User Score
6.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 61 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 61
  2. Negative: 12 out of 61
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. EdwardM.
    Jan 6, 2004
    0
    This wins my prize for the worst big-budget hollywood movie ever made (beating out "Terms of Endearment" another Nicholson film). This movie is one string of banal clichés from beginning to end, it even has clichés within clichés. It is also far too long, should have been edited down by at least an hour. Nicholson looks like he's either stunned or stoned most of This wins my prize for the worst big-budget hollywood movie ever made (beating out "Terms of Endearment" another Nicholson film). This movie is one string of banal clichés from beginning to end, it even has clichés within clichés. It is also far too long, should have been edited down by at least an hour. Nicholson looks like he's either stunned or stoned most of the time, probably both. The character development is as thin as a piece of paper - basically, for all their wealth and worldly success these are very uninteresting people. Utter drivel! Expand
  2. LiamS.
    Jan 15, 2004
    1
    This movie was absolutely terrible. Yet another pathetic attempt at an Oscar, and vaguely resembling Ishtar ("Let's throw together a promising cast with a dull and predictable plot which puts people to sleep in their seats. This movie will undoubtedly win Oscars, since it is made only for this purpose, however, it is poor beyond measure, and certainly 2 hours of my life that I will This movie was absolutely terrible. Yet another pathetic attempt at an Oscar, and vaguely resembling Ishtar ("Let's throw together a promising cast with a dull and predictable plot which puts people to sleep in their seats. This movie will undoubtedly win Oscars, since it is made only for this purpose, however, it is poor beyond measure, and certainly 2 hours of my life that I will never get back. Expand
  3. Nik
    Mar 29, 2004
    0
    Sorry, i loved the cast, jack is great, but this movie is utterly boring. predictable from the first second till the end. ok. i didn't saw the end cause i fell asleep, but anyone could have guessed. besides this movie has no music. even my wife couldn't watch this house of pure boredom.
  4. MarkT.
    May 17, 2004
    2
    Saw this on United for free, and angry at time better spent sleeping or staring out the window. A hackneyed insult to my intelligence. Nicholson plays the same predictable role he plays --sarcastic, oh so free-wheeling and playful. Keanu Reeves should be embarrassed; no acting on his part, like the Matrix trilogy, but none of the fun. The movie plays on stereotypes about older, successful Saw this on United for free, and angry at time better spent sleeping or staring out the window. A hackneyed insult to my intelligence. Nicholson plays the same predictable role he plays --sarcastic, oh so free-wheeling and playful. Keanu Reeves should be embarrassed; no acting on his part, like the Matrix trilogy, but none of the fun. The movie plays on stereotypes about older, successful women that really irked my female partner, and offered stale cliches and cutsieness. Make me puke. Expand
  5. Dec 9, 2012
    4
    If Nicholson and Keaton weren't in this, no one would care one whit about the movie. The acting is good (though not their best), the cinematography is excellent, but the story is cliche, boring, and the dialogue is stilted and predictable.
Metascore
66

Generally favorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 40
  2. Negative: 1 out of 40
  1. Diane Keaton has the crucial role, and she makes the most of it.
  2. Generally quite amusing, with a brilliant cast.
  3. 67
    As cinema, it's polenta, but it's made palatable by the piquant sauce with which these two great stars season it.