This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

I enjoyed this film...though I will admit parts of it made me uncomfortable, it is also a funny tale of how sometimes even with the best intentions, we end up making mistakes. What struck me with this movie is that one can relate to each of the characters who in some way have made some kind of mistake but ultimately end up moving on and have some kind of positive change and resolution after the fact. That being said, I feel like the film was a little uneven. The opening was entertaining, but I don't feel like the light-hearted beginning that was somewhat Bridget Jones-esque carried all the way through the film until the very end. It was darkly humorous in the middle and I feel like the British narration would have lightened up the movie significantly if it was featured throughout the entire movie and not just at the beginning and end.

I had contradictory feelings after watching the film. On the one hand, the idea is interesting, characters are attractive, and some narrative tools (e.g., the narrator voice) are refreshing and imaginative. On the other hand, many characters are underdeveloped (e.g., Halle is a key character but we never understand her), the story move forward to fast (How do Halle and Will accept the new ending? How does Miss Sinclair make up with her students?). I liked this film and I recommend it to you if you want a different romantic comedy, but I think it could have been better.

Some films unintentionally let you a glimpse of the actors' preference in how the actor has built a unique, almost exquisite sense of his/her on-screen presence, in the minds of you and I. I call it 'the intrigue appeal'. The air of mystery and myth and glamour and starry-eyes and what have you, that these actors carry with them draws the audience in. The actor has worked hard to maintain a subconscious photograph of himself in the movie-goers eye and it is this what intrigues me.Stallone will beat the likeliness out of you, so would Willis but after spilling out the NYPD wit. Schwarzenegger will always be an endoskeleton dressed in leather with a prosthetic arm missing. Similarly Weaver, Streep and Lane have built around them shields, those which are impenetrable on so many different psychological levels. These are but only a handful of great actors who have either made a choice or the choice has made them. Brando had it coming, he gave away too much too much to the audience.'The English Teacher' is a funny and partly intelligent film carried on the lean shoulders of Julianne Moore. 'Boogie Nights (1997)' (adult performer); 'Magnolia (1999)' (addict); 'The Big Lebowski (1998)' (eccentric no inhibitions painter); 'Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)' (adulteress) and more films have made us conditioned to see Moore do something a little more edgy; perhaps take on a more edgy character, more reckless or maybe something like 'I'm Not There (2007)' where she plays '(a) fictional folk singer named Alice Fabian—described by some critics as a 'Joan Baez-like figure'.This film nails it for Moore as the wonderful, still-voluptuous, sexy and mysterious actress waltzes around the film in confusion and a deliberate unorthodox streak of that sexuality that Moore carries all the way up to a rather distasteful end.Yes, I do not have much to say about the film other than it is damaged in a very organic manner.Even with all the bad taste the film or rather Moore give you a sense of unconventional sensuality and it must be watched to see if you could be any of the main characters in the film. It can drive you crazy. A must watch for Moore and MILF fans.

The romantic loner/spinster woman-lost-in-a-book-theme has been done before. I don't object to it being done again, but this clunker seemed unsure of what it wanted to say and do. It was clearly a comedy, but it tried unsuccessfully to shed some light on deeper themes. It starts with an awkward English female narrator, which I suppose is meant to represent the character's inner world of English literature.But more often than not, a narrator is just a cheap device to take the place of character development.Long story short, a repressed high school English teacher runs into her former student who wrote a play. He's 25 now and couldn't get his play produced. She gets the high school to put on his play. Flat, predictable hijinks ensue. The only thing that redeemed this piece of talentless trash was the familiar yet always pleasing Nathan Lane depiction of a lovable gay.Julianne Moore is probably past the 45 she is playing.Greg Kinnear delivers an adequate performance, but deserves much better material. Many of us think we are destined for some kind of artistic life of expression, when in reality we just need to get a job. The kid in this film was probably not destined to be a writer or a lawyer like his dad wanted him to be. The big question is how long to nurse your dream.I did not watch the last portion of this film. I can guess the outcome more or less, but I really don't care. If you're going to do a comedy, make it funny or at least cute.If it's a drama make it compelling. But this one was none of the above.