In amore niente regole

George Clooney was clearly trying for screwball nostalgia with this sports comedy, but what he actually put together sits on the screen like a lump of lead.

Clooney stars as a professional football player back in the days (1920s) when no one cared much for professional football. As an attempt to bring some attention and fans to the sport, he cajoles a popular war hero and college football star (college football happens to be the rage) to go pro. Eventually, the two become rivals when the college star transfers to an opposing team. Meanwhile, the editor of a newspaper learns that the war hero's story is a fraud, and sends out a feisty reporter (Renee Zellweger) to expose him.

All of these ingredients are meant to mix into an antic romp, and Clooney, Zellweger and John Krasinski (who plays the war hero) try their damnedest to be madcap, mugging shamelessly at the camera at every opportunity. But the movie grinds along painfully, and you can practically see the sweat beading on the actors' brows as they work overtime to make the material funny. Krasinski is miscast as an all-American war hero; there's something a little too bookish and dopey about him to make him believable. And Clooney and Zellweger have absolutely no romantic chemistry -- they're given roles that, say, Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck would have played if this were a screwball comedy from the 1930s, but they work up no heat and deliver almost no laughs.

No expense was spared on the period look of the film, and Randy Newman for once provides a tolerable and playful score, but everything else about the film is a dud.

Grade: C

I've read so many negative, dismissive reviews of this movie and I have to say, LIGHTEN UP for heaven's sake! It's not meant to stand with Ghandi or Gone With the Wind. It's just a fun, silly movie with a thin plot and lots of laughs and sight gags. Go to see it because you just want to sit back with your popcorn and laugh. (And daydream about George Clooney.) Clooney gave us "Good Night and Good Luck", so it's not like we should feel he "owes" us a "serious" movie. It's a fluffy little piece of nostalgia, a movie you won't be afraid to go see with your tween-age kids or Mom and Pop. Gramps will love it too, with all the vivid images of the "good old days" and a great ragtime score.

Clooney and Zellweger are campy in their roles (isn't that what they were shooting for?) and Stephen Root is a quiet riot as the hard drinking team owner.

I saw an advance screening of Leatherheads at NYU Movies101 last night.

I was so excited when it was announced that this movie was being shown.

I settled in my seat ready to enjoy another great movie that George Clooney directs and acts in.

All during the film, I thought to myself "Is it just me, or is this movie going nowhere?". I was trying SO hard to like it.

Well, it wasn't just me. I was surprised to see about ¾ of the full house of people I saw it with feel the same way, even the hosting professor.

As discussed after the screening, it had Top-Notch Scenic Design, Sound Track (by Randy Newman), Editing, Acting (Renee Zellweger was fabulous), Directing, Costumes, and Cinematography. It did not have a good story, and that is what made it fail. The script was written in the 1980's by two sports writers. Clooney has been carrying it around with him for over 2 decades. I suspect that the script was pretty much left the script alone from its origin.

The concept of the story is great, but the writing was horrible. Maybe George Clooney thought that the concept and grandeur would "carry" the film? It was disappointing to see George Clooney in a movie that did not compliment him in anyway. He does do comedy well, as he did in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?". How can you act well with terrible material? George's Directing was great.

Like a lot of people, I never bothered with this film when it came out in the cinemas because of the negative reviews that it got. Likewsie when it came to DVD it sat at the bottom end of my rental list waiting for me to want to watch it. Eventually I did and initially I thought that the reviews had been unfairly harsh because the film seemed like it was going to be a light and sparky sports period piece that captures the screwball comedies of years gone by. This is how it starts but unfortunately it is not how it continues. It is not like, at some point the film suddenly gets "bad" (it doesn't) but more that it doesn't quite have the sparkle or life that the trimmings all suggest that it will.

In terms of capturing the period, it does a great job – or at least it does a great job of continuing the nostalgic idea of the period. It does this with a cool jazz soundtrack, good costumes and the suggestion of the snappy dialogue that the screwball movies are known for. I say suggestion because of the places where the film doesn't have the zing that it needed is in the script. It does have its moments though and it is quite fun at times but mostly it feels like it is just falling short of where it should be. It has a couple of things that don't help this either. Firstly it is too long, maybe not for the plot (it doesn't "drag" per se) but certainly for the light tone. Secondly, the romance aspect of the plot doesn't really work, which is partly down to the casting of Zellweger.

Where Clooney fits the bill as a "too-cute by half" square-jawed matinée star, Zellweger cannot convincingly deliver her lines in a way that works. I think of Jennifer Jason Leigh in Hudsucker Proxy – she did an impression of an actress in a screwball comedy that was pretty good and looking at that shows up how ill-suited Zellweger is. I know people dislike her on principle but I am not one of them, I just thought she was pretty poor here. Krasinski is good in his role even if, to be frank, he didn't do anything that suggested he has more than the range of characterisation that he has already shown on The Office – and that should be of concern to his "people" since he will soon need to breakout of that show as it cannot run forever. The supporting cast has plenty of interesting and recognisable faces who do solid work.

Leatherheads is not a terrible comedy as some have suggested and it should not be criticised for being inconsequential or light. Sadly though it is not frothy, sparky or fun enough to be the film that it was clearly intended to be. OK there are specific issues with aspects of the plot and some (well, one) bit of casting but generally this bigger picture problem is what limits it to be an "OK" film but no better than that.

Having just seen the movie and read the other comments I felt I had to respond. OK, so the dialogue is a little clunky in places and there is no great emotional journey or powerful moral at the end so accept it for what it is - a nice little movie that passes a couple of hours and leaves you with the feeling that you've been entertained. Why is it that people always expect George Clooney to do powerhouse / classic films?? Maybe he wanted to make this because he liked the story and thought other people would too? The characters are simple as is the story but it never pretends to be anything big. It's a light hearted caper that does nothing the offend the senses or damage the careers of anyone involved. Let it wash over you! My advice? Go see it and make up your own mind, who knows - you might even enjoy it.