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.
A woman who, by a promise made years earlier, is supposed to marry her best friend in three weeks, even though she doesn't want to. When she finds out that he's marrying someone else, she becomes jealous and tries to break off the wedding.Written by
Robert Krzanowski <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Charlie Trotter plays himself in the movie. He is a Chicago chef and, at the time of the movie, had no restaurants other than his signature restaurant in Chicago. Jules reviews his New York restaurant; presumably, he was either hired away by a new fictional restaurant in New York or has opened a fictional branch of his Chicago restaurant there. See more »
I'm sorry, but aside from Plan 9 from Outer Space, which had a certain innocent redemptive charm, this may be the most stupid movie I've ever seen. My boyfriend thought it was "cute," but only because he loves Julia Roberts; she reminds him of someone he's still half in love with, I think. Now, while I feel this way about Rupert Everett, even his elegance and charisma cannot salve the basic flaw of this film: that the main character is absolutely despicable, and that I cannot possibly spare a flying expletive for the fate of any of the other characters. I would have been able to just chalk all this up to yet another disappointing film viewing experience, except for the huge amount of money and talent expended in putting together this worthless stretch of plastic and the obscene commercial success it engendered. It's a true shame; or you could just say it's truly shameful. I understand wanting to like anything with a favorite actor involved in it. Likewise, I understand the pressures of coming up with something new, sure-shot, and original. Unfortunately, while this movie made a ton of money to justify its existence, a filmed revival of perhaps a Noel Coward play with the same cast and cost would have accomplished the same fiscal result with the felicitous side benefits that the end product would have been tasteful, intelligent, and genuinely witty, and that, for just a little longer, the shallow predilections of the producers and much of the American movie-going public (who just ate this up) might have remained unexposed.
21 of 33 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this