Q: I was gifted with this movie as it had such a great premise, the friendship of three women bespoiled by one falling in love with a younger man.

Intriguing.

NOT! I hasten to add. These women are all drawn in extreme caricature, not very supportive of one another and conspiring and contriving to bring each other down.

Anna Chancellor and Imelda Staunton could do no wrong in my book prior to seeing this, but here they are handed a dismal script and told to balance the action between slapstick and screwball, which doesn't work too well when the women are all well known professionals in a very small town.

And for intelligent women they spend a whole pile of time bemoaning the lack of men/sex/lust in their lives. I felt much more could have been made of it given a decent script and more tension, the lesbian sub-plot went nowhere and those smoking/drinking women (all 3 in their forties???) were very unrealistic - even in the baby scene - screw the baby, gimme a cigarette! Right.

Like I said, a shame of a waste. 4 out of 10.
A: negative
Q: This movie was awful. The ending was absolutely horrible. There was no plot to the movie whatsoever. The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones. Their performances were excellent! The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...or lack thereof. Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....well an actual movie...not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. There was nothing special about any of the characters. The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, I sat amazed...amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. It never happened! The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. It wasn't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's it. It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation. How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)? The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie.
A: negative
Q: It's a real challenge to make a movie about a baby being devoured by wild canines and the mother being wrongly accused of murder funny but against all odds this one succeeds. Meryl Streep gives the performance of her life, melodramatic, overwrought but with that comic genius that keeps you laughing even as a mother struggles with the ultimate horror.

If comedies about the infants being eaten by dogs are not your cup of tea you might be uncomfortable watching this and, yes, it is an odd choice of topic for a farce but really very little of the movie has anything to do with that as it focuses on giving Streep a showcase for her Aussie accent and facial contortions.

Throwing in a slam at media bias and sensationalism and disregard for either the truth or ethics gives the movie the chance to make the daring point that those things are bad.
A: negative
Q: If my expectations weren't exceeded, they were certainly met. "Nancy Drew" works both as a mystery and a comedy. It pays homage to the books it was based on and spoofs them at the same time. The movie starts with a close-up on a book shelf and an animated credit sequence resembling illustrations from the books. It then begins lampooning the books immediately. Writer/director Andrew Fleming seems to realize the idea of a teenage girl regularly breaking up crime rings in a small town is ridiculous, so he doesn't treat the idea religiously. He pokes fun at Nancy Drew's ability to do anything, such as ace every class in school, know which baked treat is perfect for converting any enemy to her side, make a bird house with twelve flying buttresses, and even perform an emergency tracheotomy at a party. Nancy'd always be in perfect style, if she were living in the wholesome 1950's instead of present day L.A. And she carries around a "sleuth kit" complete with fingerprinting dust, flashlight, compass, and magnifying glass. Preposterous, of course, but I seem to remember the Hardy Boys' access at any given moment to CSI equipment being a little too convenient as well. And if the perky pipsqueak private eye is a little younger than her literary counterpart, it's just more comedic exaggeration on the movie's part.

The mystery of the movie is handled more seriously. Nancy and her lawyer father move from their small town to Los Angeles, where Nancy digs into a cold case involving the murder of a Hollywood movie star who lived in her new house decades ago. Nancy searches for clues in some pretty practical ways, such as surfing websites like Google and this one and watching old videotapes of the victim's movies. When she does something more out of the ordinary, you have to admire the girl's resourcefulness. Emma Roberts, an undeniably cute kid, plays the pint-sized amateur sleuth beautifully. She makes the too-perfect girl completely lovable, if not completely realistic. Tate Donovan is also great as the too-perfect girl's father, Carson Drew. He's an ideal father figure without being unrealistically perfect, and he shows reasonable concern for his daughter as she gets into danger. Less likable is Max Thierot's take on Ned Nickerson, Nancy's boyfriend. I much preferred George O'Hanlon Jr.'s portrayal in the 1970's TV series starring Pamela Sue Martin as Nancy Drew, in which Ned was a gawky, awkward kid with a little crush on Nancy. The character of Corky (Josh Flitty), a twelve-year old with a crush on Nancy, is much less annoying than Max Thierot's Ned. Amy Bruckner and Kay Panabaker seem appropriately cast as Nancy's gal pals Bess and George, but they only make brief cameos at the beginning of the film.

Speaking of cameos, Chris Kattan (SNL), Eddie Jemison ("Ocean's 13"), and Bruce Willis all make surprise guest appearances, which just proves you never can guess which movie Bruce Willis will pop up in next.

The movie does fail to live up to some potential. It's mentioned early on that the Drews' new house is heavily booby-trapped, but Nancy and her father are done with tripping over booby traps a few minutes after that. Also, Nancy describes the cold case she's about to investigate as a murder taking place at an extravagant party, which should yield plenty of potential murderers, but she only encounter a handful of suspects. And while there's some moments of real suspense during Nancy's adventures, the solution to the case comes out of nowhere, and in the end all possible plot threads are tied up too conveniently and who-cares-who-done-it. Ralph Sall's score adds to the movie's suspense, but the contemporary teenybopper songs woven into the soundtrack are lame. Still, I really enjoyed this film, and while the movie is aimed primarily at tween girls, people of any age and gender can enjoy it.
A: positive