'Til There Was You (1997) User Reviews

The real reason this movie is rated so low

[erconnolly · 5/10 · 19 May 2005]

The comments here seem to indicate a preference for the movie not reflected in the overall rating of below 5. I think that's because the people who love the film are answering a perceived wrong, that critics/viewers want a typical romantic comedy storyline, that completely misses the point. The reason this film is not good is the basics: story details and acting.

I actually think the major lead roles were miscast--too old to be college students, or even young professionals (it was hard to tell exactly how old they were supposed to be throughout the movie), and not entirely convincing in their performances.

But then the story details were not all there. I liked the concept of the random connections the main characters shared, and didn't have a problem at all with the fact that they didn't meet until the end (although I agree with another reviewer in that I would have liked to have seen something more than just 1st meeting directly to 10+ years later with a child). But it was not very well executed, and details fell through the cracks.

Many of the minor characters were so 2-dimensional. Jennifer Aniston's "best friend" character was hardly given a chance to develop. The saving grace of this film for me was Sarah Jessica Parker, who was able to cover a range of behaviors so believably in a character that had the potential for caricature.

Love and smoking

[Spaz-3 · 5/10 · 26 May 1999]

You know what is going to happen 15 minutes into the movie, unless you have had a lobotomy. The characters are kind of likeable. Still, it's just a happy ending, format driven, feel-good movie. I guess you can watch it with a date or something, otherwise skip it.

Should have been much better...

[Meredith-7 · 5/10 · 7 July 1999]

The premise was there to make a really good romantic comedy, but somewhere it all went totally wrong. First, there were no sparks between the two leads. There they were near the end pretending to be in love at first sight, and it was just not believable at all. McDermott's character was really annoying, obnoxious, unsympathetic etc... until about 3/4 the way through the film, then he started to be sweet - but he was nowhere near convincing enough. Aniston had VERY little to do, and her character was really only half developed, while Parker's character was a complete joke - how self obsessed can a person be? The pointers on relationships in general fell short, and really the only people to liven up the film were the bit part actors, who outshone the central actors in every scene. Quite frankly this film was a total waste of energy and time. It had the foundation to be O.K but could not properly utilize the resources to pull it off.

watch it a second time, or maybe even a third, you'll be surprised...

[laniebogs · 12 August 2000]

the first time i saw Til there was you, i liked it for it's cuteness, but it kinda went by slowly...but then i had an urge to watch it again,and i was able to catch more about the connections between Nicholas and Gwen. i love how EVERY time i watch it, i discover some new path crossing i didn't catch before. i really do like this movie.

Jeanne Tripplehorn: the next Debrorah Kerr or some Lame Romantic Actress

[JJTTbean · 3/10 · 27 March 1999]

The film has weird annoying characters, strange unexplainable slapstick, and an insurmountable amount of dialogue about smoking. The movie has a contrived plot of a bitchy, empty-headed woman's (Jeanne Tripplehorn) search for love. Although who would ever like Jeanne's character, personality, or reading of the dialogue, I really cannot say. Except that she likes to smoke.

Sarah Jessica Parker gives an interesting character performance (who likes to smoke). Dylan McDermott does his best to look pretty and soulful (as he smokes). And, hey, what is Jennifer Aniston doing there? Oh, she's not really in it enough for anyone to care about her. (But she likes to smoke).

This is a waste of anyone's time. I don't even know how I was able to sit through as much of the movie as I did. I can't even believe I spent the time to write this, except to warn others of its banality. Anyone need a cigarette?

Too Slow, Bad Ending (in my opinion)

[MalC-4 · 1/10 · 9 September 1998]

From the beginning, 'Til There Was You was on the right track, setting up for the big finish where it would all come together. But the thing is, it didn 't. I found the ending extremely disappointing, but maybe in someway it was the right ending; a little more realistic you could say. Judge for yourself.

This is a BADly produced/written/acted/directed movie about two people who need to meet (and smoke).

