Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Nikita Wannenburgh It was a decent movie, but not brilliant. Cons:It was rushed. Considering that the story actually needed quite a lot of time to make the romance realistic, timing was essential; and they didn't quite get it right. It was admittedly predictable and cheesy; with a few silly/unbelievable moments. This is Nicholas Sparks, however, and you're gonna get clichés, stereotypes, and cheese, although none pull it off so well as The Notebook; which brings me to suggesting you watch that if you want a truly beautiful, romantic film.The dialogue was bad. Nothing was profound, and nothing was incredibly heart-wrenching.Adrienne's daughter was terribly cast. Also missing was the strong mother-daughter connection that was so present in the book. In this film they lost that; making Amanda into some lame attempt at a Goth and giving her unoriginal teenage "attitude"/rebelling that was unnecessary, annoying, and emotionally bland. Pros: Having actors like Lane and Gere in the lead roles immediately raises the quality of the film. And they both shone, with good but not amazing chemistry, and solid acting. Not everyone is Ryan and Rachel with freakin' hot chemistry that burns even in the rain, but Gere and Lane are decent and experienced actors who delivered a touching love story for adults; however unrealistic some parts of the story might be. They were definitely well-matched, and, as a personal side comment, they've both aged very well. The secondary actors were very good. Scott Glenn was brilliant, and Viola Davis as delightful and vibrant as ever.

chubbydave I don't know whether to label this movie as pathetic or hilarious. When I was watching it, I thought about how pathetic is was. But then when I started to describe a scene to someone else, I just laughed out loud.The movie is nothing more than a series of scenes each developed to generate emotions within the audience. There was one scene where Richard Gere's character was leaving. He said goodbye to Diane Lame and began to drive away. Suddenly he stopped the car, got out and ran back to embrace Diane Lame before getting in the car and driving away. And that's basically what the movie consists of: over-romanticized dramatic scenes.But the movie really tanks because there is no evidence that the romance is actually developing between the characters. They met. They spent a couple of days talking about their lives. Then they did it. Then they went to a party, ate some crabs and then danced to a live band. There's nothing in the movie to explain the feelings the characters are supposedly feeling.

juneebuggy I can see how a lot of people wouldn't like this movie, I didn't think much of it the first time I saw it either, this time around I must have just caught it in the right mood because I really enjoyed it.It is one of the weaker Nicholas Sparks books though-as is this adaption, helped along by some A-list talent in Richard Gere, Diane Lane (and several lesser roles) who do the best they can with a nothing sort of story.I'll just say it, complete chick-flick including one hell of a tear-jerker ending. Both leads do a good job especially in the beginning when we see an intense, angry and frustrated Gere and a frazzled Lane.The romance follows a Doctor travelling to see his estranged son and a woman separated from her wayward husband and managing a North Carolina Inn for her friend. It all comes together when a major storm hits the coast and the two have to hunker down in the wind and dark.The Inn is gorgeous and almost becomes a character within itself -although I had to wonder about the decision to build it so precariously on the beach. I understand it's been destroyed by a real storm since filming, no wonder. 8/28/14

John Raymond Peterson I am much at counter current with regard to the reviews and critics here and also as ratings go; the ratings are fair at best and poor overall but I'm not interested in competing with my own assessment, only to express it. Perhaps watching a string of romance pictures, a couple of years old, set my mood and perspective. I will do my best not to spoil the story as I did not read any story lines or synopsis at my usual sources that spoiled it for me, some reviews would have done so but I read those after I watch a movie. Read the IMDb full storyline and you'll have sufficient information, spoiler-free to know i the movie might appeal to you to begin with.Richard Gere is an actor I think I can be objective about because he's not a factor in my decisions to watch any of his movies; "Nights in Rodanthe" was a movie I selected because Diane Lane is an actress for who I'll admit having a bit of a crush. Granted this means a bias for the film. She is mistakenly associated almost exclusively with comedy romances, but the movies, featuring her, I most liked had not a bit of comedy in their stories; this is the case here. The movie's romance is undeniable; it's the tragedy part that you should find unexpected. The portion involving the Scott Glen character has classic drama as well.Viola Davis and Glen Scott's supporting performances are a contributing element in me maintaining firm that it is a touching tragedy and a good drama on a few levels. The location is another element influencing me; I love the Outer Banks of North Carolina and all very similar fragile areas of the East Coast of North America. Any additional commenting would spoil the experience if you haven't seen it. I won't view it again for a long while as there are far enough dramas and tragedies available for my liking. I need my Diane Lane fix now and then so perhaps I might.