super16

This is probably a perfect film for young tween girls and childhood age kids of all sexes. It's certainly a family friendly film, although there are several suggestions in the first post-robbery scene that are echoed later on in the film, as well as with the robbers in some of their scenes, and in the finale fight in the woods that might be too much for very small children, certainly worse is available on TV.

The good points of the movie are good performances by Julia Roberts (although her role could have been more interesting, either more evil and/or with more real magic, the witch/queen played by Susan Sarandon in ENCHANTED comes across as far more powerful, in far less screen time, for example), Armie Hammer in a reasonably thankless role, Nathan Lane, as the comic relief, and of course, while playing anti-Disney Dwarf types, the performances were all very good among the seven actors who portrayed.

The COSTUMES were excellent, and the set pieces gave the idea that the art direction, sets, and so forth, could have been so much more, but what we did see was enjoyable.

The movie is marred by a weak script, a poorly plotted and simplistic story, and a genuinely uncharismatic women portrait as the essential lead. Someone who was less random and more there would really have been so much better, although even if that had happened, the film still suffered too much from a poor script.

I like to read reviews of certain movies after the come out; this being one of them, as I read the first two or three pages of reviews on here and on other websites, it's striking at how many people dislike the movie (even though they did watch -- unlike some people who will merely give a move a low grade or even negative comments -- without actually watching the movie, but just to bring down it's overall score). The actual critics are generally very positive about this movie, saying nice things about. So are many on here, myself included (although my rating is actually closet to 8.5 than 9 but not low enough to just be an 8).

Several folks on here have already commented -- and in great detail -- on what I think were the key things that work well in the film - the pacing was excellent, the best of all films to date, the adaptation was also one of the better ones, the cinematography, effects and music were superior to genuinely excellent, the adult performances were, as always, uniformly superb and even the three young leads were clearly maturing well as actors, particularly Rupert Grint as a comic actor. So I am going to comment a bit on my fellow IMDb reviewers: relax. Enjoy the films.

Yes, there are things I see as missing; I think, in particular, whom the death eaters captured at the start of the film should at least been mentioned in passing and Lupin could have described a certain death eater as being his "kindred" of a sort, but some of the other complaints really are, as someone indicated, nit-picking. They are also choices we may not understand (Dobby/Kreacher) until we see Deathly Hollow one and two.

I read Order of the Phoenix again, before I saw the last film but did not read the book to this film again, but will do so likely before I see the Imax release in about 10 days, and I suspect that this has something to do with the enjoyment of the movie more.

I have read books I did not like as movies; that is the nature of the beast. They are different art forms. When producers make the choice of say simply filming a play, it can be very weak. It's not how the original work was meant to be; likewise, if JKR can be happy with the movies, I think some of her fans should accept them for what they are and enjoy them, or simply stick to the books and stop watching something that they are NEVER going to find acceptable.

This is a very well made and sufficiently well-conceived film that it is disappointing that its downfalls (which only come to you in retrospect) are actually as large as they are.

It's a very enjoyable film - most casual moviegoers will come in and leave feeling like their money was spent well. However, anyone who wants a well rounded film experience, including a great plot, won't necessarily feel that way. And while many of the hard core fans will accept the (SPOILERS start here) alternate reality/time traveling story line, the writers took a very easy way out with these plot devices - it is something which has been done in any number of sci-fi franchise (perhaps with the lone exception of the Star Wars movies) from Star Gate to Star Trek, the plot reminded me of a combination of several episodes of Voyager ("Relativity" and, more particularly, "Year of Hell"). The other problem with the movie is the choices they made, both involving the same character - the destruction of his home world and his relationship with a fellow crew member.

