Benutzerrezensionen

Well, 'Down With Love' turned out to be a unexpectedly pleasant surprise. Love many of the late 50s and 60s sex romantic comedies, 'Pillow Talk' being a primary example, and can't get enough of those with Doris Day and Rock Hudson which this film clearly was paying homage to. There was the worry though as to whether 'Down With Love' would be just another heavily predictable film with forced comedy moments, no romantic chemistry and no charm with talented casts wasted.

Luckily, 'Down With Love' on the most part was not one of those films. It is a satire and celebration of the sex romantic comedies from the late 50s and in particular the 60s, being set in 1962, and mostly does a really good job, capturing the fun, kitsch, charm, froth and affectionate nostalgia of the period and the films with incredibly impressive results. Is it as good as the films it's satirising and celebrating? No. Are the two leads and their chemistry on the same level as Day and Hudson or even Day and James Garner? Not in a million years, but this is a tall order with not many actors and actresses today having the same amount of appeal and that special one of a kind chemistry that those stars had.

'Down With Love' is not perfect. It is easy to dismiss the story as being slight and predictable, and it is. One does have to bear in mind though that the story was not exactly the strong suit in the sex romantic comedies of the late 50s and 60s, it was the production values, the stars, the supporting cast, the writing (on the most part) and the chemistry between the stars that elevated those films to a greater level.

Mostly the script is fine, but it is not without its clunkers. Especially that homosexual accusation, that was cringe-worthy, completely out of place and if it was made in either of the decades that are being satirised and celebrated it would have been anachronistic and would have been anachronistic in its 1962 setting. A few of the more twisty moments were too obvious and didn't serve much point and it occasionally affected the pacing. It was nice to see Tony Randall again, but he really deserved much better than a pointless cameo that gave him nothing to do, he might as well have not been in the film at all.

However, 'Down With Love' looks great and replicates the look of the late 50s and 60s perfectly, the glorious Technicolor, the super stylish photography, the colourful sets, the kitschy décor, sumptuous costuming, the CinemaScope logo. The split screen was clever in one scene. There are artificial painted backdrops and cheap back projection, but this was perfect and appropriate considering what the film is doing. The soundtrack is infectious and affectionate and the direction is controlled and super slick.

Apart from the odd clunker, the script is clever and witty while also being endearingly frothy. The characters lack depth but are not too shallow or annoying thanks to the charm of the cast. The story isn't perfect, but is mainly fun, charming and captures the spirit of the period and films it's satirising and celebrating perfectly and with clear affection.

Renee Zellwegger gives a sprightly and likable lead performance and is well matched by a charming, understated and carefree Ewan McGregor in the other lead role. Their chemistry is nicely done, to me it was there but subtle. It may not have been Day and Hudson but that is incredibly daunting for anybody since to replicate. David Hyde Pierce steals the film, looking like he is having the most fun, he certainly has the most energy. Sarah Poulson is amusingly wise-cracking and charming, if occasionally a little too tongue-in-cheek.

Overall, an unexpected pleasant surprise if not perfect. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This parody of the 60s movies has zero subtlety, but is amusing and full of references. It is somewhat analytic, has some nice jokes and a lot of in-jokes, but is concerned more with commenting and it is not terribly sophisticated. Still, worth a watch, especially if you know the work Rock Hudson and his magnum opus of trivial love. Extra credit for being prescient about the absurdities of the upcoming age of over the top woke hys teria.

