Irishchatter I think this movie got the wrong title even if Leelee Sobieski's character Jennifer mentioned the word "lover" about Albert Brooks' character Randall. I mean, if they think the writers were gonna use the movie title, then why didn't they get the characters fall in love and be together? It just didn't make any sense to me! They would've been better off if they called this movie "Friends" or "Hope", something that really defines the whole movie like I don't like the fact its called "My First Mister".It was good to see John Goodman as the daft father like it really suits his role. I wish he could be my dad since he is such a legend haha! This is an OK film but its disappointing at the same time for me!

moonspinner55 Jill Franklyn wrote this coming-of-age comedy-drama which never gets the nimble balance between laughs and pathos quite right. Antisocial 17-year-old girl, into Goth attire, facial piercings, and suicide notes (and, in the completely off-putting first scene, smearing her own blood across her handwritten poetry), cleans herself up and gets a job in the stockroom of a local men's clothing store; there, she befriends her middle-aged boss, who doesn't have any friends either. Christine Lahti made her feature directorial debut here, and the scenario is littered with celebrity friends and (for the most part) a good-natured air. Some of the early visual jokes do not work at all, though Lahti is very adept at setting up intimate conversational moments. Her film would seem to share a common thread with the later "Lost in Translation", but--by focusing most of the attention on the ill-tempered, foul-mouthed teenager (Leelee Sobieski, dressed like a sewer rat)--interest in the central relationship takes an awfully long time to build. Albert Brooks is rather adorable in cardigan sweaters and a natty mustache, but Brooks does more for the movie than it does for him. By the halfway mark, the picture has sunk into a vat of mushy sentiment, clichés, and scenes lifted from other (better) movies and television shows. ** from ****

ceejay1-1 This is a fantastic idea for a film and one that doesn't conjure up any easy comparisons, perhaps Harold and Maude. Key to the execution of the writer's ambitious vision were the touching performances by Albert Brooks and Leelee Sobieski in the two main roles.The movie is focused more on the teen-aged girl's point of view as she tries to pull middle-aged Albert Brook's character into her world, which is an interesting way to go but not very believable. Albert Brooks shines in an understated way.The movie lets down a bit after the first 1:13 and should have been shorter. The movie has too many characters that remain undeveloped throughout the movie, features an unfortunate plot twist at the end involving a relative Albert Brooks' character didn't know existed, and offers strange elements that detract from the movie's realism (e.g., the "I see dead people" facet and "Caspar the friendly wife" quirk--the purpose of the latter being completely lost on me). I think two love interests were introduced merely to remove any lingering ideas the viewer may have about the nature of the characters' relationship, which we are assured is platonic. I thought the moral of accepting of other people as they are could have been underlined a bit more in place of the unnecessary plot turns.The film's worth watching for the story idea and for the performances of Brooks and Sobieski. I'm glad I didn't see it in the theater because I would've embarrassed myself.

Andy (film-critic) I was not ready for such a powerful, intelligent, and intricately detailed film. I had just assumed this would be another Hollywood schlock-fest featuring the dry humor of Albert Brooks and Leelee Sobieski attempting to reconnect with a teenie-bopper audience. I was wrong. This was such a strong film that dedicated itself to developing strong characters, to giving us honest emotions, and providing us a story that is not unfamiliar in the "real" world that it nearly left my jaw hanging on the ground. From the opening moments in which we are focused directly on the life of Jennifer (aka "J") to the unrecognizable change to following Randall (aka "R") My First Mister will make you laugh, make you cry, and make you realize that friendship is stronger than the clothes you wear or the amount of piercings on you face. Through the use of Brooks' "every man" persona and Sobieski's attention to detail with her character, this film gives us a rare glimpse into Lahti's near-perfect film.What initially pulled me into this film was the untraditional Hollywood story that scribe Jill Franklyn unfolds before us. I assumed, prior to watching the film that this was going to be a sexual film mocking the taboos of age in our society. From the completely baffling byline, one could only assume that we were about to experience an early version of Thirteen, but Lahti and Franklyn do something rather unexpected. The idea of sex is placed in front of us early in the film and prior to the climax, but it isn't the central focus. By building this film around the premise of friendship instead of sex, Lahti creates a unique and poignant film about other cultural taboos in our society. She eliminates the idea of sex and gives us two strong-willed characters that, perhaps in another life, may have had a sexual relationship, but now are just seeking companionship and comfort. What brings a smile to my face with this story is the way that it is developed. Lahti nearly teases us with the idea of a sexual story several times, but instead builds a solid foundation around friendship. She makes us, the audience, feel as if we are meeting two friends for the first time. By eliminating sex, she pulls us deeper within the characters allowing us to see the true "love" that is obviously between these visual opposites. I use the word "visual" because we do not believe their connection at first because of the clothes that they wear. A Goth girl befriends Mr. Rogers? Society would tell us that this could never happen, but the Lahti persuades us by giving us two of the strongest characters to play against each other in modern cinematic history.I realize that others would argue that there have been stronger matching in Hollywood long before Brooks and Sobieski, which I would agree of classic Hollywood, but recently (basically 80s to present) it is hard to find two actors that seem to compliment each other like a great cheese and aged red wine. Sobieski dove, head first, into her character giving "J" mannerisms and characteristics that seemed pure and researched. I felt as if Sobieski was one of those misunderstood Goths that I had class with in school. From the poetry, the eye movements when speaking, and the overall self-abusive negativity that she has against herself as well as those around her. She patiently waits for the right person to enter her insane life and finds that with Brooks. For those seeking his typical sarcasm and wry attitude, My First Mister may disappoint. Albert Brooks contains himself in this film. He does so to the point that midway through the feature I forgot that it was funnyman Brooks. He amazingly transforms himself into an older version, in a khaki color, of "J". The two play so well off each other that as an audience member you have the chance to enjoy both the acting as well as a very strongly developed story about family and friendship.I have talked about the story, I have talked about the characters, but none of this would have been possible if it were not for the brilliant direction behind the camera and the talented eye of minimal director Christine Lahti. At first I was unsure of how well she would be able to handle such a deeply emotional topic, if she would cliché the characters and fill their mouths with remedial dialogue that would be painful to both the eyes and ears, but instead she remained calm, cool, and completely collective throughout the entire film. It was obvious that she had done her homework prior to each scene and before each take. She had the control of her actors, which developed into some great on-screen chemistry, as well as she knew how to tactfully take us to the next emotional level. Sure, it wasn't perfect (the ending seemed a bit tattered), but Lahti remained focused and even cleverly changed the focus throughout the film with the greatest of ease. I was surprised to see that Lahti has not directed more after this project, because it was obvious that her talent was behind the camera.Overall, I thought My First Mister was a sensational film. We had a superb cast that complimented each other so well that we could easily forget that we were watching a film. We had a story that spoke emotionally and socially about friendship and family on more than just a "June Cleaver" level. Finally, we had a director that was not afraid to take risks and do her homework. This story works on so many levels that to begin to unravel it would take more time than allowed. I suggest this film strongly because it will make you think twice about passing judgment on someone due to their clothes or piercing habits, who knows where friendship could erupt! Grade: **** out of *****