|Index||10 reviews in total|
I wasn't sure what to expect with this movie since I haven't read the
book. I was pleasantly surprised however! From the moment the movie
started I was enthralled with the characters. Who didn't have an
imaginary friend as a kid? Pretty much everyone did. Jane was a lovely,
if a bit confused, character... a very everyday sort of woman. And
Michael! Well, since I haven't read the book I don't know if Eric
Winter truly captured the character or not but if he is anything like
how he is portrayed then I am going to love him.
This movie gets an A in my book. I would recommend it to anyone who likes an innocent romance.
Delightful premise. Eric Winter does a very good job playing an
innocent child-like spirit in an adult body. He plays those scenes with
zest and energy. The script has some cute scenes and dialogue based on
that premise. Eric Winter and Alyssa Milano have excellent chemistry as
There are some clichés in this film: The fiancé is a selfish and vain man, who does not appreciate the protagonist's true self. The protagonist gave up on her dreams and took a safe boring path through life. Not every scene works but still a pleasant film.
Stockard Channing is a great performer, but this role does not use her superlative talent.
Alyssa Milano plays down her sexiness to play a regular career girl. She is quite good in this role.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
First of all, they should have considered some apt titles, than this
meaningless one. Yes, there was that Breakfast at Tiffany's, and that
was one classic movie. True love and diamonds are synonymous with
eternity, and may be, the director wanted us to connect with the
concept, that true soul-mates find each other, conquering all the
hurdles and barriers. Though we do not have any of the first rate stars
,like Kate Winslet or Hugh Jackman, the trio of Milano, Winter ,and
Sergei, are a pleasant surprise, who have done justice to their roles,
within the limitations of the plot line, the dialogs, and their
interaction with the other characters. Basically, the focus is on
establishing the principle of eternal love, soul-mates, guardian
angels, and the gap between the fantasy and the actual world that the
people live in and have to manage .
Milano is quite good looking, graceful, and has enacted the role of a confused woman, who is facing a total stranger , who seems to know all about her.Eric Winter is charming, and unassuming, and they make a good pair; However, Sergei , a tall, handsome actor, doesn't have much to do, except showing his affluence, winning ways with the press and media, and showing off, also dominating Jane, who is a talented young woman he is going to get married with. Milano and Winter have shown beautifully, the growing relationship between two friends, meeting after so many years, yet being able to share an excellent chemistry, which grows to developing into even physical intimacy. Surprisingly, the couple engaged to get married, does not indicate any such inclinations to come closer. Hugh's character is not written very well, obviously to highlight the long lost soul-mates, and their much awaited reunion.
There is no harm in seeing this movie once, as it is simple, yet touching,on many occasions, and lastly ,Michael the guardian, coming back to be with his love, who has also ran out of an elite wedding, in search of him, and his confessing that he needs her now.
However, since Michael has learned to make his living now, that's a kind of relief to every body, seeing him as a successful chef, serving Mac and Cheese ! And that's another message, about all of us wanting to be naive like children, and enjoy just some simple pleasures of life. How ever, the movie has it's own limitations, like a very straight story line, and almost predictable responses of the groom-to-be, his lack of sensitivity, and materialistic personality. All other actors are good in their supportive roles, especially the lady psychiatrist. Musical score is nothing great, but average. But please tell me, how does Michael manage to buy that expensive diamond ring ,after all ? Keep it up, Tiffany's, and bring the lost loves together !
Jane (Alyssa Milano) once had an imaginary friend when she was a little girl. An only child to a busy mother, Vivian (Stockard Channing), she needed Michael time and time again to help her in daily living. But, on the day the wee gal turned ten, Mother took her shopping for jewelry at Tiffanys and Michael said goodbye! He told Jane the rules of imaginary pals was written in stone, that is, after age ten, children needed to "grow up" and learn to solve their own troubles. Needless to say, Jane is heartbroken as she watches Michael disappear down the elevator. Flash forward 20 years. Now, Jane works in the theater business with her mother and is engaged to a successful but ego-driven actor, Hugh (the gorgeous Ivan Sergei). With the wedding weeks away, Jane is still having difficulty choosing a gown, flowers, a cake and more. What a surprise it is, then, that a grown-up Michael (Eric Winter) returns to help out! After realizing he is NOT a stalker, Jane accepts that he is indeed her former best friend and, wow, is he cute. Having him by her side makes it easy to choose the right dress and everything else. But, since Michael temporarily bunks on Jane's couch, having no "earthly" home, the two may be in danger of becoming more than pals! Meanwhile, Hugh is doing interviews, signing autographs, and focusing little attention to a supposed rival, haha. What will Jane's heart tell her in the end? This is one beautiful and funny romance, based on a book by James Patterson. Milano is lovely and comical as the lead character while Winter and Sergei are two of the most talented eye-candy actors around. For romcom fans, it doesn't get much better. Channing and all of the other cast members do fine work, too. The Manhattan setting, costumes, script, direction, and all other film amenities are most fine, despite that the film was a made-for-television movie. So, dear fans everywhere, try to grab hold of this winner, for it truly shines as brilliantly as a diamond from the well-known store of the stars.
