Ian: When watching Sam Mendes' "Away We Go" at a critic's screening in Seattle, a few predictions came to mind. One was that this movie would probably be negatively labeled "twee" by several critics, which has proven true at least once or twice with a few of the other preliminary reviews that have been posted on various critic's blogs. Another was that Sam Mendes would receive more flak, as he has for his last three-or-so films, for his often over-reaching style and handling of scripts, which has also unfortunately come true. But finally, I hoped, and still hope, that audiences will walk out of the theatre as satisfied as I did, because they just saw a movie that, despite its flaws, solidly acted, hysterically funny, and deals with universally relatable subject matter that it handles with simultaneous care and irreverence.

Kevin: Away We Go is a road trip story about a poor, independent young couple, soon to be parents, looking for a future for their child and a city in which to raise a family. Burt [John Krasinski] is a young college dropout insecure with his place in the business world and unsure about his ability to support a child, and Verona [Maya Rudolph] is still recovering from her mother's somewhat recent death, which separated her emotionally from her family and friends. The film features a strong supporting cast, including Jim Gaffigan, Maggie Gyllenhall, Jeff Daniels, and Catherine O'Hara, who all play friends or family of the couple who they visit in various cities on their trip to help them determine what choices to make.

Ian: The film is fiercely hilarious, which could be interpreted as one of its negative aspects. Maggie Gyllenhall's character is a ridiculous new age mystic who refuses to use strollers because it's "pushing your child away," still breastfeeds her child, age 9, and has a husband named Rodrick who wishes they were a seahorse couple, because the female seahorse "penetrates her husband and injects her eggs into his pouch." I don't challenge the idea that people this ridiculous do exist, but the frequency of ridiculous people in the movie may require viewers to suspend their disbelief. All but one of the four couples they visit in the film is, to an extent, a hilarious caricature. Suspense of disbelief in a science fiction or action movie is perfectly acceptable, but in a Sam Mendes film that is decidedly more drama than comedy, it can kill some of the otherwise powerful emotional pull.

Kevin: The serious portions of the film suffer mildly from Mendes' tendency to force meaning into meaningless moments, with the added irritation of what seems like him trying to be "indie." Long, no-camera movement single shots of characters on airport passenger conveyor belts and shots of reflections in windows, which are accompanied by gratuitously cutesy treatment of sex and the previously mentioned "caricature" approach to supporting characters. There are few cringe worthy moments that feel like looking at a myspace photo with sepia toning added in Microsoft photo editor. Thankfully, the second half of the film tones down both the overly ridiculous characters and manufactured indie feel and takes a genuine look at the 21st century family, and how death within the family affects the outlook one should have parenting.

Ian: The movie has two opposing halves, and while the first more or less tries as hard as it can to be one of Wes Anderson's funnier features, I wouldn't dismiss it entirely, because it partly succeeds. The movie made me laugh harder than I had in a while, and still seamlessly transitioned into a very thought-provoking final 45 minutes. Mendes is very aware of the pacing he's created, while I disagree with a few of his choices, I was ultimately satisfied by the final result.

Kevin: I would agree for the most part, except I'm a bit less critical of the attempted indie humor. It gets old, but I can forgive it for the true hilarity intermixed.

Ian: 3.5 out of 5

Kevin: 4 out of 5