Either I don't get the whole Philip K. Dick thing, or this really was just a bad film. One of the few movies where I've felt a need to check the reviews afterwards, just to make sure I wasn't the only one. I tend to agree with these reviewers: "Help, I'm being followed by super-human salesmen in cardigans and hats!" "Cradled in Damon's solidly reliable hands, even a movie as extravagantly silly as this one gains heft and credibility, an impressive accomplishment when you consider that the entire plot revolves around magic notebooks and spellbinding hats." "The misleading trailers for the supremely goofy "The Adjustment Bureau" promise action-packed sci-fi. What you actually get is a love-struck Matt Damon running for the US Senate as he's stalked by fedora-wearing angels." Somehow Ebert 3-starred it. Maybe because Emily Blunt is hot as shit. The whole theater seemed to feel the same way, laughs in all the wrong places, etc etc. It seems that those who liked it are comparing it to Hitchcock, which is just preposterous. It has more in common with Angels in the Outfield.