|Page 5 of 17:||              |
|Index||164 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This was really a poor excuse for a movie. It was very disjoint, with
little in the way of plot or character development. Tom Hanks portrays
an undereducated middle-aged man who is downsized from his job at a big
box store, so he decides to register at the local community college. A
really hot young college co-ed befriends him for no apparent reason
other than he has a scooter. Julia Roberts portrays a disaffected
teacher at the college, in whose class Tom Hanks is enrolled. Her
character is a bit of an alcoholic who hates her job and has few
redeeming social qualities, and it is mystifying why anyone would be
attracted to her, other than the fact that in real life she is Julia
In an improbable scene, the teacher (Julia) in a drunken stupor accepts a ride on her student's (Tom's) scooter, and then tries to entice him into bed. Being a gentleman, he declines the opportunity. Afterwards, she is disappointed in herself for her indiscretion, but then inexplicably falls for her over-aged student because he didn't tell any of his scooter friends about it. The relationship between Tom's character and the young co-ed fizzles out just as mysteriously as it started, and the teacher (Julia) and her student (Tom) start to develop a mutual romantic interest in a kind of union of misfits. Mercifully, the movie ended soon after.
What a complete waste of time.
I remember I paid $10 to see this when it came out... It was a big
mistake, of course, in hindsight. It deals with job loss and college as
a place for reinvention through interaction with new "interesting"
people. None of it seemed realistic enough for me to care though. On
top of this, it tries to cheat us at the end.
The whole thing is focused on the end speech. During the final, every student addresses the class, as well as us. Aiming to show what he has learnt, in the class, as well as a director and writer, Tom pitches. On one hand, the class is invested in Tom's speech since he "touches upon" and "incorporates" subjects that they care for(ones from their speeches or Shaw-the originally intended subject of the speech). On the other hand, however, it completely fails to engage us. Touching upon the subjects of job loss, foreclosure, lifestyle change etc. is simply not enough to fold a piece of us into the reality of the story.The allegory is not successful. We are not talking pasta or potatoes.
Ahh, and the "battle" between the speech and econ class, with the outcome assuming that we care and that things will change. An obvious slap to the current education system and kids' attention. Lacks subtlety and is very much misguided as to the real problem.
1/5 - Skip this, it's terrible - not a single redeeming feature, apart from providing us with a model of what does not work.
I was about to give this movie a less than favorable rating of 4 or
below, but, I recalled the Economics professor played by George Takei
and I recalled the two minute speeches, made during the class that
were, pretty interesting, intelligent, or funny. The movie as a romance
follows a very predictable path. The movie as a comedy, hits it to the
wall, but not quite out of the park and not quite a hit, a long comedic
out. The movie works better than average because the two stars Julia
Roberts and Tom Hanks make it work.
I liked the Geography Show/George Bernard Shaw speech that Larry Crowne made.
The romantic ending was not good and not what I expected, and includes lines like, Hungry? Lets see the tiny kitchen...where I make French Toast and You said my class changed your life. These lines did not move me to anything except, to note that they were said by two actors, that have little feeling for one another.
But if Tom and Julia are anything, they are entertainers, the movie would not be entertaining with lesser actors. They kept us in it to the ending. They made it interesting, so that we watched the end. George Takei as the Economics Professor was funny, like many other "over the top" comedic characters in movies. The next door neighbors haggling style in lawn sales were amusing. All and all, if you can handle a happy ending with little romantic meaning, the movie works for an hour and a half of your life.
Mid-aged, low-level white-collar worker is fired for lacking a junior
college degree while a disenchanted college prof. is caught up in a
tedious job and an even more tedious marriage. As expected, after
assorted misadventures, they find common ground.
The description "cute" is central to many of the other reviews of this film. That pretty much sums it up. Hanks and Roberts presumably couldn't do worse than "cute" if their lives depended on it. A foreseeable script with canned dialogue make for light, very light, entertainment, ideal for a late, late TV viewing when other channels are showing reruns of some Dwayne Johnson action flick, interrupted by thigh-master infomercials.
It's always nice to see both Pam Greer and George Takei in any kind of film (please translate "nice" as "cute"), but semi-cameos do not make up for anything at all.
Till I watched the movie last night, I didn't think it would be
something I'd enjoy! But after finishing watching it, I had to come
here and write my very first review on IMDb.
