Made for Each Other

This thinly disguised remake of the 2011 Hallmark film "Holly's Holiday" gives a Jewish AND gender twist to the Pygmalion story, and manages to mangle every aspect of it despite some deft humor. It has an edgier feel than most Hallmark offerings in places, but completely blows it with one of the stupidest, most unbelievable, badly staged endings in Hallmark history. When will Hallmark learn that the public airing of the romantic finale in front of a fawning audience is a real turn off? No doubt die hard fans of the channel will laud it to the skies, but more sane observers will wonder why they watched it at all.

I suppose, correct is the fair term to define this charming romance. For nice collection of references, from Jewish traditions, life style and parenthood, to the legend of Pygmalion or Golem, from the inspired option for Aaron O Connell in role of Clay and his more than seductive definition of perfect guy, dream of parents of young lady , sweet irony against modelling and the huge appetit to learn, love, see the beloved one as perfect to the good option for Matt Cohen as...David Cohen.

For me, the gift of gifts is the presence ( and beautiful contribution to story ) of Illeana Douglas.

In short, little more than pleasant, including for holes , mistakes and the not so fair final.

Made for Each Other is a riff on the "invented boyfriend" trope, except in this case, the boyfriend isn't pretending due to some deal, but magically created via ancient magic from a sculpture!

And let me say early on we laughed out LOUD at lot during this movie.

Arron O'Connell, who plays the sculpture come to life--named "Clay" :-)--folds himself into the role of the perfect man amusingly. Thus the writers get away with a "Gary Stu", the perfect character who can do no wrong.

We've seen Matt Cohen on the other side of this trope, playing a Jewish actor playing the female leads' boyfriend whom she takes home for Christmas. We think that movie is a hoot, too.

Teryl Rothery had a long run as the base doctor on Stargate SG-1, but she's transitioned nicely into playing motherly types in Hallmark films. Here she plays the Jewish mother with an agenda for her daughter ... get married ... and marry a PROVIDER.

We haven't seen Alexandra Turshen before, but she provided some truly amusing moments herself.

I don't usually like Hallmark movies, cause they're usually boring and uninteresting. But this one is different. It's funnier than the rest of Hallmark rom-coms, and it's not as rigid as other Hallmark dramas. The idea is very unique, using Golem as a medium in rom-com. Cause from what I've learned about Golems, that's not how they're made. And that's certainly not how they look like. But I guess we can be a little more versatile in its application? But I'm rambling now. Back to the movie, it's well delivered, well acted, and not to mention has a great moral value for everyone about love : it's not about perfection, it's about what you need.

Teryl Rothery, what were you thinking? How did you get roped into this role? The mother of the lead can be very bad, in the sense of too controlling, but this performance is ridiculous. Rothery is so much better than this. And the thing is that there is no reason this part had to be played so badly.

Except for Rothery, the bride's husband, and David's nephew, the rest of the acting was mostly good. Aaron O'Connell's Clay could have been easy to overplay, but O'Connell walked a fine line between too naive and being normal. Obviously Clay can't be normal, but neither is he too ridiculous. A few times, he goes just a little bit silly and then recovers before it gets too far.

I thought Alexandra Turshen and Matt Cohen had good chemistry. This is another tough situation because their screen time together was cut into by the time with Rachel and Clay and for that matter David and Clay.

The story was not as predictable as I expected. The premise of a statue coming to life in order to be the perfect mate seems like it is going to go in an obvious direction, and in this case that part was unavoidable, but the way it was done was fresh. The subtext of needing challenges in life rather than everything going perfectly was nicely folded into the story without being too preachy. The climax was a little wild which fit the story perfectly.

The dialogue was very good. I don't laugh at much on TV, but I got a few good ones between the standup and the banter.

All the good stuff is in Acts II and III, so don't give up on it.