The Nanny Diaries (2007) User Reviews

Quite nice

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 12 September 2008]

As another reviewer pointed out-> "Better than expected". So if your expectations are low, you will be positively surprised. I watched it a sneak preview with some friends. I guess Scarlett Johansson haters won't like the movie from the start, but everyone else can give it a shot.

Yes it is predictable, yes it has it's awkward moments, but it's also likable. The cast is stellar throughout, most of the jokes work and the kid performer walks a fine line, but always stays/plays it straight. The movie keeps a light tone overall, but has it's dark(er) moments too. They might not work for everyone (and some might hate the ending), but overall it's a decent movie (effort)

I know it's cliché, but the book was better

[szyp · 5/10 · 28 August 2007]

So I'm not a reader, but I did read The Nanny Diaries awhile back. Having been a nanny, I was very interested in the content. I really appreciated the issues brought forth by the authors, and agreed with many of their insights.

The movie, unfortunately, seems to lighten rather than shine light on the core issues of the book, adding a whimsical tone throughout that I found disappointing. Of greater disappointment, however, was the addition of greater sympathy for the child's mother (Mrs. X) paired with continued vilification of the child's father (Mr. X). In fact, Mrs. X's character is even redeemed at the end while the evil Mr. X is sent packing.

I found it quite irritating that this "modern-day Mary Poppins" followed the bizarre precedent of its predecessor in ultimately placing much of the blame for the children's woes in the lap of the (overly) hard-working father who is, at least, providing income for the family while the mother is off pursuing her own unrelated interests. Thankfully, the male-bashing was not quite as overt as using the phrase "as a group, they're rather stupid" in reference to men, which is a line from Mary Poppins. Don't get me wrong, Mr. X did lack any redeeming qualities, however throwing Mrs. X an undeserved lifeline at the end while allowing Mr. X to drown seemed a bit fishy.

A somewhat confusing subplot also exists with Annie's (the Nanny) mother. While the main focus of the movie seems to be on the evils of luxury and the importance of raising children, Annie's sweet, lovable mother consistently nags Annie to enter the world of business and finance in pursuit of a "better" life. The mother reminds Annie that she worked years of overtime, etc. as a nurse to give Annie the chance to go to a good school and work towards the high life. She is also appalled to learn of Annie's waste-of-time job raising a child.

So, what I gathered from the movie is that it is only OK to leave your child for hours on end if you are a nurse from New Jersey who is trying to give your child an opportunity to one day work his/her way up to a life of luxury (which will, in turn, presumably make said child evil and heartless). Needless to say, the messages in the movie were quite mixed. I read a couple of personal reviews on this movie and they both used the word "cute", which is a far cry from the point of the book. Although I did enjoy seeing the book come to life on the big screen, I have to say that the book was much better. I knew I shouldn't have read a book - it ruined the movie for me.

Better than I expected

[ArizWldcat · 7/10 · 27 August 2007]

When this movie was unceremoniously yanked back in April 2007, right before its initially scheduled release, I thought it must be pretty bad. I had enjoyed the book, and so was already disappointed. But I decided to see it anyway, just out of curiosity. At first, I found myself finding fault...like when the preschool doors just open up and small children pour out of it onto the street. Like that's going to happen in an urban area ANYWHERE in this country what with all the fear of kidnapping we have these days. That and a few other little niggly details bothered me at first, but as the movie went on, I found myself caring about the characters; enjoying the story. It's not like the book, but that's probably good. I don't think the book is written in a way that would translate well to the big screen. The ending was a bit happier than the book, but in this kind of movie, the happy ending was welcome. I found myself enjoying this movie in spite of my own predisposition to be underwhelmed by it. It's not going to win any Oscars or anything, but I thought it a find effort for all involved, particularly Laura Linney, Paul Giamatti, and Scarlet Johansen!

Passable but nothing particularly memorable

[harry_tk_yung · 31 August 2007]

Scarlett Johansson fans will of course make sure not to miss this one. The premises of this movie are however so familiar and cliché that they will really need to do a fantastic job to make this a memorable movie. This the movie makers have not achieved.

The Upper East End parents are so stereotyped that the movie makers don't even bother giving them names, but just call them Mr and Mrs X (Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney). He is a business tycoon who finds relief from fooling around with female subordinates. She is a typical snobbish, dominating, high society woman, but also a victim in the sense of having an even more dominating husband. What kind of life the little kid goes through needs no elaboration and his transformation from a hostile brat to a longing and loving child in his relationship with the new nanny (Johansson, of course) is predictability itself.