Barbara (Renee Zellweger) has just written a book called Down With Love. She leaves Maine and lands in New York City, where her book is about to hit the shelves. Unfortunately, the male executives at her publishing house have doubts about the new tome and are not forking over any marketing money. The lone woman at Banner publishing, Vicki, takes Barbara under her wing and they work to get the nonfiction title some fame. First, they decide to ask Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor), a prominent male writer for Know magazine, to do a cover story for the book. He postpones the interview again and again. In the meantime, Vicki and Barbara get the book mentioned on the Ed Sullivan show. Soon, copies of DWL are flying out of the bookstores, mainly because the book empowers women to think more about themselves and less about attracting a man. Catcher spies a picture of Barbara in a bookstore window and knows he has to meet her. However, since he is a notorious ladies man, he assumes the identity of an astronaut named Zip Martin. Naturally, he plays the perfect gentleman when he begins to take Barbara out on the town. How long will it be until Barbara discovers the truth? And, will she have fallen for the guy first? Romantic comedy fans everywhere should love this film. It is a takeoff of the old Doris and Rock movies that are so delightfully fun and full of clean mischief. Zellweger and McGregor are a joy in their roles as the smitten couple. The rest of the cast, including a cameo by Tony Randall, are great, too. The look of the film is nice, as are the costumes and the Big Apple setting. If you love crazy, contrived, comic love tales, get this one tonight. You will bask in its take-me-out-of-my-blues delivery.

I'm surprised to read so many user comments which indicate that Down With Love received some critical acclaim - I recall a very different response, where critics seemed hugely and almost unanimously underwhelmed (maybe this was a UK response?) and consequently, I wasn't expecting too much. This only enhanced my enjoyment - what an underrated gem this movie is!!

I rarely like Zellwegger, but here she was pertly perfect, and McGregor was simply fabulous - dashing, charismatic, loathsome, even vulnerable, especially when he occasionally slips from his duplicitous fake self (when he notices a lash on her cheek, for example), and always delivers his lines with exquisite (and surprising) comic timing. The support cast were also excellent, especially Hyde Pierce, although he was not a 100 miles from his decade-long stint as Niles Crane.

The set, costumes, production design and cinematography were also outstanding in this movie, evoking the brashly-coloured, kitsch, fluffy-light ambiance which pervades the early 1960s New York screwball romance movie genre, but the snippy script and slick direction removed this pastiche away from its potential as mere enchanting, screwball fable to a witty, post-feminist send-up of this Hudson/Day romcom genre - and indeed, the battle of the sexes. To its credit, Down With Love doesn't collapse completely into mawkish sentimentality with Novak (Zellwegger) suddenly capitulating into the cult of domesticity, tamed by her man, which is often the fate of modern post-feminist heroines - instead, the couple compromise, and we can be sure that she won't be confined to the suburban purgatory she comes to dread.

In all, a fun, fab and brilliantly executed movie, which has been clearly (re)created with due love for the genre it so skillfully parodies, yet in the light of postmodern sensibilities by adding a much-needed post-feminist twist.

This is an homage to the light romantic comedies of the early 60's and a strong influence by "Pillow Talk". Renee Zellweger is Barbara Novack and she writes a book about women and how they look at relationships and an editor at a publishing firm named Vicki Hiller (Sarah Paulson) convinces the board of directors to publish her book. One way to get attention to her book is for a well known writer to write an expose of it so they try to get Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor) to do the job but he's so busy womanizing that he keeps canceling their appointments so they try other methods to get attention to her book and they succeed as it becomes a best seller. Catcher is amazed by her success and bets his friend and coworker Peter MacMannus (David Hyde Pierce) that he can make her fall in love with him which would make her a hypocrite and he would have a big story to publish. Catcher pretends to be a shy astronaut from Florida and they start to date. This film is directed by Peyton Reed who has worked almost exclusively in television and is directing the "Fantastic Four" next. Film does an admirable job of recreating those type of films that were prevalent in those times. The sets are terrific with the decor for the offices and apartments. Even the scenes like when Zellweger is riding in a car its obvious that its a sound stage with a movie screen behind them showing stock footage of 1960's traffic. The script also does a good job of adding some flavor of 1960's culture like when one of the board of directors describes her as "The Farmers Daughter" from Maine. This is of course in reference to Debbie Reynolds and when MacGregor says he's an astronaut from Cocoa Beach Florida its from "I Dream Of Jeannie". All pop icons from the sixties. And having Tony Randall in the film gives it the ultimate cavalier compliment. Its not a perfect homage like the scene where Paulson accuses Pierce of being homosexual which would not have been allowed during those times but the lighthearted charm of the film remains intact. Zellweger is fine as usual as Barbara but its MacGregor that caught my eye. His performances in the last two years have never ceased to be interesting. He was almost unrecognizable in "Black Hawk Down" and then shows he can sing in "Moulin Rouge!" But also shows he can handle playing American dialects. He's an amazing actor to watch and here he adds to his mystique. Film is utterly charming and it does compliment the films from the early sixties.

