Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Connianatu How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

jon This movie is hilarious. The insane dialogue turns the story of a grieving mother into a good comedy. Even though it looks like it was shot in 1998, the production value is pretty good for a TV movie. But that doesn't save this wounded animal. Right from the start realism goes out the window, never to be seen again. Therefore nothing feels natural, plus the acting seems odd and misplaced in most scenes.The main players aren't sympathetic at all, even though they are intended to be. And Diane Keaton's character is supposed to be this empowering, fun-loving and cool baby boomer but she's just a hateable, annoying mess instead. People who have a good taste in movies need to watch "Surrender, Dorothy" just to push the reset button, cleanse the palate. This way you can appreciate the good films you watch.

dawn_ca I thought this was one of the best movies I've seen in a very long time. It was a great story line and showed that people are so intricate in all kinds of different ways. Have recommended it to all my friends!! I always enjoy a good story line and this movie had one of the best I've seen in a long time. I could see myself having a daughter and doing the same things that Natalie did to find out more about her life and loves. It showed how we not only have lives with our families ; but also have parts of our lives that we don't share with them - as it may not be in their best interest to know all the details of things we don't do that we are so proud of.I look forward to another such movie, and will keep my eye out.

moonspinner55 Watching CBS's "Surrender, Dorothy", I kept wondering why Diane Keaton would want to be in it (not because it's a television movie--with the dearth of enticing roles for slightly older actresses, it isn't any wonder why Academy Award winning performers such as Keaton turn to TV--but because it offers no opportunities for Keaton to shine). A single mother, grieving the sudden death of her twenty-something daughter, imposes upon--and gradually becomes friends with--the group of young people her daughter was close to at the time of her accident. Adapted from the novel, this teleplay gives us a group of self-absorbed characters one would cross the street to avoid. Aside from being coarse and dim, these phony people are incredibly unconvincing, as is the tidy scenario and the bungalow near the beach where the kids reside (one young man, who wears muscle shirts to tell us he's gay, hears Diane Keaton say, "Surrender, Dorothy" and actually asks, "That's from "The Wizard of Oz", right?"...no, genius, it's from "Citizen Kane"!). Keaton may have wanted to do this material based on the subject matter of confronting death. She tries turning this distinctly unlikable woman into a shadow of her own personage (lots of kooky outfits), but it doesn't sit well with the viewer since Keaton has always been warmly likable and flexible in a flaky way. Here, she's a crazed harpy who doesn't learn many lessons on her journey of self-discovery (the movie quickly forgets it's about a dead young woman and becomes an odyssey for the nervous wreck of a mom, who appears to be an overage hippie who has never lost anyone close to her). This is the kind of film actors promote on talk shows with the caveat, "It should help a lot of grieving mothers out there". I can't imagine it helping anyone since it is intrinsically a downer, muddled and baffling. It's deranged.

DrBronkhurst Although the casting for this film was admirable, particularly Dianne Keaton and Tom Everett Scott, the quality of the writing was so poor that it would be impossible for any actor or director to make this film worth watching.My wife and I decided that the reason we watched the entire film was that it was like a train wreck, and it was almost impossible to turn away. It may have been that we "hoped" that the message would eventually make itself apparent, and that we would be able to glean some meaning from this effort. Unfortunately, this did not happen.Of course the audience may have been able to "make sense" of this convoluted tale, a credit to the ingenuity of the human brain to make sense of the absurd. The writers, however, did NOTHING to facilitate this innate need we seem to have for finding meaning.It was apparent that those involved were simply going through the motions of their respective crafts, and that any intrinsic passion for the characters or the story was either secondary or non-existent.Unfortunately, made-for-TV movies have seemed to devolve over the years. Whereas communicating a message to the audience may to have been the primary interest of the writers in the past, present-day writers and producers seem condescending to their audience, concentrating primarily on manipulating us to "stay-tuned" through the incessant advertising which seems to be the only reason movies such as Surrender, Dorothy are made.