Another complaint I have with the movie is some of the cast. While good actors, Cho and Seldana do nothing with their parts as Sulu and Uhura. On the other hand, Urban is very good as McCoy and Quinto is an adequate (albeit more illogical than necessary) Spock, but both Pegg's very brief, late entry as Mr. Scott and particularly Anton Yelchin excellent Chekov. Pine does a very good job of making a very well known pop icon his own. On the other hand, one of the essentially problems with the film is why Kirk gets the full on hero worship at the end when it was Chekov and Scott who made the success of the trip possible and Spock himself who saved Planet Earth. Another failure in the script is that Uhura and Sulu really had nothing (and did nothing) to contribute. It's also a very charming, witty script although someone who is only a casual audience member or even a sometime fan will not get some of the in-jokes.

The high grade is for the fact that the movie is a very good form of entertainment and hopefully some of these issues will be resolved in the already planned sequels. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in the hopes they will try harder in the plot.

This is a very well acted, well made film that has a few significant weakness (some confusing and contradictory actions taken by the characters) but overall its worth a rental and, if you like interesting character studies, a worthwhile addition to your film collection. While an 8 may not seem to be a rave, I give very few movies a high grade and so by my criteria, this is a very good movie. The performance by Downey is particularly (and typically) a very good one, although at times you are uncertain as to the specific motivations of his character (more a flaw of the script than the acting). Hope Davis, in a role she has, to a certain extent, found herself in with some of her former films, is also good, as are the key student parts. However, the great performance here is by Anton Yelchin as the lead and name character. This is someone who, given good scripts, will likely have a long and very good career as an actor.

Highly, highly recommended.

I saw the movie recently, several years after it came out and read the first book after seeing the movie. Many of the user comments on here berate the film for the fact that it didn't closely follow the book and ended up cutting out the final section of the book. Given that NewLine had no idea that they would make any further movies, dropping that ending makes perfect sense to have some finality to this movie, versus a cliff hanger. In fact, many of the decisions (how, and more importantly when) Lyra finds out who her parents really are is better handled in the film, versus the book, where the information is told far too early on IMO. However, once decision the filmmakers made (the fight between Iorek and the bear 'king' to regain Iorek's throne) makes no sense where they placed it, since the lop the last section of the book; it made no sense that he won his challenge but the bears did not get called upon to assist with the attack on Bolvanger. The book also, for example, suggested that others could read the compass and that Lyra was not really that special, and that there was more than one compass still floating around. These are choices which may make plenty of sense for those who have read all three books, but people need to remember that these are reviews of MOVIES, not of adaptations.

The movie is enjoyable enough on its own merits. Its not recommend for small children.

There are several good, interesting ideas that could have been explored in this movie - one is a blind young man, interested in a serious relationship and wanting to have sex with meaning -- who doesn't view himself as attractive -- and how he goes about pursuing that relationship and what happens along the way. This movie could play as a drama with comedy or a comedy with drama. Another way it could have gone is the experience of a blind young man who undergoes experimental surgery and the outcome and difficulties encountered along the way. More than likely this would be mostly a drama. Finally, there's the relationship between a blind man and a sighted woman, a romance based movie, either drama or comedy, or the relationship between a Caucasian American male and an female of Indian descent from a very traditional Indian family, and the difficulties they would encounter along the way, again a drama with some comedy more than likely.

Unfortunately, this movie overreached it grasp. There were some very good moments: the basketball game with the friend, the parents at the hospital while they await the outcome of the surgery, etc. But the whole isn't even a sum of these parts -- it's a combination of movies that do not cohere in a way that one can call a success.

Its unfortunate: the idea of a romance comedy that isn't simplistic, Boy meets Girl, Boy and Girl find love, encounter hindrance, break-up, but Love Wins Out, is a trite, tired formula. This movie had the promise to be a bit more than that, as DEFINITELY, MAYBE attempted and succeeded earlier this year. A longer running time would have helped and a better screenplay.

The performances was reasonably solid for the budget. Technically, the film is fine, location wise and situation some interesting choices. The biggest weakness is the plot, story and script.

