Surrender, Dorothy

This was okay. Good cast and interesting "slice of life" storyline however the movie itself was kinda all over the place. Diane Keaton plays her usual loopy self which I generally like but not in a role that requires her to be grieving over the death of her daughter. She was still all bubbly and silly which just didn't work here.

Anyways, she plays Natalie, who had always thought she had a close relationship with her daughter. However when she is killed Natalie becomes determined to find out exactly who her daughter really was, by spending the summer with her friends.

It was super fun to see Chris Pine in an early role here playing a gay man and Josh Hopkins from Cougar Town was good too. Then there was the bearded lady; who may have just put me off soft serve ice cream forever! 05.11

I completely disagree with the other comments posted on this movie. For instance, the movie is based on the book and if the writer had a gay character in it then how could "Hollywood" just throw in a token gay character in the movie. And besides there was two gay characters and I thought they reflected each other great. One was normal and the other was more feminine but it wasn't over the top. And Diane Keaton gave a wonderful performance and if the other reviewer had the decency to actual watch the entire film they would have seen that her character developed through out the film by interacting with the other characters. For instance when she and Adam went to look at the car that Sara crashed in the junkyard you could see the maternal side of her come out and later in the film you saw that she too was invincible. But I guess if you're too worried about gay characters and characters that are flawed then this movie is bad. But if you're more open-minded and I don't know actually have some inkling of what is good then you'll enjoy this film.

A good, not great, Diane Keaton performance is pretty much the only reason to see this clichéd movie-of-the-week and the only reason it gets my rating. Would it be possible to have a TV film where zero gay characters dress in drag or are screaming queens? Would it be possible that no more characters hear something scandalous over a baby monitor? Can we get a movie with people most of us can relate to, instead of the usual East Coast elite (hey, I'm liberal, but c'mon - it's been done as recently as Keaton's own "Something's Gotta Give"!) Keaton is, as usual, worth sitting through this, but I just felt like I'd seen it all before.

the best part is the silence. the worse - ambition to create a convincing story. a film who could be interesting for the taste after its end. but it is not real enough. it could be seductive for its cast. but the acting is far to be remarkable. or, the real good part could be the holes of story who are perfect places for the viewer's memories/emotions. a movie like a lot of many others. not good, not bad, not inspired or new. the theme is old, the manner to present it not original, the same idea than with a better script it could be real good work remains. a film who do not say nothing. a puzzle with too many pieces , many wrong, but useful, maybe, for a evening after a hard work day . short- good actors are not always the solution for repair a not inspired script or a not best ideas of director.

A number of earlier reviewers have done a good job of "synop-sizing" this film's plot. But, notably, not many have devoted much time to performances (other than several who've dedicated much of their comments to the famous Diane Keaton and her characterization). At any rate, please let me jump in here.

Depth of performance is not this film's strong point. Keaton's work here is kind of "slide by"........just not her best. There's a noticeable tendency to act out in an over-the-top manner---though she's usually able to pull it back in before things get too messy.

Career-wise, Josh Hopkins and Scott, both the same age, share about the same number of filmed performances, with Scott holding an edge in movie productions, as opposed to TV works. These are definitely the male leads of this production, but it is Hopkins, as Peter, who becomes head and shoulders the standout. He is quite, quite good, and it has to be asked why he's not further up the scale of stardom at this point (lack of good agency representation, perhaps). And if there's a breath of fresh air in all this, it's Chris Pine's performance of a ebullient Shawn. He's a cutie, a sweetie, and he shines. Nothing keeps his character down.

Playing a gay character (Adam), Scott is perhaps surprisingly at nowhere near the performance level of those already mentioned. His past work experience would lead one to expect otherwise, but, sadly, that is not the case. When Peter calls Adam a "Little Bitch" at one point in the film, he comes very close to describing what is my take on Scott's performance: someone whose characterization is "diva-ish"---which I believe to be really over the top, as opposed to the way this part should be played. More, when he's not doing that, his delivery just seems flat (see Tom run, see Tom run after Spot). So, for anyone reading this who might have something to do with assisting Scott in selecting future roles, please have him refrain from those involving a gay character. I just don't see that he has it in him; his one gay interaction with another player, a kiss with Shawn, is a disaster (it shouldn't be like giving your grandmother a peck; can't you do better than to give us a lips-glued-shut kiss?). Why take on any role like this if you can't throw yourself into it?

This production, in my opinion, is not one worth the expense of adding to your DVD collection.

****