A widower whose book about coping with loss turns him into a best-selling self-help guru, falls for the hotel florist where his seminar is given, only to learn that he hasn't yet truly confronted his wife's passing.
A bounty hunter learns that his next target is his ex-wife, a reporter working on a murder cover-up. Soon after their reunion, the always-at-odds duo find themselves on a run-for-their-lives adventure.
Mike works at his parents' motel in Kingman, population 27,000, on old Route 66. Sue sells art for a Baltimore firm to corporations for office walls. He takes one look at her from behind as she registers at the motel and determines to connect. He's sweet, but hapless, with no ambition other than spending time with her. She's enigmatic - rarely smiling, occasionally impulsive, committed to helping homeless people, feeling the clock tick after a breakup with a boyfriend who could have provided security. Is there any way he stands a chance with her? What can he offer? Written by
A Catholic priest in Portland, Oregon, received an invitation to read for a scene involving a priest, while filming occurred in that city. A Portland-based member of the casting department told him that writer/director Stephen Belber was unsatisfied with the readings and characterizations that auditioning actors had been giving for the very brief lines in the scene. The casting department told the priest they found him through a random Internet search, yet he happened to be a serious film buff (for instance, he has an IMDb account). He had even hoped that someday he might get a bit part as a priest in a film. But he declined the invitation to read for the part in Management (2008), after seeing the script of the scene in question and learning more about the film's storyline and about some of its other content. A modified version of the scene - without a priest - is in the film. See more »
In the hotelroom is a wine offered as hotel-present. The bottle of white wine (which is drunk without any cooling) is almost empty after only two little glasses. See more »
First of all, I'd like to start by saying that I'm not a frequent movie comments writer, or any other sort of writer apart from my academic essays, hence, the lack of experience or proper writing structure which, more than probably would be blatant to a knowledgeable reader. However, I'm more than passionate about cinematography and I do believe without a shadow of a reasonable doubt that I've developed a fine taste for my viewing themes.
That said, I'm more than willingly commenting on this movie is because I have read an unjust and undermining comment about it right after I've watched it. So, the reasons I'd like to point out why this movie is more than a decent flick and contradict the over demanding (perhaps) commentator are:
A. It's a comedy slash romance flick (for crying out loud). So, it's quite obvious that if you are going to see this with expectations of such grandiose productions as of, in my opinion, Citizen Kane and 12 Angry Men, or Schindler's List, then you would more than likely be quite disappointed.
B. From where I stand, the casting was ingenious. In other words, it couldn't have been better (surprisingly enough since I've never appreciated Jenny as an actress, but this was just her ideal role).
C. The story is not over exaggerated which adds to its credibility. It's simple, well digestible and, not just funny, but harmfully hilarious at some points. On top of that, it's heart warming and free of "superficial additives".
D. The whole execution was flawless, starting from acting to photography and visual/audio presentation.
And, to rap things up, compared to its own kind, this flick stands in the top 10. So, it's a must see for sure.
45 of 65 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?