Film critic Mick LaSalle, writing for "SFGate", called the film superior to Marshall's "Pretty Woman", going on to deem it "Marshall's best movie". Dubbing Clarisse "Andrews' best showcase in years", LaSalle credited most of the film's humor with Andrews' performance, specifically her reaction to Hathaway's gimmicks. "The Washington Post" film critic Michael O'Sullivan wrote that, despite the film's younger target demographic, "there's enough bile and phlegm souring up the sweet main story to appeal to even those of us with more mature tastes." Although Christine Dolen of the "Miami Herald" believed Mia's clumsiness is "by far the most winning things about" the film, she felt that the script "leaves much to be desired -- like an intriguing storyline, any semblance of believability or choices beyond the obvious". She ultimately credited Andrews and Hathaway's performances with saving the picture. Robert Koehler of "Variety" felt Marshall and Wendkos "waste the charming comic tone and observations of Cabot's book, especially ... where the reformation of Mia is depicted almost off-handedly". Koehler criticized the film for squandering comedic opportunities by focusing on Mia's school and romantic relationships as opposed to her grandmother's training. However, he felt Andrews and Elizondo were perfectly cast, and commended Hathaway's comedic instincts. "The Globe and Mail"'s Liam Lacey agreed that "Surprisingly little time is spent mining the comic potential of Mia's education, with the comedy rationed in favour of a tiresome amount of attention lavished on her ongoing school problems", but concluded that Marshall deserves "credit for his keen sense of historical symmetry in the perfect casting of Julie Andrews". Praising the cast's chemistry, Loren King, writing for the "Chicago Tribune", credited Andrews' performance with "kick the film's class quotient up several notches".