IMDb > Intolerable Cruelty (2003) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Intolerable Cruelty
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Intolerable Cruelty More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 8 of 33: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
Index 326 reviews in total 

so near...so far...

5/10
Author: Napoleon386
23 February 2004

Some of the dialogue - especially the court room scenes - and the visual gags - the wheezy Joe section - are so good that it's a shame that the film as a whole is weak - underdeveloped characters and poor structure mar what could have been a true classic. 5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

Not a bad movie but...

5/10
Author: electra-2 from Athens, Greece
22 February 2004

...I wonder what this film would have been without Clooney and Zeta-Jones. The story weakens as the time passes and although the beginning was very catching, the end didn't stand up to my expectations. However, I enjoyed it as I usually enjoy romantic comedies. I only wish Geoffrey Rush's part was bigger as he's a fine actor and could have added a lot to the movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

the jokes were a mile a minute, only if you got it

Author: bbbl67 from Ottawa, Canada
16 February 2004

I watched this movie with friends, and I could barely find time to stop laughing and catch my breath before the next joke was already upon me.

But then I looked over at some of my friends who were watching it with me, and what a stark contrast -- it was like as if crickets were chirping in their heads! They just wore the politest smiles on their faces, but you could tell they weren't getting it. I don't know what it takes for someone to "get this" movie, but for those of us who do get it, this is one of the best movies I've ever seen. There's a lot of lawyer jokes; the scene where Clooney has to go visit the senior partner in the firm has just got to be seen to be believed -- it's like he's going to meet god ... or the devil, he's not quite sure.

Was the above review useful to you?

A romantic comedy for evil people

Author: AllMT3
13 February 2004

You know the drill: Miles Massey, the most evil divorce attorney in the world, meets Marilyn Rexroth, the most evil multiple divorcee in the world, and they fall in love (or something resembling it) while trying to outmaneuver each other.

My two cents worth: Anyone who says this movie is awful is missing the point. It's not supposed to be taken as a serious romantic comedy. The story I heard (granted, this may be a rumor with nothing concrete supporting it) is that the studio had a script that was SO BAD they couldn't do anything with it. So they gave it to the Coen brothers to rip apart. When viewed from this perspective, this is a perfect spoof of every bad romantic comedy that I've ever been forced to see, from the cheesy acting by the pretty yet vacant leads to the over-earnest "I've seen the light" speech towards the end to the "supposed to be funny but aren't really" supporting characters. Is it cliched? Yeah. BUT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. The icing on the cake is making the two leads not the "gosh darn wonderful" people that most romantic comedies have (or try and make you believe the main characters are) but instead centering the story around two people so morally bankrupt that almost any sane real-life individual would run away screaming into the night upon meeting them.

Bottom line: If you have a wicked sense of humor and a firm hatred for 95% of the romantic comedies out there, this is for you.

Recommendations: A great romantic movie that stays out of cliche ville is "Before Sunrise." A good completely cliched, yet still funny romantic comedy is "Miss Congeniality". "Down With Love" is another romantic comedy spoof, but if you're only familiar with post 1970's rom-coms this isn't as funny.

Was the above review useful to you?

Light Aimless Comedy

7/10
Author: mwendel (mr.michael.wendel@gmail.com) from Kings Park, NY
9 February 2004

George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones take us on a humorous parody about gold-digging wives, divorce lawyers, and the commercialization of marriage. The movie is somewhat under-developed in my opinion with a thinly disguised plot that manages to barely keep itself together throughout the course of the movie.

It seems like the movie either needed to be longer or the scenes shorter and less drawn out. I definitely felt some lag time during some of the scenes. There was something un-cohesive about the finished product that I couldn't quite put my finger on.

The dialogue isn't bad and I think Clooney and Jones were excellent, taking into consideration what they had to work with. There were entertaining supporting cameos from Cedric the Entertainer, Geoffrey Rush, and Edward Herrmann. And the movie had too much ham support from Paul Adelstein.

When its all said and done its a film good for a few laughs, Clooney fans, Jones fans, and for killing a couple hours when you have the time.

Was the above review useful to you?

In search of an editor

5/10
Author: Edgar Soberon Torchia (estorchia@gmail.com) from Panama
22 December 2003

What a strange mix of satire, slapstick and drama, not to mention elements of screwball, film noir, social drama and horror film. While the screwball heroines of yesterday –as bitchy, chicken-headed and cruel as they could be- ended as endearing characters, Catherine Zeta-Jones' is barely redeemed by the Coens. Still, a failed Coen film is better than the usual offer in cinemas. (Will the brothers ever let someone else cut their films?)