The story follows the eponymous Larry Crowne played superbly by Tom Hanks, who is suddenly sacked from his modest job in a Wal-mart like store for his lack of college education. The rest that follows is how he turns his life around with hard-work, determination, and the help of friends. It's a very positive movie which has as its only fault the eluding of wrongs that still go on in life. But, this is a romantic- comedy as well as a feel-good one so my veto is not strong. It is not a fast paced film and there might be flaws, both technical and artistic, that I didn't notice as the continuation was pleasant for me. Although, I am sure this is not a movie for everyone, it doesn't have the witty dialogues like You've Got Mail, which was not even in the last decade but in the one before that... and I think that might turn some people off. The simplicity of the subject matter and the script is probably what lead so many critics give this a thumb down, but for its genre this is a very fine movie. The actors are all great and on average, the characters are likable.
I was debating between giving this a 7 or an 8, but the overall good feeling of the movie took precedence and this scored 8.
Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks) is an amiable team leader in a box store but
he gets fired because he didn't attend college. His time in the Navy
accounted for nothing and he needs to start all over again. Worst yet
he's underwater on his mortgage. He goes to his local college and takes
a course on speaking taught by a tired Mercedes Tainot (Julia Roberts).
Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts may be the most likable actors working right now. But these characters just don't fit very well. Larry Crowne feels like a slightly smarter Forrest Gump. I'm not sure I like him as much as Tom Hanks wants me to. Julia Roberts is just straight up a mess. And every side character in the movie is a 2D cartoon. They are desperately fishing for laughs by trying to be quirky.
Ultimately I like the characters just enough. It has its fun moments, but there's also a lot of awkward moments. It's a very uneven movie.
Tom Hanks directs and stars in this romantic comedy about down on his luck Larry Crowne, a Navy veteran, who is forced to go to college for the first time to better himself after losing his job at a department store. Larry's time at college sees him find a new friend in Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and her gang of scooter fanatics, led by a dead ringer for the late Freddie Mercury. Larry also has a love interest in the form of his teacher, Mercedes (Julia Roberts), who has fallen out of love with teaching while her marriage is also on the rocks. Through his education and new friends, Larry looks to turn his life around. Despite a decent cast, especially George Takei as an amusing economics teacher, Larry Crowne is a fairly standard romantic comedy that offers nothing original and the ending is both predictable and a little corny. Not one of Hanks' best by a long way.
on the surface this is a simple story we've heard before: man thinks he's going to win employee of the month award & gets the olé break room shakedown pulled on him and he finds himself without a job. sad? sure. tragic? maybe. too salty? of course. but i need more! and i got it. yes, it requires the viewer to put on their cinematic scuba gear & jump right into the world of community colleges, men wanting to be men, a diner run by a taskmaster with a dubious' tough but fair' philosophy. dangerous? sometimes. reminiscent of henrik ibsen's 'lady inger of ostrat'? no way, jose. at this point something starts to happen. you begin to hear: who is larry crowne? what is larry crowne? where is larry crowne? are scooter gangs really more scourge than scandal? what am i going to have for lunch today? those are called questions. and they float on the surface of time when you consider this movie which in scope & size & feel remind one of a fresh box of krispy kreme doughnuts on a slightly damp fall morning when the sun is playing a game of hide & seek with the clouds...and that's, well, crownetastic.
Tom Hanks is one of my favorite actors. His movies are always very
worth remembering. This might not be that much memorable but this is as
simple as it gets. During the whole movie I had an smile on my face. It
was a very simple comedy with not much of sexual or offensive jokes
made. It was very sweet in terms of hank's character. It might not be
the best work by tom hank but his direction was okay. The story was
normal and predictable and it was simple and didn't contain too much
twists and the actors were quite good.
He has proved that he still has charm despite his age. A person with good humor and who loves family time can enjoy this very much.
First off, rich people writing about the recession is like a skinny
person who never had a weight problem writing about being fat.
The writing is bad, the characters are completely one dimensional and the acting is so forced it's like watching an exercise in a freshman acting class.
Julia Roberts walks through the movie playing a bitter, jaded nothing of a teacher with a chip on her shoulder. So glad she gets paid so much money to do so little.
The falsely perky Gugu Mbatha-Raw is grating. I know she's supposed to be the "muse" in the movie, but she's just annoying.
Cedric the Entertainer is supposed to be clever, but comes off as kind of mean playing the greedy neighbor who makes a living nickle and diming people in his perpetual garage sales.
The utterly un-interesting characters are a study in bad scriptwriting, from the students in classes to the scooter bunch. The only redeeming performance is by George Takei, who plays an arrogant, eccentric econ teacher.
Everything in this movie stinks. So glad I caught it on cable and didn't pay for it.
|Page 5 of 17:||              |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|