User Score
6.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 59 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 59
  2. Negative: 8 out of 59
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. BenH.
    Jul 30, 2006
    0
    Horrible movie. It was slow, pointless, and boring. How many times do I need to see Claire Dane's character shave her legs in this movie? I was confused watching the movie and I am still confused how anyone in their right mind could have enjoyed it. Wow. Honestly, I can say this is the worst movie I have ever seen in my whole life. Avoid it all costs. I still can't even believe Horrible movie. It was slow, pointless, and boring. How many times do I need to see Claire Dane's character shave her legs in this movie? I was confused watching the movie and I am still confused how anyone in their right mind could have enjoyed it. Wow. Honestly, I can say this is the worst movie I have ever seen in my whole life. Avoid it all costs. I still can't even believe I wasted my time on this crap. Expand
  2. MikeG.
    Nov 10, 2005
    4
    A very dull movie. The performances were fine, but the screenplay failed to flesh out any of the characters, resulting in 90-minutes of me wondering what anyone's motivation was for doing anything. The movie lacked any humor or emotion, and the result is a pretty looking film that failed to do anything but crawl toward its inevitable conclusion.
  3. AMovieCritic
    Aug 6, 2007
    4
    Steve Martin's one of my favorite comedic actors, so I was interested in seeing this serious work from him, which seemed to resemble one of my favorite movies, Lost in Translation. Unfortunately...this movie really didn't cut it. There's no chemistry here whatsoever, and while it was deliberate and part of the story, it didn't necessarily make for a compelling movie. Steve Martin's one of my favorite comedic actors, so I was interested in seeing this serious work from him, which seemed to resemble one of my favorite movies, Lost in Translation. Unfortunately...this movie really didn't cut it. There's no chemistry here whatsoever, and while it was deliberate and part of the story, it didn't necessarily make for a compelling movie. Overall, it's an interesting movie and it had some nice ideas and was actually pretty realistic, yet it just didn't really do anything for me. It was more of a chick flick. It should have been both more romantic and more funny, and it was neither. And ugh....that musical score was COMPLETELY awful. Talk about overdone. They should have went with a more subdued and atmospheric effort like Lost in Translation, instead, it feels like a full symphony orchestra's following these characters around......ugh. Expand
  4. DWilly
    Nov 18, 2005
    2
    This is a terrible movie. Steve Martin should not be allowed to act; if you can even call that striking of a vaguely chagrined pose acting. Maybe he thinks since "doing nothing" has worked for Bill Murray... but Murray has a genuiney bruised interior, whereas Martin's soft life seems to have left him without any interior; and the film's purpose seems to be a chuck under the chin This is a terrible movie. Steve Martin should not be allowed to act; if you can even call that striking of a vaguely chagrined pose acting. Maybe he thinks since "doing nothing" has worked for Bill Murray... but Murray has a genuiney bruised interior, whereas Martin's soft life seems to have left him without any interior; and the film's purpose seems to be a chuck under the chin to himself for having that lack of character. With Jason Swartman only manically aping a performance, and obviously no director at the helm, poor, talented Clare Danes is all on her own. Expand
  5. RobinM.
    Nov 6, 2005
    2
    A dreadful, dreary, utterly empty little film that'll have you leaving the theater feeling deflated and depressed. Claire Danes brings heart, soul and touching tenderness to an utterly implausible character. Steve Martin doesn't allow the poor girl to do anything but be oh-so-grateful that his alter-ego has come into her life to take dress her up, wine and dine her, and then A dreadful, dreary, utterly empty little film that'll have you leaving the theater feeling deflated and depressed. Claire Danes brings heart, soul and touching tenderness to an utterly implausible character. Steve Martin doesn't allow the poor girl to do anything but be oh-so-grateful that his alter-ego has come into her life to take dress her up, wine and dine her, and then undress her with practiced smoothness in his groovy L.A. bachelor pad. What the. . .? What's a cute, smart, romantic chick like her doing with the aging, dullsville Man from Glad? Sure, he's got the bucks to spoil her rotten, but she's clearly not the type to care after the high-rolling novelty wears off. She wants love and respect and some intelligent conversation, and he gives her dumb, big ticket nights on the town, zero in the way of chemistry, zilch in terms of thought-provoking (or even mildly interesting) discussion, and a clear message that he's running on empty in the intimacy department. But that's not supposed to faze our sweet, artsy girl from Vermont in the slightest????? Ya gotta be kidding. It just doesn't make sense. These glaring issues and bizarre inconsistencies can't help but take up all our attention as the scenes drag on, but nobody in the film seems to see them. And as if all that weren't enough to make this film a creepy stinker, there's a sappy, pseudo-philosophical voice-over and swelling violins every time the two lovebirds are seen in close-up that will make you squirm in your theater seat. Yuck. Expand
