Reviews and Problems with The Object Of My Affection
Showing 1-10 of 15
chin up, young person!
1 March 2006
Summary: They say you can't help who you love, and people have used that line forever to make terrible decisions about romance. This movie explores the idea that while you might not be able to help loving someone, you can still choose how you respond to that feeling. Choosing wisely is the difficult part!
Summary: I was talking to my friend, and she mentioned this movie, and said she loved it, and thought I would too. I was flipping through the TV guide when I saw it was on at 7:00pm I was so excited. I watched it with my Dad of all people, and then my Mom thought it looked good so she joined in, she quipped "I have seen this before in theaters back in 1997, it was fabulous and sweet" I think the exact same thing, I will not leave a summary of the film because so many others have,...
Summary: Despite a downright peculiar finish which gives new meaning to the term 'feel-good', "The Object of My Affection" is a careful, perceptive and insightful comedy-drama about a straight woman and her gay-male best friend living together. Keeping the obvious sex-jokes at bay, the movie strives to create three-dimensional people and works most of the time. This is due in large part to Jennifer Aniston, an easy presence on the screen.
The Object of My Affection is one of the finest films ever.
21 February 2002
Summary: The Object of My Affection is a very realistic movie about a woman who finds a good-looking gay man attractive. Paul Rudd is particularly fine as the man who befriends Jennifer Aniston's character. She is very much disappointed in her old boyfriend's faithless attitude towards her. Paul Rudd's character is fun to be with and, even though they have no sexual encounters, they are both very good friends. Paul Rudd's character finds an attractive young man and falls in love.
A well-crafted treat for fans of tales of the heart
1 December 2001
Summary: The Object of My Affection is rather heavily aimed at a gay audience - at least it seems that way to me. It retains quite a theatrical feel; there is always the feeling that the director is conscious this is a performance, and it's not given the "natural" or "polished" feel that accompanies so many Hollywood movies. Paul Rudd is perhaps just a little camp of centre for the role of George - he is supposed to be interested in the female lead, after all.
Summary: Finally a truly great film from a star of TV's Friends. Jennifer Aniston is fantastic as a single woman who becomes pregnant and wants to raise the child with her roommate George, who is gay. Unfortunately for her, she ends up falling in love with him. This sets up what is a nonstandard ending to a romance movie, but the payoff is satisfying enough that you aren't in the least disappointed.
Summary: I especially liked the performance of Nigel Hawthorne in this movie as Rodney, the companion of a friend. Jennifer Aniston is delightful, and Paul Rudd is a treat as well. Jennifer and Paul have great chemistry together, and although the story is a bit sad, it is an entertaining and light comedy. Watch with someone you love!
Summary: It's amazing how this sensitive film can be realistic all the time. Although this is, indeed, a love story, there's no need to give the viewer happy solutions just to make them fulfilled. Every second of the movie is real, every emotion, every fact. Justice to Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd. There's an amazing cast here, including Mad About You's John Pankow and veteran Alan Alda (all great) but the movie belongs to Jennifer and Paul.
Summary: I thought that this film was terrific. I read the book years ago, and actually thought that the movie was better. First of all, it makes more sense to look at the storyline from Nina's perspective, since she has much more at stake than George does. Secondly, the character played by Nigel Hawthorne was beautifully written and played, and he didn't even exist in the book. I also disagree with the assertion that George was "boring" in this movie.