Beautiful, moving film.

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

The most baffling thing about this unforgivably stupid film is that when the lead character interrupts a critical business meeting to sing her adopted baby a lullaby over the phone, or turns her office into a playhouse by bringing the child to work and juggling her like a greased piglet we're supposed to find it charming. And when her boss reassigns her to a less stressful client account and she quits in a huff, we're supposed to think he's a loathsome corporate shark and she's a gutsy role model. I didn't feel that way. From the moment Diane Keaton's character inherits the baby she acts like an idiot while the people around her are sensible and tolerant. This makes it very hard to root for her when her life is turned upside down, and even harder to believe in her as a high powered businesswoman. This character, as written and played, couldn't find her feet with a flashlight. I'm a fan of Diane Keaton but this script does her no favours and her performance is an insult to working women, working mothers and to the concepts of common sense and perspective. And yes, I know it's meant to be a comedy but it does also have pretensions to making social statements and seems to be setting Keaton's character up as a role model, so the audience deserves a lot more. Awful, truly awful.

This film was somewhat funny to a point, but after a certain point it just seems like it has gone on long enough and you just want it to be over. The film is about a woman who does not have any children receiving an unexpected inheritance as she becomes the guardian of a little baby girl. She has problems adjusting to this and this is where the film is at its best, though the best laugh for my money is the scene where the young toddler introduces herself to the boyfriend played by Harold Ramis. The woman wrestles with the idea of putting this child up for adoption, but she meets some people wanting to adopt the child and quickly reconsiders. Cannot say I blame her, as the wife and husband look like a couple who are going to inflict the child with both emotional and physical abuse. Seriously, the way the acted during that meeting the welfare agent present should have said no way. Well the fact she does not give the child up for adoption makes the boyfriend move out and on. Sure, most may think he is a prick for doing so, but it was his choice, having a child was not for him and he went with the way he felt rather than live in misery and transferring said misery to both the woman and the child and then things would have ended in a worse way. Well after a while the woman ends up moving to the country and there are a few more laughs to be had as she has to now adjust living in the country, but the film soon becomes to long as she is in a new romance and she starts a new business. There are laughs in this one, but it is just to long. Comedies that run nearly two hours usually end up being devoid of laughs in to many patches and this one was no exception. Was not awful, but nor was it good.

I loved this movie, Diane Keaton was great in this role and how cute is Elizabeth the baby..I also loved the relationship between Diane Keaton's character and Sam Sepherd's character..I am wondering though if anyone could help me locate a piece of artwork from the movie. Does anyone know the name of the artist who drew the picture of the flower above Diane Keatons bed in the beginning of this movie??.. It looks like a pencil sketch of a flower..I would love to have this picture, but I have been unable to find it anywhere..Does anyone know where I could find it, or the name of the artist?? Thank you for your assistance...Thanks, JG

The construction is rather obvious; the corporate wonder woman has a burden placed on her, but she is compelled to keep it. The second half mirrors the first half exactly - a boom of 'babies'.This could have been something more than a trifle, considering how the jokes were so fundamental to the way Hollywood currently makes fun of the flyover states. Note that the rejected nannies are servile, pious robots. The same idea of 'unacceptable risk' would be recycled in "Mrs. Doubtfire".The first half is pure screwball in nature. The second half seems to have nothing to do with the tone of the first half at all. The writer/director gambled on using "Funny Farm" ideas, but tried to disguise them as something new -- it was no use, Hill's movie vastly overpowers this -- this comes across as indecisive and disconnected.The 80s seem to be the decade most lampooned in movies because of the unique confluence of styles -- linebacker shoulder pads on women's outfits, bass drum beats that would knock you sideways, businesslike sex, conspicuous consumption...Hollywood never seemed to realize, never seemed to have a clue, that every joke they fired off only made fun of themselves.It shows here: the tinsel town airheads try to make fun of corporate America, but the way the movie itself was made is every bit as disingenuous and venal as the target.