Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

TxMike We saw this at home on DVD from our public library. It has a rather low IMDb average rating and, judging from some of the comments, it seems many just didn't get the gist of the story. It is based on a 1943 novel "The Human Comedy" by William Saroyan, and is considered somewhat autobiographical, a boy growing up fatherless. The characters and some references are aligned with Homer's 'Odyssey'. Set in 1942, it is at its core a coming-of-age story of the 14-yr- old boy whose father has died and older brother is fighting overseas in WW2.The two big names are Meg Ryan, who directs, and Tom Hanks, who is an executive producer. They are the mom and dad here but their roles are so small they could have been played by any actors. Meg Ryan's son, Jack Quaid, plays the brother off to war.The central character is Alex Neustaedter as Homer Macauley. He is 14, still idealistic about life, and gets a job as a messenger for the town telegram business, using a bicycle to pick up and deliver. It is through this job he begins to learn about real life.The old telegraph operator who drinks too much and tells Homer to splash cold water on his face if he finds him sleeping at the desk. Or the delivery to the house of prostitution. Or the telegrams to the townspeople from the War Department, announcing the death of a son. And a number of other things.Regarding action there isn't a lot that happens, but it is all happening to Homer, waking him up to the real world, molding his journey into young adulthood. Good movie. Actually filmed in Virginia.

sophronia-00027 I wanted to enjoy this film. The setting was beautiful, but the contrast between the joyful exuberance of youth and bracing reality of adulthood was stark. I believe this was what the director was working to achieve. It was one of those films in which it feels just too real, including the surreal moments. That being the case, watching was painful, and I don't feel afterward that there were sufficient merits to outweigh that pain.

darcek What a gushy mess...This whole film felt for me like someone,grabbed all the elements of a movie,thrown them into a blender..and pop this was the result...It became first hard to follow the line of story,where is the past..what is the present..or future?Characters are been introduced at random.. Get some good plot line,for couple of minutes.. Then something else popes in.. The whole film making is very good.Like a triple A movie. The actors are good,but it doesn't help this blundering mess. The lights ,the costumes,it all comes together,the structure is solid but it feels like no one is at home. This started to get really frustrating as the movie progressed..Other problems:Tom Hanks shown here as a lead actor.He only say 2 words the whole film...what the hell? maybe he was used as a gimmick to pull viewers to watch this. Meg Ryan acting was good,problem is her face suffered so many surgeries,it looks like a freaking death mask,and didn't help with the character of a gentle loving mom...She could do some scary ghost or some horror film,but this totally didn't work for me(I kept getting deja vu from sleepless in Seattle,where she was pretty and her beauty was like pure and naive,slaughtered by all these surgeries)

Chuck Sears Tom Hanks is a good actor. Meg Ryan is a good actress. They've had chemistry in the past. It ain't here for this movie.First off, this is not a Tom Hanks movie. He has top billing, but he is on screen for maybe two minutes. Second, this was Meg Ryan's directorial debut. It's a dog, and I don't have high expectations for her continued career as a director.The story is completely disjointed and really doesn't have any kind of plot to speak of, other than a teenager being all angsty.Save your money, folks. Don't rent this movie and don't waste 90 minutes of your life watching it.