Mildly disappointing. Anderson seems to have dashed this one off a bit, IMO, as it is all just so "lite" compared to his first three films. Basically, this is a feature length character study of a particular type of neurotic. I'm not sure Sandler is ever off screen for more than a few seconds, so it is very much HIS movie, and he is quite good. But it ultimately left me with very much a "so what?" feeling. Emily Watson's character, by the way, is underwritten to the point that even a fine actor like herself is just taking up space on screen. Her character is almost entirely unconvincing...why would she be taking up with a shy semi-psychotic loner who looks like Sandler? Also, you know Anderson is off his game when he TOTALLY WASTES both Phillip Hoffman and Luis Guzman. Anyway, I guess that is mostly negative stuff above, so I should note that there is also plenty to like here as well. Sandler is quite good, and there are a number of laugh out loud sequences. But still, after the height of "Magnolia," I was definitely hoping for much more.
True, this is nowhere near as good as Magnolia which is one of my top 5 of all time. True Emily Watson's character is grossly underwrtten (See Breaking the Waves to see her at her absolute best). And true Phillip Seymour Hoffman is wasted. But I still really enjoyed this movie. It seemed to be promoted as a normal romantic comedy, which it definately is not. Yes it is Sandlers show, but aside from one scene of him dancing in the supermarket did I really think that it was typical Sandler. Many people who see this movie will walk away diapointed. And to an extent i did also, but only in comparison to Anderson's and Watson's previous works. On it's own it stands as a good film.
I left the theater thinking it was the worst film by a good director that I have ever seen. That's a little harsh, but not far off. The entire phone sex subplot is being held on by bubble gum and wishful thinking. It wasn't just Emily Watson that was underwritten -- it was pretty much the entire movie. An idea in search of a story.
I thought it was quite good. A very good movie to discuss afterwards, as things that seem very disquieting while you're watching it make more sense after you've digested the whole thing and had some time to think about it. That, and I could be entranced just watching & listening to Emily Watson read the phone book. She has never looked better. I think that it's so different from anything out there that people don't know what to make of it. It's not the massive 3-hour pastiche of Magnolia or the cocaine- and porn-turbocharged plot of Boogie Nights, nor is it a "normal", simple romantic comedy of some poor shlep who finds a reason to live in a pretty woman. It defies categorization, but to me when Sandler gives his little "I've got love" speech to Hoffman in the furniture store it's a tremendously rewarding payoff. People (including my wife) cheered for him.
Easily Anderson's best movie. I disagree with DoctorJones' opinion that it's a character study. It's a genre piece: Anderson's modern version of a 1930's screwball comedy. And it has the best cinematography of the year.
That's what I liked about it - that it focused on one story and stripped everything else away. It may have seemed rushed or underwritten, but if you look closely, you can see that PTA carefully constructed every little detail. True, Guzman and Hoffman were relatively useless, but the secondary characters were just that, secondary to the story. I originally left the theater thinking "WTF?" but then everything made sense. And I'm with obie on this - Sandler's "I've got love" speech is the moment of triumph that the film was working toward. I'm getting the sense that non-PTA fans like this movie better than PTA fans.