I see a good many movies on DVD and I have lately ventured into the
rom- com field without much happiness or success. Movies in this genre
are really intended as date movies that the girl drags the boy too so
she can live out some fantasy time. This movie is supposed to be a
fantasy from childhood come to life, but there is very little life in
it. The imaginary friend who comes to rescue the lead character just as
she is about to marry a self centered actor is likable enough, since he
isn't obnoxious, but just about nothing else about the movie makes
sense. Why is the imaginary friend able to stay in the real world
beyond his supposed departure time? How did he know to come back? Why
is there a little black kid popping up and advising him on the rules of
If he has come back to rescue this girl, why doesn't he say so straight out? Oyvay! Who cares? Dumb and sappy, this movie really stinks. At least it follows one of the key unwritten rules of rom-coms: everything happens in New York City. You can have rom and you can have com, but if you want both, its gotta be in the Big Apple, right?
I thought this was an enjoyable movie. Yes, the ending was fairly predictable, as most of these type movies are, but I enjoyed it. I didn't know this was based on a book and evidently it doesn't follow it very closely and most people who've read it didn't care for the movie. If you don't know about the book, the movie is good. I did notice several goofs (I'm not giving away anything at all about the storyline, so I don't consider these spoilers): in a scene where Jane goes to a restaurant to find Michael, she speaks with the hostess and as the camera flips between the two women, Jane's scarf is around her neck and then hanging down. It goes back and forth about 5 times during the conversation. Also, the previews for the movie show parts of scenes that don't actually happen in the movie. The preview of Michael in front of the cab has the cab driver saying "we can all see you" and he never says that in the actual movie. Also, the preview shows a brief clip of Jane and Michael dancing 'the robot' in a bar, and in the movie, she doesn't get up until he is done dancing.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
As child we all have a 'Michael'. Especially when life is difficult. Here it was, and still is twenty years later, the ego centered mother and now Janes ego centered fiancé Hugh. The little girl Jane is heartbroken at Tiffany's elevator when Michael, her little 'imaginary' friend, leaves: "I have no choice. So are the rules." It is time to leave and return to the magic world, for the next task. From now on the girl Jane must go on alone. But: general rules can sometimes be sidestepped - what this movie and the book tells. Why returns Michael? He does not know. And the irritated Jane does not believe that he is her childhoods 'imaginary friend'. But the forgotten yesterdays details lets her accept: Micheal is her 'imaginary friend' from yesterday. Michael tells Janes mother: "You haven't changed." And Janes successful ego-driven fiancé Hugh is unable to see what is behind the 'organized' Jane: "She is organized." Michael is her glasses, letting her see that Hugh sees only those parts of her that match his own style of life. Michael helps her with the details of her coming wedding with Hugh: the right wedding dress, the right flowers, the wedding cake: all those details, needed for a wedding. While Hugh is absent, not realizing that Michael does what he should do as her future husband. Jane realizes this in church: turns and rushes off. Sitting in her now useless wedding dress, chosen by Michael, on a bench by herself, alone, ready for the final moment of the happy end. And it happens. Michael returns: "When you where a little girl I came to you as you needed me. I came back because I need you. I don't exist without you." Them in the magic world knew this all the way but had him to discover the truth himself. And Jane: "What about the rules?" Michael answering: "The rules are made to be broken."
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Reality and fantasy are the major themes here which seem to connect.
Imagine that her imaginary boyfriend leaves her at age 10, and
resurfaces 20 years later when she is about to wed a Broadway legend,
who is also Hollywood bound. The guy is a hunk and a writer to the
bargain as well.
When imaginary friend Michael resurfaces after all these years, he can be seen by everyone and immediately there is jealousy between the couple as Michael intervenes.
This is a tale of true love, gone awry and with the old theme of following your basic instincts.
Stockard Channing co-stars as the successful mother of Jane, who was abandoned by her own husband years before.
The story is really somewhat hard to take. The last scene where Jane walks out at her wedding reminded me of 1967's "The Graduate." At least, that was reality based. We might have even needed Mrs. Robinson to heat things up.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
In essence this movie was good. But if you are a fan of the book, do yourself a favor and just don't watch it! I loved the book and so did my sister, we read the book together at night and was captured in the story lines. This book almost has nothing to do with movie! The only comparisons I can see is that there is a Jane and a Michael who was her imaginary friend as a child. Other then that, the story is completely different. It portrays Michael as somewhat of a beggar/homeless man who depends on the kindness of Jane through out the movie. Michael depends on Jane for meals and follows her like a stalker/hopeless puppy. So not how the book made Michael out to be. And the switch over from imaginary to human, you might as well forget Michael even existed as imaginary. Good OK story line. Just don't hope for it following the book even at all. Seeing as the book had so much potential, this movie, frankly, does not.
only catch - the idea of childhood imaginary friend. but it is a poor idea. because it is a common romance. not smart, not nice, not inspired. only stage for few actors and a predictable final. it is difficult to say if it is good or bad. the difference is result of soul state but it may be almost nice. only for charm of Alissa Mylano or for fans of Eric Winter/ Ivan Sergei. it is too long and confuse. pink, soft and unrealistic. strange and not clever. without usual spices. but nice. like many, too many others. in fact, only question remains : why Tiffany's ? why this strange game with the poor imaginary friend? but it is not time or place for answers. enjoy it ! and few tears can be at right place.
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|