[johnion · 1/10 · 9 March 1999]

'Til There was You is one of the worst films we've ever seen. It fails in every respect. Jeanne Tripplehorn was better (as an actress...) in Waterworld. In comparison, this film is Dungworld. When a character stumbles once, or even twice, in the course of a film, one can understand it. But Jeanne's character falls, trips, stumbles so often that she might have a bit of Jerry Lewis in her. In her defence, each (prat?) fall was probably blocked, choreographed, and rehearsed. And rehearsed. Although this is bad enough for a film, the actors (Dylan McDermott and Jeanne Tripplehorn) seem to spend most of the plot going "out for a smoke" or trying to find a place to smoke. If the film was a diatribe on having no place to smoke- Ok - BUT, it isn't.

However long this film runs, it is too long by 10 minutes past the running time.

Oh, Jeanne Tripplehorn, ALMOST acts in a public forum meeting. You ALMOST see her break life into the character. Oh, it's ALMOST as convincing as her scene yelling at Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct--hmm, on second thought, not really.

This is a film to avoid at all costs unless you need a cigarette and are trapped in nicotine addicts anonymous or forced to watch outtakes of HOOPER (Burt Reynolds). And even then, toss a coin or go to sleep.

Amiable rom-com that never goes anywhere

[tramsbottom · 5/10 · 20 February 2004]

There's a nice build up for the first hour - two kids grow up and bump into each other several times before 'finding' each other - but then there seems to be twenty minutes of the end missing because one minute they don't know each other from Adam and then they're together.

Somebody should explain that the only reason people go to see this type of movie is to WATCH THE CHARACTERS GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER. This movie completely skips this part and ruins all that's gone before it.

Sarah Jessica Parker And An Under Used Jennifer Aniston Are The Only Bright Spots In Dull Affair

[slightlymad22 · 4/10 · 11 December 2014]

WOW that was two long hours, if it were not for the awful "The Switch" this would be the worst movie in Jennifer Aniston's post "Friends" filmography. Not that any of the movies problems are her fault. She is actually blameless, as she is very good in her five or six scenes. Along with Sarah Jessica Parker as a former child star, she is the best thing in the movie.

No the blame for this movie lands firmly on the door stop of a bland Jeanne Tripplehorn (who I loved in "Waterworld" and "Basic Instinct") a dull Dylan McDermott, whoever was in charge of casting those two and finally the director Scott Winant.

I normally write a plot in a paragraph for each review, here it does not need a full paragraph.

Two single strangers keep almost meeting over the years, will they ever meet and fall in love?

I've just realised the movie was only on for one hour and forty four minutes. It felt a hell of a lot longer!! In fact my interest only perked up when Jen Aniston and Sarah Jessica Parker were on screen. Whoever though Jeanne Tripplehorn would make an interesting romantic lead were very wrong as I simply didn't care about her character and Dylan McDermott is dull and lifeless I did not care if they got together or not!! I was more interested in the problems in Aniston's characters seemingly perfect marriage.

Simple, Complicated, Shallow, Deep

[photographer78 · 7/10 · 20 September 2005]

I caught this on TV last night(sans ad-breaks), and I have to say, I liked it a lot. I had tried to watch it a few times before on TV, but had never really got hooked into the story enough to stick with it until the end.

I'm glad I did now. I hate Sex And The City, especially SJP's character in it, but she was great in this movie. And (gulp!) very sexy in it. Must have been the Bob.

Jean Tripplehorn is very underrated, and has had some casting misfortunes in the past, which have overshadowed her talent and potential. Even though her character here was for the most part a little distant and icy, she still managed to bring a bit of warmth to the part. And she's also extremely attractive, which never hurts.

Jen Aniston "didnt play Rachel", which was a good thing. The supporting cast did their jobs well, and Dylan McDermott? Well, you either like him or you loathe him, I have found. I thought he was quite watchable in this.

I was amused to see reviewers on here, knocking the film because people smoked in it. Honestly, I don't understand what that has to do with a film's artistic merit. On matters like smoking and drug use, some of our

members(non-UK, usually) tend to let their right wing views tarnish their opinions of a film. Which is, as they say on message boards, "Retarded".

Take a chance and see this film. It's not Con Air, but it has a story, characters, and lots of smoking.

