Jeanskynebu
the audience applauded
Chirphymium
It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional
Juana
what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.
Armand
Good intentions, tangled script, nice cast and ambiguous characters. A movie like an empty game. Words, half feelings, declarations, levels of love stories and sensitivity in dark nuances. Memories, dialogs, dramas in a colored , shiny package. Empty. Only sawdust and artificial flowers. A kind of Melancholia without genius of van Trier. Tale with lost end , plate with too many dishes and actors like children in tight clothes. Speech about nothing , chain of images and tensions without any target. Exercise of aphasia. In fact, ashes model who must be, in the director vision, human being. The result - a wedding as Damocles sword, a rain, couples without sense, neurosis in huge types and taste of time waste. Nothing more!
Amirah Frankln
I never read the novel but I did enjoy the movie to a great degree. The title implies, to me, the love and happiness shared amongst the couples, yet the beauty of the movie lies in its timeless storyline of a man stuck between two woman, unrequited love, and the sarcastic audacity of friends who in fact snort coke, almost cheat, and streak with each other's partners. I was captured from the opening scene and found that I could only describe this movie as quaint. It made me laugh, made me cry, and made me feel for the character who ultimately won in the end. (Although you really might be confused in the end, as it started raining and they started laughing)
gpcheng87
this was terrible - a waste of the 45 minutes i was able to whittle it down to.josh duhamel's character is a spineless cad (he leaves katie holmes outside under a tree?! and she's OK with that?!), which highlights the most fatal flaw of this movie, and i think another user's review mentioned it already - you don't feel for any of the characters. the movie tries to make you pity them, how they are lost and torn, and still searching for happiness and drowning their sorrows in alcohol, but you really just end up rolling your eyes.the final blow was the ridiculous, anti-climactic ending. did the weather really save the groom and the maid of honor, or will the wedding be rescheduled? why are they smiling at each other? because they are terrible people? the failure of this movie is not on the heads of the actors. someone did say that anna paquin might have been miscast, but i think adam brody stuck out like a sore thumb to me the most. he sounded like and acted like his TV series character, and seemed like he was still in high school, much less than having graduated 10 years ago.only the soundtrack was good, and although it could have launched this review to 3 stars, it went back down to 2 because of the strange, poorly chosen final track, an upbeat tune that closed out a confusing, muddled tragedy.
ivanakomatina
I have been reading all the comments before actually deciding to write one. It seems this movie has either very bad or very good critique. To be honest, when it started I thought I will be bored to death by slow pace, pastel colors and TV-show actors trying to act more deep than usual. Somehow that didn't happen and I actually started thinking and feeling some of the emotions they are projecting. In my opinion what Romantics lack of is movie drama! It has the life one in it and people sometime forget what happens in real life can be more powerful than some invented soap opera with a happy/sad ending. I would like to read the book now, see how different it is from the movie and maybe go deeper into characters, because movie only scratched the surface. But anyhow, try, see if you can connect to it somehow and if you don't by the 20th minute or so - just leave it. Otherwise it will be a pain and you will end up wanting your hour and a half back.
