Buena Vista Pictures | Release Date: October 21, 2005
6.5
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 62 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
34
Mixed:
20
Negative:
8
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)
4
MikeG.Nov 10, 2005
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, 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AMovieCriticAug 6, 2007
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AndrewBNov 4, 2005
This movie is a 6.5, not quite a 6, but not really a 7 either. Shades of "lost in translation" all over the place, "lost in LA" might be a better title. Plenty of weak moments, the bus Jason rides on, seems to go all over the country without This movie is a 6.5, not quite a 6, but not really a 7 either. Shades of "lost in translation" all over the place, "lost in LA" might be a better title. Plenty of weak moments, the bus Jason rides on, seems to go all over the country without leaving California. Steve is believable enough, although his narration doesn't quite work. It's a slightly better than average movie, go see it, but don't expect too much. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
HamiltonOct 23, 2005
Poor adaptation, needed voice over naration to move story along. Steve talking directly to the camara would have been more interesting. I agree with salon.com "There's so little sexual chemistry..." However I think this is confined to Poor adaptation, needed voice over naration to move story along. Steve talking directly to the camara would have been more interesting. I agree with salon.com "There's so little sexual chemistry..." However I think this is confined to Martin and Danes. Schwartzman and Danes are the only saving graces for the movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
PaulOct 26, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DanC.Jun 8, 2006
Not very good, except for Claire Danes, who shines in the title role. Jason Schwartzman also has definite presence on screen. But the writing is poor, especially the older character portrayed by Steve Martin. I can only assume the fault is Not very good, except for Claire Danes, who shines in the title role. Jason Schwartzman also has definite presence on screen. But the writing is poor, especially the older character portrayed by Steve Martin. I can only assume the fault is his in the novella that serves as the source. Martin's character is at once boringly benign, even uncertain, and yet lacks conscience (or any apparent coherent motivation, for that matter). A weak, weak cop-out of a character, and not because he's unlikable, but because he's not believable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JeanneC.Nov 13, 2005
I was disappointed. Mirabelle is more like a fragile china doll who has not found her inner voice. Neither Steve Martin nor the younger actor playing Jeremy do anything to facilitate the journey that Mirabelle seems to somehow (off-screen?) I was disappointed. Mirabelle is more like a fragile china doll who has not found her inner voice. Neither Steve Martin nor the younger actor playing Jeremy do anything to facilitate the journey that Mirabelle seems to somehow (off-screen?) have taken by the end. I did not read the book, but it sure seems to be a uniquely male view of a fantasy girl friend. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DavidA.Nov 28, 2005
Could have been a great movie, but the casting was terrible. Either a younger replacement for Steve Martin or an older replacement for Dane would have made this film plausable. Steve you blew it. Your ego got in the way. However, you would Could have been a great movie, but the casting was terrible. Either a younger replacement for Steve Martin or an older replacement for Dane would have made this film plausable. Steve you blew it. Your ego got in the way. However, you would have made a nice grandfather. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DavidW.Jun 27, 2006
Shopgirl should have be titled Flopgirl. It flops because its the exact opposite of a movie. Martin is the hero yet he doesn't win anything. Maribelle is a cows name. In fact she stands there albeit gorgeously just like a cow. She is Shopgirl should have be titled Flopgirl. It flops because its the exact opposite of a movie. Martin is the hero yet he doesn't win anything. Maribelle is a cows name. In fact she stands there albeit gorgeously just like a cow. She is grazing through life. The other male character is just a flop. Someone told Martin that good writing requires character development so he made Jason's character change from idiotic to stupid. The only reason people men will like this movie is becasue of Claires nude scene. The only reason it could be described as beautiful is the exquisite musical score. Martin should have made a sound track not a movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
beingryanjudeApr 12, 2016
It's fascinating to see Steve Martin show off his dramatic chops - it ain't half bad either. SHOPGIRL is smart and clever; however, not always as romantic as it hopes to be.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews