Excellent, Without a doubt!!

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Speechless is a 1994 charmer starring Michael Keaton and the always dainty Geena Davis. It's at times slow, very predictable, but highly entertaining nevertheless. The main problem with the movie itself...is the movie itself. Unfortunately, the early 90's is when Hollywood decided to get incredibly lazy, and we started cranking out movies like this that were so basic, it looked as if it could have just been a made for TV movie, or a Hallmark movie. In spite of it all, Speechless succeeds in being a very charming, but borderline forgettable romance comedy. It almost seemed as if the whole movie could have been wrapped up within 30 minutes tops, so we have endless filler for the other hour, however, the filler used in such a manner that you wouldn't even notice it. Some of the filler includes...dancing bears. ( If you have to ask, you have to watch.)I did laugh at a lot of scenes, but later on, I questioned why it was so funny, but it just was at the time. When I review a movie, I base it on several factors, all boiling down to not only what I think of it, but what others may think of it as well. This being a borderline romance flick that just doesn't have enough appeal to make it somewhat memorable, and yet being enjoyable all at the same time, I'm giving Speechless 5 out of 10...hands down!

I really liked this film and there are multiple reasons behind it. First unlike many films where the word Republican = Evil, and Democrats = Saints this film has both Senatorial candidates as being corrupt, which is fair. Next Keaton & Davis have real chemistry together, and are both on the same level (Which is rare these days. Usually it is one is rich and the other is poor, one is smart and the other is dumb, or something like that). It is also funny, (Spoiler ahead: The part when they find out what the other does for a living at the school (And the reaction of the teacher and kids) is worth watching in and of itself). Finally, this is not a "chick flick" which in 99% of cases, is an absolute turn-off from the get go. It is mostly told from Kevin's (Keaton's)point of view, which means that as a straight guy, I could watch it without changing the channel. Frankly, I have seen one too many films with women trying on wedding dresses (Sad to say, these women are not exactly hot to begin with). Is it the best romantic comedy of all-time? No "Blind Date", "Stakeout", "Adventures In Babysitting" & almost anything starring Myrna Loy (Most notably "Libeled Lady & "I Love You Again")are my personal favorites. But it is well worth watching. Highly recommended.

I guess you could say this contains a partial spoiler.* * * * I'm a little perplexed at the low ratings most folks seem to give this movie. I think it's because people tend to look at movies as a total product. Me, I'm the kind of guy who can appreciate a classic car, and overlook the rust spots.That's kind of where we are on this movie -- a movie that hits on seven out of eight cylinders. The problem is that romantic comedy is the most difficult of genres, and for most folks, it has to hit on all eight to "work." Viewers think about their feelings; they don't analyze a romantic movie in an intellectual way, and if something doesn't quite work, they leave the theater feeling dissatisfied without knowing exactly why.This movie has so much going for it -- a good premise, clever banter, believable characters, and a romance that doesn't seem forced. And for me, there's a double appeal -- I've worked in the press/political world, and all I can say is I can tell the writers must have been there, too.Was it miscast? Was it shallow? Was the dialog unrealistic? Was everyone too cute? Was the "strange bedfellows" premise beyond belief? Naah. None of that.The problem is the third act. I don't want to give away too much, but we have a scene in a bar in which Michael Keaton is given some interesting information, and he has a choice to make. Now, the movie might have spun in a half-dozen interesting directions from this point -- first time I saw it, I was half-sitting up in my chair, once I recognized where the whole thing was leading. I couldn't tell quite where it was going, but I knew it was going to be mighty interesting. There was plenty of dramatic potential, the sort you always need at the start of the third act in a comedy, to make the ending seem a happy relief. The way it spun out in my mind, I suppose the movie would have gone on for another five or six scenes.But here's the trouble -- the next scene is the big climax at the balloon fiesta, and the producers settled for an ending so simple, so dishonest, so downright cheap, that I'm sure it's the thing that left the bad taste in most moviegoers' mouths. Up to this point the movie was a clever comedy of words and ideas and romance; suddenly we got slapstick.How on earth could something like this have happened? How could writers who had done such a good job up to this point have failed so miserably at the climax? My guess is that they didn't -- my guess is that someone with a complete lack of understanding of the material took a movie with a complex, adult, and somewhat ambiguous ending, something in which there were no heroes and no villains, and decided to "improve" it.Or maybe a different ending was shot, and it didn't test well in Pomona, and the studio tried another approach.Or maybe the studio decided to save a little money by cutting 15 minutes out of the script.But I suspect some big-time tinkering here -- something that basically spoiled the movie for most viewers, and turned a potential classic into a bomb.Wouldn't it be cool if another ending was shot -- and if someday a "director's cut" might be made available? There was so much "right" about this movie, I hated to see it spoiled by a botched last couple of minutes.Erik Smith Olympia, Wash.

the only reason I saw this was to see SUPERMAN and BATMAN in the same film. apart from that.it sucked. totally lame story totally lame everything. but reeve and keaton gave us a glimpse of what their onscreen presence would have been like in a team up