Universal Pictures | Release Date: October 28, 2005
6.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 54 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
32
Mixed:
11
Negative:
11
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
KenR.Oct 30, 2005
A painful movie to watch other than a few good lines and maybe two good scenes. You can picture the screenwriters sitting around a table trying to figure out how the plot should proceed and coming up with mediocre solutions. The main A painful movie to watch other than a few good lines and maybe two good scenes. You can picture the screenwriters sitting around a table trying to figure out how the plot should proceed and coming up with mediocre solutions. The main character David is supposedly a painter, but you never see him painting anything but a wall and he doesn't seem to have any interest in painting. After watching this film you feel like you've wasted your time. The two female leads give nice performances, but that is really all this movie has to offer and it is hardly enough! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MarkB.Dec 3, 2005
It stands to reason that the ONLY moderately amusing element of this astonishingly tedious, totally laugh- and charm-free romantic comedy from writer-director Ben Younger (whose first and only other full-length film was the perceptive It stands to reason that the ONLY moderately amusing element of this astonishingly tedious, totally laugh- and charm-free romantic comedy from writer-director Ben Younger (whose first and only other full-length film was the perceptive business drama Boiler Room, and who here provides the dictionary illustration of the term "sophomore slump")--occurred completely by accident. The male lead, a 23-year-old wannabe artist played by Bryan Greenberg--has the character name David Bloomberg. That also happens to be the name of the editor and head writer of Reality News Online, a website that provides extremely elaborate commentary, predictions and Monday-morning quarterbacking on every reality show on TV. I can't blame Younger for not much about reality TV or this website, but perhaps making the protagonist a reality-obsessed maven who constantly neglects his girlfriend to watch and write about The Biggest Loser, Beauty and the Geek and/or Big Brother 32 would've vastly improved the film. Hell, ANYTHING would have. The script flails about trying desperately to be witty, insightful, insiderish and sophisticated, but Younger's work comes off here as though he stole a Woody Allen script (not Manhattan or Hannah and Her Sisters, mind you, but more along the lines of Hollywood Ending or Anything Else) and then proceeded to suck out whatever grains or crumbs of wit were left. The two normally very capable female stars are criminally shortchanged: Uma Thurman's Rafi (no relation to the hirsute children's singer), a 37-year-old divorcee who engeges in an affair with young Bloomberg, is hugely self-absorbed and unsympathetic: Thurman was a thousand times more likable when she was separating heads from bodies in the Kill Bill flicks. And even though I normally prefer Meryl Streep in comedies over dramas precisely because films like Adaptation and Death Becomes Her truly allow the actress to cut loose and go wild, Streep comes off here as uncharacteristically constricted and boring as Bloomberg's overly protective psychiatrist mom. As for Greenberg as Bloomberg, his major dramatic contribution is to take off his shirt, which he does so often that Prime might just become some sort of a gay cult movie on DVD provided that homosexual men have the good sense to watch it the way heterosexual ones should watch Charlie's Angels reruns and movies--with the sound turned all the way down. As for the much-advertised gimmick of Thurman being Streep's patient without being aware for most of the length of the picture that the doctor is her lover's mom, not only (with all due respect to Roger Ebert) is this an Idiot Plot Device if ever there was one, but it yields an embarrassing, seemingly endless, dentist's drill-like dialogue exchange in which the two women discuss David's penis and I seriously debate with myself whether to shatter my all-time record of having never, never walked out on a movie I paid to see. I didn't this time either, but some patrons may want to cut their losses much sooner; there's a subplot about David's buddy, who makes a partial living throwing pies at people, and given how expensive going to the movies can be these days, Younger should pray that life doesn't imitate fiction in this case, lest irritated patrons find somewhere to purchase lemon meringues, key limes and Boston creams with his name on them! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
PatC.Jun 30, 2006
In spite of Streep's efforts, a recipe for disaster: Take one Uma Thurman. Separate from Tarantino and sedate. Add script written by monkeys and a dash of soft porn. Simmer in a shallow pan until all trace of original thought has In spite of Streep's efforts, a recipe for disaster: Take one Uma Thurman. Separate from Tarantino and sedate. Add script written by monkeys and a dash of soft porn. Simmer in a shallow pan until all trace of original thought has evaporated. Sprinkle with uninspired music and art. Serve chilled. Dispose of unconsumed portions promptly. If aftertase persists, do not seek therapy. Symptoms will pass eventually. Smacking ones self upside the head with a skillet, as one of the characters repeatedly does, will speed the process. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MaryellenG.Jul 9, 2006
After I watched this dog, I went to see what my man Ebert had said about it. Three stars? I wondered if he was on pain meds when he watched thiss unbelievably bad piece of crap. I looked at the comments below and wondered what the hell is After I watched this dog, I went to see what my man Ebert had said about it. Three stars? I wondered if he was on pain meds when he watched thiss unbelievably bad piece of crap. I looked at the comments below and wondered what the hell is wrong with me? I watched this movie like drivers stop to look at bad wrecks. I kept turning it off, and then found myself caught in a bad gaper's block, turning it on again to see if it were possible that it was as bad as I thought it was. I kept wondering if someone had threatened Thurman's or Streep's chiildrens' liives tto force them to be in a movie so bad it could have been released directly to DVD. Technically, it had editing so choppily cut it was almost funny. The technical qualilties overall appeared to be only slightly abve a student super-8 project. I could go on forever about the lack of chemistry and the absurdity of a gorgeous 37 -year-old , well ll aware of her biological clock ticking, falling for this wet behind the ears putz. This dog just kept barking until I had but to take my leave of it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
CherS.Nov 4, 2005
Meryl, Meryl, Meryl - what were you thinking? The tiny little inside jokes were just that - tiny and litte, and should say outside - not in my favorite movie house. I'd rather eat popcorn on the curb!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
VirginiaB.Nov 5, 2005
The idea has comic potential, but the dialogue lacks punch; the lovers are insipid, boring, and without chemistry; the pacing is painfully slow; and the plot is simultaneously cliche-ridden-sit-comesque and pretentiously referential to Woody The idea has comic potential, but the dialogue lacks punch; the lovers are insipid, boring, and without chemistry; the pacing is painfully slow; and the plot is simultaneously cliche-ridden-sit-comesque and pretentiously referential to Woody Allen and tiresome French flicks. Meryl Streep does repetitous mugging in this one-joke movie. What a waste! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
LoulexJ.Oct 28, 2005
What is this?---This thing they call a movie- a story----stories imply that something happens! NOTHING HAPPENED.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DaleMNov 26, 2006
Neither entertaining nor enlightening. Meryl Streep seems to be practicing for stock character parts in B-grade movies. What's sad is that the movie seems to think it has something to say, but you come away realizing it really had Neither entertaining nor enlightening. Meryl Streep seems to be practicing for stock character parts in B-grade movies. What's sad is that the movie seems to think it has something to say, but you come away realizing it really had nothing to say. The movie is essentially resolved by the deus ex machina of having the stock character of the "young artist" become an instant success. You never figure out how he learned to paint without any contact with the art world. We have to assume he was just created to play a part in the movie just like all the other stock characters. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful