NOTE IMDb
5,6/10
1,8 k
MA NOTE
Une romance de conte de fées prend une tournure inattendue lorsque Mark découvre que sa belle future épouse, Connie, a en fait comploté contre lui.Une romance de conte de fées prend une tournure inattendue lorsque Mark découvre que sa belle future épouse, Connie, a en fait comploté contre lui.Une romance de conte de fées prend une tournure inattendue lorsque Mark découvre que sa belle future épouse, Connie, a en fait comploté contre lui.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Ed Speleers
- Johnny
- (as Edward Speleers)
Charley McDougall
- John Doe
- (as Charley Mcdougall)
Ruth Clarson
- Pub Customer
- (as Ruth Horrocks)
Avis à la une
First of all let it be perfectly clear that the reviewers that scored this movie with a perfect ten are fake reviewers. They all have just one review so it's pretty obvious somebody made them writing this as a favor. Any normal human being could see this movie is just a stinker. The story is very predictable but most of all very boring and annoying. It's one of those movies you wonder why they made it. Maybe with better actors it could go from really bad (what it is now) to mediocre at best. But the major problem are the actors, they are just bad. Robert Kazinsky (first time I saw the bloke if I have to be honest) is cringing to watch. When my wife told me he was in EastEnders I have to admit I was not surprised at all, as all failures of actors end up in sleezy soap series. The other 'main' character played by Samantha Barks looks also everything but professional. This movie is supposed to be a comedy but I didn't laugh once, and I can assure you there is nothing wrong with my sense of humor. And why do they need such an absurd title? The Revenger: An Unromantic Comedy or For Love Or Money, it doesn't matter which one, they are both stupid titles for a boring movie. Avoid at all costs.
Production quality isn't hollywood level, but suprisingly well edited and acted out. Very enjoyable to watch and has real laughs in it. wouldn't mind watching it again.
I've rounded up to a 7 because I think the one star reviews are a joke. In my book, this is significantly better than plenty of the generic Hollywood romcoms produced, and far better than 90% of the stuff produced by Hallmark or Lifetime, and it has clearly been done on a relatively low budget.
Having said that, if you generally enjoy those types of movies and look forward to that stereotypical formula, then this will likely not be for you. If you are bothered by a little bad language and offended by a priest professing to be an atheist, then this is not for you. If you have a problem with absurdity, then this is not for you.
The best things it has going for it are its short runtime, its plot which moves along quickly, and its decision not to conform to type. There are a couple of funny moments and a couple of heartfelt moments, though its quality varies when it leans into the absurd. It likely won't appeal to an American audience because its scenes aren't written to build to a laugh.
There is likely a much better film in there somewhere but it would require a serious rewrite. Almost all of the scenes would need to be funnier and the character relationships and interactions put on more solid footing. Having said this, I liked most of the characters, the acting was solid enough, and I didn't mind the ending.
It is worth a one-time watch but I'd be unlikely to make any effort to watch it again. Could have much been better, could have been far worse! 6/10
Having said that, if you generally enjoy those types of movies and look forward to that stereotypical formula, then this will likely not be for you. If you are bothered by a little bad language and offended by a priest professing to be an atheist, then this is not for you. If you have a problem with absurdity, then this is not for you.
The best things it has going for it are its short runtime, its plot which moves along quickly, and its decision not to conform to type. There are a couple of funny moments and a couple of heartfelt moments, though its quality varies when it leans into the absurd. It likely won't appeal to an American audience because its scenes aren't written to build to a laugh.
There is likely a much better film in there somewhere but it would require a serious rewrite. Almost all of the scenes would need to be funnier and the character relationships and interactions put on more solid footing. Having said this, I liked most of the characters, the acting was solid enough, and I didn't mind the ending.
It is worth a one-time watch but I'd be unlikely to make any effort to watch it again. Could have much been better, could have been far worse! 6/10
For Love or Money is fun to watch. It's a great twist on the "revenge on the goldigger" story. Fun performances by Robert Kazinsky, Samantha Barks, Tony Way, Rachel Hurd-Wood, and the wacky performances of Anna Chancellor, Ian Kaye and Tanya Reynolds were great scene stealers.
This movie isn't perfect, but it does generate some good laughs. The ending is just ok, but at least it's more realistic than most movies in the romcom genre. Don't rush to see it, but it's not a bad Netflix date movie.
This movie isn't perfect, but it does generate some good laughs. The ending is just ok, but at least it's more realistic than most movies in the romcom genre. Don't rush to see it, but it's not a bad Netflix date movie.
Wasn't sure with the movie didn't think I would like it but it turned out to be a really funny movie a little sad at times shed a tear or two but otherwise funny movie
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesCarolyn Jones' final film.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is For Love or Money?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée
- 1h 35min(95 min)
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant