100

San Francisco Chronicle

By Mick LaSalle
A very smart, very shrewd movie, and the smartest, shrewdest thing about it is the way it masquerades as just a fluffy comedy, a diversion, a trifle.
Full Review
88

Philadelphia Inquirer

By Carrie Rickey
A postfeminist valentine to the Paleolithic days of Woman Power when dinosaurs walked Manhattan in heels with matching handbags.
Full Review
75

Boston Globe

By Ty Burr
This is all far beyond silly, of course - the most inconsequential sort of winking, meta-movie in-joke.
Full Review
75

New York Daily News

By Jack Mathews
Doesn't so much crackle as pop. It has enough double entendres to fill a D-cup, but it has a premise that would have burned a hole in the screen in 1962, when its story is set.
Full Review
75

Chicago Sun-Times

By Roger Ebert
No better or worse than the movies that inspired it, but that is a compliment, I think.
Full Review
75

Entertainment Weekly

By Owen Gleiberman
Could have used more of the shimmering elegance of the Day-Hudson comedies. Those movies had a true sparkle. This one's a likable piece of costume jewelry.
Full Review
75

ReelViews

By James Berardinelli
Light, funny, and clever.
Full Review
63

USA Today

By Claudia Puig
Dragging on too long is a more serious flaw in a romantic comedy than it might be in a complex drama. We don't ask much of a movie like this, but we do require it to be snappy, clever and quick.
Full Review
50

Rolling Stone

By Peter Travers
What starts as freshly spun cotton candy ends as something pink, sticky and indigestible. You leave the theater wanting to puke it up.
Full Review
40

Wall Street Journal

By Joe Morgenstern
Jeff Cronenweth did the lovely cinematography. It's the only element that improves on the original material.
Full Review
52 out of 100
Mixed or average reviews
Metascore® based on all critic reviews. Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more favorable reviews.