(irony) Which is wrong, as Jesus doesn't like smoking. Or homosexuals(/irony).

7.5 out of 10,

Goodnight.

'Til There Was This Garbage.

[anaconda-40658 · 2/10 · 23 June 2015]

'Til There Was You (1997): Dir: Scott Winant / Cast: Jeanne Tripplehorn, Dylan McDermott, Sarah Jessica Parker, Jennifer Aniston, Christine Ebsersole: Idiotic romantic rubbish about the difference a person can make. It makes one wonder who will stand up and take the blame for this junk. Sarah Jessica Parker plays a former child star who is under the impression that everyone thinks she is dead. Jeanne Tripplehorn enters as a ghost writer who decides to do a biography about her. Later Parker is angry because Tripplehorn dropped the project to aid a place that city council plans to demolish. Predictable and dumb with horrible directing by Scott Winant. Tripplehorn takes honors for ruining the film with her constant overacting and her ability to bump into hanging objects. Why Winant figured this brief slapstick nonsense was necessary is anyone's guess. Dylan McDermott is flat as that standard guy whom Tripplehorn must get involved with, or at least allow the screenplay to hint at it. Parker survives the film with the one interesting role and she rises above while the rest of the film plummets fast. Jennifer Aniston also appears to hopefully her regret. The sets and locations are fetching and seem to liven up when the screenplay bores us to sleep. Aside from that there isn't much that seems to liven this sappy garbage. Pointless and dreary drivel embarrassment that is best seen behind closed lids. Score: 2 ½ / 10

This one got terrible reviews, but I liked it.

[Lleu · 8/10 · 21 June 1999]

I recently saw this movie, starring Jeanne Tripplehorn and Dylan McDermott, for the second time on cable and I think it's a lot more interesting and original than critics gave it credit for. It does have a meandering nonlinear plot, and the lovers destined to be together don't meet until the end; these facts bother some who are used to a formula plot. It has been compared (unfavorably of course) with Sleepless In Seattle, but aside from the couple not meeting until the end, the two films are not at all similar; Sleepless (which I also liked) is much more conventional; every single scene is directly related to the inevitable conclusion.Til There Was You is actually more like You've Got Mail, where the predestined couple are foes before they meet. Til There Was You, however, is much more original and authentic.You do have to have patience with it; while it's part comedy, it's also a bit like real life; much of what happens is peripheral to the central plot. I liked this; you may not.It has several quirky characters, the most entertaining played by Sarah Jessica Parker.I am sorry that more people didn't like this; the harsh criticism will only encourage future screenwriters to go strictly by the book.

Simple story made for hopeful romantics

[bleakeye · 6/10 · 27 May 2001]

I do not know what reviews some critics gave for this film but it was probably horrendous because critics seem to have their own definitions of what a movie should be about from the films they've enjoyed early on in their lives/careers. I also bet that the reviews are horrible because they have seen these actors in other performances and have been somehow annoyed by them therefore becoming slightly biased. I myself am biased towards/against some actors, directors and even certain film critics.

This movie in particular offers many styles and direction that have been used before in other much more acclaimed films (I will not name any because truthfully nothing comes to mind). What I appreciated about this film is it's simplicity in terms of telling it's story. It runs a straight line that doesn't use much dreamlike flashbacks, dream sequences and it doesn't even try to become innovative. A movie that runs like a well told story with no flashy effects that could deter the watcher from what we're supposed to be paying attention to... the story. I could understand why people should not like this as much as I do and I don't blame them. We each have our own vision of what we want and I like this movie.

Focusing on the movie, I think that all the main characters are well developed. Dylan McDermott, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Jennifer Aniston and Sarah Jessica Parker have a strange and yet wonderful chemistry together (Although not all of the characters know each other, their scenes are actually realistically acted). Scenes, from the watching of the fictitious TV show by the two leads to the scene which they finally meet is so unexpected that it is realistic.

In conclusion, I have to say that watching this was a pleasant experience (although many cliched dialogue and situations). People should see it with an open mind and try to enjoy.

Good!

[SoSmooth1982 · 5/10 · 7 September 2020]

Kind of funny for a romance movie. I shockingly actually liked the movie.

Wassup w/you Jaded Viewers???

[chloeinwon · 4 September 2000]

I thought this was a tightly-written, well-directed, superbly-acted film. It moved me to tears. Rang true & clear. Happy ending & all, it depicted the angst & turmoil of the shallow relationships this culture encourages.... the characters did the work & found their true mates as a result. Too slow for American hyper/commercial attention spans, for sure. More like a European film in that regard. Brave & moving. Glad I saw it.

Poor title. Poor film

[studioAT · 2/10 · 27 June 2017]

Dylan McDermott is a good actor, and a likable one at that, so it was no surprise that at the peak of his fame he popped up in romantic comedies like this one. He also did 'Three To Tango' during this period, which is a far superior film.

This is a typical, run of the mill romantic comedy, and not a particularly good one at that.

The set up is weak, the jokes laboured. Although the two leads do their best there's not much chemistry between them and it shows.

It's a shame, but this film proves why it's so hard to make a successful romantic comedy

"Til' This Movie Is Buried"

[DJ_Shilo · 1/10 · 27 December 2023]

"Til' There Was You" is a painful slog of boring scenes that go nowhere with characters that have no meaning. Revelations about sexuality, parenting, and self-esteem are handled badly because the movie is a series of talking heads, and it drags the idiot plot for almost 2 hours.

Jeanne Tripplehorn plays Gwen Moss, who is the typical character looking for the man of her dreams, unaware she has bumped into him in grade school, who will become that dream by the end of the movie. That man is Artichect Nick (Dylan McDermott.) Obviously, they are intended for each other. They are kept apart for the movie, only to meet in the end. Instead of your typical romantic plot where the girl is in front of him, and he doesn't realize it until the end, they spend three-quarters of the movie with Nick romancing Francesca (Sarah Jessica Parker.) She was a child star that Nick loved when he was a kid.

Gwen is hired to ghostwrite her autobiography. She aspires to have a life like her best friend Debbie (Jennifer Aniston,) a doctor, who is on screen for two scenes. On the surface, her marriage is failing, but of course, she has to act like everything is fine. Francesca owns La Fortuna, a picturesque apartment complex, and this place becomes the center of the movie that ties the three characters together, and they can't even get that right. They flip-flop between flashback scenes, and someone talking. Next character. Repeat!

Gwen falls in love with the building, and Nick's boss Timo, (Patrick Malahide,) wants the property to turn into Condominium Holmes. Francesca has become sober from drug addiction, and she agrees to the sale of the building. Nick deals with memories of his father, and Gwen discovers something about her father and leaves her shocked. Each character is supposed to be damaged, and never feel like it.

Francesca is a former sitcom star that Nick grew up watching. His father was a failed musician, and the memories still haunt him. His hero is an older lady, (Nina Foch,) who is an architect. She designed the complex, but he doesn't know that for some reason. Gwen's story involves her parents. She is clumsy and brains herself, trips over a waiter and falls over a chair, and it's the movie's attempt at being funny. She was also dating her college professor who is later revealed to be gay.

Of course, throughout the movie, they almost meet until that building being demolished attempts to bring them together. He almost hits her with a building model he made when he sits it on the window sill, and it crashes beside her. There is a weird subplot where all the characters smoke, unpleasantly and want to stop. It doesn't make much sense when he feels so forced because It's every character, and it is never fully explained. Well, it kind of is. It's used as a crutch for the ending.

Gwen moves into the apartment complex and surrounds herself with the old ladies who live there. Everyone is given an eviction, and they fight back to keep their holmes with Sophia Monore (Nina Foch,) Nick's mentor and a silent film star. She also designed the property. Gwen tries desperately to have the building as a landmark so it can't be torn down. Nick discovers the building's historical value and decides to change his mind.

"Til' There Was You" isn't new at all, but has no ambition. Dylan brings unassuming leading man charm but never becomes anything more than a prop for Gwen to meet at the end. None of the characters have any meaning to them. First-time director Scott Winant and screenwriter Winnie Holzman can't tell the story's structure by trying to be cute, and, yet, the movie feels like a dumb adventure that is predesigned and safe, and the screenplay isn't allowed to be anything other than predictable and boring.

