andrejmitrovski
Even though the story is cliche because in every movie there is a father that doesn't like his daughter to be with some boy,i still think that this movie is worth watching.
I cried the first time i've seen it and untill now its third time i'm watching it.
I'm not a type who likes romantic movie but definitely yes,it was a good movie.
edwagreen
Bruce Greenwood, as the embittered father surgeon, who lost his son to illness, tries desperately to keep his daughter from the guy from high school who finally gets up enough nerve to court her. The two find instant love, but Greenwood, in an excellent performance, digs into the youth's past and when the youth hits him, he gets an order stating that the fellow can't be near his daughter without facing arrest. All the while, Greenwood has been having an affair with someone he works with.As the troubled youth finding love, Alex Pettyfer does well in the part, but it's Greenwood's performance all the way that guides this film.A film regarding being on the wrong side of the track and being chastised for it.
Auntie_Inflammatory
This is a terrible remake of a (1981) movie that was, itself, a terrible adaptation of a good novel. It comes across as a very cynical attempt to cash in with a pretty, banal, inoffensive love-story (released on Valentine's Day) designed to appeal to undiscriminating teenage girls. When I saw that a newer version of "E.L." was going to be on TV I really wanted to watch it, thinking that it might be a more faithful adaptation of a book that I had enjoyed. I knew within the first 30 seconds that I wasn't going to like it. The film starts with David and Jade graduating from high school as virtual strangers. In the novel, David is 17 and Jade is 15 when they begin dating. The fact that she is only 15 years-old is what makes the intensity of their relationship so disturbing. This film version also throws in several "dramatic" elements not in the book; a Butterfield family tragedy, a juvie record for David, and a (different) car accident. The family dynamics that were so interesting in the novel and did so much to explain the motivations and actions of the characters have been completely revamped and simplified here. Instead of being the son of two middle-class, Jewish, communists, David lives with his single, mechanic, father. Instead of being the daughter of hippie-ish, pseudo-intellectual parents (who misguidedly allow her relationship with David to blossom out of control), Jade has typical bland, wealthy, patrician, teen-movie parents. The novel, by Scott Spencer, was a powerful, sad story of obsession. This adaptation has been reduced to a trite poor-little-rich-girl/poor boy romance with mean, wealthy daddy as the obstacle standing in the way of the young lovers. In the book, it is Jade herself who realizes that her relationship with David may not be appropriate and who requests a trial separation that drives him to desperation. Movie-Jade being 18 years-old kind of negates the whole Daddy-is-trying-to-keep-us-apart thing. I'm not quite sure how Hugh is able to file a restraining order to keep David away from Jade when she is legally an adult.The two main characters here are attractive, blank slates. We really never learn much about them except that they are instantly smitten and in looove. They don't seem to have any interests (other than each other), hobbies, or ideas. We're told that they're smart because she's going to med school and he has high test scores but they don't really do or say anything that demonstrates their above-average intelligence. Jade, who seems to have never had a boyfriend before (and would thus be a virgin), has sex with David on the 3rd day of their acquaintance, before they've even been on an actual date. He has dinner with her family and she invites him to return to her house later, when "all the lights are off", and blithely has sex with him in front of the fireplace as if it's something she's been doing her whole life. There's no nervousness, no hesitation, just an ecstatic smile on her face the whole time. I realize this is supposed to be the stuff of teenage fantasy but, um, birth control? STD prevention? The physical pain of a first sexual encounter? No, it's just easy, uncomplicated bliss. In the book, Jade swipes her mother's diaphragm (having no other means of contraception) for a painful first time that could possibly have gotten her pregnant. A little odd, perhaps, but a lot more realistic than completely glossing over these issues as if they don't exist. I recently learned that the teenage daughter of an acquaintance of mine was pregnant. I couldn't understand how such a seemingly bright girl could fall for a boy telling her that "it'll be okay" to have sex without using birth control. Maybe this book-smart but naïve girl has watched too many of these lame, irresponsible movies? Just follow your heart! Don't worry about anything! Love conquers all! It'll all work out in the end! How negligent of the filmmakers to include a scene like the one mentioned above in a PG-13 film targeting impressionable tweens and teens. It's not the fact that there's a sex scene that bothers me, 13 year-olds know what sex is. It's the way it's presented, the casualness of the whole thing. Having sex with a guy you only met a few days ago is just fine and don't worry about the possible consequences because there aren't any. If you're really in love (with a guy you just met 5 minutes ago) you won't get pregnant or get a disease! Again, it's rated PG-13, not R. What else? There's the one-dimensional characters. There's the sappy montage of what Jade and David think will be their last 2 weeks together. There's the gag-worthy, pat, happy ending.In the closing narration Jade describes David as "my first love." That would seem to imply that he is not her last love which flies in the face of the previous 142 gushy minutes (not to mention the title)! Just go read the book, don't watch either film version.
