o.b. he really needed to be for this story to work (of course, the Hanks of the '80s was born to play just this role - but now that he's graduated to bland "nice guy" parts I suppose all nuance and complexity have gone out of his work). What the filmmakers do instead is truly laughable (and here comes a major SPOILER, so if you don't want to know how this film ends stop reading here) - they have Hanks' company run Ryan's out of business - and then have her fall in love with him anyway. HUH?! Could someone explain that to me? The two don't reach a détente, a middle ground, in their personal and business bickering. They don't join forces, or find some compromise way to co-exist. I was at least expecting some diatribe against big business in favor of small and independent shopowners who truly "care" about their product. Corny though it might have been, it at least would have been consistent with the genre it found itself in. Or the movie might have been truly brave and suggested that, under the circumstances, there was no way Ryan could ever be with Hanks, as much as she loves him in cyberspace, for their fundamental difference in temperament and philosophy would always keep them apart. Then, maybe, Tom would have to undergo some kind of transformation or catharsis or. . . . but, hey, since he's already such a nice guy in this movie, screw it, let's just have him win heartlessly in business, and get the girl anyway. Under all the gossamer and syrup of the ending, it's a pretty mean-spirited and cynical message this movie is pushing. Very distasteful, too. And not at all the experience I had in mind when laying down my eight bucks to see two of the most likable and charming leads working in movies today.
But Shop Around the Corner, that's a whole other story. .. -
TxMike19 October 2023I recently watched the 1940 "Shop Around the Corner" with Jimmy Stewart for the first time. In explaining a synopsis to my wife she said, "That sounds like the same story in 'You've Got Mail.'" So I did my research and found out she was right. Further, I realized I had never watched this 1998 movie. So here we are, I found the DVD at my public library.
The DVD "extra" is also interesting, the sisters Ephron explain their approach and Hanks and Ryan pitch in also. This is a thoroughly entertaining movie.
While it follows the same general story it is updated for the modern world. Not only is it moved from Budapest to New York, it uses the modern writing technique of email. It also uses the concept of a bigger store coming in and undercutting the smaller, long-established business.
Meg Ryan is Kathleen Kelly, owner of a smaller shop, called Shop Around the Corner, specializing in children's books. Her mother was the original owner. Tom Hanks is Joe Fox of the wealthy Fox family, opening a mega bookstore around the corner from her. They meet, they develop a pretty quick dislike for each other. Unknown to both of them, they had already become email pals with very high regard for each other.
So much of this movie plays out in similar ways to the 1940 movie, it is interesting and entertaining to see how it all plays out to the end.