IMDb > Something's Gotta Give (2003) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Something's Gotta Give
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Something's Gotta Give More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 41:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 402 reviews in total 

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Annoying, Predictable, Not funny

Author: The EZ Rider from United States
1 March 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

OK, I've seen Jack Nicholson about a dozen too many times playing Jack Nicholson, so I stopped going to any movie with Nicholson in them. But friends told me this one is different--it's fresh, it's funny, it's different. Well, it's not. Nicholson is Nicholson, only more so. The other actors are OK, but they get pushed out of Nicholson's huge ego. The story is inane and boring. Some of the scenes involving Nicholson's anatomy are disgusting. The ending is as implausible as it is predictable. Yep, hard to believe you could come up with something both implausible and predictable, but once you buy into the bizarre premise that (spoilers ahead) Amanda Peet is hot for Nicholson's flabby body, and that Diane Keeton would give Nicholson a second thought after Keanu Reeves puts the moves on her, then you'll believe anything. Worse than how Nicholson looks is the utterly despicable and self-centered character he plays. That he winds up with an attractive woman who adores him only goes to show that if you have lots of money you can get whatever you want, even love.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Just great!

Author: preppy-3 from United States
3 January 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Marin Barry (Amanda Peet), a 20 something, is dating Harry Sanborn (Jack Nicholson), a 60 something. While at her mother's beach house with Harry and her mother Erica (Diane Keaton), a 50 something, Harry has a heart attack. He recovers in the hospital under the care of Julian Mercer (Keanu Reeves), a 30 something--who is immediately attracted to Erica. Harry wants to leave the hospital--but the doctor will only let him go if he stays a weeks at Erica's beach house. Erica hates Harry, but agrees. Naturally they become attracted to each other...but the doctor is also attracted to Erica. Sometimes hilarious and romantic complications ensue.

Fantastic! A Hollywood movie celebrating middle-aged romance! It was a pleasure seeing Nicholson make fun of his own image with Peet and romancing a woman close to her age. Him and Keaton play off each other wonderfully and there scenes are beautifully romantic and VERY sexy--proving we DON'T need young people always going at it. Also it was very refreshing to see a younger man madly in love with Keaton. The script is sharp and funny and the movie is beautifully filmed.

Nicholson is just great. He tones down his mannerisms and plays the role quietly and intelligently. Keaton is superb (she HAS to get an Oscar nomination for this!). She looks great--lines and all--her comic timing is (as always) perfect and she's so radiant and full of life--Reeves attraction makes sense! Reeves is his usual blank self (no expression, no acting) but he actually comes across as somewhat charming in his scenes with Keaton. Peet is wasted in her small role as is Jon Farveau. But it WAS great to see Rachel Ticotin in her small but fun role as a nurse.

The movie has problems--it's WAY too long (there are at least 5 times I thought it was ending) and I HATED the ending. I won't give it away but Keaton ended up with the wrong guy! It's a quick turn around at the end that I just couldn't swallow. That just stopped me from giving it a 10--I'm giving it a 9.

It's great that this movie is doing so well! A main stream movie dealing with middle-aged romance and showing that it can be as exciting and romantic as with younger people. A must-see!

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Disliked and was disgusted.

Author: blindu from United States
23 July 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was so grossed out that anyone would even consider Jack for this part. To see his butt...barf city. To think Reeves falling for Keaton was as believable as Keaton kissing Jack, much less wanting to have sex with Jack is such a demented case of using names to get people to watch. If this had been a book, well it would gone in the trash as every Harlequin Blaze I've attempted to read has gone.

And to use the daughter as a crutch to bring the mother and man together was so unbelievable -she would not have invited this to the secluded place for a fun time if they weren't already sexually active -this isn't the 50's.

After a night or two in the sack and she sees him out with a girl and confesses her love for him through tears. Right! How desperately pathetic. And then every scene after - she's doing over dramatic fake crying.

And then, she writes the whole ordeal as a play. How tacky, and wrong that is?

The only reason I watched the movie was my husband had it on - he wanted to see it and refused to watch it in another room where I wasn't working.

Thanks for putting another stupid movie out there -- the dollars could have been better spent.

Pearce Brosnan would have been a better choice - even Mel Gibson or Harrison Ford , but then they wouldn't want anything to with a crappy storyline and script.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

A sad waste of talent

Author: doctorx2 from United States
30 September 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Few major films have conveyed imagery as frightening as the horror of Diane Keaton going through menopause on screen in Something's Gotta Give, a pathetic fantasy written by and for perimenopausal women. The use of a stellar cast misleads unsuspecting audiences into thinking that they will be entertained, challenged, or enlightened by this film. Unfortunately, the plodding and predictable script leads viewers deeper and deeper into despair, as implausible story lines are played out to their tedious conclusion.

The film does raise some important questions, however. E.g., why would lovely Amanda Peet ever give nasty old Jack Nicholson the time of day? And more to the point, why would Keanu Reeves' character (the young, brilliant and charming doctor) desire carnal contact with moldy old Diane Keaton? Is this some veiled remake of Harold & Maude? Obviously there is an unresolved Oedipal complex in Keanu's character's life (or perhaps in the screenwriter's). For believability, if they wanted a "mature" female lead, go to Diane Lane. She's still got "it," in spades. Perhaps even Annette Benning. Or maybe even Meg Ryan (who should begin to accept the fact that she is beyond ingénue parts). But Diane Keaton frankly looks too old for Keanu Reeves, and the impression is conveyed to the viewer that some kind of Point is being made about women's rights. Why didn't they just use Meryl Streep? At least that would've sent a clear warning out to potential male viewers, fooled by the presence of Jack Nicholson into thinking there was a movie in there somewhere.

At any rate, Keaton is not given much to work with, as the sexually insecure and frustrated donna of this soap opera. She is reduced to looking embarrassed or heart-broken most of the time. Keaton is capable of so much more complexity, going all the way back to Looking for Mr. Goodbar and The Godfather. Nicholson fares little better, and one is never sure whether his character is supposed to be smarmy, nasty, or smarmy and nasty. Amanda Peet's character is a unidimensional débutante, who (being young and attractive, and therefore threatening to the intended audience of menopausal middle-aged women) is reduced to the status of a well-intended know-nothing, the naive daughter who has not lived long enough to have developed a real personality. This is a sad waste of talent, and the interested viewer is encouraged to look at some of Peet's meatier roles, in such films as the obscure Digby Goes Down, or even the ludicrous Saving Silverman.

If something's gotta give, it's this movie -- spend an evening watching something -- anything -- else.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 27 people found the following review useful:


Author: hershykissed26 from United States
23 May 2004

This movie is funny, cute, light-hearted, serious all rolled into one movie.

Diane gives her all in the movie, she unleashes all the insane things women go through in life. Her story is fascinating. Jack Nicholson is of course his usual "swaggering" self in this movie. He gives us his normal antics throughout the movie. His "heart-attacks" are priceless. You can't help but love him! Keanu, he is incredible in this movie. He is sincere, intelligent and magical. Amanda Peet, is over the top as in most of her roles. Overall this movie was excellent!

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

If not stunning or brilliant, it's solid and very very feel good. So feel good.

Author: secondtake from United States
25 April 2013

Something's Gotta Give (2003)

There are two things recommending this film: Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton. Alone and together they are funny and alive. You might expect their individual strengths, but they actually have chemistry, or at least rapport, on screen.

The story is fun and funny and heartwarming, and you kind of know what's going to happen much of the time. And you want it to, so you get that confirmation and have fun watching the two be together (or not) as their relationship grows and changes. Director and writer Nancy Meyers is pretty straight forward here--and if she's no Nora Ephron (lacking finesse and wit at that level), she's got the right idea. You can picture a better film, smoother and more cinematic, under a different director (there are some clunky visual decisions if you are looking), but the story keeps it going.

The rest of the cast? Mostly what you'd expect. Keanu Reeves is better than usual, playing an unplayed role nicely, and Frances McDormand is funny but a bit awkward here, as if miscast, or at odds with the director. Amanda Peet as the daughter is cheerful enough but I found her unconvincing in her role scooping up a rap record label womanizer (Nicholson) three times her age.

It's the unlikeliness of the main match-up that makes the movie work, of course, and in a way they dive into their success too easily. (A screwball comedy would have sustained the tension until the last scene, and here they keep it in the air for about five minutes.) Of course, this is a standard romantic comedy, and the romance figures heavily. And there are turns in the feelgood plot that make it rise above. And make it worth watching twice, believe it or not, at least with a few years rest. The performances are what remain sparkling and new.

You might have trouble, as I do every time I see this movie (and it's been a few times for some reason) with the last scene. It's meant to be sudden and dramatic, but the previous scene doesn't quite set things up that way. Sort of, but not quite, and the validity of the change of heart at the end is necessary. But then of course the snow falls and Paris is beautiful and life is beautiful and we all have hope. It's a feel good movie that really works.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

'Something's' Gotta Go

Author: Conrad_Jarrett
15 January 2004

Diane Keaton can't cry. In Something's Gotta Give, there is a period where she has to cry in brief scene after scene, and either she can't cry or the direction was very, very poor (I kind of think it was the latter). For me, her crying symbolizes everything that was bad about this movie. In the crying scenes, she just wails and wails - loudly. After awhile, it is supposed to be somewhat funny (I think), but it's really just kind of annoying. The crying is supposed to convey that she is getting over what is hurting her and channelling it into a more productive activity. But it just feels so disingenuous because of the brazen way it is portrayed. There is a way to get crying to be sad at first and then funny (see Broadcast News), but this ain't it. This crying is more like "Ooh, look. It's Diane Keaton trying to ball her eyes out."

And that's what's wrong with Something's Gotta Give. Most of the scenes feel fake and like obvious attempts to manufacture the emotions that the director/screenwriter is trying to elicit. The very final scene (and I'm not ruining anything here) is the perfect example. It's basically a scene with the main characters looking cute and funny while music plays. Kodak moments to be sure, but they're manufactured Kodak moments.

