MovieChat Forums > How Do You Know (2010) Discussion > Good movie, actually

Good movie, actually

posted 14 years ago by paudio
21 replies | jump to latest

My wife and I went to see this movie accidentally, simply because we were at the theater quite early for other movies, and didn't want to wait for long. This movie happened to begin soon. Since we saw it has Reese, Paul, and Owen, we decided to see it. We liked it. It may be a bit too long, but the humor was subtle and (sometimes) smart. The character development is quite good, IMO. Reese was--like usual--great. Paul Ruud is fine, and Owen Wilson is... Owen.

The characters are likable, except perhaps Jack Nicholson's. We see how successful athletes have to keep their top game all the time; otherwise they'd get cut. A businessman needs to know nuts & bolt of his business, otherwise he'd get cheated.

We had a private screening of the movie because the theater was completely empty! Well, it was before noon. Twenty minutes into the movie, however, some teenagers sneaked in, so there were 5-6 people total.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] edalis98 14 years ago

it doesn't deserve to be such a huge bomb!

I agree, it doesn't. However it was not worth the 120M the studio invested on it. What were they thinking?!?! This could've been made for under 30M. It would've still be a flop at the box office but could've had the chance to make some money on rentals.

[–] cgb150 14 years ago

to the OP, I would just like to say 2 things:
Reese Witherspoons acting in this film was garbage.
And number 2, you meant say they snuck in, not sneaked in.

[–] jamesk48 14 years ago

Sorry, just noticed this comment... actually "sneaked" is grammatically correct. It sounds weird and wrong, but it is, in fact, correct.

Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all of its pupils.

[–] Grifter02 14 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBplQmbqNmg

[–] jamesk48 14 years ago

Haha. Yes, both are correct.

Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all of its pupils.

[–] mojo2004 14 years ago

However it was not worth the 120M the studio invested on it.

Make that 150 million. They spent 30 million on marketing.

"Where were you born? At home. I wanted to be near my mother."

[–] edalis98 14 years ago

They spent 30 million on marketing.

Was this published somewhere?

Anyway I also think they did a terrible job in marketing so....bad investement imo.

[–] goldenskies 14 years ago

I thought the movie was fine. I could see a semblance of the James Brooks style but it would slip away. Jack Nicholson's part was not good and that is the most surprising thing. Reese looked great, the movie looked great, it was not "amazing" but it was good. They got a great cast for a not that great script.

[–] ladymoonpictures 14 years ago

Breezy, Sally? Really. Breezy as in a moist, wet elephant fart maybe?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kroyall1962 14 years ago

This film had some of the worst dialog in cinematic history. Whatever potential humor there could have been was ruined by the awkward and illogical reactions of the characters. Yes, the principals in this film can act and have all been good in other films but that isn't the point. There is no way this can be classified as a "good movie". I would imagine even the cast knows that.

[–] ericsinla 14 years ago

Don't listen to 'kroyall-676' this movie has a lot of funny and warm moments. It is worth checking out if you are in the mood for a light Romantic/Comedy and if you happen to like some of the stars in the film. Owan Wilson was very funny as a middle-aged Baseball Star and Rudd was Nicholson are often hilarious. Granted it isn't Best Picture material like some of James L. Brooks other films but it is still good!

[–] Kroyall1962 14 years ago

"Owan Wilson was very funny as a middle-aged Baseball Star and Rudd was Nicholson are often hilarious."

That sentence alone should give you a hint as to the quality of ericsinla's analysis.

[–] ladymoonpictures 14 years ago

What nonsensical bull you dribble!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] astrazen11 14 years ago

I liked it.

[–] MyOpinions 14 years ago

I thought it was a good movie, too. Usually avoid romantic movies but I like Reese Witherspoon and Paul Rudd and Owen Wilson. Two hot guys in one movie! It's rare these days. Anyway, I didn't know anything about it and figured it would be a typical silly joke-a-minute movie but it had a lot more drama to it than romcoms usually do and I liked that. I also liked that neither of the two guys in love with her were jerks. They usually have the boyfriend being an obnoxious jerk and then the other guy is a nice guy hoping to win her over. This didn't have that, and I also liked that. Overall, I enjoyed it.

I've already seen the worst movie ever made, so it can only be uphill from there.

[–] LostSok0523 14 years ago

I liked this movie quite a lot. It was over-hyped and had such major stars, maybe everyone expected As Good As It Gets meets Broadcast News, and it was (clearly) a much smaller story. But it was enjoyable, and I liked the depth of the characters (it was a simple store with complicated characters).

I gave it an 8.0 and will probably watch it again.

[–] mathmaniac 14 years ago

I think this movie is too character-driven to bring people in who hope for good sex jokes, nudity, or anything that shocks the audience. There's a place for all of that, just not this movie.

I found myself thinking throughout this movie that the ending was going to be good, no matter who the couple ended up being at the end. Anything would have made sense, given all the information we, the audience, had to think about.

Good movie! Almost too 'deep' to be your average date movie.

[–] Desertman84 14 years ago

Good movie is the viewer is into character-driven films AND if Julia Robert played the lead.
I agree.
But Reese Witherspoon had a hard time making it interesting.
She is NO Julia Roberts!!!!!