Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Brigid O Sullivan (wisewebwoman) And I kinda sorta did.But there were lots I didn't like too. The movie couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to be, comedy, drama, romance, wevs. It dragged atrociously in the wrong places, and galloped through more sensitive scenes. And why oh why in heaven's name was Rowan Atkinson cast in the part of an ObGyn and all he can manage is make like Mr. Bean down to the mouthy business, this was out and out farce and completely out of sync with the rest of the film.Hugh Laurie could stand and stare at paint drying and I would still watch him but here again, there is major script letdown.And seriously a major invasion of his wife's privacy? I'd call that monstrous and a total dealbreaker.And I could not get excited about Emma Thompson in a role out of her reach as some kind of hippy-dippy clairvoyanty soothsayer. Did not buy. Natasha was lovely and witty but the director could have reigned her in as at times she was way over the top.There was a beautiful movie in there dying to get out. But not in all their hands unfortunately.Too bad.5 out of 10

showgirl626 I just discovered this movie the other day for the first time. I was flipping through the menu on my TV, saw the description and decided to look in. I missed the first few minutes, but what I saw kept me watching.While I can see what the detractors of this film saw, I also think the criticism is a bit harsh. I did a lot of smiling, and laughed out loud many times.While the movie was packed to the rafters with British heavyweights, few brought their reputations to the roles, and the characters could have easily been played by someone with less star power. However, the Hugh Laurie / Joely Richardson combination worked for me, and Tom Hollander was over-the-top hilarious, even more so for me only previously knowing him in roles where he plays an uptight starchy elitist.Sure the dialogue was a little stilted and artificial in places, some of the jokes juvenile, and I can definitely see where some reviewers thought it sounded like they were reading pages of text verbatim, but I didn't walk away from the movie regretting having watched it. I liked how it poked fun at the British, the BBC, babymaking in general, and I respect that it dared to poke fun at the sacred cows of pregnancy problems and infertility.It was a little indelicate a times, downright ridiculous more than once, but overall the movie was strong enough to hold my attention, and I was entertained. Though I wasn't entirely satisfied with the end, I think it was better than taking the easy way out and having Laurie and Richardson walking off into the sunset pushing a pram.Better than average? Absolutely. Funny? You bet. Pompous? Yeah, a little of that too, but not a clunker by any stretch of the imagination. I liked it. Call me crazy, but I'd watch it again.Thanks for reading.

J Andrew Evans A very ordinary romantic comedy with very little to redeem it. Main joy in the watching is spotting almost every British comedy actor of the day playing some sort of minor role. Apart from the "ooh look, isn't that . . ." factor there is a very good performance from Joely and Hugh Laurie is his usual sparkling self. However, in the end, the rough and somewhat unsuccessful script just doesn't fill one with enough laughs, thrills and empathy. One most wonder if in fact it is a good idea to write a comedy script about a couple struggling with infertility - perhaps as one of the character's puts it, it isn't very funny after all.

Luke Devine The story in this film is a good one, it covers a miserable topic but tries to humour it. "Tries" is the definitive word here; the acting from both lead roles was appalling, I was particularly surprised by Hugh Laurie whose acting I have seen before and has been excellent. The leads, Joely Richardson and Hugh Laurie, acted at best, woodenly. At any potentially humorous or otherwise emotional part the lead would inevitably screw up; either through a bizarre facial expression, a poorly expressed piece of dialogue or just a look of vacant disinterest. Throughout the film you feel that leads' heart are not really in it, they needed some quick money, so they looked for the highest paying script and signed on.The film is one that would have thrived on emotion, alas none is forthcoming.