And I don't agree with what some critic say that this movie is comparable to The devil wears Prada, just because both have a dominating middle-aged woman and an unsophisticated lassie. How lazy can the critics get in resorting to such superficiality? There are dominating women and there are dominating women, and for those who have seen both movies, it's an insult to their intelligence to try to explain why the characters played by Meryl Streep and Laura Linney are far more different than they are similar.

And I don't agree either with the critics who say that Laura Linney has turn in a particularly great performance. She is an excellent actor, she delivers in this movie (I never expect her to be otherwise, in any movie) but I've seen her doing better in many other movies ("Kinsey", "The squid and the whale", just to name two). But it is quite refreshing to see Paul Giamatti, after appearing in so many endearing roles ("Sideways", "Lady in the water" and even "Cinderella man"), portray a totally disgusting character. While the mere sight of Johansson will bring eternal joy to her fans, I don't think this is a particularly impressive picture for her. I like her much better in "Scoop".

"The nanny diaries" is not a movie that will irritate or annoy you; it's just one that you are not likely to remember. What I'll remember most will be its references to Mary Poppins, from the cute montages with the red umbrella, down to even the cell phone ring tones of "chim chimney, chim chimney".

Fun and witty comedy. That educates and shows who people become thru culture. And we all feel good after a sweet performance from Scarlett Johansson.

[blanbrn · 7/10 · 24 August 2007]

"The Nanny Diaries" certainly has to be a feel good summer movie, it's entertaining and sweet and a coming of age story as told thru one characters point of view. The ever beautiful and attractive Scarlett Johansson stars as Annie Braddock a suburban New Jersey girl who just graduates college and she has dreams of becoming an anthropologist. Yet beyond that much isn't clear so Annie moves to New York City to take a job as a nanny and first she feels freedom! Only to soon have reality crash in once she's hired by a Manhattan socialite and sophisticated classy upper east side narcissist called Mrs. X(Laura Linney) who does nothing, but shop and eat out all day and attend glamour events. So it now falls on Annie to look after five year old Grayer(Nicholas Art) and it's very tough as to Mrs. X Annie never does anything right. Also Mr. X isn't much better played okay by Paul Giamatti who really is nothing more than a successful business man who's hooked on any attractive female in a skirt and short shorts. Yet all along the way attachment and friendship is developed between Annie and Grayer a real coming of age story for Annie to see this society in an anthropological way and learn from it and come of age. As in the end Annie convinces Mrs. X to be a loving mom and Annie sees her real passion is grad school not a nanny. Really a touching comedy that educates showing people have to learn thru experience and culture what life is right for them and that dealing with different cultures is a loving and life remembering experience. Scarlett Johansson gives a very sweet and people pleasing performance that she just glows on the screen making this a sleeper hit comedy.

Laura Linney steals the show

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 7/10 · 10 September 2017]

I almost didn't watch this movie because I had a sense it was going to be some sort of silly comedy about nannies. But, I like Scarlett Johansson and Laura Linney, so I thought I'd give it a try for maybe 15 minutes. I'm glad I did. The movie wasn't at all what I expected, and I enjoyed it.

There are really 2 themes to this film. First, the story of a nanny (Scarlett Johansson) who is capable of greater things, but has a bit of a crisis of confidence. Second, the story of a dissolving marriage (Laura Linney and Paul Giamatti). And while the story centers around the young boy to whom Johansson is nanny, it is not really about the boy. It's an interesting way to tell the 2 main stories, and, even beyond that, the way the director tells the stories (particularly early in the film) is a bit off-beat (in a good way).

Johansson is very good here (sans blonde hair). But even more brilliant is Laura Linney...great performance, and stunningly beautiful on occasion. Chris Evans, with whom I was not familiar, was quite good as a potential love interest (a part which could have been played up a bit). If you want a bad guy, Paul Giamatti was terribly unlikable as the wandering, emotionally sadistic husband; not a role many would like to take.

So what's to criticize? Not much except that I don't think they handled the role of the young boy very well. OR, they intentionally downplayed the boy's role so as to focus on the stories of the 2 adult women. I felt totally neutral about the boy. Neither a monster nor adorable. I saw him as an always-there plot device. Maybe Paul Giamatti's character was too mean and nasty.

