Cher John

Not having read anything about the film (or book) beforehand, I went into the cinema with no expectations, (though I was worried it might be a soppy, pull-at-the-heartstrings epic like The Notebook).

This wasn't the case. There were so many times when I thought 'Oh, I hope this doesn't happen', or 'I hope they don't do what I think they're going to do', and they didn't. There are moments of sadness, but some of them could have been made a lot worse.

The story isn't unique, (neither is The Notebook) but it is executed in a way that makes you feel as though you're watching something new. Channing Tatum is the lovable beefcake reminiscent of Marky Mark, and Amanda Seyfried is cute, delivering well executed dialogue. And I did actually think they had good chemistry, despite what other reviewers have said. Channing's John is an army boy who had a lot of issues growing up, so you can't expect him to be overly forthcoming with his emotions.

Richard Jenkins gives a great performance as the father, and even Henry Thomas is likable as the neighbour (I must be the only person in the world who hasn't seen E.T. so I didn't recognize the name at first).

To me, this was acted out a lot better (and even structured better) than Twilight: New Moon, which I assume is meant to appeal to the same audience. I know to some that isn't saying much, but perhaps our expectations are a bit high these days. If you want to see a sweet love story with likable characters, then you might just enjoy this film.

Movie should be about distance love and related consequences, unfortunately it's too flat because It doesn' t transmit any passions or emotions ti the watcher

I had mixed expectations when I was going in to see Dear John. I had never really given any thought about how good or bad it might be, because it was a night out with friends and I was unconcerned at the moment. Eventually, we started to watch the movie. At first, it was just dull. I mean, I know it was trying to build up the characters and establish a good story line, but I was a tad bit uninterested, just because the characters were so plain at the time. Though it does set up things rather well, it lacks in any really high appeal from the moment it comes on the screen, if that makes sense.

Anyway, on to the rest of the movie. Though there were times when I was very interested, it just overall was nothing special. The performances by each individual actor were extremely questionable. For instance, Channing Tatum was unable to display any real sense of emotion except for maybe two scenes in the entire movie, and Amanda Seyfried seemed like it was just too big of a role for her to play. While they both didn't do so hot separately, I have to say the chemistry between them when they were on set together was believable, intense and undeniably noteworthy; Certainly the best thing about the movie, in my opinion.

I do give Dear John a decent and satisfactory rating for it really strived to be a poignant and strong film, even though it fell a little short, and I was moved at times by the feelings Channing and Amanda expressed into their characters, though all together their performances were eh. It was interesting and entertaining, and I enjoyed it... lightly. With all that said, it again falls short of being rewatchable with it's extreme dullness throughout and lack of powerful, independent, likable performances. Not anything special, but certainly not anything bad, and I recommend you don't watch it with high expectations, because you'll be very disappointed, but if you're not an extreme critic and you're just looking to blow some time, or are extremely hard up for Channing Tatum shirtless, you can and will enjoy this in some way.

I was really looking forward to watching this movie - although, my expectations were not very high - but it turned out to be worse than I expected. I knew Channing Tatum was not the greatest actor - although, he is gorgeous - so I wasn't expecting very good acting. It was decent but I just didn't feel the chemistry between the two actors. The "twist" which I won't mention was where I thought the movie went completely downhill. It was very poorly executed and if you've seen the movie, you'll probably agree. Throughout, the movie was very slow- moving and not very exciting but there were a couple emotional parts! So far, the only people I've asked that did like the movie, seem to be the younger ones (12-15).

This movie is definitely NOT comparable to "The Notebook" like some people have been saying. It was nothing special, so I wouldn't watch it again, but I'd say it's good for a chick flick night. Another one of those movies like that looked SO much better on the commercials.

I'll try to make this short and sweet, like the two weeks the two characters spent together before all hell broke loose:

If you read the book, lower your expectations. If you haven't read the book,...well, you can raise your expectations just a bit higher.

I was one of those girls who squealed every time they saw a TV spot, or watched the trailer on YouTube a million times. I bawled my eyes out when I read the book- both times I read it. Last night, I went to see the movie knowing full well that it wasn't going to live up to the book. Unfortunately, I was right.

What made 'Dear John' different from all the other love stories we've read and seen was taken away in the movie. I don't know how I would have understood what was going on in the movie if I hadn't read the book. Scenes were rushed (especially the two weeks where the two main characters fall in love), and characters weren't well developed at all. Heck, one of the main characters barely resembles (both appearance- and personality-wise) the character in the book. *cough*Savannah Lynn Curtis*cough*.

That said, there were a couple of scenes where the dialogue was sweet and funny. I also enjoyed the music, but that may be because I'm a huge fan of acoustic. Also, the scenery was absolutely beautiful. Not to mention Channing Tatum's body (pretty much the only thing worth my money).

As far as acting goes, Channing Tatum was the stronger one in this film. While I'm still personally neutral about my opinion on Amanda Seyfried, I found she's done better. She may be better off with comedy or musicals. And Richard Jenkins was lovable, as always.

If you've read the book, don't expect anything similar to it. I can't point out a single scene that even resembled that of the book. Part II of the book, especially, was almost non-existent. You will definitely be able to pick out the noticeable differences between the book and the film. Hopefully, you won't be TOO disappointed.

But like I said, you're more likely to enjoy the film if you haven't read the book.