Chris Pine deserves some better roles, to see what he can actually make with something more complex and intelligent. Some excellent character actors are wasted, although their performances are fine. There are some unfortunate and unnecessary stereotypes with both the Indian characters and the females set-ups that the Larry character attempts to hook up with Chris Pine's role as Danny.

The most unfortunate thing about this movie is the waste of, particularly, an excellent actress like Susan Sarandon but also for wasting Seann William Scott, who has been far better in other comedies (even the American Pie series had more humor and came across as more realistic than Mr. Woodcock) and has also done well in some dramatic/action movies, with comedic qualities in his performance, as in Bulletproof Monk and the Rundown. The only actor in the movie who is enhanced by this entire affair is Amy Poehler, who is far better used here than she ever was in Blade of Glory. She gives an excellent, scene-stealing, scene-chewing performance as Maggie, the press agent and "handler" for Scott's inspirational How To book author character, John Farley.

Sarandon plays his mom and its an age appropriate role for her and she looks fabulous even as a past middle age adult mother in a small, mid-west town. Her over the top roles in projects like Enchanted, or Children of Dune are better 'paycheck' roles for her than projects such as this or say Speed Racer.

The movie is technically proficient from a mainstream studio release point of view. However, it suffers from being a movie that, at least theatrically, barely made its production budget back (approximately $24M, not counting the cost of prints or promotion) -- and you have to wonder how much of that cost went to the director, who clearly did a by the numbers performance (many TV movies, even on basic cable, have more interesting elements in them) and a script that took every simple or easy way out. The script is credited on screen to two writers. It feels and comes across as if they sat around one afternoon thumbing through their old yearbooks, calling a few friends up for some more diverse gym-teacher horror stories, cobbled together the most basic of son/former boyfriend/co-worker/next door neighbor attempts to break couple that seem unsuitable at the start, succeeds, but in the standard-issue feel good ending, they must be brought back together at the last possible moment so the credits can roll on a happy popcorn satiated crowd.

It's predictable, its boring, it's not even mildly funny. There is one part where I laughed out loud, towards the end, a physical bit of comedy involving a pot hole and the Thorton character, Woodcock. However, laughing out loud was reflexive to what was otherwise a set up and joke that one could see a mile away. Just like a pie in the face, one laughs, but it's not what one wants to pay $10 for, plus parking, baby-sitter, gas, popcorn, etc.

Best to avoid, even on basic cable for free.

This film is probably a bit higher than a 5.5 on my scale, but unfortunately IMDb doesn't allow proportional ratings as of yet. It's a solid family drama that features good to decent performances by the human leads, but is generally mostly about the dogs and some really gorgeous cinematography and locations.

I realize some people gave it a far higher rating, but I don't think this movie is anything more than a comfortable, relaxed, well made and enjoyable movie that you could enjoy with any members of your family and friends. While some scenes will stay in your head for a bit after wards (particularly the dogs), it's not going to be something you will think about ten years later when you want to curate your own film festival say, or your top ten list of the last decade.

Recommended as a rental. If you are a fan of dogs, its likely something to add to your library. However, March of the Penguins is a far more superior film with similar elements, that teaches as well as provides all around enjoyment, on both the family level -- and can be enjoyed by anyone, with excellent cinematography and "acting."

I've always enjoyed this show; it has an amusing charm and Colin Ferguson does the physical comedy well. Unlike some, I've no problems with the way the Carter, Allison, Stark triangle plays out - I would have been fine had she ended up with Carter or Stark. The science on the show seemed grounded enough to straddle both the fantasy elements of sci-fi and the real- world/possible elements of reality.

However, this episode was exceedingly disappointing, largely due to the very lazy and simplistic writing, particularly the solutions to further the plot. Given that this episode is written by the same people that have essentially been the writing half of nearly every other episode, it is even more disappointing. For example, given the episode HOUSE RULES, it makes no sense that a drone (no matter how souped up) could easily overcome S.A.R.A.H. in order to "spring" Zoe out. I can understand why the writers did it and its necessity to the plot, but they could just as easily have the Martha drone intercept Zoe in front of Sarah (which could even have lead to a neat shoot out scene between Martha and Sarah).