The endless barrage of 1960's cinematic clichés, sly asides and insider jokes make this movie hard to watch at points, but McGregor, Zellweger, Hyde Pierce and Paulson are all immensely likable characters. I would never have dreamed, for instance, that the same Hyde Pierce who became so tiresome (not to mention old-looking) on "Frasier" would have had such a warm and funny and youthful performance in him. And yet, at bottom, there is so little difference between his characters in the series and the movie. I'm not sure what makes the difference. Probably the absence of Kelsey Grammar and the presence of a script that was not generated by a TV sitcom-writing machine. (Or maybe it's a committee of machines.) Nevertheless, I have to say that there were moments in this movie that severely tried my patience. I remember reading a review of "The Graduate" once that compared the movie to a friend invited to dinner who is witty and engaging at the beginning of the evening, but as the party wears on, it becomes increasingly evident that his mind is unhinged. The same could be said for this movie, times ten. It just...won't...stop. Sure, it's funny when Hyde Pierce picks up the vermouth bottle and literally waves it above the martini shaker without so much as taking the cap off, and sure, like the sucker I am, I think to myself how wonderfully sharp I must be to pick up on a little touch like that. But somewhere around the fifteenth or twentieth little such trick, I conclude that, either I'm not nearly so sharp as the movie is trying to convince me I am, or else I am literally the only person on Earth who understands all of its little jokes. Since I am fairly certain that I didn't write the screenplay, I have to conclude that the movie is trying a little bit too hard, and has spun out of control. I begin to feel a bit like Vikki when she was flattened by Catcher Block's remote-control bed.

Add in the 1960's-TV-variety-show number while the credits roll, and it's just about enough to make me run from the theater, hands pressed to my temples, screaming incoherently about the Communists and fluoridation and soylent green is people.

Still, if you've ever had a soft spot in your heart for the 1950's and 1960's working-girl romantic comedies and dramas, you owe it to yourself to see this movie. Just...be prepared. Maybe keep a leather strap that you can clench between your teeth at appropriate moments.

Incidentally, to see a classic example of the kind of movie this one lampoons, see "The Best of Everything."

I loved the Doris Day/Rock Hudson pastiches and some of the comedies that followed with the extraordinary Doris and a varied but terrific succession of leading men. In particular with James Garner in "The Thrill Of It All" The secret there, I believe, was a smart and knowing script an unmistakable chemistry between the stars and performances that were solidly based on reality no matter how "out there" they seem to be. Here, the whole thing is so self conscious that we are never allow to go beyond it and actually enjoy the whole thing. Rene Zellwegger is a very good actress but not a natural comedienne. She's at her best when she's thoroughly thorough as in "Nurse Beatty" where she was very funny mostly because her conviction was so convincingly strong. Here she plays it like in a SNL sketch and could have worked if it had had the length of one of those sketches. In "Down With Love" she's downright annoying. Ewan McGregor, one of my favorites, is not even there. Let me explain. Think of Rock Hudson's commitment to those roles. The charm he was able to emanate and how naturally he became the foil for Doris Day. Here Zellwegger and McGregor don't play opposite each other but against each other. No chemistry whatsoever. Ewan McGregor so wonderful, powerful and beautiful in "Velvet Goldmine" "Shallow Grave" not to mention "Moulin Rouge", is kind of insignificant here. Yes, I'm amazed myself. Doesn't have a hint of the romantic manliness of Rock Hudson, isn't that funny? I didn't like either the on the nose production design, the silly costumes, the theatrical make up and hair nor the unimaginative lighting. Other than that, David Hyde Pierce is, almost, worth the price of admission.