However, very good film, and probably not what quite a few people were expecting.

Pretty good which is mostly down to the fantastic cast not the movie itself

[juneebuggy · 7/10 · 1 September 2015]

This wasn't well liked by the critics but I watched it on TV and thought it was pretty good, that's mostly down to the cast though. Laura Linney is fantastic as Mrs. X, a snooty neurotic upper east side socialite and Paul Giomatti is perfect as her nasty adulterous husband. Just a pig of a man.

I always enjoy Scarlett Johansson and she does a good job with the material here, her role isn't much of a stretch, even cheesy at times but she was enjoyable. The romance aspect with Chris Evans kinda took a back seat and was lost.

Described as "a hilarious adaption of the bestselling novel" (I wouldn't go that far) it is however entertaining. Johansson plays 'Annie', a recent college grad who takes a job as a live in nanny for the very wealthy X's, looking after their troubled son -who I suppose was meant to be cute and precocious but for the most part I just found bratty and annoying.

The story itself was okay, it didn't blow me away or anything, but it was enjoyable enough. 'Nanny' is such a nice, sympathetic character that you want to see how it all plays out for her. Watching this did make me want to read the book. 8/24/15

Charming But Manipulative

[ThomasDrufke · 6/10 · 1 April 2020]

The film is beyond dated and cheesy, but at the same time there's a decent amount of charm to get by for a 100 minute runtime. At the very least it's nice to see the chemistry blossom between Scarlett Johansson & Chris Evans, years before they did any Marvel movies together. Perhaps a better script and a removal of the abysmal narration could have made The Nanny Diaries a more rewatchable film but it's not bad for a quarantine viewing.

6.0/10

Unfortunately Disappointing...

[zennikku_10 · 4/10 · 4 December 2007]

I loved the book The Nanny Diaries, I lost myself in it, the story of a student taking care of a 5th Avenue family's son and all the mishaps that happen was truly a delight to read. So when I heard about a movie adaptation I couldn't have been happier. When they started announcing the cast I was pretty pleased with the choices, being a big Scarlett Johansson fan I knew she could pull if off. Then the movie came out, it suffered from bad reviews and low ticket sales, so my hope that the movie would be as good as the book were dampened, but I was still interested in it.

Well, I finally watched it and I feel so disappointed in this film. The cast are all great and they all did an adequate job. I liked Scarlett Johansson as the lead. The real problem of this movie is that it really strays from the book. I have no problem when film adaptations of books are done differently, if I enjoy the book I might enjoy the movie as well no matter how much the film is changed, as long as those changes are positives one. In this movie the changes were not positive.

It tries to be quirky and funny and really bombs in the humor. And it's source material is both quirky and funny and all the changes they made really made the humor feel forced. That might the problem with this film, it tries to hard to be funny and it just bombs. The magic of the book just didn't translate into the film. What made the book good isn't present here and it's a shame because it is a really fun book to read and this is a really boring movie to watch. The changes in storyline weren't what bother me so much, but the fact that they took something original and turned it into something generic.

The film does have it's saving graces. Johansson and Evans are both very charming in the film and the rest of the cast do a good job. But what they succeeded in doing, at least for me, was establish a relationship between Annie and Grayer. I really bought their relationship and could see how much they meant to each other. Their relationship was truly touching and believable. Unlike the book, which leaves things pretty unresolved, maybe that gives it a touch or realism, this film gives us the perfect happy ending, were the bad guys are reformed and our heroine has found what she was looking for.

I didn't hate the movie, it's fine, it just drags a little. The book is just great and I was hoping that it's film adaptation would live up to it, but it didn't. It's sad to see that something with so much potential was ruined by trying to make it commercial and what ended up happening was that the ruined a great opportunity. Don't let this movie fool you, it is nothing like the book. And though I cannot recommend this movie I do recommend the book to anyone.

Surprisingly substantive yet goes down easy like popcorn

[aaronalthaus · 7/10 · 21 March 2021]

I wanted to watch a hard hitting drama with political relevance that pushes me out of my comfort zone and inspires deeper thinking. My other half wanted to watch something light, funny, and charming with a happy ending and good chemistry between the leads.

We ended up watching watching this sweet show with Scarlet Johansson and Captain America from 2007.

