Einmal ist keinmal

This adaptation of Janet Evanivich's book is well done and a lot of fun. Katherine Heigl is excellent in the role of Stephanie Plum. Apparently the author considered Katherine perfect for this role after seeing her in another movie. I'm so glad it was directed by a woman and combines the chick flick aspect with the mystery/bounty hunter storyline. Women's dates will be well rewarded, by Heigl's charm and beauty, for being along for the ride.

Heigl proves again what she showed in her television work in Grey's Anatomy and Roswell, that she's an excellent and versatile actress. She displays the vulnerability combined with toughness and a certain likable gullibility that are exactly as the book portrays the main character.

The movie is only 91 minutes long. Since the book and the movie depend more on the fun of getting to know the characters, including the first-person narrator, Stephanie Plum, it would have been so easy, and would have made it much better IMO, to include more scenes with the family, especially Grandma Mazur (Debbie Reynolds!), and with Lula (Sherri Shepherd is also wonderful). As it is, the "action" plot takes over in the second half, and it left me wishing for more of the fun character interactions.

Plum, Morelli and Ranger are really well portrayed and quite a lot like I imagined them while reading the book. This is light entertainment with a few quirks and unpredictable points of view, like the book, and overall a very enjoyable hour and a half.

If you haven't read the book you MIGHT like the movie. If you've read and loved the books this movie leaves a lot to be desired.

I suppose the MAIN part of the plot is the same but the details are scrambled or in some cases completely left out. Maybe I'm in the minority but a lot of the really funny stuff in the book was in the details and these parts got lost in the translation to the big screen. There was nothing too extreme in the book that might not have fit in the PG-13 rating so why did they change so many things? It was like the added more dialog in places and took out the fun and exciting stuff. Time shouldn't have been the reason either because the movie ran only an hour and a half - if they'd gone for two they could have had a much better (and closer to the book) adaptation.

I didn't care for the casting. Lula, Connie, and Vinnie matched the book descriptions of the characters fairly well but everyone else was off. It was like the casting director didn't read the book.

I'm disappointed because I had high hopes for the movie. I won't be buying the DVD or going to any sequels. Really, I think they'd have been better off to cast all unknowns that FITTED the characters and stuck to the plot from the book - it would have had a better shot.

First of I just learned that this film was based on a novel, and that it's the first of like 23 stories about this woman bountyhunter. So my viewpoint is based on the film, and nothing else.

I had a lot of fun with this one. It reminded me of an other character from an entirely different novel series. There the tough girl is called Anita Blake and she is a vampire hunter. Same way she starts clumsy and comes out on top in a manly (albeit fantastic) occupation. She handles guns, she gets into rough situations. I'm a man, but it's still fun seeing a woman being tough. And similarly to Anita Blake, this girl stays a woman while being though.

All the other characters were great too, my favourite was Ranger I guess, I liked the professional attitude.

To all those who think it's a bad film because it's not like the novels: I haven't read those books, but I was entertained with this film. I may even read into those books, so I guess the film reached it's goal.

Very enjoyable light entertainment. A crime story that revolves around a clueless but persistent woman. The crime itself isn't all that important, and the focus is not on the narrative drive forward (which is good because it's kinda predictable). The focus is instead on the character of the female lead. Oddly, it's not about her growing as a character, or even about her getting more and more confident about her chosen line of work. It's not even about proving herself to everyone that she is capable.

The story is about persistence, about how this character is somehow ideally suited for this situation, but just lacks the knowledge to be truly successful.

If this wasn't such a light and airy movie, I would suspect that it was a metaphor for living in the age of the Internet, where knowledge is a commodity and anyone who has access to specific areas of knowledge can be an expert. Alas, it's a little less than that.

Unfortunately for the movie, the lack of character depth and the cumbersome box-like production make it seem very TV-ish. Like this was the pilot episode of a series. It also suffers from useless-narrator syndrome. I didn't read the book, but I suspect the source material may share some of the blame for that via lazy exposition.

Speaking from a guy's point of view about what is essentially a chick movie, it doesn't hurt that Heigl is hot, has a nice smile, and can handle a gun. And is a pretty good actress, sure, yeah... that. The casting could have been a lot worse. I would watch Heigl in just about anything if she stayed brunette.

I love Evanovich and the entire Stephanie Plum series. If you read the book, don't see the movie, they cut all the intelligence and emasculated the men so Katherine H might look good. She is no Stephanie Plum, I thought Debbie Reynolds would shine as Grandma Mazur, nope. The English guy playing Morelli, has no clue who Morelli is as evidenced in his answers to questions posed prior to the launch of the movie. Daniel S. should be a good Ranger, he has the look, but no edge, no strength. This movie is hollow. The movie does not take anytime to develop anything and nothing makes sense. It is as dopey as that last sentence and like it is missing strong nouns. Netflix would be the only way I'd recommend this movie.