In my mind a good parody is always also an homage to its source material. Instead of just pointing, mocking and laughing, it respects its predecessors and while it gently pokes fun at their mistakes and general silliness, it also pays tribute to their strong points. And that's this film. It's both a parody and a love letter to those romantic comedies of the mid-century Hollywood where men and women had clearly defined roles, every background was painted, the cars were driven by madly spinning the wheel from one side to the other even though the road was perfectly straight and every single line was delivered with a suave and cocky grin on one's face.

And as far as parodies or even movies in general go, this isn't a bad example. It has a very strong visual style, with bright, colourful sets, which feel very nostalgic, great score, clever if a bit dirty sense of humour, especially when it comes to visual humour, and a good cast of actors. Renée Zellweger and Ewan McGregor especially were very good in their roles and they had good chemistry together. McGregor in particular was prefect for the role of Catcher Block, a suave ladies man, who simply oozes self-confidence and charisma.

I had no complaints about the story either, though it wasn't the film's strongest point. It's clever and witty most of the time and the scenes flow smoothly from one to another, but it had perhaps one twist too many for me to fully enjoy it. I wouldn't call it needlessly complicated, but it's not far.

In the end I have to admit that I had a blast watching this film. It's more about the experience and the individual scenes than it is about the story, but in this case it's not a bad thing. If you're looking for a movie with great sense of humour, enjoyable characters, witty dialogues and bright colour scheme, this is definitely your film.

Renee Zwelleger says "Down with Love" in this 2003 homage to the Rock-Hudson-Doris Day films of the 1960s. The film, directed by Peyton Reed, also stars Ewan McGregor, Sarah Paulson, David Hyde-Pierce, and Tony Randall.

"Down with Love" is actually a combination of the Rock/Doris movies and the sex comedies of the '60s, though a little randier in its amusing use of the split screen.

The story concerns a best-selling writer Barbara Novak (Zwelleger) who espouses sex for pleasure and not love, and the playboy magazine journalist Catch Blocker (McGregor) who wants to expose her as a fraud. He poses as Zip Martin, astronaut, and courts her. Very "Pillow Talk."

The clothes, the hair, the background music, and the color process are totally sixties, as is the hilarious use of process shots and collages. My favorite is Barbara and Catch making the rounds of nightclubs. They appear on screen, arm and arm and smiling, as the neon signs of different nightclubs flash on the screen.

"Down with Love" is delightful fun, especially for those of us who remember these films well. Randall, who was a mainstay of these films, takes on the role of publisher, while Hyde-Pierce has the normal Randall role, the unlucky in love friend of the lead.

My only problem with this film is it's a little too tongue in cheek for me in spots, especially in the performance of Paulson. The elements of '60s light comedies are there. All it needed was a little more sincere acting, even if you channeled the acting style of the original stars of these films.

In the very beginning, Zwelleger seemed to be deliberately copying Doris Day's vocal rhythms and enthusiastic delivery, but then she stopped doing that. It would have been great if she'd kept it up.

Hyde-Pierce gave the most successful performance, followed by MacGregor, who isn't exactly in the Rock mode.

Wonderfully entertaining. If you're a fan of the Doris/Rock movies, don't miss it.

It's 1962 New York. Barbara Novak (Renee Zellweger) has written a book called "Down With Love" convincing woman that they don't need a man or love or sex to succeed and be happy with themselves. Womanizer Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor) is determined to prove her wrong.

This is many things--an affectionate remake of those silly Doris Day/Rock Hudson movies; a sweet sendup of them at the same time; a perfect example of 1960s sex comedies with a 2000s twist; a huge barrel of laughs for film buffs with its perfect remake of a 1960s film and an examination of sexual mores and stereotypes of the 1960s.

The movie look like a Day/Hudson movie right down to the fashions Zellweger wears, the VERY colorful sets, the obviously painted backdrops from penthouse apartments and the crappy back projection in cars. There's also a hysterical (and very dirty) use of split screen during a phone conversation between Zellweger and McGregor. The movie even opens with the old Cinemascope logo used in films of that era!

