Click here for the review of Larry Crowne

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!

The review reads like a *** recommendation but James gives it a **1/2? Not for the first time James, you've caused me to scratch my head!

Yeah, that's how it felt to me as well.

James is right about Nia Vardalos being a "one hit wonder" for the movies. It's like every movie past "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", with the exception of "Connie and Carla", is some attempt to recapture the glory of "Greek". She had one movie where she co-stars with her "Greek" star John Corbett called "I Hate Valentine's Day". "My Life in Ruins", from the title text to even the movie poster, feels like it's trying to copy "Greek".

I see where you guys are coming from, but I think there might just be a misunderstanding. Unlike Ebert (and other 4-star scale reviewers), James has made clear that he essentially offers a "soft" recommendation with a 2 & 1/2 star review. Ebert says anything below 3 is not a recommendation. James, on the other hand, has said something to the effect of a 2.5 star review means you might like it as a rental if you like the stars, genre, director, etc. In that sense, I think the review and rating match up quite well.

**1/2 is a qualified recommendation - probably not worth seeing in theaters but worth the cheaper price of a DVD rental. I kinda-sorta liked the movie but have some reservations about it. It's pretty much fluff and should be treated as such. Tough to give something this lightweight a full *** rating. But I would agree that the tone of the review is more positive than the tone of reviews for some **1/2 movies. That's why the assigning of stars is not a science. I wonder whether RT thinks this is a "fresh" or "rotten".

So, Mr. Berardinelli, if you had to assign Larry Crowne either a Thumps Up or Thumbs Down rating, what would you pick? I seem to recall a discussion a long time ago between Siskel and Ebert as to how they translate star ratings into thumbs. Ebert said he draws an absolute line--3 stars is Thumbs Up, 2.5 stars is Thumbs Down. Siskel said that after careful consideration, he in a small number of cases decided to give a 2.5-star movie Thumbs Up. Which practice would you adopt if you had been on that show? And what thumb rating would you have given Larry Crowne?

RT is giving your Larry Crowne review a "fresh" score while they're giving Cars 2 (another 2.5 star review of yours) a "rotten" score. I think their scores for your 2.5 star reviews depend on the positive/negative tone of your review.

I'm not sure JB could look at it in such a black-and-white way. I really can't either. There are some movies that are just in the netural zone. Thumbs up would indicate "go see this movie" and Thumbs down says "don't bother at all." Much like the MPAA ratings (an R could indicate all sorts of varying levels of adult content), descriptions are needed. A letter or a thumb isn't enough. At least that's how I see it.

To me, this proves a little that star ratings are not all that arbitrary. At least to those of us reading the review. The 2.5 stars means JB does not fully recommend this film, at least not for $10.00 in a poorly run theater. The positive"ness" of the review is probably more due to the recent viewing of Transformers and other summer action movies. If this same movie was viewed in the fall, the rating may be the same, but the review would most likely slant a little more negative.

It doesn't sound as positive to me as some have said. Definitely not 3 stars. He basically said nicely that the only thing good about the movie is the star power and charisma of the two leads. Other than that, he said the movie is bland and predictable and the supporting cast is barely supportive and mostly vanilla.

Just saw it. I'd add another half to that star. 3 stars. Not a classic, not a biting dark comedy. But fairly entertaining with some good spots. Takei is the best thing here pure and simple.

It seems that Hanks the director tends to specialize in relatively lightweight material. That Thing You Do was also pretty lightweight albeit a tad bit edgier. And this is better than any of the pap Nia Vardalos has been involved in since (the immensely overrated) My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

But she was involved in this movie since she co-wrote the script.

What a fucking dichotomy this movie is... Tom Hanks, one of the premier actors of this generation - vs - Julia Roberts, who possibly hasn't done one worthy thing in the past 7 years. (I cant remember if she was worth watching in Charlie Wilson's War, so maybe that one aside)

She was decent opposite Clive Owen in Duplicity. Other than that, yeah, not much to write home about in the last decade.

And this film.......well, as a recent college graduate currently struggling to find meaningful work, a life-affirming story about a middle-aged man pursuing his dreams and finding happiness can basically fuck off.

I'm closer to Siskel on this one. There are some 2.5-star movies I could give a marginal thumbs up to. This might be one of them. I'm on the fence with LARRY CROWNE. I enjoyed it (although seeing it so soon after TRANSFORMERS 3 could have something to do with that), but not to the point where I want to lobby everyone to see it. Seems like a good DVD choice to me, or an alternative for someone wanting a lightweight summer movie w/o all the loud noises, sfx, and explosions.

RT obviously reads the reviews before assigning a rating, which is refreshing.

Roberts temporarily left the business to care for her children. She has found that, even as well-known as she is, there are not a lot of rich roles for women in their 40s. It's almost amazing that she's still finding work - consider how many female stars disappear in their 30s, never to be heard from again. This is more of a Hollywood thing than a universal thing. British and French movies aren't afraid of having lead women older than 32.

Explanation: It co-stars Julia Roberts.