Wonderful character development!

Very well executed

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

I love how many actors I like where in this movie, so I just had to watch it through the end. I really like Mika Boorem >best actress out of the girls< (Dawson's Creek/Blue Crush/Carolina/The Patriot), Sam Huntington(Being Human), Sara Paxton (Summerland/The Beautiful Life/Aquamarine/Last House on the Left), Brie Larson (United States of Tara)and of course Summer Glau (Firefly/Angel/The Sarah Connor Chronicles/Dollhouse), who made a small cameo as ticket girl.The movie itself wasn't that impressive. I saw it on TV and recognized Sam Huntington, so I decided to give it a shot despite the bad rating, cuz it was fun to see Sam in his early twenties. There were a few scenes I enjoyed like the Spice Girls dance by the boys, scenes with Sam *obviously*, the mean girls eating near the garbage can, all the scenes with Julie's Dad, the crazy guy showing Sara Paxton's character his coma picture..that's about it. I agree with most reviewers that the movie was full of clichés like the dumb small-town cop, skinny mean blonde foes, etc.This Movie was supposed to be a romantic teen comedy for girls but surprisingly, all the humor in this movie comes from the guys: Sam Huntington (id I mention him before?^^), Julie's Dad, the 3 crazy boys and Steve Carrell as Officer Sherman.So if you like any of these actors, you might wanna check it out, but don't watch it looking for great entertainment..it's not.

First impressions can be misleading. This seemed a fun romp, the sort of thing that gets labelled as girlie and which I tend to find addictive to the point of wanting to rate it as 10 or 9 or, in this case 8. This does not appear to have anything like the depth of Heathers or Clueless or Practical Magic, etc, so 10 felt wrong. It did not seem to be at the level of addictive sugar of lesser depth, so 9 felt wrong. Yet it is still addictive, to those who like this sort of girlie romp? It is also the best for Sara Paxton that I have, so far. It is a summer-before-high-school story. Played by 15 year olds, mostly, acting as 14 year olds. Unusual. I find that it might be interesting to compare this with John Tucker Must Die, a thong story that gets much better IMDb user ratings than this despite me considering it to be a potential equal marred by quality aspects. So, that is 17s played by 20s?, it looked really wrong to me and sounded even more wrong, first viewing. It is a boxer shorts story and the comments make me wonder how many of them are by secret girlies rather than by secret boys. * For me, the power comes by trying to consider what it is trying to say. It is addictive sugar, yes, but to me it is also a parable about the 1990's and 80's and earlier. Early in the story, dad is grumbling about the kitchen taps, his test of the water makes an indicator turn blue. The house is going to have a baby boy? He stays at home while his better half is taking a night off. He does not spend the evening dressing pretty, ready for when she returns, but potters with the plumbing while his daughter has a sleepover. During the 1980's I understand feminists to have been quietly trying to earn their understanding of 'trouser technique', working to qualify as effective secret men, a global disaster for anyone who happened to be weaker than what was needed for being on the same planet as this was happening on. It seemed to follow rules that I grew up on the receiving end of from my early years, living death. 80's and 90's boxer shorts world, where the weak are led astray and corrupted, I should expect this story to get reactions of horror from any who were physically male during that time. Except that I can watch it and consider it to be addictive sugar rather than a horrifying poison. This is a story that dives into the unmentionables and comes out smelling sweet. These girls are real horror and it is accepted because they are learning trouser skills, bra in the fridge, boys will be boys. Just they also live in a world were fools are under pressure to get corrupted. * While getting to know this I was also watching three other DVDs that I purchased at the same time-ish. Push (2009), to me is a near equal to Sleepover even though it is looking at scary stuff that I can read as linked to this theme. Not cute sugar or obvious. I needed to watch it a few times just to acclimatise. Bynes' Sydney White (2007) and Tisdale's Picture This (2008). Not at this level but nice romps. Tisdale by the swimming pool even takes acting beyond where many modern actors can allow themselves to go. Many seem to rate Sleepover as 6 and John Tucker as 10. I consider that as examples of voting in a symbolic way. Consider quality, my personal idea of sense says that these actually merit 10 and 6. Both look at a difficult subject and Sleepover does that in an unusually effective way that appears to have voters running away? So, could be that Tucker rates better than a six. Sleepover as 10 though, my sense of sense, a school story with class. Beware of superficial interpretations. Sleepover is a masterwork. Push is a flawed masterwork. But both are masterworks.

This was a really good film. It's basically about a group of friends on an all night scavenger hunt against their popular rivals. I know that some people think this is badly made with a rubbish cast, but I thought it was funny, girlie and perfect for a sleepover. If you haven't seen it i'd suggest it for anyone aged 11-15, mainly girls. Alexa Vega stars as Julie, and I think she does a great job. The parents are really cringey in this movie, too, they were hilarious! I gave this 9/10- the point was only lost because it does have a bit of that American cuteness in it, but the rest was great. You can relate to the characters sometimes, and it's funny, sweet and really good!

Hmm.......I didn't think the movie was THAT bad. Just a little complicated, that's all. I think the plot was pathetic. You have to go on this scavenger hunt just for a lunch spot? How does where you eat lunch affect your future? Is sitting in a 'popular' spot going to help you get into the best college? Or is it going to prevent you from doing drugs and screwing up your life? It DOESN'T MATTER. 10 years from then, it's not going to matter. So what if you don't have the perfect social life or whatever? It'll be useless. Period. And, how can you possibly do those tasks? Dress a mannequin in Old Navy? Won't you get arrested for that? Yeah, I think this movie is just......unrealistic. Movies that ARE realistic just make sense more. When I watched the movie, I got a headache. It was too much. But, I did think it had humor, and fried twinkies sound interesting. (I think I might try that, lol) As I said, the movie is not that bad, and it's nice for young teens =)