|
|
 |
|
|
Richard Corliss, Time: VERY GOOD "Without being great, it's still the flat-out finest romantic comedy of the year... I thoroughly enjoyed spending time with these people..." (Read the full review...) 1,159 words, 12/17/10 Christy Lemire, Associated Press: POOR (cg) "Nothing about this would-be romantic comedy ever gels -- neither the romance nor the comedy and, worst of all, not the characters." (Read the full review...) 603 words, 12/16/10 Thelma Adams, Us Weekly: MODERATE (cg) "The question isn't how do you know, but how did writer-director James L. Brooks manage to waste this array of talent." (Read the full review...) 143 words, 12/16/10 Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...rich material for an expansive romantic comedy of psychological substance... But something doesn't connect here." (Read the full review...) 492 words, 12/17/10 Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: VERY GOOD (cg) "Witherspoon and Rudd spar beautifully, relishing Brooks' long takes and deliciously funny dialogue.... Brooks, bless him, takes his sweet time." (Read the full review...) 212 words, 12/10/10 Claudia Puig, USA Today: MODERATE (cg) "The movie is dogged by an uneven script, sloppily timed quips and sluggish pacing. Emotional realizations feel contrived or overly sentimental..." (Read the full review...) 546 words, 12/17/10 Roger Ebert, RogerEbert.com: MODERATE (cg) "All of this whizzes along a few feet off the ground, like most rom-coms.... The movie doesn't lead us, it simply stays in step." (Read the full review...) 675 words, 12/16/10 James Berardinelli, Reel Views: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...engaging enough... but with the myriad uninteresting subplots that dot the cinematic landscape and have the unfortunate effect of padding the proceedings to the point of unwieldiness." (Read the full review...) 867 words, 12/16/10
Manohla Dargis, New York Times: POOR "...an airless, sometimes distressingly mirthless comedy... it just sits there, idling in neutral, as lines are delivered and bodies listlessly moved." (Read the full review...) 712 words, 12/17/10 Elizabeth Weitzman, New York Daily News: POOR (cg) "Brooks' shallow screenplay feels half-finished, and he never compensates with additional guidance or directorial flair. So all his actors are forced to flail about ineffectually." (Read the full review...) 356 words, 12/17/10 Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: WEAK "...doesn't pay off... we go to romantic comedies to fall in love and in 'How Do You Know' that love is gone." (Read the full review...) 926 words, 12/17/10 Lou Lumenick, New York Post: WEAK (cg) "...rambling, overproduced, tone-deaf... only slightly more engaging than Brooks' other feature this century, the unfortunate Adam Sandler vehicle 'Spanglish' (2004)." (Read the full review...) 540 words, 12/17/10 Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: VERY GOOD (cg) "It's relaxed without being sloppy, or patronizing, and in particular Witherspoon and Lemmon -- sorry, make that Rudd -- bring charm to burn." (Read the full review...) 628 words, 12/17/10 John Anderson, New York Newsday: WEAK (cg) "No one has a clue until the very end... a film that tries to get by on long, lingering and often nonsensical close-ups of its stars' faces." (Read the full review...) 347 words, 12/17/10 David Edelstein, New York Magazine: POOR "...the rules are different in this world and everyone must pull as many faces as possible if he or she wants to get to a higher plane of existence." (Read the full review...) 292 words, 12/13/10 Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: MODERATE (cg) "All of this whizzes along a few feet off the ground, like most rom-coms.... The movie doesn't lead us, it simply stays in step." (Read the full review...) 675 words, 12/16/10 Ella Taylor, Village Voice/LA Weekly: MODERATE "...deserves to be sent out to sea in a bottle so that future generations may take the measure of just how hair-raisingly indeterminate it was to live and love in early-21st-century America." (Read the full review...) 702 words, 12/15/10 Peter Howell, Toronto Star: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "Every year we get a high-fructose celluloid treat... Enjoyment is reasonably assured, but any resemblance to nutrition -- or the real world -- is mere happenstance." (Read the full review...) 662 words, 12/17/10 Rick Groen, Toronto Globe & Mail: MODERATE (cg) "...so oxidized it's stuck.... Gleefully unapologetic, always amiable and never less than honest..." (Read the full review...) 650 words, 12/17/10 Josep Parera, La Opinion: GOOD (cg) "El guión nunca parece encontrar el ritmo adecuado y termina perdiéndose debido a la falta de un tercer acto más impactante." (Read the full review...) 523 words, 12/17/10 Norman Wilner, Toronto Now: WEAK (cg) "...virtually every scene builds to a payoff that's no longer there.... an indifferently shot, awkwardly paced Very Special Episode of 'Friends.' " (Read the full review...) 249 words, 12/16/10