The freezer of Cafe Diem was particularly uninspired and visually boring. And what kind of decent restaurant puts fresh items in a freezer? It also does not follow logic that Zane Donovan would have the kind of ideals, politics (and opinions about authority) that he displays in E-MC...? and then all of sudden agree to be in charge of a purely military scientific application. It also begs logic that the DOD, after a history of $400 plus toilet seats, would all of a sudden hire some corporate downsizer to help them oversea a crowd of scientific minds (or that the creative scientists would put up with it). If their contracts don't mean anything to the DOD and they would just buy them out, why wouldn't say Carter tell Eva Thorne where she could put her pretty graphs and charts and quit -- heading back to LA with Zoe and to his ex-wife? Especially with Allison marrying his foe?

Just a sad, generally badly written episode.

This is a fairly polished production; however, the script takes some very easy short-cuts or falls back on some very clichéd characters. The parts of Johnson (Glover), and all of the other bad guys are comically, characteristically "bad" guys. Glover's role, in particular, ends up the moving towards a portrayal where he is tossing off purely two dimensional lines so bad they are laughable. Wahlberg's portrayal is fine, if limited to very few notes. As some other reviewers notes, Mara is essentially limited to some expressions of fear and anxiety. Pena is well used, although a fair portion of his role towards the end of the plot ends up in deleted scenes.

The lack of credibility in some key points (A. that Wahlberg's role wouldn't ask for any kind of basic identification and would feel that it would be necessary for one man to do the wind and location scouting readings, versus telling any number of presumably other competent Army, FBI or other agency snipers to assist -- and, of course, confirm; B. that every other FBI officer, experienced officers, all, would question Pena's recollection. memory and interpretations -- with the KEY exception of one secretary; C. that a large, amorphous well- staffed and well-funded "agency" could exist in the U.S. government overseen by only one lone senator from the great state of Montana) probably didn't ruin the movie for anyone who wanted a action piece, but it hurts the movie as both a suspense or thriller feature. The comparison by one television to the Bourne movie is totally off the mark. This movie lacks the intelligence of those plots, the acting, writing and stunt work, as well as the believability quotient of that series.

My vote total is probably not as bad as it seems; I give few movies 8s and 9s and only one movie in the last 10 years has rated as high as a 10. The production values on the movie are good and many of the performances are decent to excellent. Chris Evans is wasted in a role, that as written, could have been done by any cute enough actor of that age. Linney is an excellent actress and did what she could with this role, you cannot fault her performance. However, she has been, as many other users pointed out, far better used and done so much more remarkable work in any number of great movies. This is far from a great movie. Donna Murphy was also wasted in her role. Giamatti obviously enjoyed the role and "chewed" it to good effect, but his was a minor key role in the movie -- not enough to salvage this into a better score. The best performances were by the nannies and some of the mother, with an amusing turn by the facilitator of the Parent's Society meetings. Alicia Keye's existence in this movie, as with the other movie I saw her in, was a pointless addition. While not as bad as some singers trying to act, she did not contribute anything to the movie other than the addition of her name. Finally, Johannsan simply is not a the comic genius the "making of" featurettes make her out to be, certainly not the physical comic implied. While she has been less appealing in other films (The Prestige comes to the fore), the physical schtick they made her go through (such as the fall on receipt of her diploma, or the costumes and other hassles with Grayer/Grover) really was just painful to watch.

The best part is the museum opening. If the movie had maintained that cleverness, it might have accomplished something.

This movies is ruined by a weak script - whether that is a problem with the premises being watered down or a the writer, coming up with an eureka moment that he fails to execution.