The cast is right on target--Zellweger and McGregor give their all to the performances--they wink at the audience all the time...but not TOO much. David Hyde Pierce (doing Tony Randall) and Sarah Paulson are also very funny with the dreaded best friends role. The only real problem is the script. It is sharp and funny but occasionally bogs down and some of the twists are too obvious.

Still, I enjoyed it. The casual moviegoer will probably hate this--unless you get the inside jokes all throughout the film you'll think you're watching a badly dated sex comedy. But it's not--it's a parody and an affectionate sendup. This will be most appreciated by film buffs or students.

By being crude, raunchy and mean-spirited, the whole movie is not at all like the Doris Day-Rock Hudson originals it is supposed to spoof. There are so many little touches they COULD have used to make this amusing and fun - one thinks the writers hardly looked at the originals when they wrote the script! Ewan McGregor is a laughable 'metrosexual' when compared to the he-man types of Rock Hudson or James Garner of the period this is supposed to spoof.

Except... for one role. David Hyde Pierce saves the movie. He does such a SPOT-ON take of the classic Tony Randall role and the dialog that is written for him is SO perfect it would have been a hit for Tony Randall to read the same lines in the early 60's. I swear, they must have had one genius writing for Pierce and a roomful of morons writing the rest of the movie.

A beautifully observed pastiche of 60s romantic comedy (think Doris Day) but ultimately a failure, due to the script and the leads seeming complete lack of charm. There's also a failure of real wit, with only a couple of genuinely funny moments, the remainder a peculiar sort of gross-out comedy that is too refined to be gross, resulting only in a characterless, and never really funny, saucy-postcard humour.

An honorable mention to David Hyde Pierce, who steals absolutley every scene.

I saw this more as an experiment, a chance to pay homage to a time and place in movie-making. I was also reminded of "Breakfast at Tiffanys" a tad in its glamorization of that Jackie Kennedy/Audrey Hepburn period of high ladies fashion. It was sort of a 50's lag, a last vestige of the classy old styles before the hip/hippie modern era would sweep them away forever. Call it the end of elegance, if you will.

On the other hand, it was the end of an era for the more innocent screwball comedies/romances as well. Movies changed just as abruptly, and got just as down to earth in its realism as the fashions. So, we are seeing here a double homage, to the fashions, and the more lighthearted tenor of movies, in the 50's/early 60's.

The movie did well in the plot/story/jokes department. It was a tightrope, because if they got TOO risqué or hip, it would take away from the tenor and point of the whole retro/throwback thing. In that case, it inevitably would come across in some ways as a retread and stock, but that was the price paid for doing this. There simply was not much room to work with in any sense per plot development, and tongue-in-cheek can only go so far without betraying homage to the old school of doing things. With the aforementioned built-in restrictions, I think that Payton Reed did a pretty darn good job here! Well worth seeing, and a must-see for those who love retro fashions and movies.

It's 1962 NYC. Barbara Novak (Renée Zellweger) is new to the city. Vikki Hiller (Sarah Paulson) is publishing her new book "Down with Love" which teaches woman to live independently. Vikki and the book are both dismissed by her bosses. She gets Barbara an interview with dashing ladies' man Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor), a writer for a woman's magazine. Peter MacMannus (David Hyde Pierce) is his editor who sets up the meeting because he's infatuated with Vikki. Catcher brushes her off expecting a bookish spinster. Then the book becomes an international success and Barbara calls out his womanizing ways. He pretends to be Zip Martin to sweep her off her feet.

This is a nice homage to the breezy 60s rom-com. Renée Zellweger is more than fun and she has sassy chemistry with Ewan McGregor. The style does overwhelm the story a little. Also, I expected a musical with that style. It's slightly disappointing that they don't break out into a song and dance until the closing credits. It's fun but it's also very light and fluffy.

