IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,8/10
36.390
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Das Leben einer alleinerziehenden Mutter aus Los Angeles nimmt eine unerwartete Wendung, als sie drei jungen Männern erlaubt, bei ihr einzuziehen.Das Leben einer alleinerziehenden Mutter aus Los Angeles nimmt eine unerwartete Wendung, als sie drei jungen Männern erlaubt, bei ihr einzuziehen.Das Leben einer alleinerziehenden Mutter aus Los Angeles nimmt eine unerwartete Wendung, als sie drei jungen Männern erlaubt, bei ihr einzuziehen.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Auszeichnungen
- 1 wins total
Empfohlene Bewertungen
I'm hit and miss with Witherspoon movies. I like her in a fun, need a vapid relaxation movie kinda way, but this surprised me a little. It's a cute rom com etc as expected but what was a bit different in this is that the boy toy characters actually had depth and were interesting people, which made it much more enjoyable to watch. Not going on a favorite movies list but definitely worth a fun watch on movie night.
This movie is just a fun watch. The cast is the best part, primarily because each of the guys is so ridiculously attractive, yet Witherspoon's character is never over-powered. Each of them also has a great rapport with her and her children that is just adorable to watch. Witherspoon is a believable single mom with normal home problems, and the presence of the three young men adds love and personal support into the mix. And it works.
This movie portrays a woman in a way that I can get behind. She doesn't date one of the young guys staying with her because she wants to recapture her youth or make someone jealous or for some other superficial reason. She is drawn to him like she would be any other man. The movie highlights, for me, how often youth and women are underestimated in movies, especially ones like these. Younger guys aren't always stupid boy toys or hot, forbidden affairs, and moms are not all Mrs. Robinson. Watch this movie for a laugh, a blush, and a somewhat fresh take on a single mom finding new love.
Despite liking romantic comedy (there are some good ones out there, as well as some not so good ones) and liking Reese Witherspoon and Michael Sheen in other things, expectations were low for 'Home Again' due to the mixed to negative critical reception and mixed audience reaction.
Watching it with an open mind 'Home Again' has its bright spots, enough to make it a one-time watch, and is better than reputed. On the other hand, it also is an uneven film and mostly forgettable fluff. As said, it has good things. Witherspoon, being the lead, was crucial for the film to work, the good news is that, although she has been better in material worthier of her talent, she gives her character and 'Home Again' a very likable energy and very sweet charm. The other acting standout is Sheen, who does bag some very funny (at times hilarious) moments that gives the film much needed levity and gravitas.
The best performance of the three young men taken in goes to Jon Rudnitsky, his character is the most interestingly written of the three and he is the most charismatic and easy to like of the three. 'Home Again' is nicely made with a peppy score, while also boasting a good-natured sweet tone, some funny, cheerful moments and a few snappy lines. The children are cute without being overly so.
'Home Again' however could have been much better. The film does feel rushed (while there are some scenes too that limp), which would have been solved easily with a longer length (15 minutes more would have made a difference) and trying to do less. It does feel like too much was crammed in and it consequently means that the film lacks depth in particularly how the characters are written. Here they are thinly sketched, one-dimensional and shallow. Humorous and touching moments are too far and between in a film that has very blandly fluffy romantic elements and other comedic elements that feel overplayed.
Of the three tyros only Rudnitsky works, whereas the other two struggle to keep up, their characters are too sketchily written, their dialogue is even weaker and they don't have the expertise or charisma here to rise above what they're given. Poor Candice Bergen is wasted with nothing to do, she never gets the chance to show off her charm and spunk. Some snappy moments in the script and sporadic funny and touching moments aside, the script is an over-egged and under-cooked soufflé with its fair share of awkward and cheesy lines and severe underwriting of the characters and their increasingly predictable and vague situations. Some interesting ideas and insights here that could have been delved into more.
Story-wise, everything just feels too pat and formulaic, and too much of it doesn't really go anywhere or feel resolved satisfactorily. There is very little to the conflict.
All in all, fluffy and not very memorable. Not unwatchable however, there are far worse films out there, of the genre, of the year and ever. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Watching it with an open mind 'Home Again' has its bright spots, enough to make it a one-time watch, and is better than reputed. On the other hand, it also is an uneven film and mostly forgettable fluff. As said, it has good things. Witherspoon, being the lead, was crucial for the film to work, the good news is that, although she has been better in material worthier of her talent, she gives her character and 'Home Again' a very likable energy and very sweet charm. The other acting standout is Sheen, who does bag some very funny (at times hilarious) moments that gives the film much needed levity and gravitas.
The best performance of the three young men taken in goes to Jon Rudnitsky, his character is the most interestingly written of the three and he is the most charismatic and easy to like of the three. 'Home Again' is nicely made with a peppy score, while also boasting a good-natured sweet tone, some funny, cheerful moments and a few snappy lines. The children are cute without being overly so.