I really didn't expect us to both get what we were looking for, but here we are.🤣😆😂 I This movie had a surprising amount of substance and a unique and well executed framing device. Maybe not ten out of ten, but definitely two thumbs up. 👍👍

A good book totally ruined by a substandard film

[LilyDaleLady · 1/10 · 22 August 2008]

I realize most books require a LOT of adapting to work as movies, but Emma Laughlin & Nicola Kraus's biting, insightful "Nanny Diaries" was a slim book, with a straightforward story line -- we aren't talking "Gravity's Rainbow" here. It was sharp and gossipy, amusing in a clear-eyed, first-hand-knowledge sort of way (both authors worked as nannies in NYC before writing the book).

None of that makes it to the film, which changes the plot & characters so completely that it might as well be a different story with an entirely different title. In the novel, NAN (presumably short for Nancy) becomes a PART-TIME nanny while she's finishing a graduate degree -- she's not a live-in. The point of the book is that the ridiculous demands of Mrs. X encroach on her life to the point that a poorly paying part-time babysitting gig eventually takes over her far more real needs to finish school and get a real job. She is NOT an anthropologist trying to get a job on Wall Street (why would an anthropology major be trying for a financial job anyways?)

NAN in the book is herself from an old-money New York family -- not a Jersey girl! I guess the filmmakers decided it would make the character "more sympathetic", but it skewers the whole point of the story. In the book, NAN's parents and even grandparents are entirely aware of her part-time babysitting gig -- it's no secret, and it's no more "degrading" than someone who works at the Gap while trying to finish college.

Far from "great paying", one big point the book makes is that the very rich are awful cheapskates when it comes to their "servants". The sharpest detail of the novel is when Nan leaves the summer cottage, and Mrs. X has only paid her $50 for a whole week of 24/7 work -- because, after all, wasn't it a "free beach vacation"?

Scarlett Johannson continues to underwhelm me -- she's very miscast as "Annie" and doesn't look or sound like a Jersey girl. The production has her dressed down, with stringy brown hair and frumpy clothes -- stripped of her beauty, we have to confront her limited acting skills (like not being able to mimic a New Jersey accent). It's painful. The character of NAN called for an actress with a Yuppie, upper class vibe -- in some ways, she's a younger version of Mrs. X and both characters know this .... i.e., if she marries Harvard Hottie, she'll become the next generation Mrs. X. Both the film & actress seem oblivious to this brilliant concept, and instead labor to make this "Upstairs, Downstairs -- which it emphatically is NOT.

The usually wonderful Laura Linney tries hard, but is wasted in a part dumb-ed down to that of a Stepford wife -- not mention, she's dressed and coiffed as if it were 1962, not 2007. (In the book, Mrs. X exudes "casual chic", like plain ballet flats that cost $600.)

The stunningly beautiful Alicia Keyes has a small part, but despite a lovely husky voice she has no real ability to carry even a small supporting role -- and the cliché of the "black best girlfriend" is painful. Donna Murphy has a thankless role as the controlling Jersey mom -- a working class nurse who is "horrified" to see her college age daughter doing child care, a distinction that makes no sense (who watched Annie while her single mom was working as a nurse? duh!). This is a tired cliché, and doesn't exist in the novel.

Unable to see clever, sharply observed social critique in the novel (do the filmmakers have their own "nanny issues"?), the film relies on prolonged, uncharming fantasy sequences ala "Mean Girls" (i.e., treating the subject matter as if it's an anthropological study, etc.). It's not a surprise that this film was held back from release for a long while (probably reworked a lot, to no good effect).

SPOILER ALERT: In the novel, Mr. X is cheating on Mrs. X -- and we learn that SHE stole HIM away from his first wife in the exact same way. In order to hang on to him, she does indeed get pregnant -- it's not a hoax. She doesn't divorce him, she doesn't "reform", and every indication is that poor neglected Grayer will grow up to be exactly like his selfish dad. NAN graduates and presumably gets a "real" (non-nanny) job. But there is no apologetic letter from Mrs. X to her -- the point of the novel is that the X's have learned nothing and will continue on with their horrible ways, oblivious to their son and (presumably) their next baby.

This film needed to be a sharp, humorous, black comedy of manners and instead, its a flabby, un-funny mess that suffocates every potentially amusing scene and strains for sentiment where none exists. Even the chance to show the "posh lifestyles of the rich" is lazy and unimaginative.

