larrysmile1
Joined Sep 2001
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews56
larrysmile1's rating
While I understand that Drew Barrymore's Production Company, Flower Films, gave many jobs to actors in this film with a choppy story-line, the film lacked the really "deep" impact about an in-depth relationship between two people.
When it comes to a love story, I prefer a story having only two principals - the male and the female - such as Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in "Casablanca." In "...not that into you" we have Sniglets of scenes with such major stars as Jennifer Aniston, Drew Barrymore, Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Connolly, and Ginnifer Goodwin - with similar impact for the male stars.
While I do enjoy seeing these stars on film, I believe that, aside from giving actors income at union scale or otherwise, these major female actors deserve to be in a film story that they are the exclusive female star acting opposite a single male co-star as their love interest.
The written dialog contained too many "one-liners" being bantered back and forth. Such dialog does not challenge an actor's talents and does not rise to the level that talented actors deserve in the dialog that they speak in the story. It is not enough to make the audience "infer" emotion between two actors in a scene just by a "look or a glance." A good story must be told in words spoken as the film progresses. If the words don't entice a person's mind to mentally engage in the story the writer and director run the risk of boring the audience and putting them to sleep.
Likewise, when scenes are so choppy that a scene is not developed longer than 30 seconds to a minute in length we have the effect of "looking at snapshots in someone's photo album! An expensively made motion picture is not a music video where every 3 seconds or so the scene has to change. Good scenes should be before the audience's eyes and ears long enough to impart meaning in the viewer's brain.
The story-line would have been more engaging if the five females were actually sisters from the same family - with more involvement with their father, Kris Kristofferson - in the story-line as a father who is trying to guide his five daughters into deciding on whether their boyfriends are indeed good candidates for marriage with his daughters. Kris Kristofferson deserved a better part, more involved and expanded as the story progressed. There are so many things wrong with the story-line that a complete rewrite is needed.
I thoroughly enjoy the acting of Drew Barrymore and Scarlett Johansson, for example, when they are the primary stars of a film. It seems that this story-line is just an expanded version of an episode of "Friends." And, if that is what the intent was by the writers, director, and production company, so be it.
"He's Just Not That Into You" lacks the staying power of "Never Been Kissed" or "Ever After - A Cinderella Story." OK, Josie Geller/Danielle De Barbarac?
Larry in Illinois
When it comes to a love story, I prefer a story having only two principals - the male and the female - such as Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in "Casablanca." In "...not that into you" we have Sniglets of scenes with such major stars as Jennifer Aniston, Drew Barrymore, Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Connolly, and Ginnifer Goodwin - with similar impact for the male stars.
While I do enjoy seeing these stars on film, I believe that, aside from giving actors income at union scale or otherwise, these major female actors deserve to be in a film story that they are the exclusive female star acting opposite a single male co-star as their love interest.
The written dialog contained too many "one-liners" being bantered back and forth. Such dialog does not challenge an actor's talents and does not rise to the level that talented actors deserve in the dialog that they speak in the story. It is not enough to make the audience "infer" emotion between two actors in a scene just by a "look or a glance." A good story must be told in words spoken as the film progresses. If the words don't entice a person's mind to mentally engage in the story the writer and director run the risk of boring the audience and putting them to sleep.
Likewise, when scenes are so choppy that a scene is not developed longer than 30 seconds to a minute in length we have the effect of "looking at snapshots in someone's photo album! An expensively made motion picture is not a music video where every 3 seconds or so the scene has to change. Good scenes should be before the audience's eyes and ears long enough to impart meaning in the viewer's brain.
The story-line would have been more engaging if the five females were actually sisters from the same family - with more involvement with their father, Kris Kristofferson - in the story-line as a father who is trying to guide his five daughters into deciding on whether their boyfriends are indeed good candidates for marriage with his daughters. Kris Kristofferson deserved a better part, more involved and expanded as the story progressed. There are so many things wrong with the story-line that a complete rewrite is needed.
I thoroughly enjoy the acting of Drew Barrymore and Scarlett Johansson, for example, when they are the primary stars of a film. It seems that this story-line is just an expanded version of an episode of "Friends." And, if that is what the intent was by the writers, director, and production company, so be it.
"He's Just Not That Into You" lacks the staying power of "Never Been Kissed" or "Ever After - A Cinderella Story." OK, Josie Geller/Danielle De Barbarac?
Larry in Illinois
I am sorry to say that this movie disappoints.
Now, the actual historical story has been done before on a documentary shown on the History Channel in the past. In fact, I have seen it more than once. So, the story is known and therefore being based on a true story the movie had a lot to prove.
For a few reasons it did not live up to its challenge.
First, while Tom Cruise is a well-known actor, his almost whispering delivery throughout the film made him come off as an actor with a monotone. There was little drama in his acting and it appeared that he was content and the director was content to allowing Mr. Cruise to simply look good in a German uniform and give glaring eye contact throughout most of the movie.
Second, with all the detail and expense of dressing almost the entire cast in German uniforms the general lighting scheme of the movie did little to enhance the costuming design. Very dim lit scenes inside rooms and offices was apparent and did not help the visual effect. Even in the era of the 1940s people had better lighting inside their homes and offices. The lighting did not have to have the "overall orange effect" with faces in "half-shadow." Why Hollywood people think this is a good effect is beyond me. It is boring when seen in the movie theater when the screen is so darkened and it makes one want to fall asleep watching such scenes!
Thirdly, having actors who pronounce their English words with British accents while pretending to be a German is laughable. To make such a film realistic requires (and with all respect to the fine acting staff, however) actors who are real Germans and can speak the English language yet retaining their German pronunciation of English words. This should have been a movie with all German actors and actresses who had English speaking lines.
Future movie makers should consider my suggestions and recommendations to really make a fine WWII motion picture.
Larry from Illinois
Now, the actual historical story has been done before on a documentary shown on the History Channel in the past. In fact, I have seen it more than once. So, the story is known and therefore being based on a true story the movie had a lot to prove.
For a few reasons it did not live up to its challenge.
First, while Tom Cruise is a well-known actor, his almost whispering delivery throughout the film made him come off as an actor with a monotone. There was little drama in his acting and it appeared that he was content and the director was content to allowing Mr. Cruise to simply look good in a German uniform and give glaring eye contact throughout most of the movie.
Second, with all the detail and expense of dressing almost the entire cast in German uniforms the general lighting scheme of the movie did little to enhance the costuming design. Very dim lit scenes inside rooms and offices was apparent and did not help the visual effect. Even in the era of the 1940s people had better lighting inside their homes and offices. The lighting did not have to have the "overall orange effect" with faces in "half-shadow." Why Hollywood people think this is a good effect is beyond me. It is boring when seen in the movie theater when the screen is so darkened and it makes one want to fall asleep watching such scenes!
Thirdly, having actors who pronounce their English words with British accents while pretending to be a German is laughable. To make such a film realistic requires (and with all respect to the fine acting staff, however) actors who are real Germans and can speak the English language yet retaining their German pronunciation of English words. This should have been a movie with all German actors and actresses who had English speaking lines.
Future movie makers should consider my suggestions and recommendations to really make a fine WWII motion picture.
Larry from Illinois