Was the above review useful to you?

Coen for king!

8/10
Author: Thomas Honoré Nielsen from Varde, Denmark
5 December 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It is blatantly obvious from most critique of this movie that the Coen brothers are nowhere near the fame they earn. They *are* a weird couple and by all means an acquired taste - their names should've been spray painted across the move posters. One third love them, the other 9/8's hate'em and knowing this they should have been properly warned either not to go or to at least go with another set of expectations For this is indeed a Coen brothers movie. For som fifteen minutes I was afraid that they had grown up and spawned an almost well behaved romance but luckily some sixteen minutes after the film had begun I could relax and amuse myself in true Coen cinema ad abundance. Satiric comments on modern society from the one edge to another. Okay, not all trees grow that high... There were a few flaws and one major one. The slapstick was a little bit too much and the jokes simply not up to it.

*** Possible minor spoiler *** Worse, though. Much worse, indeed, than this was the fact that it has a nervewreckingly happy end. Why not let Marilyn draw the long straw, keep the prenup and have Massey try and penetrate it. That would have been fun.

- Thomas Nielsen

Was the above review useful to you?

Hollywood production style with Coen motifs and dialogue.

7/10
Author: samantha67-1 from Kalamazoo
4 December 2003

You can certainly see that things were left out in order to make this film more accessible. For example, I feel that the Coens would of taken the "unable to achieve an erection" utterance by Ollie to a much higher level; as in possibly another major character (Howard D.? Miles?) would of had the same problem. Another is the small bits of Massey talking about the futility of a large amount of money and how useless Earthly possessions are in the grand scheme. Also the train (CHOO! CHOO!) obsession that Rex Rexroth had was only touched on slightly, possibly three times altogether. I may be digging a little deep here, but the little dialogue bits and humorous situations generally populating a Coen film were lacking here; what we did get consists of "You're exposed! A sitting duck!" and "Nail. Yo. Ass.". Not very funny compared to "How's my hair!?" or the ever popular "You know, for kids!". I may just be unwilling to accept the Coens being unable to consistently score big funnies in their films, but something was certainly absent; it's as though the Ethan and Joel magic was diluted. Diluted by what, we shall never know. I have faith that their new projects will be ever stronger for the large paycheck they hopefully got along with Clooney and Jones for this film. All told, not a bad film, certainly see it. Just don't expect Fargo or even O'Brother type action.

Was the above review useful to you?

Lacked entertainment value

6/10
Author: raymond-15 from Australia
24 November 2003

I was so unimpressed by this movie that some days later as I start my review I find it difficult to recall any substance to the film which somewhat surprises me because the Coen brothers are so well-known and have a large following. I might have known that something was amiss when I discovered that my partner and I were the only people present in the theatre at the 4 PM session. Yet this was advertised as a **** film. Can you ever trust the publicity?

The sets were great....modern, clear-cut, accurate to the minutist detail, and wonderfully portrayed by the camera. Catherine Zeta-Jones had not a hair out of place as the much married much separated calculating woman much addicted to the American dollar. George Clooney too was immaculate as the lawyer in search of monied clients. Basically a comedy, it started well with the promise of more to come. The movie exposed some nasty home truths about the corporate high flyers and women in search of luxury.

As the film progressed the scenes turned to absolute farce with predictable outcomes. A woman with a large dog gets into an elevator. Clooney reaches down to pat the dog and gets bitten. In another scene Clooney and an associate are searching with torches through a dimly lit apartment and bump into each other in the darkness. Goodness me! Can't we have something more original? Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were doing this sort of thing sixty years ago!

So what did the film lack?

With such capable actors and good direction, this comedy romance should have been a memorable experience, but it was sadly lacking in laughs, originality and entertainment. Sorry Mr. Coen. Better luck next time!

Was the above review useful to you?

All that glitters,is definitely not Gold !!

5/10
Author: DeadManWalking (ahad_rana@hotmail.com) from Lahore, Pakistan
24 November 2003

Watching snaps and trailers is often misleading.Intolerable Cruelty parelleled that notion.It was more of a pomp and show with nothing deep.I did'nt make me laugh.For once the Coen Brothers have dissappointed.George Clooney was at his best,as he was in Oceans Eleven.For once I could see in him a replacement for Clark Gable if they ever thought to remake IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT.All in all,Coen Brothers have dissappointed.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 8 of 33: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history