IMDb > Mr. Deeds (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Mr. Deeds
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 guidemessage board
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
Mr. Deeds More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 31:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 302 reviews in total 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Why, Winona?

2/10
Author: mironto from Slovakia
8 November 2002

Well, to be sincere, I watched this movie only because of Winona Ryder. Sandler's performance sucks big time (is he trying to be some sort of not-funny Forrest Gump?) and I'm really sorry for Winona that she agreed to play in this movie, she can do a lot better (just give her a LOT better script). And one more thing: does anyone finds those disgusting jokes (like the one with black foot ?!?!) funny? Verdict: 2/10

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Quick! Someone get me a bucket!

1/10
Author: cinezonker-1 from LA
8 September 2003

Everyone associated with this worthless production owes an apology to to the author of the original short story as well as the great screenwriter, Robert Riskin. Where the original contained wit, wisdom, fine acting, believable situations, etc., etc., etc., this empty vessel of the film piles crudity upon crudity without a trace of humor. Don't waste a minute on this travesty.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Mr. Ridiculously Retarded Movie

1/10
Author: mikemillertime from Los Angeles
28 July 2003

I remember when Adam Sandler used to be funny. His zany and outrageous comedy now seems especially outdated and immature while he tries to succeed in these supposedly more mainstream roles. Sandler still has the same flat and crude backup whose pathetically crude punchlines only occasionally bring a smile to the face for old times' sake. The story is a mixed blend of cliches and feel-good moments that leave the viewer nauseous when considering how "bad boy" Sandler used to be. This guy now thinks that acting silly and stupid is the same as being funny. May all the Sandler=haters of the world rejoice as his end is near.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

not much effort put in it

1/10
Author: jsidhu24 from Delta, BC, Canada
2 December 2002

My verdict on this film is it's the worst adam sandler movie I've seen so far. I'm actually an Adam Sandler fan believe it or not. Films like Waterboy, and Happy Gilmore were good films that had a decent story, good jokes and most of all, the characters were unique and likeable (even the bad guys). But in this story it seems like there wasn't much effort put forth. The story is weak, and the little quirks that every Sandler character has seem to be put in there just for the sake of putting it in there (saying "wicked-crazy" or "wicked-awesome" gets on your nerves after a while). The frost-bitten foot and the greeting card writing dream are stupid. The supporting characters are pretty weak too. Wynona Ryder does bad job when it comes to being funny. She really wasn't funny at all. I suppose they were trying to recreate the Drew Barrymore type of role where a character you normally wouldn't think would be in a comedy movie plays a main character. The only thing I think I liked about this movie was when the whole town got Corvettes. Overall I think this movie was pretty bad and not much effort was shown for this movie. Casting was bad too.

peace!

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Good "Deeds" include avoiding horrible Sandler vehicle

1/10
Author: Glacier571-3 from San Francisco
3 August 2002

Adam Sandler stars as Longfellow Deeds, a tenderhearted hick who unexpectedly inherits his late uncle's $40 billion media empire, while Winona Ryder is a reporter for a tabloid TV show bent on destroying his name. No point in beating around the bush: this joins "Resident Evil" and "Death to Smoochy" as one of the worst movies of the millennium; never mind the year. "Deeds" is a plotless wonder that is merely an excuse for Sandler to go whole-hog with his usual slapstick nonsense along with his usual pitiful – well, it doesn't even deserve to be called acting. The apathetic script makes light of stalking and assault while attempting to legitimize worthless supporting characters who don't advance whatever minuscule story that exists. While not busy knocking people around (which is okay as long as it's for a good cause), Deeds wants to write Hallmark cards. How precious. Meanwhile, your hope sinks as your brain shrinks, because "Mr. Deeds" truly stinks. Harry Potter and Frodo Baggins, where are you when we really need you? 1/10

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

This was the worst movie of the year.

