The film begins when Julia Banks is being questioned by a detective in the murder of her psychotic ex-boyfriend, Michael. Julia claims that she has been set up and that she has nothing to do with the murder, despite social media conversations clearly showing Julia lusting after him. The scene then cuts to six months earlier, with Julia getting a send-off from her boss and friend, Ali, from her job as chief online editor for a storytelling website. Julia is now going to work remotely from the mansion she will be sharing with her new loving fiance, David Connover, and her soon-to-be stepdaughter, Lily. Arriving at David's, she is greeted by David's ex-wife, Tessa, who is still not coping with the end of her marriage two years earlier..
Director Denise Di Nova had Geoff Stults wear mascara during filming because she felt his "eyes popped" with it on. Additionally, Stults had to continually tan, or have makeup added because he was "too white" in his scenes with Rosario Dawson. See more »
When Rosario Dawson's company is throwing her a going away party. There is an Indian man sitting on the couch (in the center). When the camera flips back and forth from Rosario's face to Whitney's speech the Indian man disappears and then is back sitting on the couch. See more »
The idea of recovering from a broken relationship is one that could make a very heavy emotional movie. The deep feelings we have for one another when in love and the discovery that your partner no longer shares those feelings is lot to bear. But why explore such issues when you can just make another psycho ex movie.
They must make at least one or two of these every year. However, such films are not being made because they portray deep themes that resonate with the audience. They're being made because they're cheap and pretty much guarantee a return on investment for multi- million (sometimes billion) dollar movie studios.
With the exception of Rosario Dawson, who gives her role a better performance than it deserves, no one in this movie even attempts to do anything compelling with this material. Katherine Heigl's character seems copied and pasted from her role in Home Sweet Hell (2015). Although that cinematic experience was also a suckfest, at least it tried to be something unique. In that film's world, her role as the stuck up housewife who's willing to do anything (including murder) worked (within the established parameters). Here, she plays the same role but in a more grounded universe where you have to seriously wonder who could possibly marry such an abysmal characterization of a human being.
I could criticize the movie's pacing if it had any. Each act feels prolonged far longer than it should be with Heigl repeatedly messing with Dawson as we wait for Dawson to figure out that her fiance's ex is truly, unbelievably, Simon Legree evil. When we finally get to the third act rather than following a natural progression the movie is dragged there kicking and screaming as it allows characters to discover things not because it makes sense but because even the filmmakers finally recognized that this thing must end.
What might be worst of all is that this movie concludes with a bit of clear sequel baiting. At that point, all I could think was "sure, why not". Let's get Unforgettable 2. Hell, let's build an Unforgettable Cinematic Universe with spin-offs and team ups. In that way I hope that I can leave this particular movie's universe and be sure to never come back.
In short, if you need some painful dental work done that would be a much more entertaining expenditure of your time and money.
51 of 65 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this