'Home Again' however could have been much better. The film does feel rushed (while there are some scenes too that limp), which would have been solved easily with a longer length (15 minutes more would have made a difference) and trying to do less. It does feel like too much was crammed in and it consequently means that the film lacks depth in particularly how the characters are written. Here they are thinly sketched, one-dimensional and shallow. Humorous and touching moments are too far and between in a film that has very blandly fluffy romantic elements and other comedic elements that feel overplayed.
Of the three tyros only Rudnitsky works, whereas the other two struggle to keep up, their characters are too sketchily written, their dialogue is even weaker and they don't have the expertise or charisma here to rise above what they're given. Poor Candice Bergen is wasted with nothing to do, she never gets the chance to show off her charm and spunk. Some snappy moments in the script and sporadic funny and touching moments aside, the script is an over-egged and under-cooked soufflé with its fair share of awkward and cheesy lines and severe underwriting of the characters and their increasingly predictable and vague situations. Some interesting ideas and insights here that could have been delved into more.
Story-wise, everything just feels too pat and formulaic, and too much of it doesn't really go anywhere or feel resolved satisfactorily. There is very little to the conflict.
All in all, fluffy and not very memorable. Not unwatchable however, there are far worse films out there, of the genre, of the year and ever. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Looks like the perfect feel-good movie for mommy. There is everything mommy can possibly want. In the end, almost everybody is happy! Good enough for me too.
Let me preface this by say that I love movies, I'm not a movie snob by any stretch. I particularly love Rom-Coms and have been disappointed that they have fallen out of favor over the last decade or so. Some of my favorite movies are cheesy Rom-Coms; Never Been Kissed, 13 Going on 30, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, The Holiday and even Ghost of Girlfriends Past.
I saw this film as a pre-screener ahead of it's official release. Sometimes they pre-screen movies because they are great and want them to get buzz, sometimes they are really bad, and hope the audience falls in love before the critics get their hands on it. This is bad, really bad. Not just in story, but in acting, directing, editing score; you name it, it's bad. I love Reese Witherspoon and never thought I would see her phone in a performance but here it is. She doesn't so much as act as rolls her eyes and makes goofy faces; it's embarrassing to watch. There are so many cast members here that usually can do no wrong in my book; Candice Bergen, Lake Bell, Michael Sheen. They are given nothing to work with and Michael Sheen's character is nothing more than a cartoon. Nat Wolff is up and coming; I've seen him in a few things and think he's generally pretty good. Thanks to the very poor editing you can see him laughing in two scenes where he's clearly not supposed to be.
The whole film is just embarrassingly bad. You know the movie Mother's Day, how "bad" that is? It looks like an Oscar winning film compared to this. I looked up the movie after the screening, curious how it went so wrong. It's written and directed by Nancy Myer's daughter. Her daughter seems to have no credentials to be able to sell and direct a movie so my thought is that there were a lot of favors and strings pulled and it shows. I wouldn't even recommend watching this movie if you were sick in bed and it happened to pop up on TV.
I saw this film as a pre-screener ahead of it's official release. Sometimes they pre-screen movies because they are great and want them to get buzz, sometimes they are really bad, and hope the audience falls in love before the critics get their hands on it. This is bad, really bad. Not just in story, but in acting, directing, editing score; you name it, it's bad. I love Reese Witherspoon and never thought I would see her phone in a performance but here it is. She doesn't so much as act as rolls her eyes and makes goofy faces; it's embarrassing to watch. There are so many cast members here that usually can do no wrong in my book; Candice Bergen, Lake Bell, Michael Sheen. They are given nothing to work with and Michael Sheen's character is nothing more than a cartoon. Nat Wolff is up and coming; I've seen him in a few things and think he's generally pretty good. Thanks to the very poor editing you can see him laughing in two scenes where he's clearly not supposed to be.
The whole film is just embarrassingly bad. You know the movie Mother's Day, how "bad" that is? It looks like an Oscar winning film compared to this. I looked up the movie after the screening, curious how it went so wrong. It's written and directed by Nancy Myer's daughter. Her daughter seems to have no credentials to be able to sell and direct a movie so my thought is that there were a lot of favors and strings pulled and it shows. I wouldn't even recommend watching this movie if you were sick in bed and it happened to pop up on TV.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesAlice's (Reese Witherspoon) house was formerly the home of Cindy Crawford and, before that, Stephen J. Friedman.
- PatzerThe Band-Aid over Austen's left eye changes positions.
- SoundtracksI've Seen All Good People (A. Your Move: B. All Good People)
Written by Jon Anderson and Chris Squire
Performed by Yes
Courtesy of Atlantic Recording Corp
By arrangement with Warner Music Group Film & TV Licensing
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Home Again?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box Office
- Budget
- 12.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 27.020.284 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 8.567.881 $
- 10. Sept. 2017
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 37.270.721 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 37 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen