Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Christmas-Reviewer BEWARE OF FALSE REVIEWS & REVIEWERS. SOME REVIEWERS HAVE ONLY ONE REVIEW TO THEIR NAME. NOW WHEN ITS A POSITIVE REVIEW THAT TELLS ME THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH THE MOVIE. IF ITS A NEGATIVE REVIEW THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE A GRUDGE AGAINST THE FILM . NOW I HAVE REVIEWED OVER 300 HOLIDAY FILMS & SPECIALS. I HAVE NO AGENDA.In this holiday comedy, five kids have just been snowed in at a Midwest airport on Christmas Eve -- and there isn't a parent in sight! Now, Unaccompanied Minors Spencer (Dyllan Christopher), rich- girl Grace (Gina Mantegna), tomboy Donna (Quinn Shephard), geek boy Charlie (Tyler James Williams) and bashful Beef (Brett Kelly) must try to outwit a disgruntled airport official (Lewis Black--"The Daily Show") in a last-ditch effort to reunite with their families. With the help of a reluctant flight attendant (Wilmer Valderrama-- "That '70s Show"), these kids are out to prove that holidays are not about where you are, but who you're with.Now this film runs 90 minutes and its never boring. Very far fetched at times but it also has some very funny scenes. Not a great movie but not a bad movie. If your looking something with a 1970's "Disney" vibe then watch this.

tedg Few things are more deterministic than kiddie genres, and therefore few things less interesting. One of the things I notice in these, going back before John Hughes, is how the world of kids is divided up. Here there are 5 or six types, depending on how you count. Its extremely important that you recognize these are the right types in order for all else to work. What's new — or seems new — are two character types. One is the black kid, who other than a jive number, plays a type that is more deeply human than racial. Its a notable evolution.The other is that the "rich girl" is not only sympathetic without changing, but she's lovely. To play what I think are supposed to be 12 year olds, they chose a darling 16 year old. She looks a lot like Anna Popplewell, that 20 year old playing a 14 year old in Narnia 2. Its the same general type as Scarlett Johansonn: full lips and full cheeks. Also Ann Hathaway.I do not think this is a trivial evolution. It seems that we are well into an era where women's and girls' screen faces are meant to communicate with lips only rather than full faces, or eyes as it once was. Renee Zellweger and Julia Roberts are probably the first big names who practice this style of acting exclusively. I'm not sure what it means. And I'm not sure what it means to merge this ideal with the supposedly spoiled rich girl. But it seems significant, a significant reshuffling of archetypes.It accompanies a more obvious shift. These are all kids from some sort of dysfunctional family. The usual style would be to have parents. If you were missing one, it was because they died. Then the parents could be virtually absent by simply being too dumb to matter. Its more theatrical to show absence by having partial absence. So this all seems significant, even though the movie, well its a waste.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Jonas_fan11 I saw this movie in a theater of sorts and everybody there could not stop laughing! I absolutely loved it and I am very glad I went to see it! The kids in here are ingenious! Absolutely amazing acting and the plot was definitely very strong. During certain parts I just busted up and could not stop laughing. My friends and I were talking about how entertaining and amusing this movie was. I wanted to stay and just keep watching it over and over again. Everybody that I know that saw this said they loved it and they were really surprised at how good it was. The kids and adults were very good at planning schemes, but the kids were definitely better.I think that people of any age can go and see this movie, and they will all leave being glad they saw it.

alan_v35 I am a fun-loving guy. I like to laugh, hear jokes and stuff like that. This is why I often like to see a comedy – even if its bad, it will give me a chuckle or two. Even those aimed at younger viewers are always good for a giggle, or at least a guffaw. Well, not always, I guess. This Home Alone wannabe is as funny as blood on the sidewalk. It has poor acting, a yawner of a story, jokes that are not funny, and a fine selection of stock characters that have been so overused by Hollywood, that the whole movie is as appealing as a commercial that you have seen six times in the last hour. If I have been a little wordy, and unclear, up to this point, let me say succinctly. This movie sucks.The premise here is that six youngsters, ranging in age from around seven to 14, are flying as unaccompanied minors, when a blizzard strands them at some airport somewhere, where they promptly set out on a mission of mischief that uses a lot of unfunny ideas and drab comic violence (particularly voice changing groin strikes – those are ALWAYS funny, right?) mixed in with toilet humor (Ingenious! Who would have thought of that?). There is an evil airport manager or something, who's as pleasant as an evening alone with an electric cattle prod and a mentally, deranged convict named Sparky. Now, that's not as fun as it sounds (never mind how I know!) bu it would probably still make a better movie than this one. I could go on, but I think I have made my point.It starts bad and it gets worse. It's not interesting and it's not funny. The only possible positive aspect to watching this might be a new appreciation for the value of every moment of the precious gift called life. Maniac out.This work was first posted on realmoviereview.com