User reviews

it was a comedy or drama. Considering it's not funny, I would call it a drama. Only problem is it wasn't that interesting. It's about a girl named Staci, who gets hired as an assistant producer for this Jerry Springer type of show. She gets showed the ropes by another producer, Barb. Staci's boyfriend, leaves for a couple of weeks, and she finds his palm pilot. With encouragement from Barb, she looks up old girlfriends and goes to interview them under false pretenses. She learns that her boyfriend still sees some of his ex's and hasn't disclosed everything to her. But, in the end, the joke's on Staci's.

FINAL VERDICT: Not an interesting plot. It was boring, so don't waste your time.

If i wasn't in the middle of a blizzard and had nothing else to do, Id demand the last 2 hrs of my life back.

Since you people generally like reasons for why stuff was crap: No plot line, pseudo-self discovery in what was supposed to be a romantic comedy, the self-discovery fell on its face hard, and in one scene stacy and barb start dancing around a room for NO reason. This was BAD. I wouldn't have finished it but i always see a movie through to its (in the case) incredibly craptacular end.

What I'm guessing was the point of the movie: Buy a palm and get Carly Simon cds.

This was one of the worst movies I think I have ever seen. I ended up finishing it just so I could make that statement without question. Can a movie with such a workable plot and premise (a statement I could only make after getting to what could have been a unique, insightful climax) really turn out so poorly? Yes, this is the case with Little Black Book, a film I saw thinking that Ron Levingston couldn't possibly commit his oddball talent to anything less than entertaining. And yes, I must condemn this as a chick flick, perhaps the most chick a flick EVER ("chick flicks" usually have engaging characters that guys can't seem to write - not this one). Is it just a gender thing?Were girls as annoyed with Swingers as I was with this?? Levingston would have been better off as Goofy after all.

This movie is terrible. It is a toe-squirming example of the pointless sludge Hollywood is so keen on – there is no message, no edge, no beauty in it. It's not even funny.

I don't understand why they insist on blowing perfectly good money away on awful sugary films like this. This story could have been pretty good in the hands of the right people, but here it's told just so smoothly and dishonest, hatefully playing with your emotions, and actually succeeding in making you well up, but leaving you feeling hollow and sick.

One of the major lows is the girl that plays the main character: she is just obnoxious… overacting, showing no real emotion (the way she was standing there with her face covered in snot and tears without wiping it off – I felt like slapping her in the face, I actually shouted at the screen. And then there was that terrible dog and the way she talked to it), awful! You don't for one moment believe that she even loves her boyfriend.

The rest of the cast was actually rather good (did I detect hints of fear in some eyes sometimes?), especially the girl with the freckles, though Holly Hunter was fairly annoying.

To each his own I suppose, but i cannot see the value of this vehicle.

Holly Hunter is always worth watching. But this was my first Brittany Murphy movie and I'll go out of my way not to see her again.

Her bug-eyed expression, which she must think is appropriate for every scene, plus her open-mouthed pout and twitchy jerking from expression to expression make this movie almost unwatchable. She seems to think she's the next Meg Ryan -- she's not even close. I tried to enjoy the flick in spite of her; it can't be done. She awkwardly jerks through every scene.

Holly Hunter is great as a more cynical version of her character in Broadcast News. Ron Livingston demonstrates the art of subtle acting, something Murphy badly needs lessons on.