input: I have a 5 minute rule (sometimes I'll leave leway for 10). If a movie is not good in the first 5 or 10 minutes it's probably not going to ever get better. I have yet to experience any movie that has proved to contest this theory. Dan in Real Life is definitely no exception. I was watching this turkey and thought; wow, this is not funny, not touching, not sad, and I don't like any of the characters at all.

The story of an advice columnist/widower raising three young daughters, who falls in love with his brothers girlfriend. I suppose the tagline would be "advice columnist who could USE advice"? I don't know. Dans character in no way struck me as someone qualified to give advice. I guess THAT'S the irony? I don't know. He goes to see his parents, brothers, sisters and their kids at some sort of anual family retreat, which seems very sweet, and potential fodder for good comedy, story lines...none which ever emerge. The central story is basically how he loves this woman, but can't have her. Anyone with a pulse will realise that eventually he WILL get her, but you have to suffer through painfully unfunny, trite, lifetime movie network dialogue "murderer of love" to get to the inevitable happy ending.

This is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Dear me. Where do I start? The dad isn't anywhere near old enough to be the girl's dad. He corpses on camera in the first 5 minutes of the film. The favoured exclamation in this film is "Jesus Christ!!!". Zombies are agile, stupid and few and far between. Motives are utterly incomprehensible and a narrative does not exist. People 'rush' to their destination in jeeps driven at 3 MPH. The world seems to be carrying on as normal yet these are supposed to be the end days. Breasts appear for the sake of breasts. Normally such an approach would provide some redemption but the rest of the film actually made me uninterested in breasts or the future of humanity. There's a dog for no reason and thin, orange blood that turns the stomach. The General and his catchphrase of "Shut the f**k up!" is the only redeeming feature. As for the rest, I sincerely hope to hear that they had done the decent thing and killed themselves.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: In fact, it never was. I'm not sure why Billy Crystal wanted to recreate a 1940s screwball comedy. What a vacuous shambles! None of these people come close to a Cary Grant, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, etc, and anyway, today's audience isn't as receptive to this facile muck. Writing is trivial. The hackneyed plot is razor thin and obvious. The chemistry between the leading characters is non-existent. It's interesting that Julia Roberts seems to think she's a reincarnation of some big star from the "golden age of Hollywood", whenever that may be. It's an effect she tries and fails to attain yet again with Richard Gere in Runaway Bride.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative