wheelz-lv Not the best, but certainly not the worst romantic comedy I've seen. The movie does get a few good laughs out of you, while also gets some valid points across. Like, for example, makes fun of media over-blowing their news stories just to get better ratings. There are some cringe-worthy scenes which do make you question the sense of their reality, but hey, it's a comedy after all, so things don't need to be taken too seriously. For a light-hearted comedy the movie does a decent job of entertaining you.

vincentlynch-moonoi Well, let me just rephrase that a bit. A definite contender for the worst major film ever produced. There certainly have been worse films, but generally only those made by virtual amateurs on independent budgets or fly-by-night film studios.From 1994's "Speed" through 2007's "The Proposal", Sandra Bullock was one of my favorite actresses. And then this film came out, and sense then I haven't watched any of her newer films. For me, she simply lost the golden touch.I have to admit that it doesn't help that her co-star here is Bradley Cooper...never one of my favorites. Thomas Haden Church...this is a professional actor? Ken Jeong...way overrated. DJ Qualls as Howard is interesting here...a quirky actor that brings something interesting to many of his roles. Katy Mixon was pretty good. And it was interesting to see Howard Hesseman as Bullock's character's father.The plot here actually seemed to have potential -- a slightly weird young woman begins stalking an imagined lover. Okay. That could be funny. But this director attacked the film as if he was on meth. Waaaaaaaaaaaay over the top...and that's what ruined the film. No wonder this was a popular Raspberry award winner.I don't say this often...but I wish I hadn't watched this film.

petarmatic I mean really! To give a razzie to Sandra Bullock for this role?!? It is a joke! I think someone in Hollywood wanted to give her a razzie and an Oscar in the same year. That is the reason she received a razzie for this role. I do not think she deserved it. I think it was all a stunt, very well organized. I have seen far worse acting in many far worse movies. As a matter of fact, excellent actors should act retards so they actually look as retards and idiots or mentally ill people if role requires it. Sandra Bullock is such an excellent actress, her Oscars and this role and many others confirm that.As far as this film goes, there is nothing really in it. I only watched it because I wanted to see why she received a razzie. So unless you want to watch it for the same reason, I would advise that you skip it.As far as razzie goes, Sandra keep it for your grand children! They will transfer it to the next generation: Hey you know, my grand mom received a razzie and an Oscar in the same year.

bashfulbadger This movie is remarkable. Somehow it succeeds in effortlessly rendering surely one of the most likable screen actresses ever, the adorable Sandra Bullock, everyone's favourite girl next door (bar perhaps Jennifer Aniston), so totally unbearable that I doubt I'll ever be able to watch her in anything ever again. At least not without traumatic flashbacks to this dire drivel.Some reviews cautioned only to watch it if you're an avid Bullock fan. I would say, if you're a fan, please don't watch it – it could contaminate Sandra for you for ever.This excruciating excuse for a romcom is really one of the worst of the bunch – and believe me, I've seen some bad ones (The Holiday, anyone? I would rather barbecue my own eyeballs than sit through that again).Sandra was born to play kooky, quirky, off the wall. But here they throw everything they can into the mix, thinking a sheer quantity of oddities (for example, she's a horny cruciverbalist) will suffice instead of actually constructing a whole personality, even if it turns her into an implausibly contradictory bunch of irritating tics and tiresome traits.As for the plot, how anyone else she encounters could come to care about this deluded, obsessive individual and her ludicrous carnal quest is beyond me. It's meant to be funny that, throughout all her trials and tribulations, she clings onto the increasingly battered umbrella borrowed from the object of her lust, the eponymous Steve, like some demented Mary Poppins on acid. It's a mystery to me why someone along the way didn't bludgeon her to death with the blessed thing.Perennially in scarlet boots (Dorothy's ruby slippers, perhaps), our heroine is not a patch on that plucky wanderer but instead an infuriating blend of know-it-all verbal diarrhoea and shockingly poor impulse control. She ends up as pointless and troublesome as a fly trapped in the car with you on a hot summer's day.Her alleged erudition is also hard to credit. It seems to manifest itself in tormenting her long-suffering parents and colleagues with a torrent of facts that never seem to demonstrate anything at all insightful or interesting. She just spouts 'knowledge' like a brainwashed chimp without being able to distinguish the pertinent from the irrelevant. When she referred to 'a medical phenomena' that was the icing on the cake as far as poor characterisation went. A wordsmith would surely be able to tell singular from plural.What on earth possessed our beloved Sandra to take this part? At least Bradley Cooper and Thomas Haden Church's roles are better written and funnier and their situations more sympathetic.If you're tempted to keep watching, hoping that it will get better, please don't waste your time. It really doesn't. It really is that poor from start to finish.Except maybe for the horse incident in the wild west town.