Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas (2005)

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

People are voting emotionally.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Christina Applegate is an actress I have long been a fan of, starting with a crush I had on her on my teenage years, through 'Jessie' and 'Samantha Who?' On TV or her work trying to keep up with Will Ferrell and co in the Anchorman movies 'The Sweetest Thing' Plot In A Paragraph: Katie Wilkinson (Kathleen Rose Perkins) a New York City book editor, whose relationship with Matt Harrison (Johnathon Schaech)ends suddenly. Shortly after she receives a package from Matt, explaining if she reads what is enclosed, she will understand more about why he has behaved like he has, Katie learns about Matt's past through the diary written by Suzanne (Christina Applegate) for her unborn son Nicholas.You can tell where this is headed, almost from the first fifteen to twenty minutes. Thanks to wonderful performances from both Christina Applegate and Kathleen Rose Perkins, plus Johnathon Schaech is OK too, but at times his acting is not on par with the ladies in the movie

I know I'm in the minority here, after having read several glowing reviews of this movie, but I felt the need to chime in nonetheless. Perhaps I'm not the right sort of audience for this kind of movie, since I usually find these rom-drams (romantic dramas) horribly saccharine and cheezy, and this one was no different -- in fact, moreso than most.First off, let me just get one little tidbit off my chest, and here's a warning: SPOILERS BELOW! Why the heck would someone, knowing that their wife has a heart condition that makes her susceptible to heart attacks, plan a surprise party, of all things, for her birthday?!? Am I the only one who finds this ludicrous? Did the writers never stop to think, oh, maybe that's not a good idea? I haven't read the book, so I don't know if that part was in it or not, but come ON! It made me conjure up my own little sub-plot, where hubby Matt was actually trying to kill his wife, and considering how everything turned out in the end, where he gets his convenient little ready-made family to replace the former one, well, it's not such a bad plot, and maybe it would've made a better movie.MORE SPOILERS!! I knew the wife Suzanne was going to die from the get-go. I mean, come on, they establish a delicate heart condition, and they show the new girlfriend reading her diary, and I've seen enough of these types of movies to know the formula, so it was just a matter of figuring out when and how. That's really the main reason I finished watching this ridiculous drama.But of course they have to throw in some moralizing along the way: Suzanne shouldn't have a baby, it's really dangerous for her, she's a doctor and knows the risks -- but rather than do something sensible like adopt a child who could use a good home, she goes ahead and has a baby anyway, because isn't that a woman's true function in life? To be a mother? And, you know, abortion is bad -- even when a pregnancy presents a serious risk to a woman's health, she should just go ahead and have the baby anyway, because then her life is fulfilled! YET MORE SPOILERS: Oh, and speaking of abortions, the little twist where Kate gets pregnant presented another moral conundrum. Apparently it's okay for a woman who's casually dating some guy (which is how the movie seemed to present their relationship) to just skip a pill or two, on the off-chance that it "might work out" with her boyfriend. Seriously, that's what Kate tells her doctor when he asks why she missed her pill. I guess she just decided to take it upon herself to maybe get pregnant, without ever bothering to even discuss that with her boyfriend! But god forbid she should get an abortion, because that's just wrong! No, she too should just go ahead with this unplanned pregnancy, because she's a woman, and women are just baby-makers, and it'll all work out in the end! Ugh. I think that one word sums up my thoughts on this movie as a whole. Everything about it was designed to be a tear-jerker, and judging from the rest of the reviews, I guess it worked, but I was left at the end feeling annoyed and preached to. Like I said earlier, if you want to watch it from the perspective of this would-be writer plotting to kill his rich doctor wife so he can move into her nice big house, well, that might make a more interesting storyline than this ridiculous melodramatic twaddle.

I thought this movie was absolutely beautiful..... Better than the book even......... All the actors did a fantastic job and were all very believable in their respective roles. John and Christina certainly hit the mark with this movie as the chemistry was wonderful and Kathleen was suitably impressive as the "other woman" ..... I also loved the location and that house was to die for......:)Ohhh and alliesun98, James Patterson was actually the executive producer of this movie.... and I'm sure he is very proud of it....10 out of 10....

Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas is one of the best books I have ever read. I'm not much of a reader, but I read this book 3 times. I guess I should have known better than to expect the movie to be as good as the book.The acting was TERRIBLE. They left out some of the best parts of the book. The movie was horribly cheesy, and did not do the book justice. This could have been such an amazing movie. I'm not sure if the budget was low or what, but it was just so disappointing. Maybe someone else will try again with a better cast and a bigger budget. I hope they apologized to James Patterson after making it.I need to go re-read the book now just to get the movie out of my head!!