Une journée à New York

I thought this was a good movie. Its not fair to compare it to "Mean Girls." Although I like Lindsay Lohan, Mean Girls is intended for a different age group. My daughter is 10 and loved "Freaky Friday", but I feel "Mean Girls" has too much sexual content for that age. "New York Minute" is aimed for the "tween age" group. There aren't enough of these kinds of movies out. Its either cartoon-like movies, which this age thinks are not cool enough for them, or right to sex and violence. The New York Minute is an in-between kind of movie that we need to fill the gap for this age group. The people who are saying "this is so predictable" and "we have already seen that kinda movie before" are not the target audience. Yes, we older ones have seen this plot many times before, but our kids have not. Even if we let them see the movies that are similar, they were based in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, etc., so the trends and such will be harder for them to relate to. Mary Kate and Ashley have not surrendered to pressure to include sex and violence in their movies and I say good for them. This is a fun movie that the whole family can enjoy and get a lot of laughs. If there were more movies like this, maybe our young wouldn't be so prone to grow up so fast, and actually still enjoy being with their families.

Taken for what it is, a pre-teen flick featuring the wealthiest 17-years olds in type-cast roles ever, the movie is not terrible. It's no work of art, nor will it be nominated for any awards, but it is entertaining, which is all anyone can expect it to be. It definitely isn't being advertised as anything else.

More than anything, it's silly and allows a girl to giggle at the crazy antics of two sisters caught up in more than they can handle in New York City. A fun story of mayhem and mischief, it is far from the worst movie out this season (have you SEEN "Van Helsing"? I rest my case).

Maybe it's not worth spending $9 on a movie ticket, but it would be a fun rental. :-)

Well what can you expect from 2 teenagers who have obviously never participated in 'serious' acting and whose credits have been a series of obnoxious TV movies which barely received any good ratings?

Well you can expect the worst and hope for the best. This movie was definitely NOT GOOD - but in comparison to all the Olsen twin's movie's, this stands out. The same typical Olsen sequences of twins with different personalities is well captured even in this movie- and unfortunately i believe that this is the limit. Even before watching this movie,the fact that earning the title of the lowest box office grossing for a film opening in over 3000 theaters, basically leashes the impending movie experience. So well that just reveals that the Olsen twins should just be participators of the modeling industry - as for their contribution to the film industry- well they are cute and they not impressive at all, so let them not contribute...please.

I believe if they should continue acting - get rid of the twin act and surprise people with something new. As for 'New york minute' you can watch it if you just wanna see the twins shake their behinds - but besides - SERIOUSLY...DON'T BOTHER!!!!

This is a silly movie that's also funny. With all the crap out there, why did it set a record for lowest opening day box office for a movie in 3,000 theaters? Perhaps it was simply not appropriately advertised. I see other reviewers using words like 'for teen girls' and for 'pre-teens.' I don't believe that those demographics were the actual target for this movie. A silly comedy with attractive teen girls starring in it also appeals to boys (although they might not be completely honest about it) and 17 is middle-aged teen, not pre-teen. Also, while there is no bad language in the movie that I noticed, there were definitely situations of a suggestive nature that I would not recommend for "pre-teens." I can't believe their other movies had this level of 'sophistication.' If you make a movie for older teens and young adults and movie-goers get the idea it's made for pre-teens, perhaps that is part of the disconnect that explains the box office failure.

My wife and I have no children, but really laughed out loud at parts of the movie, especially "the speech." I'm not saying who said what so this is not a spoiler. We have not seen other Olsen Twins movies, other than about 2 minutes in a Costco that had a special on their videos. Personally, I thought the girls were fine and the other stars solid. In fact, for my money, the worst actor in the movie by far was Jack Osbourne; not bad, just the least polished of the bunch. And yes, I have seen him in Ozzie Osbourne's family's reality show.

The bloopers, billed as "Hilarous Bloopers" were in fact pretty funny, especially watching the twins' reaction to each other's issues. Certainly, it might have helped to show those in the theater. As it happened, we rented the movie while on vacation. If you're looking for a change of pace from SciFi and Bourne-esqe thriller movies, you could do a lot worse.

New York Minute was funny from beginning to end. It's a much better movie than critics say. Mary-Kate Olsen has a special comic energy, and Ashley Olsen can be hilarious, both as a physical comedian and in the ways she delivers her lines.

The supporting cast were almost all terrific: Eugene Levy, Andy Richter, Darrell Hammond, Andrea Martin. And the obligatory hot guys, Jared Padalecki and Riley Smith, were good too. The movie is continuously amusing, and there are hundreds of funny moments and good lines.

So why did so many critics hate it? Because they just didn't get what it was trying to do. The first cut in the sound track is the Bangles' "Doll Revolution" (written by Elvis Costello): "Who dries your eyes when you cry real tears?/Who knows or cares what an imitation is?/Only you do.../Tear off your own head/It's a doll revolution.../They're taking over/And they're tearing it down/It's a doll revolution." This movie is the revolution of the Olsen dolls, but the critics' ideas were too fixed to see the irony that pervades it. I'm tempted to think that the critics were too ageist and/or sexist to give young girls credit for being this aware.

Mary-Kate and Ashley have said they like to make fun of themselves and what they've done. They've said they wanted the movie to have a Christopher Guest feel and were fighting the studio to get it. If this movie has a problem, it's that it tries to be both ironic and straight, and in the end may be too multi-leveled for either the hip or the little-girl audience to like. When the two audiences finally do get it, I expect the DVD to become a minor cult classic.

Some critics say how limp and unrealistic the plot is. That's true, but the movie wasn't intended to be realistic. It's a live-action cartoon: South Park with beautiful twins. The perfunctory way it deals with important events like Roxy (Mary-Kate) getting her demo tape to some A&R guys is not a mistake, it's a clue: the movie intentionally subverts its own surface meaning. Criticizing it for its plot is like criticizing Rocky Horror for not being Gone With the Wind.

There is also the question of whether the sexual innuendo in the movie is inappropriate. I say no, but I can understand why some people disagree. I was taken aback myself for the first few minutes of the film. Then I thought: they are almost 18, and have far wider experience than most people twice their age. Who am I to tell them they can't use their sexuality in these innocent ways? One example: a big snake slithers onto the floor of the shower when Jane (Ashley) is there. But all you see is her lower legs and her shoulders, and her wonderful cartoon scream is justification enough for the scene.

It's basically sick that reviewers think of older men when Mary-Kate and Ashley have said they were trying to appeal to guys around their own age. When other actresses have similar things in their films, people don't bat an eye. But people still see the Olsens as the little twins from Full House, and recoil in horror. In fact, New York Minute never shows as much flesh as a bathing suit would. The Catholic News Service and the Christian Critic website both gave the film good reviews.

Some critics condemn the film for racism. I myself am of Chinese ancestry, and I didn't see anything wrong there at all. I actually loved the idea of a white guy who was adopted into a Chinese family and who wants to be Chinese. There were stereotyped aspects to the portrayals, but that goes for everything in the film, not just different races. It's comedy.

Why do people think MK&A can't act? Well, it's true that their enunciation fails them from time to time. Some words just get lost. But that was true of Marlon Brando, so give them a break. And their style is not intended to be realistic: they portray characters, they don't inhabit them. Their strength is comic shtick. I thought they were realistic enough, and as comics they were great. The couple of serious moments in the movie came off extremely well, much better than I expected.

Will its target audiences like it? Maybe, maybe not. Only if they can ignore the elements that are not meant for them. It is difficult to make a movie that will be loved by everyone from six-year-old girls to guys of 25. And perhaps the deep prejudice against the Olsens in audiences older than 15 just can't be overcome, at least not in this first engagement of the doll revolution.