I gave this movie a 50/50 chance of being good...

Rating: 3/10 (9 November 2013)

...but lost.
I am sick and tired of Hollywood letting music and soulful shots of people in buses or walking in the rain stand in for thoughtful dialog and resonant character development. I felt like this was written with a big crayon on butcher paper.
And before anyone says, "Oh well, he's never been through that, he has no idea," let me preemptively respond (joke, see?) with the fact that au contraire, I have so been there and it was nothing like what was portrayed in this horrible excuse for entertainment.
Bleah. An hour and thirty-some-odd minutes of my life sucked down a boring, shallow, tube of trite clichés. I would recommend stabbing yourself in the eye with a fork over wasting your precious life with this steaming pile of excrement.
OK. My sweetie-pie says I should perhaps give an accurate review and not just trash the movie with both hands and feet. So here is my more thoughtful consideration: It was basically a limp, half-hearted attempt at mixing a Seth-Rogen-style comedy with a tear-jerker-movie-of- the-week. It's probably not as horrible as a 3 (I mean I gave Planet of the Apes a 5), but I felt I had to balance out all the 9 and 10 reviews this got. I mean really? WTF? 10? That's a ringer review right there. Companies can buy those reviews, or maybe it's someone who worked on the movie or something. No one in their right mind would give this thing more than a 6, 6.5 at the very absolute most.
So, yeah.