Yes, it’s been out for a while now, but I keep seeing people praising this movie.
I thought it was, in a word: underwhelming.
I was bored. I was fairly unimpressed. It was like a 2 hour infomercial for Care for the Children.
How, please tell me, how was this a good movie?
Three words:
Naked Kathy Bates.
Or, if you are one of those pervs who prefer their women to look like prepubescent malnourished boys, I suppose you could look at how well Jack played an empty person. He clearly had no real contact with another human being for years, including his wife. He had forgotten or never learned to communicate. (He would have done better to start a journal rather than write those irrelevant letters to his sponsored child.) And Jack showed this to us, in such a different way than we are used to seeing him onstage. It really illustrated how powerful a screen presence he is, and how resourceful an actor.
His inappropriate and overblown reaction to the form letter and inartistic drawing at the end underscore his skill.
And…
Kathy Bates Naked!!!
DrFidelius is right: the scene with Kathy Bates on the half-shell is worth the price of the movie, and several others.
Of course, every other film since the sixties has had scenes with someone-or-other in the buff, but this is the first time since Anne Bancroft did it in THE GRADUATE that I’ve heard the cinema audience go “WHOA!” Brava, Kathy!
The SENOR review:
Jack Nicholson did a nice to wonderful job playing Mr. Schmidt in this movie. This really shows that he is one of our greatest actors.
That being said, About Schmidt was a boring film with wonderful actors. Where did they find that woman who played his daughter? A mousy, annoying unattractive bitch. The actress who played that role did a nice job.
Kathy Bates was OK, but her character was gross. Talking about breast feeding and hysterectomies and all that. DAMN! If you haven’t seen the movie, you will see a scene with her naked with Jack (how did Jack not scream in terror or throw up shows he is a man of discipline.) I hope Jack got 20 million for this role, because that is how much you would have to give me to see the inner thighs of her. DAMN!
MOST EXCELLENT CASTING was that of Howard Hessman as the father of the groom. Howard is a great actor, and I enjoying seeing him. Since a lot of Hessman’s characters look like old potheads, it is safe to asume that his character was real high when he met (and had sex with) Kathy’s character.
That’s about it. The end will make you cry.
I appreciated the movie and didn’t really feel that it was an infomercial on save the children. Schmidt’s whole goal in life was to make a difference; to matter. This movie was out to prove that he did matter, no matter what he thought.
The child was his difference, and i thought the movie was more down to earth (where it seemed boring) than some other cry me a river movies that just go for the tear factor. But to see the look on his face when he saw the kid’s drawing of him…priceless.
Jack Nicolson kicks serious ass…
Kathy bates was admittingly surprising…
The end didn’t make me cry - more like it made me jump for joy because it was finally over. I’m not going to say that Jack Nicolson didn’t do a good job, because he was very good, the problem was the rest of the movie. It was soooo boring it dragged on forever.
All in all i do not recomend seeing it to anyone under 50.
Although i did laugh once when the word nincompoop was used
I wish i was 50, then perhaps i might get some peace in life
actually i was the only one at the theater to see About Schmidt who was roughly around 20
I LOVED this movie! (I’m 22, for the record.) Brilliant performance by Nicolson.
Some of the shots in the film were simply beautiful, in a strange way. For instance, I’ve seen the waving weeds in the ditches in the midwest every day of my entire life. The same with round bales of hay in fields along the highway. Yet, in the context of this movie, such scenes were strangely moving.
The movie was silly, but serious; funny, but moving. Everything about it seemed so true to life. Sometimes, the exact same moment was both funny and sad. It never seemed over the top or preachy, even though it easily could have been. Personally, I found it a rather subtle film. (Although I could have done without a shooting star in the heavens as a sign.
Although the movie did seem long, at no point was I even slightly bored.
I thought it was excellent too, one of the very best films of 2002. A great performance from Nicholson, some sharp and amusing observations about his character and the life he leads and a finale which is moving without being feel-good (no sentimental acceptance of the new son-in-law for instance).
After Election , which I also liked, I think it establishes Alexander Payne as one of the best film-makers working today. I am looking forward to his next film.
I agree entirely, and while I would have left the shooting star in (IMHO, that whole scene would look too much like Warren having a mental breakdown without it), if it had been up to me, I would have not shown the picture Ndugu drew. I would have let the camera sit across the desk from him, reading the letter, show him look at the picture, then show his reaction, all in one long, still shot. The audience can paint the picture in their minds much more effectively than anything they can show us. The point isn’t the picture, it’s that he’s finally found a way to make a difference in the world.
Agreed that I thought it was pretty underwhelming.
A retired guy who knows nothing of living or taking care of himself outside of his work. Unfortunately it’s too true to life in most cases. He can’t cook for himself, he can’t clean for himself, he didn’t really know his wife, he put his daughter so high up on a pedastal, but didn’t really know her either.
Where could anyone get that this was a brilliant movie? I suppose in portraying the way things actually are, it most likely did a good job, but hell, I go to the movies to romanticize life and be entertained, not depressed about how crappily some people choose to live their lives.
I wouldn’t even recommend renting it.
(wow…that’s one hell of a run on)…
To me it seemed like they just turned on the camera and said “Okay Jack, start making different facial expressions,” and then they wrote a whole movie around that.
It was amusing in parts, and where I saw it the whole thing was out of focus (at first I thought this was intentional in the same way it was for Deconstructing Harry, but then I thought it was intentional for the above mentioned Kathy Bates scene).
But the best part of the movie was the one line: “You’re not going to believe this, but we used to have a tire swing, right there.”
I thought a large chunk of the film was picking on the form and propriety of modern American life as being largely meaningless. Schmidt was trapped in the modern mentality that it’s better to keep your mouth shut even when the world around you is falling apart. Hence, everything in his life was pretty much empty, from his retirement cake being shaped like a corporate tower to the cornball wedding at the end. Throughout the film, you wanted Nicholson to toss out his classic snide sarcasm at the futility of the entire situation.
He didn’t. That was the point, and that was, IMHO, what made the film so brilliant and so perfect for Nicholson. Throughout the movie, you could almost smell Nicholson’s personality beneath the frame of Schmidt–but beaten into submission, all for the sake of letting the other characters comfortable in their euphoria. (Remember, any time he confronted his daughter on the idiocy of her fiancee, they argued. I suppose Schmidt thought that a false relationship with his daughter was better than none at all.)
I disagree. I thought Jack with more restrained in this movie, that he rarely resorted to his standard facial tricks. I am not a big Jack Nicholson fan, but I thought he was great, and I think he will win his 4th Oscar for this performace.
Finally saw this Sat., and my favorite part:
I almost died! 
Movie did nothing for me.
Ms D read the book. Says there are huge differences. Book is set in NY. “Jack” is retiring very successful lawyer. Wife dies very slowly. Daughter is engaged to young jewish partner/associate? in the firm. “Jack” is worried that fiance will offer daughter same type of empty life “Jack” gave his wife. And best of all, in the book, no motorhome!