Columbia Pictures | Release Date: April 23, 2004
8.1
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 215 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
158
Mixed:
44
Negative:
13
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
matta.Sep 2, 2005
I like Tom Hanks better. Stick to Alias girlfriend.
0 of 3 users found this helpful
2
juliankennedy23Jun 9, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 13 Going on 30: 3 out of 10: First of all I would like to throw my full weight behind any effort to give Jennifer Garner a special Oscar for best performance in a pretty bad movie. She is delightful and plays the character better than written.

In addition I would like to absolve any of her co-stars from any possible negative career ramifications due to their appearances in this film. They also did a fine job. And last I would like security to please apprehend the writers and director whom I see sneaking out the fire escape.

Okay the director gets community service for making some pretty obvious soundtrack mistakes for 1987 (he highlights as the supposed geeky underground song Burning Down the House which was featured in as a jock anthem in Revenge of the Nerds three years earlier and as MTV fodder he highlights Thriller from 1983 which was already in the Halloween ghetto mix by 1987.) The writers get life in prison without parole. First question. Have they ever worked in any office anywhere, let alone a supposed fashion magazine? They get so much wrong I don't know where to begin. Second though Garner's performance is great her character is a mess. She finds older guys icky in one scene and is attracted to them in the next and then back to icky. She handles her cutthroat business environment with more maturity than most thirty year olds let alone thirteen year olds.

Instead of going into a Being There Chauncey kind of vibe where Garner's character's inane utterances are taken as genius the film actually makes her more proactive than either her shy thirteen year old self would be or her cutthroat thirty year old self was. No working woman cliché is ignored and the less said about the sappy and ridiculous ending the better.

The whole body swap time travel deal was actually the most believable part of the film. Certainly more believable than a doll house building, fairy dust collecting, fat boy next door growing up to be a thin straight single guy living in Greenwich Village or more than one drunk person remembering any of the dance moves from the Thriller video.
Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
2
AndyW.Feb 21, 2005
Could be the dictionary definition of "going through the motions". Includes all the ingredients that made Big such a great film, but lacks any magic or chemistry to hold them all together. And the ending is excruciating.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
KevinE.Mar 15, 2005
Rented it because the reviewers all gushed over Garner, and this her official superstar coming out film. What a load of crap. A stale hollywood formula from the get go, and Garner wanders around in a cartoonish state of exasperated wonder so Rented it because the reviewers all gushed over Garner, and this her official superstar coming out film. What a load of crap. A stale hollywood formula from the get go, and Garner wanders around in a cartoonish state of exasperated wonder so HUGE that I longed for a CGI version of this movie so that it could be more realistic. I couldn't watch much, so I have no idea how the completely implausible story line was dealt with, if it ever was, but who cares because this kind of junk is a complete waste of time, as was the money, effort, electricity, gas, clothing, food, alarm-clock-setting, phone calls, faxing, driving, yapping, power lunches, screenings, etc that went into the making of it. C'mon people! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful