Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

choat2000 I have next to no love for this movie. It's just a sappy load of...ugh. They try to fit so many characters in and it's just an ugly, overwhelming piece of work. One of my least favorite characters is Tom Welling's character. I just find him angry and annoying. I guess I can chalk it up to bad casting (not that Tom Welling's acting is bad, but because he was simply too old for the part). The storyline is at least interesting in how much conflict there is, but it wraps up really poorly with them staying at a house they hate.If I were you, I'd stay away from this movie. It's one of my least favorite movies on this planet.

lisafordeay Seen this so many times on DVD and I actually enjoyed this movie.The story is about a man and his wife played by Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt who are parents to not ONE but TWELVE kids (Hilary Duff,Tom Welling,Alison Stoner,Kevin G Schmidt(who looks so unrecognizable, etc)who move from their childhood home into the big city of Seattle. But none of the kids are happy about the move as they miss their old childhood home but had to move because Tom Baker(aka Martin) was promoted a job.The cast is great,the humor is nice and its a entertaining movie. Also keep an eye out for an uncredited Ashton Kutcher as Nora's boyfriend. Im giving it a 7/10

Armand I do not know the original. but this film is really good. for courage to work with children. for Steve Martin and his performance. and, sure, for the science of director to cover every expectation of different public. a bitter comedy about family values, an inspired show of chaos and feelings, easy, nice and, in same time, almost profound for the problem of large family in present time. heart - extraordinary cast. and art to use each actor as smart ingredient ( case of Tom Welling or Ashton Kutcher is obvious ).result - a brave honest work. and a great show. remarkable and comfortable, funny and credible, picture of special adventure with warm moralistic end.

Electrified_Voltage I rented this movie just yesterday, knowing that Steve Martin was in it, but not knowing that it was a remake of a movie from 1950 and both films were adapted from a book of the same name, until after I came home from the video store and looked it up. So, I obviously can't say I've ever read the book or seen the original film adaptation, but I'm thinking they're both better liked than this remake. Before watching this 2003 version, I knew that it certainly didn't have the worst reputation a comedy film can have, but also knew that it generally wasn't considered that great, so I didn't have very high expectations. Still, I thought it could turn out to be a mixed blessing, with some really funny parts and some unfunny ones, but I didn't even get that.Tom and Kate Baker both wanted eight kids when they got married, but due to several factors, they have ended up with twelve! They now live in a large rural home in Midland, Indiana with their offspring. When Tom gets an offer to coach the Stallions, meaning he will get to fulfill his old dream of being a head football coach, he happily takes it, but this means the family will have to move to Chicago, which none of the twelve siblings are happy about. Nonetheless, the family does move, into another large house in a Chicago suburb, and this causes some dysfunction. Kate's dream also comes true when she is informed that the book she has written will be published. She has to go to New York to promote her book, leaving Tom to look after all the kids on his own, and he soon finds that it is VERY difficult trying to keep them under control! It also looks like Kate will be gone longer than originally expected for a book tour! Showing Tom Baker (Steve Martin's character) jogging home, the film is off to a mediocre start. It doesn't improve with Bonnie Hunt's opening narration as Kate Baker. It's certainly not very funny at this point, and the part about Tom getting a vasectomy is awkward in what's supposed to be a family movie. Maybe that part would have been slightly funnier if the movie hadn't been billed as family. One memorably lame joke is one of the Baker kids being told that body parts don't count for show-and-tell. In fact, this part is perhaps a little disturbing! There are some occasional mildly amusing moments in this version of "Cheaper by the Dozen", but for the most part, it's very unfunny and boring, with the pranks the kids pull, such as soaking Hank's (Nora Baker's boyfriend) underwear in meat to attract dogs, other trouble the kids cause, etc. Another lame part I can't forget is the athletic cup covered in sauce, which one of the kids sees and thinks the sauce is blood, causing him to throw up! This remake of "Cheaper by the Dozen" is basically just another unfunny PG-rated family comedy, and like some of the others, some parts might really make viewers wonder if it should have been marketed as a family movie. For the most part, this movie is cheesy and fairly forgettable, and it reminded me a lot of "Daddy Day Care", another no more than mediocre PG-rated family film which was released the same year. Apart from an occasional mildly amusing scene and Steve Martin's charm (he's not that funny here but definitely better than he is in "Looney Tunes: Back in Action"), there aren't many positive things I can say about 2003's "Cheaper by the Dozen". I'm not even sure if my 5/10 rating is low enough. I do intend to watch the 1950 version at some point, knowing it's obviously a lot different because of the era it's from. I will also be expecting the original to be better than this disappointing 2003 version.