|Page 1 of 24:||          |
|Index||240 reviews in total|
So many people have already written reviews of this movie, which has been out for five years now, that I am not going to go into detail about the plot, or the acting, or whether the storyline is predictable, or how cute Ty Posey was. I am merely going to say that I watched it tonight for the first time with my 13-year old daughter and we both enjoyed it immensely. I found Jennifer Lopez a bit stiff in places, but overall she handled the role well. I do not understand why so many people had problems with Ralph Finnes in this movie, I found him not only believable but incredibly sexy, and I hope he gets the opportunity to do more romantic comedies! Bob Hoskins stole every scene he was in. Stanley Tucci chewed scenery. Natasha Richardson was suitably selfish and blonde. New York was lovely. The dog overacted shamelessly. The movie was not perfect, but it was delightful. The only wrong note was the series of magazine covers at the end, showing what happened to the characters; it was much too "cute" and rather unbelievable (all three of her maid friends become hotel managers?) And I was rather disappointed that - for all the film's brave talk of crossing social barriers - the movie ends with nothing more than a magazine cover with the headline "A year later, they are still together". I felt cheated.
So you'll know where I'm coming from, some of my favorite movies are "Parent Trap," "Father of the Bride," "Kate & Leopold." If you like these kinds of movies that leave you feeling good and happy about life, then you'll enjoy this tastefully done movie as well. I could have done without a certain scene between the two, but this movie has a lot to offer, and has a moral to teach as well. It has strong characters of positive principles, and there's even an "older man mentor," like from "Pretty Women," that adds that wholesome touch to the film.
I just saw the movie and checked IMDb right away, where I found that this movie only had a score of 4.6 which I find to little. Why? There are some reasons. But first, when I watched this movie I knew always what was going to come, you can see in advance where the movie is going to. This is why I think the movie gets such low score. Unjust I feel, when you go to see this movie or rent it, I assume you know that it's a romantic movie? By the title of the movie you could very much assume that it's a feel good movie. So when you bring these 2 together you pretty much know what's gonna happen if you read the back of the movie box. Why rent it then? For it's purpose, it makes you feel good. Two people falling in love is always a nice thing and seeing how they cross boundary's for that love is even nicer. Thus I think that the movie succeeded in what he was made for. To give people the romance and the good feeling. Go see this movie with your girl/boyfriend if he or she doesn't dislike this kind of movies and sure you will feel happier about your own relationship as well. Because there is nothing heavy about this movie. That's what makes it so good in his genre. Do not watch this movie for super acting skills (although I do not dislike the acting). Do not go and see him for the directors special thricks to tell you things. Go see this movie for the romance and positive note and for sure you will not be disappointed.
It might not be Oscar material, but it is a cute movie - so if you like Jennifer Lopez or wants to spend an evening on the sofa with your girlfriend, this movie is a good choice. Nice acting from all parts and a cool soundtrack with Norah Jones.
The story? Cliché, cliché, cliché, the umpteenth remake of Cinderella
with not a single interesting addition. The script? Formula (and lame
at that). The cast? Jennifer Lopez's turn as Cinderella/Sabrina proves
she does not remotely belong to "rags-to-Princess" roles; she is
galaxies away from Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly (or even "Pretty
Woman" Julia Roberts), no matter how expensive the jewelry or costumes
she wears. Ralph Fiennes seems to be on an O.D. of Prozac, with a
perennial foolish smile on his face, wishing he were Cary (or even
Hugh!) Grant -- shame to see a talented actor in such a puffy role.
Natasha Richardson is wasted in the obligatory dumb blonde part,
Stanley Tucci hams it up irritatingly, Bob Hoskins knows and shows his
role is an embarrassment. On a less negative note, kid Tyler Posey is a
real charmer, and manages to survive his "cutie" part. The direction?
Well, no doubt Wayne Wang is a professional and I hope he was paid a
LOT of money to lend his prestigious name to this fluffy cake - I only
wish the word "professionalism" were taken more seriously, as in
"professional integrity"...Where is the Wayne Wang that directed the
surrealistic "Life is Cheap...But Toilet Paper is Expensive" and the
Sit through this only if you are in a hypoglycemic fit; otherwise watch "Sabrina" once again and marvel at real star power, witty dialog and charm to spare!
This is a warm-heated story with a predictable plot. It may not be a
great film, but but it is good entertainment. And the highlight of the
movie may be hidden in a soliloquy, rather than revealed at the end.
Every good story offers hope and this film delivers that. Its
characters also experience transformation thanks to several
easily-overlooked defining moments. So watch and enjoy the film for
entertainment. Then watch it again, and again, for the pleasure of
discovering the tapestry of truths it contains.
This is every bit as good a film as "The Wedding Planner" and Fiennes portrays a politico who learns the world doesn't revolve around himself. To some that might seem like fantasy, but it doesn't detract from the story. The supporting cast is a delightful menagerie. And perhaps the best role is that of Lionel Bloch, played by Bob Hoskins, who portrayed Smee in "Hook."
This isn't just another chick flick. And guys may need a few Kleenex. They will definitely be glad that Jennifer Lopez didn't wear another dress.
So it's Cinderella. It's hard to imagine why that would bother anyone
who'd seen the trailer, by the time you sit down to watch the movie you
know the plot.
I may be the last person on earth to see Jennifer Lopez outside the checkout line. She's not bad looking but didn't impress me all that greatly as an actress, but she did tell the story. This may be a light- weight role for Fiennes (duh!) but I thought he carried it off well. The kid (Ty) was great, and Bob Hoskins was wonderful.
I think Pygmalian (Pretty Woman) is a better story, and Julia Roberts is obviously head and shoulders above Jennifer Lopez, but I certainly don't regret adding it to my Netflix queue!