In conclusion: not even worth a rental

Better than you'd expect - worth watching

[phd_travel · 8/10 · 28 July 2010]

This is better than you'd expect. Do watch it. It is fascinating to watch as it shows a surprisingly not exaggerated view of New York domestic life. It's funny and touching.

Scarlett does a good job - this is the first movie I really liked her in. She is not afraid of looking unglamorous if the role requires it.

Comparing this with Devil Wears Prada - I think this is more realistic, funny and moving. Linney is good as always - doesn't overact. Paul Giamatti is a bit unlikely as a successful finance person. Should have chosen someone a bit more executive like. Alicia Keyes is a bit out of place as the friend - too pretty.

The horror...

[InfiniteCinema · 7/10 · 20 August 2008]

Before I write anything about what I think about this movie I just want to say two things. I definitely recommend it but in my opinion you don't get what you expect. What I mean by this is that according to the way the film is marketed and the recommendation of a friend of mine I was led to believe this movie would be a little more lighthearted than it turned out to be. What I got was a sociological horror film. A movie that while sprinkled with charming, funny, and even romantic moments, turned out to be one of the most uncomfortable viewing experiences I can remember having. What made it so uncomfortable was that it rung so true for me. I happen to have friends who are from the Upper East Side in addition to having gone to school there though it was not private mind you and I've had the misfortune of having to cater to people like this at one of my old jobs. My stomach turned and my blood boiled as I watched the different characters that populate the Upper East Side. Mrs. X seemed to me to be sympathetic compared to how much worse they can be. I saw a woman who yearned for the same love and affection that her child craved from her. The moments where she is vulnerable were heartbreaking although the rest of the time I cringed at her. Her husband was beyond redemption for this reviewer and luckily his time on screen was limited. Listening to some of the complaints of the other immigrant nannies in the movie (a group this reviewer has also come across quite a lot) elicited a no less stomach churning reaction. One might just go, "Hey, this is the way it is and no one put a gun to their head." Whether that may be true or not it makes it no less painful to see women like these sacrifice themselves for people who are completely engulfed in a swamp of luxury taken for granted and for comfort to make them forget just how miserable they are. Especially when you have someone like Mrs. X who seems to have enough of a soul left to make you wish she would wake up and get out while she can (Mr. X is already too far gone). Nothing however is more tear inducing than the little boy. You know that unless by some miracle his parents wake up and realize how indifferent they are being that this is a boy who will more than likely grow up to be one of the characters on GOSSIP GIRL. All jokes aside knowing that this is not an unreal scenario and that perfectly good boys and girls who only crave love and attention from their parents are likely to find themselves miserable and hollow like their parents, because of their parents, is a nothing less than horrifying and sad.

Although far more disturbing I would have preferred if that random, tagged-on ending meant to provide a happy-capper feeling had not been there. It's like trying to tell an audience that there is no Santa Claus when you can't take something like that back.

For the record this reviewer is not usually the uber-sensitive type. There are very few buttons left to push on this end. I've seen everything under the sun that could evoke these kinds of feelings and very rarely do they succeed (i've seen horror and exploitation films more bearable than this). This movie just happened to be set in a world that I find reprehensible beyond the max and it involves children and there's nothing more heartbreaking than seeing an innocent child suffer under the care (or rather thereof) of the not so innocent.

Well, it ain't Noel Coward, that's for sure

[bregund · 2/10 · 7 January 2008]

This watered-down social commentary about the caste system among NYC snobs and their domestic help is as esoteric as the book that inspired it. Given a title that promises biting wit, bitch fights, and outrageous behavior, one wakes up the morning after watching the film curiously empty; not only does he not remember a single scene from the film, but he forgets he saw the bloody thing in the first place. Laura Linney's usually electrifying screen presence is dumbed down to a few tantrums and forced smiles, all meant to imply, I suppose, the shallowness of a rich and privileged life. The usually wonderful Paul Giammatti fares no better, coming off as a fat stupid lout whose dialogue was apparently written by someone who watched too many Lifetime movies. In fact, the whole endeavour is EXACTLY like a Lifetime movie: mind-numbingly insipid, told from the point of view of the oppressed woman (here represented by the horribly miscast Scarlet Johansson), complete with sistah support (Alicia Keys) and one of the most boring gay guys you've ever seen on film. Love interest WASP Dopey the Wonder Boy rounds out the cast of caricatures as a down-to-earth Harvard graduate with a sob story and dimples, and of course he's nothing like his dumbass friends. He really wants to date the nanny. Really. Okaaaaaaaaaaay.