It's also ruined by a mostly misused cast. Maclaine is fine in many of her scenes but this is a rote role for her. Jenkins is the best used of the older pros. Costner is mostly a non-entity in the movie. He looks very old and unhappy in the sofa scene shortly after meeting Aniston's character but before they spend the night together. Later, their character's relationship is even more implausible than the first physical meeting would suggest. Particularly given that Aniston cannot really play a 30 year old woman any longer and shouldn't. While still attractive, she cannot play someone some ten years younger than her actual age.

She was completely misused and miscast in this film as she has been in nearly all of her recent films other than Along Came Polly.

Not recommended at all.

The problem with family dramas is that, outside of TV movies on channels like Lifetime, most people don't want to watch them. And the ones that do get watched tend to be sensationalized and about current or topical problems or issues in the news (or recent news). Movies that explain or explore the human condition aren't popular. Particularly with the young crowd that would be Miss Lohan's fan base or the younger crowd that tends to make movies not simply popular but financially successful for studios.

The specific problems I had with this movie is the cartoonishness of some of the characterizations. It was a bit much to blame all of the Lohan's character's acting-out (wrecking the car, drug use, etc.) on what her step-father did to her. While not improbable,it's just a bit much to expect the audience to swallow. Additionally, other aspects, such as her giving the young Morman boy, oral sex, or that she would actually make a good assistant to the vet, who coincidentally happens to have a thing for her mother, etc., all these elements just did not really help this movie along. It placed it more in the element of a situation comedy trying one of their "special dramatic episodes" then it did for a fully realized, well-written feature film.

When you watch the DVD and listen to the commentary, particularly for the various alternate endings, you can really see all of this is sharp focus.

This movies features some good performances, some serious over-acting and, by a few, some poor performances. It suffers from some unbelievable plot points (the neighbor of a randomly selected person who just happens to owe money to both mob bosses, is used to coming over to his place without knocking, works in the morgue, knows the main detective, has a friend at Good Kat's hotel AND gets the second lead to fall in love with her in just a few days? -- just not plausible, particularly given the 'this feels really pasted on at the last minute happy ending' with Lui and Hartnett's characters.

The movie also works too hard to copy way too many films without really finding its own grove and style. It had enough elements to make a decent movie but apparently the filmmakers don't have the courage of some of their own character's convictions.

I'm not sure I would agree with the folks who give this an 8 or higher -- but then, my scores for movies are probably graded out on a higher bell curve than most folks seem to think exist. So, a 6 for me, means well above average.

The acting in the movie is, for the most part, uniformly good, even the small roles. I would agree with some of the user reviews who said that some roles were very small and the actors were underused. In particular, Terrance Howard doesn't have much to do with his role - although I guess if they go the standard Hollywood sequel route, at some point Howard will get to top line a War Machine sequel. Paltrow, as Pepper Pots, however, strikes me as stunt casting pure and simple. This is a role that could have been handles by any number of other actresses and probably handled equally well, if not with more ease and grace. Some of the secondary roles, such as Leslie Bibbs were also way too minor not to be played by a decent character actor, and others, such as Jeff Bridges, simply were too rushed to reflect the arc that characters took from the start of the movie towards the end.

This feature is your basic super hero origin movie - likely because the filmmakers must assume that most people (such as myself) would not be familiar with how Tony Stark became Iron Man. On that level, I think the movie worked really well. The story was plausible (although I feel more could have been done to explain both the Arc reactor technology and the actual medical issue of the shrapnel/heart danger).

As some other users notes, this is a timeless story - that has been both beautifully and interesting presented, in movies like It's A Wonderful Life and in the story of Faust. However, why Adam Sandler's production company decided this needed to be updated and retold, is simply unknowable - because other than adding an unfunny crudeness (fart jokes, boob jokes, dogs humping a stuffed duck?), it did nothing that a recent, better made movie like Nicolas Cage's The Family Man did, while covering much of the same territory.

What is also further implausible (and becomes even more so as Sandler ages and lets himself go) is that he would end up with the hot girl. In some of his other movies, there was some unknown charm or childlike wonder or other unearthed element to the roles he played to justify how he got the girl (say in Big Daddy or even Billy Madison), but in this he plays a unpleasant, unattractive, unappealing shlub. He might rate a decent girl - not Kate Beckinsale.

