hamoo hands down, one of the worse movies i've ever watched. the plot was abysmal. do people really act like this in real life ? it's one of the "please shoot me and put me out of my misery" movies. is there any reason i didn't turn it off and give up on it ? why did i watch it to the end ? i wasn't curious. i had no empathy at all. it made me feel that maybe this world would be a lot better off if all the sarahs died in a car crash. and their mothers too. maybe i had to watch it so when i saw a really good movie, i'd appreciate it. this movie is the touchstone of all Hollywood chick flick template detritus. should have invested this time in a video game.

arizona-philm-phan 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.****

hhammon I waited for this movie to play in great anticipation. Assuming it would be more accurately portrayed like the movie, "The Christmas Box" based on the book by Richard Paul Evans. I sent out many emails to friends and family asking them to please watch this show, hoping they would better understand a tiny amount of my "new" life. After seeing this movie I was so disappointed. As a mother who lost her only child in November 2003 and REALLY knowing the pain, I had hoped that this movie would shed light to parents who "think" they understand the grief a parent goes through who has lost a child. This movie was a very light hearted movie and the silliness of Diane Keaton was a slap in the face to parents who have buried a child. It was VERY unrealistic from start to stop. I had a few calls after the movie, each call the same, "That was so off the mark and made it appear that in a short time you are back on the road and listening to songs on the radio and life is back" What a bunch of bull! It is clear that the director and Keaton have never lost a child because neither would have EVER made the movie to be so off the mark. I guess that's Hollywood.

vchimpanzee I really liked Natalie and Diane Keaton's performance most of the time. I also liked Sara and her 'Gilmore Girls' type relationship with her mother. But I would much rather have seen more of this than what ended up happening.The movie I would have enjoyed would have included Sara and her mother and the cranky woman who owned the house where Sara and her friends stayed--who would have eventually given in and let Natalie clean up. There would have been ups and downs in the mother-daughter relationship, possibly involving the curmudgeonly neighbor with the flashlight, who would have warmed up to these wild and crazy people next door. The man Natalie took to the Japanese restaurant would have dated her. And the chef would have still been in this movie. I liked him.I did like all the references to 'The Wizard of Oz', my favorite movie of all time. I never heard anyone talk about that song played as Dorothy and her friends approached Emerald City. It's not one I would remember.I thought the reference to Woody Allen was cute, and I liked that hat Keaton wore in one scene which reminded me of 'Annie Hall', even though I didn't like that movie or Keaton in it. As for the rest of the group in the house--lock them all in the witch's castle, guarded by a bunch of soldiers chanting 'oh-we-oh, we-OH-oh.'