But I could forgive all of that junk if the film had dared to plumb the depths of the social strata with which it purports to be familiar. But it doesn't, it carefully flits across the top of the upper crust society, never landing anywhere, and we frustratingly see only glimpses of tantalizing gossip: What the hell does Mrs. X exactly do all day long that takes her away from her weirdly-named son (Grayer)? The movie won't tell us, preferring to keep its mouth shut and devoting the entire hour and a half to Annie's moral dilemma in staying with Grayer instead of moving on with her life. It's an admirable quality for a protagonist, but also a very boring one. What I wouldn't give to see Mrs. X on a bender, eating mini donuts in the back of her limo wearing only a fur, or flirting with a doorman or something. ANYTHING. Did anyone ever see Valerie Perrine in that dumb movie with Ally Sheedy years ago, where Sheedy was her maid? The ultra-rich Perrine was fantastic, saving all her bits of aluminum foil so she could recycle them and make a few cents, mashing up all the soap slivers in the house into a big ball so she could make "soap for the servants' quarters". This is what I wanted to see, rich people gone weird.

Anyhoo, the movie ends pretty much as you might expect, Mrs. X becomes enlightened, etc etc etc. You've seen it all before if you've ever watched five minutes of any Lifetime movie.

You better read the book

[ciffou · 30 January 2009]

I think one of the main flaws of this film (and it's not just one) is that you can't feel the stress that nanny expresses on the book. The director/screenplay writer tried to make the character of Mrs. X a little less evil than the book and, in the making, they managed to lose the wit of the book's Nanny. Another thing that really made this a bad adaptation was the fact that nanny was a rookie on her craft...With this change, they managed to lose the sarcastic remarks, her sassy points of view and made it so cliché and predictable. I have to add another problem: the use of the music is excessive! it's a distraction, not a complement and it really doesn't help. Even though the X's and nanny comes to make you tired while reading, that would have allowed an excellent adaptation: shorter but consistent with the humor of the book. I don't understand what's the point of using the dog on the beach if they were not going to use it properly...just to make giammati's character (great actor, awful cast choice) a little easier to be hated. I think it could have been a good movie...it could have...

A very nice film, with a terrific cast....expect some tears, however

[inkblot11 · 7/10 · 1 September 2007]

Annie (Scarlett Johannsen) has just graduated from college with a degree in finance. This pleases her mother very much, as mom is a hardworking nurse and single parent. Although Annie is thus expected to land a great job on Wall Street, she bolts with fright from her first serious interview and takes a walk in Central Park. It is there that she saves a young boy, Grayer, from an oncoming bicyclist. Grayer's own mother, Mrs. X (Laura Linney) shows up soon enough, without realizing the near catastrophe that resulted from her neglect. Mrs. X is in need of a new nanny and when Annie introduces herself, the X lady thinks she says nanny instead of Annie and begs her to come work for her. Since Annie is so confused about her future and it seems like a good opportunity, Annie accepts. But, Annie does not tell her own mother about her new position, only that she is moving to the big city from their home in Jersey and getting her own place. Despite having no experience with kids, Annie is a quick study and soon becomes quite close to Grayer. But, Mrs. X and her equally self-involved husband (Paul Giamatti) are extremely demanding employers and horridly neglectful parents at the same time. Can Annie stick it out? This is a sharp look at the world of the extremely rich, where children are more of accessories than desperately wanted human beings. In that light, Linney and Giamatti are amazing as the loathsome parents who fail to give their son what he needs most, their time and their love. Johannsen is likewise wonderful as the confused girl who nevertheless learns that money is no diving board to happiness. Chris Evans delights, also, as a love interest for Annie. Naturally, the costumes are terrific, as is the New York setting and the lush apartment of the X's. Kudos should also be extended to the nice script and good direction. In short, get a nanny to watch the kids for a few hours and go take in this nice movie. Although a few tears may fall along the way, this movie is both enlightening and entertaining, a rare treat. It is a certainty that you will find it easy to love.

Lighten Up!

