Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

steubnerrhodes "I'll Be There" has a cute but implausible plot, mediocre acting, and terrible sound quality, which would not be completely horrible in an ordinary movie, but in a movie that's entire purpose is to allow the lead actress to show off her voice, it's a disaster. The plot is quite obviously put together merely so that Charlotte Church can sing, but the poor recording quality of the movie does not even let the plot follow through with its motive. Charlotte Church's beautiful, first class voice is completely butchered. The movie would be worthwhile just to here her sing if someone on the crew had managed to obtain decent recording equipment. As this is not the case, it is a bit of a waste of time. The plot is cute enough that it can keep the attention of the viewer, and Charlotte Church plays her part fairly well. She has a very pretty face that lights up at the right moments and aids the movie considerably. Otherwise, the acting is mediocre, and the movie is not worth wasting money on.

Stacey Woods I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and unexpectedly so. I am not Charlotte Church's number one fan, but all the same she was not as bad as people seem to think, and it's criminal that this movie was in and out of theatres almost straight away.The plot is, I agree, similar to 'What a Girl Wants', but I think that they are different enough that you could see both and be quite happy.Craig Ferguson was excellent, all the more so as he wrote and directed, and Joss Ackland and Jemma Redgrave contributed to a solid supporting cast. I'd definitely give 4.5 out of 5 for this, only knocking off .5 as Imelda Staunton and Phyllida Law were somewhat wasted.

chickbbchick02 I was so excited to find out that the BEST singer in the world, Charlotte Church made a movie. And even MORE excited when I found it at our local video store. It said it was funny, but was anything but. I mean, they think a 40 year old man dancing around drunk in animal print under-ware is funny?!?!?!?!? And Charlotte Church's lines weren't really good. And the story was a lot like the movie "What a Girl Wants". You could barely even tell that it was supposed to be a comedy!!!! And when they did the flashback to the Mom and the Dads first meeting of each other, the Mom looked the exact same!!! She just looked like a 40 year old woman trying to look like a 18 year old girl. And Charlotte Church looked like she was on drugs! The makeup and hair people did a REALLY bad job. I thought this movie was a absolute disgrace and I would personally be embarrassed if I had taken part in it!Overall: Bad movie, don't even TRY to see it.

MarkB-11 I suppose there's not much edge to a film where a dad learns he has a child, actually cares and actually becomes a loving man. Not much there, eh, folks? Is that what 'characterless' means? Should he have thrown a fit? Should she have gone Goth and taken up ska?This is a sweet little film that failed to find an audience, which is a real shame. Craig Ferguson's script is sensible and caring and intelligent, as are the actors. The only possible quibble I have is that Phillipa Law might be underused. But then, her character wasn't really needed. Contrary to other opinions, Charlotte definitely managed to hold up her end. Was she given a Julia Stiles-level part. I think not, nor would that have been right to do.Cute little film, with a good mix of music.8 of 10.