2/5 Pass on this Movie - No Plot
  by Dottie A. Randazzo (Pennsylvania, USA)
Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2PDHN0K5ED2KD

1/5 The New Twenty
  by Gordon Larko (Phoenix AZ)
Not a Movie worth the money or your time. It falls under the catagory of stupid.

4/5 About to turn 30, and still waiting to grow up ...
  by Bob Lind (Phoenix, AZ United States)
Looking in on a group of close friends since college, seven years after graduation, things aren't quite what they expected, even considering thirty is "The New Twenty" (2009).

There's the "jock" of the group, Andrew (hunky former model Ryan Locke), who is looking for financing for an internet startup he believes will make him rich. He's engaged to Asian-American Julie (Nicole Bilderback, who deserves the critical kudos she got for this role), who finds herself in the uncomfortable position of having to downplay the fact that she makes more money than her fiance'. Julie's brother, advertising whiz-kid Tony (Andrew Wei Lin) is gay and dating an older man who is HIV+. In college, Felix (Thomas Sadoski) seemed most likely to succeed, but his inability to give up his drug use have turned him into an insecure addict. Then there's the resident slacker, Ben (Colin Fickes), the other gay character, who wastes his days searching for online hookups and watching old TV shows.

The dynamics of the relationships between the five friends changes significantly, when Louie (Tony Serpico, a regular on "Army Wives"), a man in his 40's whom Andrew meets playing cricket, enters into a business arrangement with Andrew, as well as a flirtation with Julie, with the other friends tagging along as they socialize. This comes to a head at Andrew's bachelor bash, resulting in new resolutions by all, in order to get on with their lives.

A well-written, acted and directed film, and I love the way the gay and straight characters mesh comfortably. However, I thought it to be a bit predictable in parts, and somewhat negative in that it concentrated on everyone's failures. DVD includes commentary (labeled as "documentary"), deleted scenes and a music video. Overall, it's worth a look, and I give it four stars out of five.

2/5 not a must see
  by D. Homsher (Lancaster, PA)
To me, the characters of this film were more "type" than genuine---created simply for a trendy variety. None of them seemed fully developed and all were dysfunctional to the point of annoyance. Their respective maladies appeared to be the movie's grounding. How long would any real person put up with them as friends? One "happy" couple finally emerged but their joinder felt merely pro forma---there was little plot developemnt of their relationship or chemistry between them. Less than a must see.

2/5 They make me feel old (not new) long before my time.......
  by JUST A REVIEWER2

What we're given in this trying-to-be trendy film is a "frat-pack" of college friends, now approaching age 30 (which we all know, of course, their generation thinks of as the "new 20"). Consisting of four guys and a gal, we have thrust at us the following types: seemingly "unemployeds" and frequent drug users, along with one individual who is job successful and one who is trying-to-be. They are all, in their own way, drifting while trying to find both a future and emotional happiness. With one, possibly two exceptions, these are people this reviewer would definitely never care to come close to modeling myself after. There is disappointment after disappointment after disappointment in almost all their lives. Except in the instance of one individual (who appears on the way to finding it), none appears headed toward emotional satisfaction in his/her life. And so, about the only sincere moment in this film is when a knock at the door brings to the person answering it an unexpected and heartfelt "I love you."

With only the exceptions mentioned, these people are the kind hardly deserving or worthy of several hundred thousands of dollars being thrown away in presenting their stories.

PS--Writer/director, Johnson, definitely appears to have a problem with showing gay sexual scenes----with no such problems in presenting more prolonged and revealing heterosexual ones. Why might that be?

****