Additionally, all of the major performances disappointed me. Jack Nicholson's character is barely introduced before he has a heart attack, and the story gets thrown into motion. We're supposed to believe that he's Joe Cool Sr. - hip and attractive to much younger women. We're supposed to believe that not because of how his character is developed, but because...well...because he's Jack Nicholson.

Diane Keaton wasn't particularly disappointing, because I've never been a big fan of hers, anyway. However, her character never seemed to be anchored to any particular way of being. It's the film's version of character development that her character evolves from an uptight recluse to a self-actualized, fully-empowered woman, but to me that transition was just too easy.

Amanda Peet, playing Keaton's daughter, gives a one note performance that, while consistent with the rest of the movie, relies more on her beauty than on substance to get the audience to care about her. She smiles a lot, and is very definitely easy on the eyes, but she's basically another pretty face. In a movie like this, which suggests that Jack dates young women because he sees them as merely pretty faces, it's almost criminal to not prove to the audience that Peet is anything but.

Finally, France McDormand, in a smaller role, seems to exist solely for the purpose of directly verbalizing the movie's thesis at the beginning of the movie. And we're supposed to respect her character's opinion - she's a professor. Her speech is another good example of the way this movie tries to get the message across - by telling the audience what the message is instead of showing it.

Rating: 3/10

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

nicholson nicholson nicholson

Author: stephenpaultaylor from Berlin
17 September 2004

jack nicholson used to be such a fantastic intriguing actor. It's hard to watch him plummet to such lows. He was always so amazing as intriguing, odd characters. One Flew..., The Shining, Five Easy Pieces, The Passenger, Witches of Eastwick...

Something's.. is not a film to watch if you want to see Nicholson shine. He will always be a great actor in my eyes, but he was wasted in this film. None of his quirky qualities, oddball behaviour, or intriguing Jackness were given space to shine in this hollow shell of a movie.

This movie tries so hard to please the audience, is racked with clichés and is, quite frankly, embarrassing for all involved.

The crying scene is indeed embarrassing and way too over the top. The Paris sequence is so so so cliché, and the bridge over the river Seine ending... wow. how cliché can you get?

Sure, some of the scenes were OK. Keanu wasn't as wooden as I've seen him in previous attempts at acting, but he still gave me splinters.

Somebody else said this was the performance of Keaton's career. Annie Hall, anyone? Not only is AH a great performance, but a great film; far far far better than this one.

I appreciate that the filmmaker is trying to give kudos to older people falling in love and admitting your age and not constantly chasing people over half your age, but it's very heavy handed and uninteresting. Forgettable. Paint by numbers. What more can I say.

Although, in the movie's defense, I was into it until about halfway through the film. Not thinking that it was a brilliant film, but some of the comedic sequences were funny. Until it fell on its face.

Then the film fell to bits.. and yes, seemed to never end.


but then it did. Phew.

I hope Nicholson does a great film again... someday. I can only hope

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

How awful was this movie? Read on....

Author: Brigid O Sullivan (wisewebwoman) from Toronto, Canada
26 December 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I ticked 'spoilers' but I think any depiction of a spoiler here would enhance this bomb. I kept waiting for a script to happen and wondered why I was so irritated ALL THE TIME. Diane Keaton ( I honestly can't believe she got a Golden Globe award for her performance) acts as if there is always a third party in the room. She keeps glancing sideways and laughing flirtatiously at NOTHING. Jack just phones his performance in, enough said.....and speaking of laughing, I, for one, hate those scenes where the main characters are on a beach, over dinner, in bed, and they are laughing, laughing, but you the viewer are not privy to the stream of jokes. And believe me there are so much of these giggling no-script scenes as to make you NAUSEOUS. You are on the outside, paying your decent money to be part of the movie/play but you are left guessing as to what is actually being said. RIP-OFF. Seems to me as if the writer just ran out of script. Speaking of which, there is NONE, no script, in this sodden wreck of a film. It is rocking with clichés (the sobbing, crying, has to be the very worst ever captured on film). And what was Keanu Reeves doing in it? Here's a young doctor madly in love with the older woman playwright, has seen all her plays and absolutely worships her, is kind, considerate and fresh (vs jarringly jaded), but the older woman just hankers after moronic old Jack who treats her incredibly badly. And in the end, unbelievably - Keanu, her new fiancé, gives her up without a fight or a word. He is just deleted from the script. I for one would have chosen Keanu any day. Gagometer soaring skywards I find it hard to believe that some of my friends LIKED this. The Hamptons looked lovely, so 2 out of 10 for that, but AVOID this trashcan bomb.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

I don't get it

Author: jaymeister-13 from Toronto
29 December 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

While the movie over all was quite clever and funny at times, I have two major issues.

1. The ending was EXTREMELY lame. A guy brings a girl to Paris for her birthday, presumably is about to give her a diamond ring, and then just gives her up when he sees that she still has feelings for another guy? I realize that movies are about suspension of disbelief, but this was a bit too much. I guess Jack and Diane can have pain but not Keanu.

2. How is it that this guy is an owner of a hip-hop record label, has a party at his house, and there are only white people there? I suppose Diane Keaton is used to these monochrome views of New York after having worked with Woody Allen for so long.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 41:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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