L'amour sous mes yeux

This is horrible. At 23 minutes, I'm done. I rarely bail on a movie. I have never heard of any of these people. Lead actress was bad. The supporting actress Justine Alpert was great and should seriously be considered for lead actress in HM movies. She was the only one up to this point with good acting skills. They could use some fresh faces. The lady as the "boss" was awful and I couldn't see past her lip injections. Sorry.

This is the old adage of style before substance. The storyline, whilst half-baked, does fit into other Hallmark dating films they've made - but the right actors, script & chemistry has to work to make it palatable. None were apparent here, I'm afraid. I gave 4 stars & even that is generous !

I honestly liked the movie, it's quirky, sweet and cute, the plot is interesting and the actors are pleasant and believeable. Yes, it's predictable and the idea is not thaaat original, but hello, it's a TV rom com we're watching, not an art-house masterpiece. The additional storylines were also entertaining. Was surprised to see so low rating and reviews, it is definitely not worse that any Hallmark ones. If you're just looking for a sweet romance movie to spend some time with - this one is a go.

'A Man for Every Month' was not watched with particularly high expectations. Hallmark have done quite a lot of very watchable and more films. Yet, the title was so unappealing and the premise was every bit as much. The indifferent at best reviews also lessened expectations. There are plenty of films out there though that are much better than their premises make out and are more appealing than implied. There have also been plenty of panned films that to me weren't that bad.

While 'A Man for Every Month' has its good things and moments, and it is a little more tasteful than the title and premise indicate, it just wasn't for me. It is not one of those films that this reviewer can accuse of not trying, if anything it tries too hard and would have benefitted massively from trying to do less and shouldn't have been afraid to do so. Honestly would not have minded if it was scaled down and had like three or four characters and two subplots, simplicity often works wonders.

There are good things here. It does benefit a good deal from an amiable supporting cast, with Aaron Jakubenko giving one of the better performances with him being charming and natural. Justine Alpert steals every scene she's in.

It also looks good and has a few cute and amusing moments.

Unfortunately it is undone by the incredibly annoying female lead character, the writers overdo it with her high school-like childishness and naivety. It doesn't help too that Carlson Young is really amateurish in the role, with her seeming unsure whether to ham it up or phone it in. This is where more decisive direction would have helped her, an aspect that is rather routine and disorganised from trying to take on more than they could chew. Didn't find many of the characters likeable and most of them are severely under-developed. The chemistry is lukewarm at best and often worse than what can be seen in Disney Channel sitcoms.

Regarding the writing and story, 'A Man for Every Month' is a failure. It has too many characters and subplots which made it feel very rushed and bloated. As well as bland from doing far too little with all of them and executing less than fresh material (very been there, done there) in a tired way. The dialogue goes overboard on the cheese and awkwardness, with very little sounding like natural everyday conversation. The background scoring can be too loud.

Concluding, very lacklustre. 4/10.

I might say the quantity is a little better than the quality.

There's three romance stories which shortchanges them all especially Jolene Blalock's. Add to it that Megan is serial dating because of the vlog. Her love interest almost disappears for a bit before the climax. There is a lot going on and at times it seems a little chaotic, or disjointed.

Too many of the characters around Megan's story are cardboard, especially Jack. I'm pretty sure that was an intentional choice by the director or writers, so don't blame the actors. Some of it should have been funny, but it wasn't lol. Maybe I smiled a couple times.

Carlson Young was too juvenile and naïve, which again may have been the director. I wanted to have Jack arrested for taking advantage of an underage girl. It was sad, not funny.

I said that Brenda and Ben's story got shortchanged which is too bad, because it could have been interesting.

Because there was so much going on, I didn't get bored. I was tempted to FF a few times out of embarrassment for one of the characters, usually Megan.