1/10.

The problem is it's billed wrong

[geobear75 · 2/10 · 30 March 2015]

I think what hurts this film's ratings the most is that it's billed wrong. It's listed as a romantic comedy. But the film is neither particularly romantic or comedic. This is probably also why it's been stated that it gets better after multiple viewings. After you've already seen it once, you already know that it's more of an introspective drama, so you can watch it in that context & it goes much better. It's actually not a BAD movie if you're in the mood for more of a "down" movie, but if you're looking for an ACTUAL romantic comedy (which are "up" movies), this is NOT it! The first 2 minutes are happy & hopeful, but after that, the happiness turns to sadness, the hopes are dashed, and it's a movie focused on addictions, broken relationships, lies, tears, broken hearts, pain, death, destruction, goodbyes, and a general sense that nothing lasts forever...a sense of hopelessness. Only in the last 6 minutes of the movie is there even the slightest glimmer of hope again. But the mistake they make is that they run the movie full circle so that the hope at the end is the same as the hope at the beginning...the hope that was killed during the movie. So the end result is that they're implying (whether intentionally or not) a cycle of hopelessness.

And when what I wanted were some happy, hopeful thoughts to close out a rough day and give me sweet dreams, this heavy feeling of depressiveness really sucks. Two stars.

One of the dullest romantic comedies, I've ever seen...

[m-47826 · 3/10 · 22 July 2022]

Good actors can't make up for a tedious script. And a movie that seems to last hours. I got the point from the beginning. It was about how some people are destined to be together. But why did it have to be so boring? They can have the heroine get as much stuffs thrown at her face, or fall down her butt. It will never make this movie more exciting. Which is sad, because I was genuinely expecting to have a good time, after watching the trailer first. Tricky marketing... What remains is a story about two « soulmates », that struggle through a mish mash of unbelievable serendipity situations, wrong turns and delays. That still led them at the right place, at the right time. That plot implied something very special, but it got lost along it's stretched out way. That being said, I loved the cast, and still laugh at the thought of that « artsy » restaurant...

Slow moving but sweet, most romance fans will like it

[inkblot11 · 6/10 · 17 May 2008]

Gwen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) is a romantic dreamer, encouraged by her mother, but she is disappointed in love time and again. Nick (Dylan McDermott) grew up in a dysfunctional family and, consequently, wears no rose colored glasses to look upon life and romance. There is one common denominator between the two of them, they both loved a "Brady Bunch" type show called One Big Happy Family when they were young. The child star of the show, Francesca Lanfield (Sarah Jessica Parker), grew up to be a troubled adult, with drug problems, who now lives on investments that were made for her during her young acting days. Thus, she owns a beautiful old apartment building in Los Angeles, which once housed Louise Brooks, and where Gwen now resides, that she is selling for big bucks. The plan is to raze the building and erect something new. As luck would have it, Nick is the architect of the project and Francesca likes what she sees and the two start a sexually-charged thing. The "luck" continues when Gwen, an author, is assigned to ghost write Francesca's autobiography. Thus, the two of them have connections to Francesca, a happening to add to the string of chance meetings and near misses between Nick and Gwen throughout their lives. As Gwen fights for her beloved building, Nick has second thoughts about his role in its destruction and Francesca remains a petulant, mostly unlovable eccentric, how will the film play out? This is a sweet story with attractive, talented performers but its pace is so slow that some viewers may turn it off. Certainly, Tripplehorn, McDermott, and Parker give nice performances, especially Parker, who makes a believable, mixed-up child star all grown up. Then, too, the L.A. scenery, costumes, and amenities are fine indeed. But, the script, which contains many good ideas and themes, moves along very slowly and the direction is far from snappy as well. Therefore, if you love romantic dramas, especially those that sport beautiful actors, do make time for this one. It has a nice tale to tell, even as it takes what seems like a decade to tell it.