In 1962, a lovely Maine author of a progressive female advice tome (Renée Zellweger) travels to New York City to publish her book whereupon an infamous playboy journalist (Ewan McGregor) strategizes to prove that she's really just an Old Fashioned woman at heart. Sarah Paulson and David Hyde Pierce play the respective best friends while Tony Randall has a bit part.

"Down With Love" (2003) is a satire of those Doris Day romcoms of the late 50s / early 60s that typically revolved around a battle of the sexes. While I've never seen any of those movies this is an amusing & cute spoof that pokes fun at 'em.

Renée is adorable and McGregor rises to the challenge in an atypical role. The inclusion of Jeri Ryan & Melissa George on the feminine front is a plus. Unfortunately, the flick's a tad too long for such fluff; 12-15 minutes shoulda been shaved off to give it more drive, but that's just me.

The film runs 1 hour, 41 minutes, and was shot at Universal Studios, Universal City, and Hollywood Center Studios, Hollywood, California.

GRADE: B-

Delightful and charming romantic comedy that pays homage to the classic screwball comedies of yesteryears! This film is a refreshing and witty take on love and relationships, with a fabulous ensemble cast that brings the 1960s era to life with a modern twist.

The story centers around Barbara Novak, played by the effervescent Renée Zellweger, a feminist author who pens a best-selling book titled "Down with Love," encouraging women to focus on their careers instead of romance. Her bold and revolutionary ideas about love and relationships turn the world upside down, especially among men!

Enter Catcher Block, portrayed by the charismatic Ewan McGregor, a dashing ladies' man and journalist who sets out to prove that Barbara's ideas about love are all just a ruse. The sparks fly as Catcher and Barbara engage in a battle of wits and hearts, leading to hilarious misunderstandings and romantic entanglements.

"Down with Love" pays loving tribute to the golden era of romantic comedies with its vibrant and colorful production design, stylish costumes, and snappy dialogue. It's a clever and self-aware homage to the movies of the past, while still maintaining a modern and refreshing sensibility.

Renée Zellweger and Ewan McGregor have fantastic chemistry, and their performances are a joy to watch. They capture the essence of the screwball comedy couple, with witty banter and playful charm that'll make you smile from ear to ear.

The film's supporting cast, including David Hyde Pierce as Catcher's best friend and Sarah Paulson as Barbara's editor, add an extra layer of humor and charm to the story. Their quirky and endearing characters add depth to the comedic antics.

"Down with Love" is packed with laughs, misunderstandings, and surprising twists that keep you engaged from start to finish. It cleverly subverts romantic comedy tropes while embracing the genre's conventions, making it a delightful and refreshing watch.

Now, some critics might argue that the film relies heavily on its retro stylings and might not resonate with everyone, and yeah, it's true that it's a movie that's tailored for fans of classic rom-coms. But hey, if you love the genre and appreciate a good dose of nostalgia, "Down with Love" is a hidden gem waiting to be discovered.

So, if you're in the mood for a smart, funny, and affectionate tribute to romantic comedies of the past, "Down with Love" is a must-watch. Prepare to be charmed by Barbara and Catcher's delightful battle of the sexes, as they learn that love might not be as simple as it seems. It's a heartwarming and witty ride that celebrates love, romance, and the joy of the screwball comedy!

A total misfire. Not an ounce of the charm of the comedies "Down With Love" seems to want to pay homage to, parodied, emulate, whatever the intent was, it failed. I like Renee Zellwegger and Ewan McGregor enormously, but not here. I was embarrassed for them. Her pout here was infuriating and her costumes! So up front as if designed to dazzle us are really atrocious. Ewan McGregor seems totally disinterested and thinking of Rock Hudson and one does he looks so, so, so...small. The only redeeming feature is David Hyde Pierce. He's the only one who finds the right tone and made me smile.The failure of this half baked attempt will probably spoil the possibility of other frothy comedies 50's style to be made. Pity. The genre needs and deserves a real shot in the arm.

One of the most intelligent romantic comedies ever made. From the clever dialogues, brilliant acting, gorgeous décor and costumes, this should have been a major success. What is wrong with film audiences that they didn't appreciate this absolute gem?