Another problem with the script is how poorly thought out some parts are - why would the Angel of Death do something for a "nice guy?" In this role, Walken was either the devil or god, but not the Angel of Death. Its elements like this that show how poorly thought out and poorly developed this concept was - once they decided to rip it off from better made movies.

I saw this movie in theaters, and recently, after seeing Ratatouille in theaters, watched the entire movie on the DVD again from start to finish. When the DVD was first on sale, I bought it simply because I knew I'd eventually want to see it again, but other than the special and bonus features (including Just Jack Attack), did not view the movie since its 2004 theatrical release.

Seeing the movie again, and comparing it to the number of excellent movies that came before and after it, I once again feel it was simply one of the very best films - plot wise, composition and technical production value wise, and as far as the voice talent and, of course, the script. And I don't mean this as one of the very best children's film or the very best animation films. I mean, simply put, it easily is among my all time top ten amongst films in terms of overall quality, which includes for me production values, direction, art direction, acting and, primarily, script.

It is also a film you can easily see over and over again and catch new and interesting details and quality marks not as easily discerned in previous viewings.

Humans are unique in that while nearly all of us communicate with language (and our intellectual processes are fairly similar, even across nationalities, cultures and classes), we have formed a variety of different languages with which to communicate with out neighbors, some of those languages have and are dying out.

Crossword puzzles are fairly universal things; you see them in most languages and nationalities with the opportunity for leisure and with an established media and mass distribution points. While this documentary was very focused on crosswords in the U.S. and very specifically on crosswords in the New York Times, the puzzles themselves are not so selectively found. In that regard, while this documentary worked well to educate an audience about somethings they may not have known about crosswords generally or those who either design or attempt to solve them more specifically, the fact that the focuses was so narrowed made it interesting that an attempt was made to distribute this as a feature rather than to showcase it as a documentary on cable or otherwise.

The material on New York Times crossword puzzle editor Will Shortz was interesting, if brief. While there was not as much personal focus on "puzzle creator" Merl Reagle, his aspect of the film was perhaps the most interesting and informative.

The section on the competitors in the annual Crossword Puzzle Tournament, which was inter-cut (as was the entire film) with very brief interviews with more notable enthusiasts (such as Bill Clinton and Jon Stewart) was the most entertaining of the human interest narratives featured, but probably could have (and I believe was done previously) as a nice piece on 60 Minutes.

While worthy of a rental, it's hard to recommend this film as a real documentary.

Disturbia is an interesting film, most definitely based, as others have commented, on the very superior Hitchcock film, Rear Window, which is highly recommended.

What distinguishes this film from other remakes is an excellent lead performance by LaBeouf (as Kale) and good support from the generally excellent David Morse as the villain (written as Mr. Turner in the script) as well as Aaron Yoo, in the 'best friend' comic relief role. Unfortunately, Carrie Ann Moss is underused. The movie is ruined by the last section. Rather than the apparently methodical and reasoned rationale for his character that we have viewed so far, Turner (Morse's character) becomes reckless and openly homicidal, going after a cop, and the entire set of neighbors (without any thought given to the ramifications of these acts – for example, that there would be a police incident report, with the same self officer involved, listing his name and address on the report). This same section is ruined by the overly elaborate secret room, within a secret room, with a basement literally flooded with dead bodies (as if Turner has been carting them around from all his previous crime scenes). It particularly is annoying because the bodies in the water scene look very intact, which would apparently diminish the need for the surgical room (other than the fact that all of this probably provides the audience with a good fright). All of this exposition and character development is highly reckless and not in character with the way Turner is represented, both in his earlier crime spree, where he apparently eluded the authorities undetected, and with the way Morse portrayed Turner at the hardware store, with Kale's mother at the grocery store, and with the earlier police incident and the deer.

