That was an excellent one.

Simply A Masterpiece

Let's be realistic.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

I never understood the appeal of Albert Brooks as an actor, until now! He and Leelee Sobieski are marvelous in this movie, and their chemistry and interaction make the movie a joy.I watch it every couple of years, and I make sure to give myself a solid block of quiet time in which to enjoy it. It's that good. The dialog is witty and insightful. Once you get to know Leelee's character you pick up on her delightfully wry humor. She misses nothing about the world around her, but she keeps her rapier-like analysis of it all mostly to herself. Fortunately she comes to know some characters to whom she can reveal herself. It's all about intelligence and acuity, and she's lucky (anybody is) to make some good, smart friends.I rate My First Mister a 10 out of 10, and I do not hesitate to recommend it to my friends, and to you readers.

... so I can't really rate it. But I can say that the character J was pretty annoying. So she paints with blood and sits down on moving escalators and glares at the conformist sheep surrounding her in the mall. Was the "Comedy" part of this moving supposed to be laughing at her? If so, then yeah, it's pretty funny! Otherwise the movie is painfully dull, kind of like the knife J uses to cut herself.I will say that the friendship that arises between J and her boss is somewhat interesting. Nonetheless, I watched this movie on a Tivo and found myself wanting to fast forward not only through the commercials, but through the movie as well. I would recommend that only individuals with a very high tolerance for angsty, attention-seeking teenage characters watch this motion picture.

This is a fantastic idea for a film and one that doesn't conjure up any easy comparisons, perhaps Harold and Maude. Key to the execution of the writer's ambitious vision were the touching performances by Albert Brooks and Leelee Sobieski in the two main roles.The movie is focused more on the teen-aged girl's point of view as she tries to pull middle-aged Albert Brook's character into her world, which is an interesting way to go but not very believable. Albert Brooks shines in an understated way.The movie lets down a bit after the first 1:13 and should have been shorter. The movie has too many characters that remain undeveloped throughout the movie, features an unfortunate plot twist at the end involving a relative Albert Brooks' character didn't know existed, and offers strange elements that detract from the movie's realism (e.g., the "I see dead people" facet and "Caspar the friendly wife" quirk--the purpose of the latter being completely lost on me). I think two love interests were introduced merely to remove any lingering ideas the viewer may have about the nature of the characters' relationship, which we are assured is platonic. I thought the moral of accepting of other people as they are could have been underlined a bit more in place of the unnecessary plot turns.The film's worth watching for the story idea and for the performances of Brooks and Sobieski. I'm glad I didn't see it in the theater because I would've embarrassed myself.

I really enjoyed this movie, and actually saw it when it first came out. years later now, does it not remind anyone of Lost in Translation Murray/Johansen?? For some reason I feel it completely does, I feel the only reason why Lost got so much attention was Sofia Coppola's reputation, and I'm not going to deny Murray or Johanssan's credibility, I am complete fans of both...However I feel that this movie could have been more of a hit had it had an exotic setting like Japan, or just the boasting word of mouth hype that some movies are lucky enough to get, and this movie just didn't really attract that many people sadly..