I can understand Jennifer Lopez being in this stupid piece of fluff that has no point, but why, oh WHY were the other actors in it? Three great British actors: Ralph Fiennes, Natasha Richardson, Bob Hoskins - I know they can do better than this! J-Lo was good in the Wedding Planner, but watching this movie made me realize what a lousy actress she really is. The story is one that's been told a hundred thousand times - and has been done a hundred thousand times better. There was nothing new here, no new ideas, not even a good laugh. They call it a romantic comedy, but it's not. It's J-Lo pouting for two hours. Ralph and Natasha try to throw in some comedic elements, but they're stuck with really unfunny lines (Natasha's "I've been dumped" speech for one). Bob Hoskins has the one good speech in the entire film, but even he can't save it. Why was he in it? Why? I don't think we'll ever know.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I remember seeing this in the cinemas back in 2002 and my mom dragged
me to see it. I of course thought that it was going to be so stupid but
I decided to check it out. I also recorded in on VHS a few years back
and I saw it on TV loads of times. Its about a single parent(maybe
divorced) who has an adorable son named Ty(this reminds me of that 2007
film Enchanted with its cute frothy plot and the single parent in love
with a dude who has a high up job).
One day Marisa( Jennifer Lopez) is so friggin stupid she decides to try on someone elses clothes(Oh the horror LOL) when all of a sudden smiley politician Chris comes in sees her in these expensive clothes,thinks she's a guest but she's not and to top it all off she uses a new idenity Caroline(is this guy so blind or stupid as he saw her in the loo and his all lovey doupy with her guess so).
The romance between Ralph Fiennes and Jennifer Lopez is kinda dull as there is no spark like in other rom coms like Enchanted where Amy & Patrick had great chemistry in that film or any other rom com. Some scenes were kinda dull like the maddox scene with the dancing was poor,if there was a better song and some better choreography it might have been better.
The only think I enjoyed in this film was the ending where the two would be lovers end up being together in the end.
If you love frothy rom coms and cheesy plots then check it out.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Was Jennifer Lopez going through an "I want to be Julia Roberts" phase
in 2002? That was the year in which she made "Enough", a shameless
rip-off of "Sleeping with the Enemy" and followed it up with "Maid in
Manhattan", which bears a certain resemblance to another Roberts film,
Like "Pretty Woman", this is a romantic comedy based upon a "poor girl loves rich man" storyline. The poor girl is Marisa Ventura, a divorcée with a ten-year-old son working as a maid in a smart Manhattan hotel. The rich man is Christopher Marshall, scion of a wealthy family and senatorial candidate staying as a guest in the hotel. Chris is, unexpectedly, a Republican, a detail presumably inserted in a bid to dispel those persistent rumours that Hollywood's main function is to act as the Democratic Party's amen corner. The two meet and are attracted to one another, but, owing to a misunderstanding, Chris believes that Marisa is Caroline Lane, a wealthy British socialite who is another guest at the hotel. Chris invites "Caroline Lane" to lunch, but he is confused when the real Caroline shows up instead of Marisa. Further complications ensue, including the real Caroline taking a fancy to Chris and Marisa losing her job, but this being a rom-com we know that true love will prevail in the end.
Jennifer Lopez has some dreadful films on her CV, especially the badly-written, badly-acted and thoroughly nasty "Enough", and the hilariously bad "Anaconda", a sort of fifties monster movie resurrected for the nineties. (I must admit I have never seen "Gigli", widely quoted as being the nadir of her career; if it is worse than either of those films it must be bad indeed). "Maid in Manhattan", however, is one of her better performances, not least because she enunciates all her lines clearly, something which is not always the case with her, and makes Marisa- hard-working, determined and caring- a very likable heroine.
Rather surprisingly, Ralph Fiennes, who is often at his best playing villainous characters as in "Schindler's List" or "The Duchess", makes an equally likable hero. The rather reserved Chris seems more like an English gentleman than an American politician; there is perhaps a hint that his desire for a seat in the Senate owes more to family tradition than to ideological commitment; both his father and grandfather were Senators before him. The real political animal is his frantically hyperactive spin doctor Jerry (played by Stanley Tucci, who had played a rather similar role the previous year in "America's Sweethearts"). There is an amusing, if somewhat one-dimensional, contribution from Natasha Richardson as the spoilt, bitchy Caroline. The acting honours were stolen, however, by young Tyler Posey, utterly delightful as Marisa's son Ty who plays a key role in bringing his mother and Chris together. Ty is a budding intellectual who has become something of an expert on the 1970s, especially the presidency of Richard Nixon.
I don't think that "Maid in Manhattan" is as good as "Pretty Woman", which had rather more in the way of character development and psychological depth. Garry Marshall's film gained a bit of extra edge by making its heroine a prostitute and its hero a businessman suffering a crisis of conscience about his less-than-ethical business methods. Marisa and Chris, by comparison, are just a bit too nice right from the beginning. Yet the film, as a whole, is an enjoyable one, if not a particularly original one. Besides "Pretty Woman" it also owes a debt to the Audrey Hepburn/Humphrey Bogart "Sabrina" and to countless other films, plays, novels and stories all the way back to "Cinderella" and beyond. Yet this lack of originality does not necessarily matter in a romantic comedy; the genre, after all, is a highly formulaic one which relies upon a few well-worn plots. What matters is the way in which the basic idea is developed, and "Maid in Manhattan" handles its theme with wit and humour. It's not exactly a realistic film either, but then rom-coms were never intended to be exercises in realism. It will provide enjoyable viewing for anyone looking for something romantic and escapist. 6/10
|Page 1 of 24:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|