KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

dantelerner First of all, I wanna say I saw this awful movie because it streamed no Netflix and it said it was a romantic comedy. Well it's not. Just because it has some "funny" jokes doesn't mean it has to be a comedy. It should be porn or something. It should be called "Sex and crying then more sex and more they end up together". 3 stars for Barb. 1 for George Segal. 1 for Lauren Bacall.

imdb_rater I admit this movie has flaws. It gets a bit too standard rom-com in its last 3rd, and I don't think many male viewers can (or want to) relate to a lead who nearly faints each time he encounters an attractive female. I agree also with other reviewers writing this film is a vanity project of Streisand (e.g. the reaction of the male students after she loses some pounds and wears nicer clothes - c'mon!). On the other hand, the film just does so many things right that it ends up being very enjoyable (that is, if you like romantic comedies). The dialogue is smart, there are a lot of funny scenes, and especially the great chemistry between Streisand and Bridges as well as Streisand and Bacall stands out. Bacall steals every scene she is in and has the best one-liners, Bridges and Streisand also do a great job. I especially liked the scenes somewhere in the middle of the film, where both of them get more intimate (which is actually quite hot), followed by an argument. This argument just feels so rough and real. This more toned down acting is where Streisand really shines. It is also nice how Bridges comes to realize how much he misses his wife whilst he travels, which has nothing to do with how she changes her appearance later on. So it's not the typical ugly duckling story, where the male lead only shows interest after she turned into a swan (he actually rejects the swan - as probably much of the audience will do - we want the 'old Rose' back!). This is a nice contrast to Brosnan's character, whom he portrays as a wonderfully shallow, simple-minded pretty face. Unfortunately, in trying to wrap things up, the film becomes a rather formulaic rom-com with cheesy ending. A bit more of fine-tuning by another director (removing the Streisand-vanity-scenes and the sometimes too strong female wishful thinking) could have made it a great flick. For me though, the acting (of the entire cast) and many funny and witty lines save this movie to be still well above average.

cskoog We see lots of romantic comedies, and this one has left the most rancid aftertaste since Moonstruck or one of the ones with Hugh Grant. It is artificial and contrived, as well as simultaneously polemical and narcissistic. We stayed with it for one reason only: Jeff Bridges. His performance is in fact whole-hearted and engaging, even though he is given a character upon whose implausibility the entire film depends. Streisand's limitations as an actress are painful to watch, and Bacall somehow seems aware that she is playing her part in a Streisand vanity project. The actress cast as Streisand's sister (the pretty one of the two), is not really beautiful enough to justify Streisand's character's angst, which makes it all even more fishy, as does the paper cut out role given Pierce Brosnan.

fedor8 Where do I even f****** begin with this piece of trash?First of all, this formulaic garbage for lonely middle-aged spinsters features two of the most notorious witches (you can also replace the "w" with a "b") in the history of Hollywood, two arrogant, unlikable ogres: Streisand and Bacall. Streisand, the ugliest major actress for so many decades now (although Aniston, Barrymore, and Tea Leoni are hot on her heels) has made yet another self-indulgent piece of crap. The movie isn't about love in general, it's specifically about Barbra's undying, limitless and infinite love toward herself - though like most narcissists, that is probably largely based on a deeply repressed sense of low self-worth. (Aren't I a great from-the-distance psycho-analyst?) In this dumb movie she is supposed to be younger than Mimi Rogers, which is so extremely pathetic that it isn't even funny any more. In reality Mimi is FOURTEEN YEARS younger than the old the-way-we-were Marxist hag. In fact, Rogers looks 20 years younger, simply because ugly women like Streisand always look automatically older than they are. And anyway, even though Mimi is nothing to shout about (apart from the phenomenal breasts) she is a goddess next to Streisand, hence if they're to play sisters, I demand an explanation in the plot as to what DNA screw-up happened when their parents were making Barbra, having previously (ha-ha) made a normal-looking human female.Equally pathetic/funny/ridiculous is the fact that Barbra gets to smooch with Pierce Brosnan and Jeff Bridges, two guys who would in reality sooner vomit on her ugly nose than kiss it. Pierce, the most effeminate Bond ever, looks like a school-girl next to this Loch-Ness monster. The two of them kissing and flirting was like something perverse straight out of a manga comic or something. I was half-expecting her to grow tentacles out of her breasts and choke Pierce with them. Of course that would be a dumb horror film, but that would be much better than a cheesy romantic comedy that is just as predictable as one would expect. It was predictable that it would be predictable.Bridges is 7 years younger than our singing ghoul, and Brosnan is a whole 10 years her junior. What a strange way for Barbedwira to want to appeal to audiences: by showing yourself to be a deluded egomaniac! There is an unintentionally funny scene in which Bridges lists why he is so attracted to Barbra: he says something like "I love her eyes... her mouth... " and at this point he made a pause as if he were thinking about the nose! Of course, he doesn't mention the nose, as I'm sure that anyone on the set of any BS movie would get torn to shreds if they so much as even mention the "n" word. Bridges, whom I don't consider to be great actor (merely solid), should have gotten an Oscar for this role, and both him and Brosnan deserved no less than a Purple Heart each for the bravery they showed in the face of such... a face.It's pretty ironic that this overlong snooze-fest is based on a 1958 French film, because in French movies we usually have a 50 year-old man ogling and eventually molesting a 14 year-old girl (the French viewers apparently love that pedophilic stuff).The movie was made in 1996... Hmmm... Where did Barbedwira get the confidence, the CHEEK, to make this kind of embarrassing, self-adoring crap? Could it be due to her alleged brief romance with tennis star Andre Agassi, which was only a few years earlier around 1992? Did this romance give her the courage she needed to make "The Mirror Has Two Faces"? Of course, it's very easy for us to laugh at Barbra in hindsight; after all, she didn't know back then that Andre is attracted to big-nosed uglies! (Hence his marriage with the hideous Steffi Graf.)