A romantically challenged morning show producer is reluctantly embroiled in a series of outrageous tests by her chauvinistic correspondent to prove his theories on relationships and help ... See full summary »
Benjamin Barry is an advertising executive and ladies' man who, to win a big campaign, bets that he can make a woman fall in love with him in 10 days. Andie Anderson covers the "How To" beat for "Composure" magazine and is assigned to write an article on "How to Lose a Guy in 10 days." They meet in a bar shortly after the bet is made.
Occasionally in the 15 years since summer camp, Adam and Emma cross paths. When he discovers that an ex-girlfriend is living with his dad, he gets drunk, calls every woman in his cell phone contact list, and ends up passed out naked in her living room. By this time, she's a medical resident in L.A. and he's a gopher on a "Glee"-like TV series, hoping to be a writer. She guards her emotions (calling her father's funeral "a thing"), so after a quick shag in the moments she has before leaving for the hospital, she asks if he wants a no-strings-attached, sex-only relationship, without romance or complications. A prescription for fun or for disaster? Written by
When Adam and Emma are in the room after Adam's hangover night he puts his pants on twice, See more »
You bringing Adam to the Christmas party tonight?
No. Things were getting too intense so we decided not to see each other until we hook up with other people.
Okay. Yes. Good! We are getting laid tonight. This is going to be like Sideways only you're Paul Giamatti and I'm the guy who gets laid.
I can't get laid?
No. Tonight is about me, Emma. I'm feeling hot. I'm feeling good. I'm wearing bikini bottoms because my other underwear is dirty. Alright, we're hot. You feel hot?
No one threw ...
[...] See more »
It is interesting, to this reviewer, how the IMDb membership tends to sometimes voice concerns that the mainstream reviewers miss or overlook.
The mainstream critics (which you check for yourself, link on the title for this film) either felt that the script worked and produced an entertaining movie -- or that the script failed, and the movie lacked punch.
Almost universally, however, Ms. Portman's performance was praised. Some felt, in fact, that it carried the entire movie (Kutcher's career, like that former romantic lead Freddie Prinze, tends to veer more toward "straight man" ie, as merely the "sparkplug" for whomever he is playing against.) Here on IMDb however I find reviews that go further than the mainstream critics, and actually seemed annoyed at Ms. Portman for taking the role in the first place...? As if the role (or the movie, or the script) was beneath her? In the opinion of this reviewer, Ms. Portman 'is' the movie. The script is OK -- perhaps with some excellent moments here and there, both verbal and slapstick -- and the co-stars are also merely OK.
But it is the comic timing and willingness of Ms. Portman to throw herself 100% into such an initially weak character ... and the make that character stronger and more interesting than the scriptwriter ever imagined. This is what carries the film, and this is what holds it together and makes it work.
I will add to this review the same remark I penned recently in another review of a so-called "High Concept" Hollywood comedy -- Ghost Town 2008 --- namely that, at the end of the day, when this film goes into the great digital archive and becomes available to viewers of the future (as in, two generations from now or more), the sneers from today's viewers will fade away and be replaced by the observation that, like Tea Leoni, Ms. Portman simply did not do enough films to satisfy her fans.
7 of 7 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?