[emortland · 7/10 · 24 September 2007]

Awwww, c'mon, if you like Scarlett Johansson, then spend a couple of hours and enjoy her delightful screen presence. This movie has good moments, the more I heard the name "Grayer" the more I liked it, and I'm certain every female ethnic group was duly represented in the lineup-of-the-nannies scene. Actually, what I like about seeing movies like this is playing "pop-up video" with myself--for example, I thought Laura Linney was vertically-challenged in "Searching for Bobby Fischer," but fourteen years later in this movie, hey, she seems taller. Also, there was something about the looks of Paul Giamatti's character that I couldn't quite figure out, but then the imagery fell in place when I added little red horns and a tail.

Jersey Girl VS New York Liberals!

[vitaleralphlouis · 7/10 · 1 January 2008]

Don't expect the usual toilet humor or food-on-the-wall scenes, this picture is more serious, original, and in my opinion it's less a comedy than a romantic drama.

The story asks this question: How can people who have everything be so miserable. The focus is on the self-absorbed, misdirected, essentially valueless people who inhabit New York's Upper East Side. In this sorry land of velvet lined damnation, parents are too busy with either careers or let's-pretend meetings for one shallow and pointless reason or other. Kids are just one more aspect of their self-dramatized lives; not anyone to love, instruct, or care about. These are your East Side Liberals, and heaven help their offspring.

Scarlett Johanssen plays a young woman having difficulty in the Manhattan job market who falls into a nanny's job by accident. She's better equipped than she supposes, having been taught good values by her Jersey mom.

No sense saying more, except it's one of 2007's few good movies. See it!

the devil doesn't change diapers

[postmanwhoalwaysringstwice · 7/10 · 7 February 2008]

From the film-making team of Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini (of "American Splendor" fame) comes a chick flick concept with a surprising twist. In the film Scarlett Johansonn stars as a disenchanted college graduate, who stumbles into a most unlikely situation. Due to coincidence and little more than Hugh Grant-like vocal stammering, she finds herself becoming a full-time nanny to the rich and miserable Laura Linney. From first glance the filmmakers seemed like a peculiar match for such pedestrian material, given their documentary background, but since it's structured around the guise of an anthropological study, it doesn't shy away from spot-on social commentary, the lead performances are strong, and the dialogue has some bite, "The Nanny Diaries" becomes a decent comedy from the "Devil Wears Prada" school.

Did The Director/Screenwriter Even Read The Book?

[Jossgod · 1/10 · 5 June 2009]

The movie is barely based on the book. They made the Nanny character (now Annie) a poor New Jersey girl, raised by a single mother, who has no idea what she wants to do with her life. I can't understand for the life of me why they decided to make the character unrecognizable . Why change her into someone who is wishywashy who knows nothing about children? It is uncomfortable watching a character who is so out of her depth, while the Nanny in the book grew up in that society, yet could still see the ridiculousness of it. What was the point of erasing her Dad? Such a pity, because the book is brilliant, and part of what makes it so good is Nanny's apt social commentary, not her shock of being thrown into the deep end of nice, normal, Jersey girl vs rich, stupid, Manhatanities. And a dress-up 4th of July Party? And the whole Harvard Hottie thing just seemed wrong.

Don't even bother watching the movie. Read the book and leave it at that. You'll be much happier.

A comedy about life at the top, as seen from the bottom.

[moviewizguy · 6/10 · 1 March 2008]

A college graduate goes to work as a nanny for a rich New York family. Ensconced in their home, she has to juggle their dysfunction, a new romance, and the spoiled brat in her charge.

Note, I have not read the book for this film. After finishing this film, I was pleasantly surprised by it. I liked the use of the narrative style and how serious and funny the film really is. Overall, I can't help but compare this to a much better film, also based on a book. It was called "The Devil Wears Prada."

While watching this film, you'll feel like you're watching "The Devil Wears Prada," feeling like you're also as stressed as the characters in the film because it is all too much to bare. Many would complain how predictable and improbable the film may be. I'll go with the fact that the film is predictable, yes but I really don't mind the situations in the film doesn't happen in real life too often.

Most of the jokes were funny and many parts of the film were mostly sweet, if not contrived. I will say that there are some really strong performances in here, not coming from Scarlett Johansson. There are also some inconsistencies in here as well. One moment, a scene may be serious while in the next, they're playing happy music in the background.

Overall, this was a decent movie. I think what makes this movie work are the really strong performances by Laura Linney and Donna Murphy, the funny jokes, and the overall serious tone.