Ann Hornaday, Washington Post: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...despite occasional hiccups in pacing and tone, it's a parade well worth joining, if only for those dashes of observational wit and rueful wisdom that have become the filmmaker's signature." (Read the full review...) 498 words, 12/17/10 Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer: VERY GOOD (cg) "...an enjoyable if uneven comic romance more of the prickly-pear than love-apple variety... Brooks serves up funny-ouch humor with slapstick heartbreak." (Read the full review...) 646 words, 12/17/10 Amy Biancolli, Houston Chronicle/San Francisco Chronicle: WEAK (cg) "...generates maybe half a dozen mild laughs, nearly all of them featured in the trailer." (Read the full review...) 566 words, 12/17/10 Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel: MODERATE (cg) "Too cute, too star-studded and entirely too long... an immensely quotable, scene-by-scene adorable love triangle that never amounts to anything more than a sweet nothing..." (Read the full review...) 713 words, 12/17/10 Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star-Tribune: POOR (cg) "It is not funny; it is not heartwarming. It has all the zesty champagne fizz of Pepto-Bismol.... the stagebound film loses focus early and never regains it." (Read the full review...) 449 words, 12/17/10 Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "Some of the bits are funny, every now and then they're sweet, the performances are OK... Mediocrity abounds albeit a little less so when Rudd is on-screen." (Read the full review...) 427 words, 12/17/10 Ty Burr, Boston Globe: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "Witherspoon, Wilson, and especially Rudd do good work, but their lightness here evokes decent network television, not two hours of big-screen romantic comedy." (Read the full review...) 852 words, 12/17/10 Clint O'Connor, Cleveland Plain-Dealer: POOR (cg) "...bitingly bad... slap this one with a D for dud on arrival." (Read the full review...) 430 words, 12/17/10 Moira Macdonald, Seattle Times: MODERATE (cg) "Agreeable but disappointingly bland... There's something pleasantly old-fashioned about this very talky movie, and the three main actors are all very likable." (Read the full review...) 350 words, 12/17/10 Marc Mohan, Portland Oregonian: FAIR (cg) "...a self-plagiarizing premise, lifeless performances and a clunky-to-say-the-least screenplay... one of 2010's most egregious wastes of cinematic talent." (Read the full review...) 251 words, 12/17/10 Calvin Wilson, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: VERY GOOD (cg) "...a bit slow to get started... But it'll make you smile." (Read the full review...) 329 words, 12/17/10 Steve Persall, St. Petersburg Times: FAIR (cg) "...a stage play adaptation needing to be 'opened up' more, as confined to one interior set for long durations as it is, with little else to offer than small talk with big words." (Read the full review...) 533 words, 12/16/10 Tom Long, Detroit News: VERY GOOD (cg) "...thoroughly enjoyable and surprisingly lightweight... There's no denying the appeal of his cast or the wit of Brooks' dialogue, but there's also no denying the film's lack of heft.... charming fun..." (Read the full review...) 317 words, 12/17/10 Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...a wittier-than-normal romantic comedy... all surface and trades on fortune-cookie wisdom... pleasant but forgettable (and ungrammatical) bauble." (Read the full review...) 465 words, 12/17/10
