Steineded How sad is this?

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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.

namashi_1 Adapted from the book of the same name by Stephen McCauley, 'The Object of My Affection' rests on a great, novel idea, but somehow it falters, in its execution. Its certainly a decent film with good performances, but the idea deserved more.'The Object of My Affection' Synopsis: A pregnant New York social worker begins to develop romantic feelings for her gay best friend, and decides she'd rather raise her child with him, much to the dismay of her overbearing boyfriend.'The Object of My Affection' is about finding comfort in a partner, despite their sexuality. The protagonist here, pregnant & rather lonely, finds comfort & commitment in a gay man, to whom, she offers to father her child. Now, that's a different way of looking at things, but its a great concept. The clichés of the hero & heroine are done away here & what is served here is a tale of love, despite both the sexes ever indulging sexually. However, 'The Object of My Affection' is hurdled by an erratic Screenplay. The Late/Great Wendy Wasserstein's Adapted Screenplay stagnates after a point. Of course, the lighthearted tone is wonderfully maintained & the film begins very well, but you wish the Writer had opted for a little more. The final 30-minutes, in particular, aren't impressive enough. I wanted more of the interaction between the unlikely couple, rather than newer characters & their importance. Nicholas Hytner's Direction is fine. Cinematography is excellent. Editing is alright. Art & Costume Design are perfect. George Fenton's Score is passable.Performance-Wise: Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd are in complete form. Aniston is natural to the core & makes you feel for her love towards a man who isn't attracted to her, while Rudd is magic as her companion, who also loves her, but just not the way she expects. Their on-screen chemistry, also, is easy. John Pankow is first-rate. Veterans Allison Janney & Alan Alda are adequate. Steve Zahn has a very small role, but he's effective, as always.On the whole, 'The Object of My Affection' isn't as brave as it should've been, nonetheless, its a breezy watch.

Python Hyena The Object of My Affection (1998): Dir: Nicholas Hytner / Cast: Jennifer Aniston, Paul Rudd, Alan Alda, Allison Janney, Tim Daly: Dreary romantic comedy offering insight on relationships between people who cannot love each other in the manner they expect. It really regards the inner person we truly love about individuals whom we know well. Jennifer Aniston is pregnant and asks her live in friend to help her raise the baby. He puts together plays for children, to take his mind off a recently bad relationship. Directed with insight by Nicholas Hytner who previously made The Madness of King George. Here he demonstrates the gap between two people who could be romantically compatible had it not been for the fact that their sexual preferences prevent it. That in itself sounds fine except that it is thrown into a pathetic formula driven screenplay that reduces it all to a by-the-numbers fiasco. Paul Rudd is believable as Aniston's homosexual friend who offers support. Aniston struggles with affection that cannot be returned. This cannot end in union as hinted throughout the screenplay. In flat supporting roles are Alan Alda and Allison Janney who can certainly do better with broader material. Interesting setup with relationships reduced to predictable formula. Theme of acceptance and love is given an interesting viewpoint but the film is more dull than funny. Score: 5 / 10

flamesnoopy Probably tells much about this film, when I say I have only seen a couple of better romantic comedies. The characters are portrayed excellently, the plot is great, everything works. The one thing that didn't work for me was the ending.As said earlier, the characters are great, and every one of the actors do a good job portraying their own; Jennifer Aniston pulls out one of her best performances, if not even the best. When ever I have seen Paul Rudd, he has pulled out a good effort, as is now. The side characters are interesting, yet aren't shown too much. This, along the fact that it makes you laugh at least a few times, has a couple of magnificent scenes, and so on, make it very worth a while experience, a memorable two hours or so to spend on a movie. I'd encourage everyone, everyone to give it a shot.8.1/10

Gruesome Glamour My guilty-pleasure enjoyment of Hollywood romantic comedies is just one of the things that ostracizes me from the rest of the populace. Because I know the type of person who quietly watches something like a Sandra Bullock movie and thinks about tying Denis Leary up so we can fully iron out the terms of our rocky relationship (if it wasn't rocky, it wouldn't be a "comedy" now would it?), and demanding security in his commitment before I continue with the wining and dining process, is not typically the same type of person who enjoys watching horror films for the love of art. That's me, flaws and all. I am a freak full of vigor, but darn it- I want total control. That's why this kind of movie makes me all noodle-like. I'm too wishy-washy (like that pioneer of discontent, Charlie Brown before me) to tell the world that this is not the way things should be. The lives Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd lead in this movie are the result of not having the guts to tell other people what they want. They still get what they want, which is the product of the Happy Ending disease of Hollywood cinema. But do I really have to sit and watch them talk and talk, without just coming out and saying: "this is what I want"? I hope that's not too cryptic.Anyway, the answer to that question is: yes. I have to sit and watch this talky movie. Not because it's a Hollywood film from a fairly homophobic studio about a gay man and his quest to become a father... with a woman having a straight man's baby. But because all the good-looking men in this movie are idiots. Except the young guy, Paul - played by the dreamy and very talented Amo Gulinello (who has since been completely buried in the cast list under a mountain of bit part players just because years later they did high-profile movies and shows). I have a theory about really good-looking men. I find almost all of them under the age of 25 only get attention for being very good looking, and then later can only combat becoming a complete moron if they are raised by really intelligent but also easy-going and honest parents. Not honest in the eyes of the world. Because, who cares what everyone else thinks? But honest in that they don't lie to or hold potentially vital information from their children.Jennifer Aniston's Nina is so flawed, her drama in the movie is barely worth discussing. Let me just say though that, while I'm sure every romantic comedy fan in the audience will shout: "you can do so much better than Vince!," meaning the character (not actor Vince Vaughn), I found John Pankow absolutely irresistible in the film. And that the type of guy he was playing was not given a fair chance to prove his sensitivity in the first 50 or so minutes of the movie. And why is that? Because Aniston could never tell him what she wanted. You may feel the urge to bring up the scene where she tells him that is his fault. But, I think it's her fault. I don't usually blame the woman, but in this movie I'm blaming George and Nina as a couple for the problems they encountered. Because together, they had the perfect excuse to never be honest. It would hurt the other's feelings. I'll bet that was the reason.Anyway, when watching would-be serious movies, I like to pick a character to identify with. In this movie, I wanted to be George. Not because I have ever cried thinking: "why can't I be a father" (thank God for that). But because I haven't had any luck in love and could easily see the attraction to a guy like Tim Daly's character. A pretty obvious manipulator. Other than intense good looks, he wouldn't keep his mouth shut about something even if he thought he'd swallow his shoe if he left it open. He's reliable and predictable. And God, that's what I want in a lover. I like surprises, but they also scare me. Again- I want total control. This kind of movie is not for people like me. But it is enough seeds to be able to make something grow out of it. As a piece of film-making, it's at least better crafted than a huge slew of modern Hollywood romantic movies. As formula, it's quite sloppy at times. But it mistakes its way into, I think, portraying George's new relationship with a younger guy with a sweet wild streak that makes me smile. It's not a movie that will challenge you to think much, but it won't hurt your face by making you frown too much either.