Take a Second Look At This Funny and Deeply Misunderstood Film

[Skeptic-8 · 9/10 · 21 April 2001]

Sometimes a movie is too ironic and self-parodying for its own good. This brilliant and cleverly-conceived film, despite having been panned by critics and drubbed by fans, deserves a hard second look by those with sufficient vision to look beyond the apparent formula of the film to see the deft irony that lies (not very far) beneath the surface.

This film comes disguised as a romantic comedy. Indeed, it has all the fantasy elements of the genre: endlessly falling flower petals; attractive men and women initially at odds with one another; the protagonist's self-discovery; and (ultimately) a lush, romantic setting. It doesn't spoil the film one whit to say that it even has the traditional rom-com ending of "girl gets boy" -- in fact, isn't that de rigeur for a romantic comedy?

But beneath the trappings of the eternal quest for love lie uncomfortable truths that this movie keeps sprinkling among the rose petals for the viewer to confront: people betray one another's trust for casual or selfish motives; trusting one's heart to "love" leads as often to heartache as it does to fulfillment; what looks like love from one person's viewpoint is often something very different from the other side; being too needy for love stifles talent and ambition; and happy endings sometimes only appear that way.

Looked at as an ironic commentary on the imperfections and uncertainties of love and of the fantasy of "happily ever after," this film is nearly perfect. Looked at as a straightforward romantic comedy, it's awful. But there are dozens of clues in the skilled writing and direction that point to irony, rather than romance, as the powerful engine that pulls this movie. Indeed, the movie takes vicious swipes at romantic comedy staples throughout: the magical love story of the girl's parents, on which she was bottle-fed, turns out not to be quite what it seems; most other characters repeatedly fail in their love lives, or succeed only to suffer great loss as a result; and great-hearted social gestures are doomed to failure. Sometimes the irony is apparent in other ways, such as in the flower petals that fall too relentlessly and too often either to be ignored or to be accepted at face value.

The message of this film, ultimately, is quietly stark: everything is doomed to fade away, and we shall fade away, too, no matter whom we love or how deeply. Whether we will get scorched by that love before we shuffle off is an open question. This is not your standard romantic comedy message. Nor is this really a feel-good movie. But it is very funny in places, cleverly constructed, well acted, and comes with an important message about love and loss. It deserves a second chance.

A Lovely Little Movie

[sheridaglover · 7/10 · 24 January 2022]

This is a fix-yourself-a-cup-of-tea and snuggle up with your kitty and watch this and fall in love with romantic movies all over again type of film.

Beautifully filmed, perfectly cast and the settings are bliss.

It's not great art, but it is like a warm chocolate chip cookie. Sure, you need more than just that for a balanced diet but oh my goodness, every now and then you really crave one.

Enjoyed it very much

[Boyo-2 · 9/10 · 29 July 1999]

I've seen this movie about five times by now and I still find new things to like about it. Tripplehorn is great (especially at pratfalls) and the rest of the large cast is pretty good too. The movies takes swipes at modern architecture, smoking and relationships, and they are very funny for the most part.

A very nice surprise

[Scream-11 · 10/10 · 26 May 1999]

I would like to state for the record that I personally hate romance movies. I find that the characters are usually one-dimensional and the stories are extremely poorly written. This movie, however, was great. I know, a lot of the "coincidences" that happen are pretty cheesy, but overall, the movie is incredibly well-written, so it all seems completely believable. The characters are likable, and it's a very funny movie as well. I recommend this as an exception for anyone who hates romances.

Vivid characters and there run-ins with love, irony, heartbreak,

[suedecaramel · 9/10 · 30 September 2000]

While many would find this movie uneventful and drawn out, the genius of it comes from the solicitous character development, distinct wit, and gradual, realistic build-up to an ending that renews one's faith in destiny and fated love. The dynamic characters enthralled me with a story that shows very contrasting, but equally beautiful realities: the pain and joy of love. The movie broke my heart over the end of relationships that filled me with jealousy and nostalgia, and put it back together again with the triumph of what was "meant to be". Because of the enduring themes of both love and, more subtly but just as importantly, emotional growth, this movie has taken it's place in my mind and heart.