I really thought this movie was disappointing. Julianne Moore is not a great comedic actress. This movie to me was just, so-so.
shareAgreed, dumb movie. And Julianne Moore was so annoying and awkward. I do regard her as one of the best dramatic actresses though.
shareI thought she was sweet.
I hate rom-coms, but i liked this, it was harmless and easy to watch.
you're not always in the mood for a deep-n-meaningful
I Love romantic comedies...(and own a ton of 'em)...but this one did NOT work for me. It wasn't the worst ever...but there wasn't too much likeable about the characters...especially audrey...that made me want to root for them as a couple. I really didn't see much chemistry between Julianne and Pierce. I've even seen "bad" rom-coms that had more chemistry than these 2 had.
Why would Daniel even like the caustic Audrey in the first place? What's to like? She had NO charm about her. Maybe if it had been a different actress it would have worked better. I just wish Julianne had acted (literally) more endearing at times.
The un-believability of the actors made the story actually seem even more far fetched than a lot of romantic comedies.
Good examples of stories that DO work...(where they don't like each other at first)... are: Green Card, Only You, You’ve Got Mail, Groundhog Day and One Fine Day.
Just to name a few other good rom-coms: Love Actually, It could Happen to You, Return to Me, Notting Hill, The Holiday, Serendipity and Sabrina (with Julia Ormond) :)
It's a shame because this could have been really good too. I liked Pierce will enough...but I wonder if I would have liked this film better if it had starred Hugh Grant or Jude Law...and maybe Kate Hudson.
... but Kate's only ever been likeable and vuinerable or anything more than a cipher in Almost Famous. A large part of Julianne Moore's acting in this film is in her eyes and she does look vulnerable and endearing, and I disagree, there is chemistry between 2 likeable characters, and although the pacing is unusual and something's not working there is still more wit than most romcoms. Perhaps Audrey needed more exposition of her character and fleshing out. Perhaps those deleted scenes I've not seen yet were the sinews holding it together. Perhaps JM's really quite evil and we're picking up on it at some instinctive level.
Overall I think dbborroughs' User Comment review is accurate.
Love, Actually will always remain a mystery to me as to how anyone could enjoy that film, there's the one good, excellently acted, scene with Emma Thompson breaking down but the rest is an awfully twee embarrassment. The Sabrina remake is dour and sombre all the way through, just a rom, not a com.
The best romcom and screwball comedy of all time? The Lady Eve.
i just watched if for the second time and I still don't like it. no chemistry at all between the two leads. i gave it to a good friend of mine for Christmas (she is a big fan of Pierce) and her response was something like they just wanted to make a movie. In other words there was no feeling to this film. i didn't care whether the two of them got together or not. Could have been a good story but as much as I like Julianne Moore as a dramatic actress, she was all wrong for this movie. I always felt that this would have been a good film for Pierce and his Remington Steele costar Stephanie Zimbalist. The bickering had a RS quality to it and it was just the sort of stuff that the two of them did very well together week after week for over 5 years. They had chemistry.
i watched the deleted scenes but they were just as dull as the rest of the movie. However, Francis Fisher was very good and I liked Michael Sheen too.
i know a lot of people think this movie isn't good but....i like it.
it's no masterpiece, nothing too deep....but it's fun to watch. when it ends, you have this warm, content and yet light feeling :)
and pierce and julianne were good! when i first watched it, i really hated julianne. but watching it the 2nd, 3rd, 4th time....she kind of grew on me. and not i think she did a really good job. i liked her character. especially *because* she was awkward and annoying ^^
I believe that that was the point! She was a bit shallow and awkward. But she managed to bring the inner self out at the end. You could see that Pierce was intrigued by her from the very beginning and his comment in the bathroom set the stage for them both.
shareI love this film. Maybe just because i love the two actors' work seperately, but i think they're here. I disagree with whoever said that they have no chemistry - it may not be sizzling, but i always felt that they did well to have a kind of 'sincere affection vibe' the whole way through.
In response to whoever said that you didn't care about the character, i completely disagree. From the start i loved Rafferty; maybe just cos of the aura of irishness or something but i liked him even more because of the fact that he liked Woods for no obvious reason - she was mean and catty, yet he liked her.
Alos, those scenes in Ireland rocked. I have to confess that i love anything where you get to see America's view (or a mockery of that view) of Ireland. Those scenes are only beaten by those in 'The Matchmaker', but almost entirety of that film is set in Ireland, so it gets more oppurtunities to make me crack up at the absurdity of it.
LMT: I believe he loved Woods because she had spunk, intelligence and beauty. When faced with the fact that she seemed mean and catty he was puzzled and intrigued. So he fell in love with her.
What did you mean by "so it gets more oppurtunities to make me crack up at the absurdity of it. " ?
Sorry, i hardly ever proof-read my posts so they probably don't make sense to anyone but me a lot of the time :)
I meant that because pretty much the whole of 'The Matchmaker' is set in Ireland there is more material of the 'making a mockery of the irish stereotype' genre for me to laugh at, whereas in 'Laws of Attraction' they are only in Ireland for about twenty minutes, therefore although the material is still good, there is less of it.
Hope that helped :) It's probably still unintelligible, hehe
Sheila Beers
I agree the vulnerability and endearing charm of Audrey really make this movie, and I believe Julianne Moore did an excellent job of acting. After all, Audrey is supposed to be somewhat awkward and vulnerable and the opposite of Brosnan's character Daniel. The law of attraction is that opposites attract, and the characters are supposed to be the opposite of each other.
Sadly, I must agree. I saw this movie just because of Julianne Moore, whom I adore, but I didn't see any real chemistry with Pierce Brosnan here. Julianne is a superb dramatic actress, and she probably could do comedy if the script and cast were right, but that wasn't the case here. It's hard to name another actress who makes so many disappointing films, but I won't give up on her because I know she has true talent in the right vehicle -- "Shortcuts," "Magnolia" and "Far From Heaven," for starters.
shareNo it's not a masterpiece...not meant to be. It's just a fun little movie to watch and I enjoy it somewhat. I think I enjoy it because of Michael Sheen. He's adorable and so hilarious.
http://pic16.picturetrail.com/VOL675/2426803/13287695/315725963.jpg
I watched this last night and what a waste of time. Chemistry? Ha! - that's a joke. I adore Pierce Brosnan and he certainly looked scrumptious in it but this is really bad. Do yourself a favor and watch Thomas Crown Affair instead!
share[deleted]