2freensel I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

fallgeek This movie is downright terrible. Usually I like cheesy movies because they are so stupid and pointless that you can laugh at them, but this movie is just all-around awful. There are many reasons that this movie is bad, so I'll list them here: 1. The acting is very questionable; it's supposed to feature a good, talented cast, but the actors may as well be robots, as they're not putting any expression into their lines whatsoever. 2. All of the jokes that are supposed to be funny are just stupid. 3. The main character, Julie, is a complete selfish, self-centered snob- she complains to her parents about not getting a lock on her bedroom door, and that her mom treats her like a baby, and that her crush doesn't even know she exists-it makes you want to slap her across the face. 4. The film basically encourages bad behavior, what with the scavenger hunt and all, and the parents' reaction to Julie's sneaking out of the house is far too lenient-they don't punish her, but instead reward her with a lock for her bedroom door-if I did that, I'd be grounded for life!5. The fake emotion in this movie is overwhelming-the writers tried to throw in some emotional scenes that didn't fit to the script or the theme of the movie in the first place, and all of the actors failed to deliver them.6. The ending is so predictable it's ridiculous-my five-year-old sister could see it coming! Julie ends up with the guy of her dreams and her and her friends win the scavenger hunt and are skyrocketed into popularity-news flash: life isn't perfect!7. The movie is really shallow and pretty much implies that being popular and wearing designer clothes and dating the cutest boy in school are the most important things in life-it sends a bad message to young viewers.8. Lastly, the guy that the chubby character (Yancy) winds up with at the end of the film says that he has a one-night gig working at the bar/club the girls sneak into-for this to be true, he'd have to be at least 21 years of age. Which means that a 21-year-old man has fallen in love with a 14-year-old girl. Isn't there something wrong with that picture?This movie is awful for all of the reasons mentioned above, and is totally not worth the hour and half of your time that it takes up-take my advice: don't watch it.

annevejb 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.

dlstock12 Sleepover is an exciting movie. it's about 4 friends trying to actually improve their social standing in school which is something everyone who is less than popular wishes at least once in their teenage life. this movie is a thriller that will excite your nerves till the very end. its about 4 friends being in a scavenger hunt for this most sacred of all places in their high school called the lunch spot or also known as the fountain against the so called "populars". this scavenger hunt takes these friends to places they never thought they'd be able to go and encourages them to do things they thought they wouldn't be able to do. its an excellent movie and i completely encourage people to see this movie. you wont regret it. and even if you do, what do i care I'm just someone who wanted to comment on this fantastic movie!!!!!!!!!!

xpeach_blossomx 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 =)