Ella Taylor, Village Voice/LA Weekly: MODERATE "...deserves to be sent out to sea in a bottle so that future generations may take the measure of just how hair-raisingly indeterminate it was to live and love in early-21st-century America." (Read the full review...) 702 words, 12/15/10 Katey Rich, Cinema Blend: VERY GOOD (cg) "...more mature, thoughtful and sincere than most of what passes in the genre lately.... gets by on witty and realistic dialogue even when its story is sloppy." (Read the full review...) 660 words, 12/15/10 Brett Michel, Boston Phoenix: MODERATE (cg) "...mines the easy jokes, pandering sentimentality, and predictability of sit-coms. Where's the Brooks of 'Broadcast News'?" (Read the full review...) 170 words, 12/16/10 Nathan Rabin, AV Club: FAIR (cg) "Rudd and Wilson tend to elevate the material of everything they're in; without their easygoing charm, the film would be dire instead of merely unconvincing and aggravating." (Read the full review...) 324 words, 12/16/10 Bill Weber, Slant: MODERATE (cg) "...fitfully sparkling, more often sluggish... seldom finds a steady rhythm, or gets the trio's amorous quandary to transcend its should-I-shouldn't-I mechanics." (Read the full review...) 486 words, 12/15/10 Norman Wilner, Toronto Now: WEAK (cg) "...virtually every scene builds to a payoff that's no longer there.... an indifferently shot, awkwardly paced Very Special Episode of 'Friends.' " (Read the full review...) 249 words, 12/16/10 MaryAnn Johanson, Flick Filosopher: POOR (cg) "...we're meant to take all these characters as delightfully oddball when they are quite clearly pathological.... Brooks never gives us the sense that he had any of his meandering story under control." (Read the full review...) 690 words, 12/17/10
Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: POOR "...how could this sloppy, sluggish production have been written and directed by James L. Brooks, the man who gave us such memorable films as 'Terms of Endearment' and 'Broadcast News'?" (Read the full review...) 252 words, 12/17/10 Manohla Dargis, New York Times: POOR "...an airless, sometimes distressingly mirthless comedy... it just sits there, idling in neutral, as lines are delivered and bodies listlessly moved." (Read the full review...) 712 words, 12/17/10 Anthony Lane, New Yorker: POOR "Everything looks primed for civilized amusement, but somewhere along the way the laughs dropped off, together with the question mark in the title.... Bad movie!" (Read the full review...) 321 words, 12/27/10 Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: WEAK "...doesn't pay off... we go to romantic comedies to fall in love and in 'How Do You Know' that love is gone." (Read the full review...) 926 words, 12/17/10 Dana Stevens, Slate: GOOD "...the rare contemporary rom-com that's by turns (if intermittently) thoughtful and funny, and that doesn't feel focus-grouped, cynical, misogynist, or mean." (Read the full review...) 919 words, 12/17/10 Andrew O'Hehir, Salon: VERY GOOD "It is in no sense a perfect movie... it's a wonderful home-for-the-holidays flick, defined by the wonders of young love and the wiles of old age." (Read the full review...) 1,391 words, 12/16/10
Peter Debruge, Daily Variety: POOR "...looks like TV, feels like greeting-card poetry and sounds like a self-help manual... peddles forced warm-fuzziness and insincere sentiment on the backs of an all-star cast..." (Read the full review...) 917 words, 12/15/10 Todd McCarthy, Hollywood Reporter: WEAK "...not as bad as James L. Brooks' last outing, 'Spanglish,' six years ago... nonetheless shares the same sense of separation from real life..." (Read the full review...) 916 words, 12/15/10 Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: WEAK "...doesn't pay off... we go to romantic comedies to fall in love and in 'How Do You Know' that love is gone." (Read the full review...) 926 words, 12/17/10 Emanuel Levy, Cinema 24/7: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "What has happened to writer-director James Brooks?" (Read the full review...) 613 words, 12/16/10 Manohla Dargis, New York Times: POOR "...an airless, sometimes distressingly mirthless comedy... it just sits there, idling in neutral, as lines are delivered and bodies listlessly moved." (Read the full review...) 712 words, 12/17/10 Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: POOR "...how could this sloppy, sluggish production have been written and directed by James L. Brooks, the man who gave us such memorable films as 'Terms of Endearment' and 'Broadcast News'?" (Read the full review...) 252 words, 12/17/10
Thank you for following MovieReviewIntelligence.com |
Opening Soon (Early Figures)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
