This was an enjoyable and very charming film. Hugh Grant at his worst is better than most other actors, who try vainly to muster up some charm and wit, to bring credibility to light romantic comedy. Sandra Bullock, while not one my favorites, does exude a certain likeability; I think this was a perfect vehicle, showcasing their particular types of appeal. Sandra, down to earth; Hugh Grant, the essence of British elegance and charm. I am a proud American, but I don't think crudeness is essential to being one. Oh well! maybe in a couple of hundred years, the cowboy, redneck, crudeness which most Americans seem to adore, will seem ridiculous as it does to me already.
This film was not without flaws. But the romantic comedy as a genre = the ability of the cast to be charming and witty, with some decent writing and direction to help things along. Thus, 'Two Weeks Notice' succeeds, with some charm to spare. Nevermind, that Grant and Bullock's roles are almost identical to some of their other vehicles; it still is more entertaining that most of it competitors.
I always cringe when reviewers viciously deride terribly talented people, especially when one of them is Hugh Grant. This guy has more class and natural charm, in one baby finger, than the pompous, terribly bitter and probably totally charmless reviewer, who remarked that the charms of the lead actors had worn off years ago. I would guess the person who wrote the review probably would write gushing reviews of crappola masterpieces like 'Maid in Manhattan' or 'Sweet Home Alabama'. Let's round out the 6.6 rating the film actually deserves to a weak 7. That should rattle a few chains. Incidentally, I am well over 35, so maybe that explains some of my views.
This film was not without flaws. But the romantic comedy as a genre = the ability of the cast to be charming and witty, with some decent writing and direction to help things along. Thus, 'Two Weeks Notice' succeeds, with some charm to spare. Nevermind, that Grant and Bullock's roles are almost identical to some of their other vehicles; it still is more entertaining that most of it competitors.
I always cringe when reviewers viciously deride terribly talented people, especially when one of them is Hugh Grant. This guy has more class and natural charm, in one baby finger, than the pompous, terribly bitter and probably totally charmless reviewer, who remarked that the charms of the lead actors had worn off years ago. I would guess the person who wrote the review probably would write gushing reviews of crappola masterpieces like 'Maid in Manhattan' or 'Sweet Home Alabama'. Let's round out the 6.6 rating the film actually deserves to a weak 7. That should rattle a few chains. Incidentally, I am well over 35, so maybe that explains some of my views.
Tell Your Friends