  6. ChrisH.
    Nov 8, 2005
    1
    I can't believe what I'me reading here. This movie was awful. It was so full of cliches and needlessly melodrama that everyone in the theater broke into "are you kidding me?" laughter four or five times. Honestly, who wants to see Steve Martin have an affair with Claire Danes? Who? The only thing worse than the unbelievable creepiness of the central relationship was the I can't believe what I'me reading here. This movie was awful. It was so full of cliches and needlessly melodrama that everyone in the theater broke into "are you kidding me?" laughter four or five times. Honestly, who wants to see Steve Martin have an affair with Claire Danes? Who? The only thing worse than the unbelievable creepiness of the central relationship was the nauseating gravitas of the direction. This movie is neither romantic nor comedic. It is just plain bad. Expand
  7. Paul
    Oct 26, 2005
    4
    Unlikeable the same way "Lost in Translation" is: a amateurly directed, visually unexciting, "minimalist" waste of time and money. The movie's pacing and message come off just as awkward as some of the dialogue is. Jason Schwartzman carries the movie, but with a role he's played his entire career. Claire Danes (who basically cries a lot) and Steve Martin (who isn't funny in Unlikeable the same way "Lost in Translation" is: a amateurly directed, visually unexciting, "minimalist" waste of time and money. The movie's pacing and message come off just as awkward as some of the dialogue is. Jason Schwartzman carries the movie, but with a role he's played his entire career. Claire Danes (who basically cries a lot) and Steve Martin (who isn't funny in this movie) do nothing special. Expand
  8. AroopB.
    Nov 5, 2005
    2
    I did not come into this movie expecting a super arty, overly deep film. Thank god for that. Tedious is the nicest word I can use to describe this movie that takes itself way too seriously and spends absolutely zero time giving the viewer any insight into why any of these characters like each other, let alone why we should care about them. It squanders any capital it has in the talents of I did not come into this movie expecting a super arty, overly deep film. Thank god for that. Tedious is the nicest word I can use to describe this movie that takes itself way too seriously and spends absolutely zero time giving the viewer any insight into why any of these characters like each other, let alone why we should care about them. It squanders any capital it has in the talents of the main actors on awkward, unfunny scenes that are not charming or original or really anything. This movie does not need to exist and obviously wouldn't if so many people hadn't enjoyed the infinitely superior Lost in Translation and of course, The Three Amigos. The one point is for the occasionally funny character (over)played by Jason Schwartzman who is too talented to be wasting his time on ego pieces like this one. Skip the sequel too. Expand
  9. JC
    Dec 25, 2005
    1
    Another nauseatiingly pointless melodrama. Perhaps the worst part was the completely needless narrative dialogue. If they'd taken out Steve Martin's wispy voice as he waxed poetic on the "relationships" presented in this movie, it may have been worthy of a 2. The problem here goes beyond unpassionate acting, beyond the tired rhythm of the canned heart-break scenes and the Another nauseatiingly pointless melodrama. Perhaps the worst part was the completely needless narrative dialogue. If they'd taken out Steve Martin's wispy voice as he waxed poetic on the "relationships" presented in this movie, it may have been worthy of a 2. The problem here goes beyond unpassionate acting, beyond the tired rhythm of the canned heart-break scenes and the laughable cinematography as the actors given emotionally barren looks to the camera... the problem is that the story and the presentation of "modern" relationships is garbage. I've seen more passion from a dog in heat, I've been more emotionally moved by a posted on chlamydia. If I wanted badly filmed over-pretentious pap, I'd go to the over-30 martini bar and get some divorcee drunk. Expand
  10. WilliamC.
    Dec 31, 2005
    0
    Slow, dull, pointless, plotless.
  11. Jun 23, 2011
    0
    The characters were flat, stupid and tedious. A pretty women goes on a date with a complete idiot who needs to grow up. Then she enters into a relationship with a rich man who buys her expensive gifts but really has no good qualities. Then (magically) the first man becomes the perfect guy after being a loser for 99% of the film. If this seems boring, repetitive and mundane, it's because itThe characters were flat, stupid and tedious. A pretty women goes on a date with a complete idiot who needs to grow up. Then she enters into a relationship with a rich man who buys her expensive gifts but really has no good qualities. Then (magically) the first man becomes the perfect guy after being a loser for 99% of the film. If this seems boring, repetitive and mundane, it's because it is. Add in elevator music and a cheesy non-realistic, stupid ending and you get the gist of this movie. A complete waste of time and one of the worst movies I have ever seen; I rolled my eyes and at parts, and was reduced to staring at the ceiling which was more interesting than the film. Expand
Metascore
62

Generally favorable reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 24 out of 37
  2. Negative: 2 out of 37
  1. Reviewed by: Peter Debruge
    75
    Where "Elizabethtown" pretends to have the meaning of life, Shopgirl hones in on a few telling details, then allows audiences to fill in the rest.
  2. A glum meditation on isolation and romantic malaise.
  3. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    40
    In any case, the best performance is by Bridgette Wilson-Sampras as the conniving but peppy slut at the perfume counter. Her big scene--farcical, filthy, surprising--is also the best in the movie. Otherwise, Shopgirl is sadly vacuous, with a sadly vacuous center.