Finally, no explanation is given for either the cause or the actual two instances of priors that lead to the slugging of the Spanish teacher to be a third. In fact, the only real need for this in the script is to justify the entire set-up: the death of the father leads to the punch = house arrest, because of the two unexplained priors. Kale is otherwise a very normal, albeit bright and perhaps unchallenged teenager, not some gang member or somehow economically disadvantaged youth who-must-steal, or misunderstood young man who-must-fight. As with Turner's ability early on to be at the wrong place at the right time (in the world's largest parking garage to a very small looking hardware store and at the grocery store to meet Kale's mother), these plot points exist because the screen writers couldn't find a way to otherwise explain something needed to move the story forward.

This is a very polished, largely well-acted and well made movie, that might have gotten a higher rating with more imagination and plotting in the script, as well as some direction to take into account these elements and attempt to minimize them.

There was a certain underlying sweetness to films like There's Something About Mary and The 40 Year Old Virgin, in spite of the fact that both movies (far more so the Aptow film) has some very crass elements to them. While not ideal, some of these elements can be viewed as necessary to the story line or the ultimate resolution of either of those films.

However, Superbad is just simply and plainly a terrible film - with very little genuine humor to redeem it. The crass elements of Superbad and far from necessary as their is no genuine story line other than to parrot teen comedies of the last decade: one or more boys try to get some booze, try to get some babes, and try to get "some." While those issues may have been "ultimately resolved" in Superbad, there is no genuine resolution there. The characters have not learned anything, they are no better nor worse off than before and the audience certainly hasn't learned anything -- except perhaps that the target audience of teen males who most want to see movies in the first two weekends when the studios can make their most money from the receipts -- still rule what films will and will not get made.

A silent Charlie Chaplin film still has the power to make us laugh some fifty years after it was made. In fifty years, people will likely wonder how something as crass and distasteful as this was considered one of the "better" comedies of the year.

This review is based on the DVD so I reference some of the bonus features.

The story is an excellent one; while some seemed to feel it should have been more like The Truman Show or Adaptation, I enjoyed the fact the script took some chances, and did so in imaginative ways, while still moving the story forward which is, after all, what any good movie should accomplish. Many of the performances were very strong, particularly Thompson and Hoffman. What is unfortunate is that so many other talented people were, essentially, wasted in what sometimes were pointless cameo's (for example, Tom Hulce, Kristen Chenowith, and Linda Hunt). Queen Latifah (particularly) and Maggie Gyllenhaal's role could also have been played more appropriately by other actors; in Gyllenhaal's case, a different choice would have made the pairing work better.

However, the really bad choice that really ruined the movie was the casting of Ferrell as the lead. While there is nothing intensely wrong with his performance, he is not a very good dramatic actor and does not have the range for this type of role. In the case of Hoffman and Thompson, you got to watch their performances and enjoy the characters without thinking about the acting. With Ferrell, it just felt like you were watching him read the dialogue - competently, at times, I would admit - but this is not a script that called for competence.

When you see the disk and hear the main producer and director (and particularly the screen writer) fawn over Ferrell as the best choice and a good lead, you have to wonder whether this was a choice partially (if not wholly) forced upon by the studio or some of the money men, in the hopes of making the movie more commercial, but unfortunately, in had the effect of making a potentially interesting and really enjoyable movie into a mundane, if at least proficient one.

The Ocean's film have always been about harmless but charming and glamorous fun, with some excellent acting, funny dialogue, crisp set ups and great behind the camera work on multiple levels by the crafts people on the films. Their weakest links have always been the scripts, which were always good on the funny bits and what created the bonds between the actors. However, with this third version was the script. The drill bit part, the Mexican labor camp revolution, the threat which forces the need for the revenge which is the basis of the film, etc.

I actually liked the second film more than this one, the big problem I had with it was that Catherine Zeta Jones just got too far too fast into Rusty's caper (and purely to advance the plot of that movie) and the entire Julia Robert's pregnancy bit. This one has no major flaws like that one, just a collection of minor ones.