1/10
Author: KJLeahy from USA
12 July 2002

This movie was incredibly horrible. Not only was the plot crappy and predictable, as is expected from an Adam Sandler movie, but there was no real comedy in it at all. The most it got out of me was a chuckle, and I absolutely love comedies. Don't waste your money, or your time on this lame excuse for a movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Give it up, Adam!

1/10
Author: Bookends from United States
8 July 2002

This movie has absolutely no funny parts and no redeeming qualities. I can't even say that it's fun summer movie fluff because its no fun! Adam Sandler can't act (or at least can't change characters between films) and Winona Ryder is simply horrendous as his love interest. Plug in a different girl and a different occupation for his next movie and it will still open at number one in the box office. I am NOT anxiously awaiting his animated feature. Stay away.. stay far, far away. Unless you're a 14 year old boy because you might find it funny.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Typical Sandler fare, few laughs

1/10
Author: radrobd from California
1 July 2002

Hmm... it seems I've seen this movie already, not because its a remake of an old Frank Capra movie, but because it's basically the same old Adam Sandler schtick for 2 hours. The only difference is this time it isn't very funny. Basically, a variation on a Sandler plot- idiot savant gets filthy rich but maintains his goofy (and humorless) innocence. The Sandler persona wears thin about 5 minutes into the movie and basically that's it. You're stuck with a mediocre movie that a chimp could have produced. The one I truly feel sorry for is Winona- first her shoplifting debacle and now this. My Personal Opinion: Avoid this movie at all costs.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

The All-Time Worst Re-Make of a Classic Film

1/10
Author: (williamgruby@aol.com) from United States
16 March 2008

This Adam Sandler vehicle is a re-make of a classic Frank Capra movie which originally starred Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur. Capra won his second Academy Award for Best Director for the 1936 classic. Gary Cooper received an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor for his sincere portrayal of a simple man thrust into extraordinary circumstances. As in many of Capra's films, Cooper's character, guided by a genuine moral center and sense of compassion for those struggling through difficult economic times (the Great Depression), fights against the shallow, the insincere, and the corrupt.

This 2002 version of Mr. Deeds, directed by Steven Brill, possesses none of the charm or drama of the original. The task of updating Robert Riskin's and Clarence Kelland's Oscar-nominated script went to Timothy P. Herlihy, who received his professional break as a staff writer on "Saturday Night Live." The Oscar-winning Riskin also authored such acclaimed screenplays as "Lost Horizon," "It Happened One Night," "You Can't Take It With You," and "The Strange Love of Martha Ivers." In contrast, Herlihy has no non-Adam Sandler big-screen credits, having penned or co-authored the screenplays for "Billy Madison," "Happy Gilmour," "The Wedding Singer," "The Waterboy," "Little Nicky," and "Big Daddy." Herlihy's unfunny adaptation of the original script is therefore not surprising. Unfortunately, the direction, the script and Sandler's performance all make Longfellow Deeds' character look shallow and the character's transformation into compassionate philanthropist seems contrived. The result of this collaboration is a film which is fundamentally insincere and lacking any charm.

Do yourself a favor, and rent the DVD of the original 1936 film, and you'll see why Frank Capra and Gary Cooper were, respectively, among the greatest American directors and actors of the 20th Century.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Pitiful

1/10
Author: Cedric_Catsuits from United Kingdom
13 July 2006

There isn't a truly original or funny gag in sight, and even though I'm not a Sandler fan, I expected better. He manages to look completely apathetic in every single scene - some sort of record, I imagine. My favourite actress - the gorgeous Winona Ryder - does a pretty decent job, bless her. There's no doubting though, she looks positively ill throughout most of this movie. Whether it was the court case or the reported drug addictions, or something else I don't know, but she really doesn't look, or sound, like the Winona Ryder I have grown to love. She still easily out-acts the rest of the cast, but I felt sad seeing her: a) look so ill; and b) become desperate enough to take a role in this shameful excuse for a film.

This is not a badly made movie, just badly acted for the most part. It looks quite classy, and is technically very competent. But that's no excuse for releasing it.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 2 of 31:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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