Dry Dry Dry Dry...did I say Dry

[firefrog25 · 3/10 · 6 December 2007]

The movie was just OK. I found myself searching for other things to do during the movie because it just didn't grip you into the story. The basics of the movie is a college grad flops in her first interview and becomes a nanny by accident. The kid was a brat, they became friends, she told off the mom who was being cheated on and nanny had a secret in the building love. The best part of the movie was Scarlet; she is just gorgeous no matter what role they place her in. Her telling off the teddy bear was pretty funny. Those couple of things were not worth the 1:45 of my life I wasted watching this title. Scarlet I love ya, but better luck next time.

Critics are Ninnies about "Nanny"

[brenttraft · 8/10 · 24 August 2007]

"The Nanny Diaries" did not get very good reviews but I liked the previews so I decided to see it instead of another movie that got much better reviews and I'm glad I did.

"The Nanny Diaries" is entertaining the entire time. It might not have you rolling in the aisles like "Superbad," but it is not that kind of movie.

The main reason to see this film is because of Scarlett Johansson. She makes Annie the Nanny such a sympathetic character, that we stay interested in the film and we care about what happens to her. Scarlett Johansson made a name for herself doing a lot of independent film but this is probably her best performance in a mainstream film. Not only is her acting phenomenal, she is the world's most beautiful nanny.

A lot of the professional reviews seem to have been disappointed by "The Nanny Diaries" because it was written and directed by the same people who did "American Splendor." They were expecting something more like that film. "The Nanny Diaries" is not that kind of film. It is not particularly quirky and it will probably appeal to a wide audience. I thought it was better than "The Devil Wears Prada," which it often gets compared to.

"The Nanny Diaries" is absolutely mandatory viewing for Scarlett Johansson fans. For anyone else, this film might win you over.

Satire of how rich people treat nannies

[Jackbv123 · 6/10 · 17 November 2017]

The name Scarlett Johansson is enough to raise at least some interest in most males. Pair that with what looks like it could be a funny romance and I'm in.

I wish I could say it was funny. Unfortunately for me, I have a hard time with satire, especially the more extreme it is. At least I hope this is extreme. I really hate to think that there are real nannies with lives like this.

This movie parodies some deeply sad issue with absentee parenting. I was pulled in by Nanny (Annie) and Grayer's plight. The movie gets a little preachy about it.

Scarlett Johansson plays new graduate with no backbone at all. Because she is a total doormat, her employers totally wipe their feet on her and her feelings. This made it hard for me to watch.

I thought the climax of the story was good and it really wasn't what I expected.

There isn't a lot of romance in the movie.

Not Impressed

[briana317 · 2/10 · 5 September 2007]

A magical red umbrella and a reference to 'Supercallifragilisticexpialidocious!' does not characterize "The Nanny Diaries" as a "modern-day Mary Poppins." If you were to make a "modern-day Mary Poppins," at least make it a decent movie.

"The Nanny Diaries," directed by Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini, was based on the novel The Nanny Diaries, written by Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus. Though the directors cast of some of today's well-known stars like Scarlet Johanssen, Paul Giamatti, Laura Linley, Donna Murphy, and Chris Evans, the movie was bland and lacked a primary theme.

The movie begins with Annie Braddock (Johanssen) a college graduate who is unsure what to do with her life now. After an "unexpected" run-in with a wealthy young boy and his mother in Central Park, Annie goes to work for the Upper East Side family as their nanny. The movie was full of countless clichés: saving her future charge from being run over in the park while his mother is nowhere to be found, being forced to live in a shoe box of a room next to the washing machine, catching Mr. X cheating on his wife, and catching the eye of the rich "Harvard Hottie" who lives on the 12th floor of the apartment building. The movie was so unbelievably predictable it was funny.

The one thing the directors got right was the cast. Nicholas Reese Art plays Grayer, the spoiled, lonely, fun-deprived, adorable little boy with the biggest brown eyes you've ever seen. He is by far the best actor in the movie and the most developed character. Johanssen's performance was mediocre. Her emotions seemed forced at times, but who can blame her with the script she had to work with. Laura Linley does a decent job as bitchy self-centered Mrs. X, and Paul Giamatti does a fantastic job playing the workaholic father with maybe two lines total.

The only reason to see this movie would be to compare it to the novel, but be forewarned that it will be an outrageous disappointment. The film was a cheesy cliché that should have never made it past screening.