However, it's still fun and enjoyable and if you don't mind not straining yourself at all, you should be able to enjoy it. Recommended as a matinée or a rental.

The film has a number of very good performances, some good Chicago locations and generally good set design, and is otherwise technically well made from a behind the camera standpoint but gets a low grade on the basis of the story and script.

This review is based on the DVD, not a theatrical presentation, so I will reference some of the bonus material including the "alternate" ending (which should actually have been termed the originally ending on the DVD -- "before we were forced to re-shoot it because the test audiences hated and didn't buy it!")

I could get past the initial set up of the film, which has (as Gregory House might have put it) a woman of a certain numeric rank being hit upon by a man of a far lower numeric rank) because generally movies written by guys have that as their basis all the time (which is why we see hot girls with schlubs all over movies and TV shows constantly) but also because, frankly, some women often just frankly have bad taste plus women seem to have a higher threshold with their gag reflex of what the male version of a dog is than males do about females. But once you get past that surface, as people, it's pretty clear that Brooke and Gary are wrong for each other, well before the dinner party that causes the "final straw" to set up the rest of the movie. This is where I think the story and script fail the audience.

While the montage of snap shots between the two leads was a good way to showcase the development of their relationship, the baseball meeting (rather than meet cute) was the wrong set up, since it was really more "meet annoying" or "meet obnoxious," One of the deleted scenes has the Vince Vaughn character helping a very attractive female buy her drink at a club (the same club which is shown in the movie itself, where Gary's brother Lupus - Cole Hauser's character - took him to help him meet women). In this deleted scene, the Gary character is funny and it is readily apparent how a women could be either entertained or charmed enough to go out on a date with him. In the opening baseball scene, in addition to being out of character for the date Brooke is with and for Brooke herself, it also fails to create the impression necessary to set up the rest of the movie.

The next time you see the characters, before and at the dinner party, you clearly see they do not make a good couple for any number of reasons, certainly not good enough for the other key set up of the film -- to live together in a piece of property they both decided to purchase jointly, even prior to marriage.

While the film could have been made about a apartment under rent control in say Manhattan in such a great location, neither party wanted to give it up, plus also recognizing how hard it would be to find a great apartment by themselves in the New York market. Otherwise, it's hard to understand why THIS couple would decide to live together by buying property together.

Giving Gary some sort of redeeming quality would have helped. Sure, his male friends could bond with him and think he's a great guy - even a stranger who came to date a very attractive female (Brooke) could be so distracted by Gary's ability to be a great male friend that this stranger (Brooke's date, Mike) could lose out on an attractive female. But these scenes don't show Gary to be a good friend to any females, much less an attractive or appealing partnership opportunity for Brooke or any other woman. Also, again this scene is an example of how the movie is badly written. Why would Gary make nice with a more attractive guy going out with his ex within a fresh less than two weeks of his breakup, when a few days earlier, he was trying so hard to embarrass Brooke in front a less attractive (and therefore less threatening) male escort with tricks on how to get Brooke to put out or what sex scenes and sex play she was into?

The script isn't strong enough for the number of points it tries to make. Some of the scenes added, especially for comedic effect, are totally unnecessary where other scenes could have been used to better effect (a key example is the entire first scene of Justin Long's character answering the phone at the art gallery). I think ultimately they decided those were needed to make the film commercially viable -- not to make it a better film.

This was a possibly average to decent drama or possible decent to solid comedy that needed to be focused and sharper in story, plot and details, but also needed a script doctor to really improve the plot, something which the director was apparently not able (or possible not allowed?) to do, given his commentary on the DVD, particularly with the original ending of the movie, as written and as this director shot it, especially to end the film with a very extended musical number after the dialogue between Brooke, Gary and their respective dates at the open air festival.

The alternate ending (that was released) of the film is what keeps the entire film from being a dismal bomb, something so obviously apparent, that hearing the director defend the original ending is surprising.