The Right Kind of Wrong

Leo Palamino (Ryan Kwanten) becomes infamous for his ex-wife Julie Deere's blog "Why You Suck". He's a writer who can't write and works happily as a dishwasher. After 18 months, she has a publishing deal and he still hasn't read the blog. He falls for complete stranger Collette (Sara Canning) who is a bride on her way to marrying perfect guy Danny Hart (Ryan McPartlin). Tess (Catherine O'Hara) is her estranged mother. Leo's best friend Neil (Will Sasso) has an unusual marriage to Jill. There is a 'ghost' bear.

Leo is a pathetic delusional immature slacker that the movie is trying to pawn off as a charming dreamer. It would be helpful if Collette shows any signs of liking Leo in the first act. They should get together over ghost bear before she gets married. He needs to show his good guy credential by helping those kids in an early scene. As it stands, she should get a restraining order right after the wedding. It's trying very hard to be a bright, sunny, quirky comedy. The scenery looks majestic. I give it points for trying something but it doesn't work. The setup is wrong and everything following it suffers. It's also very weird to begin the movie with legendary Catherine O'Hara who disappears for half of the movie. There are relatively easy fixes but the setup needs to be completely rewritten.

This film tells the life of a failed writer whose ex-girlfriend wrote a book about him being a completely undesirable lover. He meets a charming woman on her wedding day, and they develop a unlikely relationship against the circumstances.

"The Right Kind of Wrong" boasts a satisfying story, in which the protagonist Leo undergoes a transformation for the sake of the woman of his dreams. The way he endures ridicule from the readers of the ex-girlfriend's book is sad but not overly sad, which is in keeping with the tone of the film. I like the way Leo and Colette develop their relationship, and how Colette realises the Olympic skier is not really for her. "The Right Kind of Wrong" eloquently states that it takes courage to leave the easy way into the comfort zone, and really do something you want to do. I was very empathic with the characters, as they are so real and not sugar coated. I really enjoyed watching it.

A talented young cast, a reasonably workable premise and yet dis-jointed editing and writing that misses the joke more than it hits make this a disappointment. I very much wanted this to be funnier. there were so many chances and nothing..

I will not put this on the cast,although Catherine O'Hara was under- utilized in this storyline.

Incorporating her into the early "stalker" scenes would have reduced the potential creepieness, and her ability to lift a dialogue would have been wonderful for character development. Smoother more natural directing would have made this a gem.

Filmed in beautiful Banff, Alberta. About a failed writer whose ex- girlfriend writes a blog about what a loser he is, that goes viral. He then falls in love with another girl on her wedding day. Fairly tame story that actually gets better in the second half. It does have its share of trite 'Degrassi' moments but overall I found myself liking it. Beautifully shot, in a fantastic location, the movie's setting really is what takes this movie to thumbs up. Jason Stackhouse (c'mon, you know who I mean!) plays the main character and does it admirably and the female lead is charismatic as well. The side stories could use a boost but I can live with them. The adversaries are straight out of 1980's college movies but it appears to be on purpose so it is forgivable and Catherine O'Hara spins a decent tune as the hippie mother. Enjoyable characters and an overall not bad!

This story is a good one. The only reason I don't give it a ten is the rough spots here and there. Yes, it is Rom-Com formulaic, but it does not have the smarmy Hollywood quality that taints so many similar movies. I found the the lack of super-slick production rather charming, actually.

It feels like a good first effort from a talented director, played out by actors that, while not at all novices, have not yet perfected their craft. It could have benefited from some more stringent cutting; several inessential scenes hit me as sophomoric or hackneyed and made me stop watching . . . but I kept coming back to the DVD for a bit more. A good thing -- not viewing all of this movie would have been a mistake, a disservice to myself.