A Salva-vidas

The movie has its issues - the beginning is kind of strange, the characters are not developed well, as they could be...but still i liked the it because it has a spirit.

The spirit of nostalgia. Going back to the childhood, the time when we where happy and light- hearted. The life is scary, the growing up could be frightening.

The love story is extraordinary - a young man, almost a kid and a adult woman who is confused with her life. That love is a beautiful, impossible, elusive,passionate kind of love.

I don't understand why this movie has so many negative revues and rates. I don't find anything wrong, scandalous,immoral or outrageous in it. OK she is older, but what? You could fall in love at any age!

People in US consider the consent intercourse with 16-17 years old boy as something scandalous and almost a rape. But they don't find anything wrong when the 17-18 years old boys go to the American army to kill people.So you could go and kill people at the age of 17, but you must wait till 21 to buy a booze.Of course, if you have a relationship with an adult woman at age of 16 or 17 she must be put in jail for child abuse because you are minor:)))

Going into this movie, I didn't know much about it. I had seen a few previews in theaters and I had seen it promoted online a few times. Beyond that, I hadn't even thought about this movie.

As far as comedy goes, the movie isn't really funny. It has a few "haha" scenes but I don't see why they labeled this as a comedy, it has very dark themes such as depression, drugs, and sexual relationships with minors.

I didn't know where they were trying to go with the plot. It was undeveloped and shallow. I didn't have any idea what kind of people the characters were even by the end of the movie, there was little to no background on all of the characters. The most comical of all of the characters was the seeming role reversal of two of the characters, you had a control freak husband and all he cares about is starting a family, while all the wife wants to do is go out and have fun. It just doesn't seem like it was practical. The relationships are just off.

I will say that Kirsten Bell looks fantastic in a swimsuit. If that's all you care about, you may enjoy the movie. However, if you expect a movie with a decent plot and story, you should probably skip this one. The Lifeguard certainly misses its target as a deep-thought movie.

If you are looking for a neat package of a film with all the loose ends tied up with a pretty ribbon, this film is not for you. And as we all know, life is not that way either.

If seeing an older woman with a young man nauseates you, don't watch this film. Frankly, I wonder why some people never read about movies before they watch them. Then they are shocked to discover the themes of the movie.

Kristen Bell plays a 29-year-old woman who has grown disenchanted with the big city and her life there. She returns to the small town where she grew up, and moves back in with her parents.

This action can be described as irresponsible, simply because she is looking for a respite from responsibility. In fact, she returns to the Lifeguarding job she used to have.

She reconnects with old friends who have remained in the home town. They also have issues regarding responsibility and self-actualization.

In an attempt to regain the freedom of youth--and its passion--they start hanging out with some high school kids. This leads to some risky behavior. The rest of the plot relates to how this dangerous situation plays out.

I thought the acting was good. I especially enjoyed seeing Amy Madigan as the mother. Back in the day, I really enjoyed her in To Live and Die in L.A.

The movie Lifeguard, starring Sam Eliott in 1976, also dealt with a main character who is a lifeguard and who struggles with the issue of responsibility. I recommend it.

The main thing I can say about this movie is that it feels something like how real life is. People make mistakes. People come to crossroads. People sometimes search for answers without really having a clear understanding of the questions.

The good news is this film cannot be placed in one of the common genres.

The directing was good, the scenes gave depth such as the vacant pool shot from a low height and the close ups of the characters inspired an emotional response.

The acting seemed appropriate to the story, the story did not connect with me so the acting seemed just adequate and not great by any of the characters

I saw several previous films combined in The Lifeguard. Summer of 42 for the coming of age element. The Year of Living Dangerously for tiger in the apartment. And her bus trip to and from NYC was reminiscent of many 'you can't go back' movies.

Her parents reminded me of the televangelist fans in Repo Man.

Overall I usually defend Kristen Bell and her acting was okay but was this the right movie for her?

The script is mediocre. The dialogue is particularly clunky. Liberal use of the F word is not offensive; it's just awkward. Kristen Bell is always good, but she seems to end up in one unworthy role after another. (I wasn't a big fan of Veronica Mars, but it was a quality project and should have resulted in better roles than this.) Plenty of problematic scripts get made into movies. Part of the actors' jobs is to make them work. Silk purse out of a sow's ear, as they used to say. Gummer and Starr and Madigan all seem to think that overacting is the answer to the challenge. It isn't. Sincerity isn't achieved by overacting. Lambert's character has some wonderful moments and some very weak ones. He could have benefited from the strong hand of a director, but there is little evidence of that in this film. Shaffer, so wonderful in Win Win, is completely wasted here. All in all, Bell fans will probably need to see it. (With no make-up, she looks every bit her real age.) The rest of you can skip it.