Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

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

I had to watch this movie in Psychology class, and I thought it was amazing! It was a movie that I actually enjoyed watching at school, which is a rarity. The actors played their roles expertly. I am so glad they chose Brittany Murphy for the role of Lisa. She had all of the emotions needed for this part. WOW! It was truly a touching story, and I'm glad this movie was remade...I would like to get a copy...My teacher taped it off of TV, and she can't find a copy ANYWHERE! If anyone can help me out I would greatly appreciate it. Please email me at ladylemon2006@aol or carmello2006@hotmail.com. thanks a lot, and everyone should see this movie. You wouldn't regret it. There is never a dull moment!

This isn't a terrible movie, but to be honest, I'm baffled by all the praise it's received. The dialogue seems artificial and somewhat dated--David in particular has an extremely stilted manner that I'm not sure is actually intentional. In the first half of the movie he stands up abruptly and then turns away at least once a scene, and his various panic attacks are weirdly awkward and artificial. I'm not sure that this is Haas's fault--when I first read the original play about 8 years ago, I was instantly annoyed by David's character. I personally have a good deal of experience with mental illness, etc, and something about him didn't quite click. Once David was allowed to develop a little (and once he wasn't forced into these constant, over-the-top breakdowns), Haas's acting ability shows. I really would have liked to see more insight--more introspection--but because the director insisted on sticking directly to the play, this wasn't possible. The plot is decent; why couldn't they use that as the framework?He changes as a result of Lisa, but we don't really see how or why. As a result, we end up with this sappy, unrealistic sort of "love conquers mental illness" story. What, is David cured now? He and Lisa haven't even had a real conversation when the movie ends; we're left with the idea that perhaps their relationship will develop into something fascinating......and then the movie ends. Damn it.Murphy does decently as Lisa, considering what she's given to work with. And Poitier does wonderfully despite the dialogue, of course, but everybody else in the film seems vaguely out of place. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that there's still something very 1962 about the thing, and mental illness research has come a long way in 40 years. David and Lisa has its great moments--especially as it progresses--and I suspect that Haas in particular could do better in a different movie. Even this one could be really good, but it just falls short somehow...probably as a result of the dialogue, which still seems straight out of a 60's play that was revolutionary in its time but has since become distractingly dated. (I am aware that they have made some changes to the slang, but there's more to speech than that.) Anyway, with some modifications in regards to the telling of the story and especially the character development, I think that it could be a much better movie. As it is, it's pretty unremarkable.

This may have come about under the aegis of Oprah Winfrey, but don't let that put you off; "David and Lisa" is far more watchable than her self-titled opus. (Another British viewer complained that She Who Thinks She's God appears in an intro before the movie starts; this is the case on video and on its US screenings, but I watched the movie on BBC2 and her appearance was removed, for which much thanks. Less justifiably, the Harpo logo was also absent - I don't like Oprah, but I like end credits.)Though Sidney Poitier is top-billed, Lukas Haas is the real star of the movie; he plays an articulate and intelligent young man who's very disturbed - he suffers from a recurring nightmare involving "clock executions," and has a severe phobia about being touched, all of which accounts for his widowed mother (Allison Janney from "The West Wing") sending him to a special institution. This movie is basically a love story, and the object of his affections - though it takes him a while to realise it - is a fellow patient played by Brittany Murphy (anyone seeing this after "Girl, Interrupted" and "Don't Say A Word" will probably not be surprised). Given to speaking in rhyme to make her internal demons go away, his interest is at first clinical, but eventually...Compared to "The Bell Jar" (the book, that is - I haven't seen the movie version), this isn't particularly wrenching, but it isn't meant to be. Blessedly non-sick-making, sensitively told and generally well-performed (some of the freakouts may seem overacted, but how far is too far in cases like this?), "David and Lisa" is an involving story right up to its final scene - there's no real miracle cure, instead a suggestion that they're heading in the right direction. (And unusually for a love story, the two never kiss.)And to the person who complained about Marco Beltrami's music; in addition to being above-average for TV, it must have been a refreshing change for him to score a movie not about serial killings. Fans of him (and Haas and Murphy) should tune in.

Oprah Winfrey has done it again as she produces a compelling new version of the 1968 classic. Two mentally ill teenagers fall in love and conquer their illnesses with the help of the school's director, played by Sidney Poitier. I found Lukas Haas and Brittany Murphy excellent in their respective roles as David and Lisa. This film reaches out people of all ages at many different levels. It is fundamentaly a teenage romance with a unique twist. I would recommend "David and Lisa" to anyone and everyone!