I wasn't sure whether this would be worth watching but I figure it was worth a shot. I was pleasantly surprised! The heart of this movie is romance but it's surrounded by many other factors including a 60's setting (complete with swinging bachelor pad and fabulous polyester outfits) and an unexpected plot twist. Definitely entertaining.

7/10

An intentionally corny, fluff-heavy '60s throwback that pairs an early-version feminist with a handsome womanizer who works for a men's entertainment magazine in New York City. It's supposed to be "Pillow Talk" with triple the winks, but Renée Zellweger isn't much of a latter-day Doris Day. The actress isn't miscast necessarily, but neither is she directed well by Peyton Reed, who keeps Zellweger's inflections and expressions big and broad (when Ewan McGregor kisses her, one hasn't a clue as to what her character is meant to be feeling). McGregor isn't directed well either, yet he manages to pull off a smarmy role with aplomb. David Hyde Pierce is an appropriate third-banana for the twosome (much as Tony Randall once was)--plus, Tony Randall himself has a nice cameo, though he looks distressingly frail. Reed's comedic segues, snappy music cues and split screens are each in place; however, without the palpable charisma of Vintage Hollywood, this send-up just misses the mark. ** from ****

Ewan McGregor rocks my world! I know they said that this was supposed to

be a Rock Hudson thing, but I kept thinking FRANK SINATRA! McGregor had

that swinger vibe down!! HE WAS PERFECT!

Renee Z. was perfect as the Doris Day character and I was pleasantly

surprised at Sarah Paulson who played Vicki. I thought She would be too

young for this role, but she was great in it. I had no idea Paulson had

such range.

I loved the feel of this movie. I welcome movies like this, because we

have gotten away from just having fun at the cinema. Everything is so

intense and/or realistic. This movie is silly, but I loved that!

Someone else commented on Zelleweggers monologue that had no cuts....one

take.....AMAZING!! She just keeps getting better and better.

If you are looking for a movie that will change the world - this one

won't. But if you are looking for light hearted fun......THIS IS YOUR

I totally agree with Mary on this one. I too was looking forward to seeing this movie and both my wife and I agreed, after seeing it, that any sophistication and comedic value of the 50's/60's comedies this was meant to parody was totally lost on the director. This was more like an in your face TV comedy with a big budget. It wouldn't have surprised me if there would have been a laugh track to tell us where to laugh! We went home and put on our DVD of Pillow Talk (1959) to ease the pain!

Instead of letting the audience in on the joke, the script left it to a 3 minute monologue at the end, leaving us with one (oh, yeh, that's funny) laugh. If the audience new the inside joke from the beginning I believe it would have been funnier throughout the movie as we would know what each character knows but the other doesn't.

The sets where generally great (except as noted below) and David Hyde Pierce was a standout as an actor who understands comedic acting and timing, unfortunately Ms. Zellweger and Mr. McGregor (two actors I admire) don't and must rely on good directing, this is where I place the blame on Mr. Reed. Sophisticated comedy should be played straight and left to the situation and witty repartee to bring out the humor instead of hitting us over our heads with it (did ya get it audience, did ya!). That may be fine for Ace Ventura or Austin Power movies where comedians can pull it off with great aplomb but not in a romantic comedy with actors who are not natural comedians. Given good direction a talented actor can do anything, an example is Rob Marshall's direction of Ms. Zellweger and all others in Chicago. But no amount of acting skills can overcome inept direction.

In general the costuming was excellent with the exception of the initial pink suit worn by Ms. Zellweger; the collar was so big it made her look like a frightened turtle, her head almost disappeared in one scene. Great effort was made to use original footage of New York but when the scene was in an apartment the skyline was very crudely painted mattes (did the budget run out?). It may have been intentional but for me it was too jarring. Tony Randall's character was just plain mean with no redeeming feature, what a waste.

All in all, with the exception of David Hyde Pierce and, to some extent, Sarah Paulson all the parts were caricatures. This movie was a great idea wasted by poor writing and very bad direction.