Recherche bad boys désespérément

The current score of this movie is 4 and unless you are a devoted fan of the books that's harsh. If you are in love with the twenty or so books you must have known less than two hours worth of movie will never compare, ever. I sympathize, beloved books are difficult to put on film, but this was actually rather amusing. On par with most romantic comedies and even better than some. It's not actually a romantic comedy though, an outlandish-girly-action-mystery-comedy is a more accurate description. The previews are representative of the film.

I will say the PG-13 rating was forced, mostly in the "language" category. Cable TV after 10 pm has more bite. An R rating with a few swearing felons would have been a bit more realistic, especially since the sexual situations are more than a 13-year-old should be watching and the storyline definitely adult. The writers must have sacrificed 10 swears for 3 bras and a shower curtain or something equally un-creative.

The comedy was there, sexual and self-deprecating and physical as advertised. On opening weekend (with the $6 groupon) the theater was full and the audience was seated throughout and laughing regularly.

Eavesdropping, the book fans were a little disappointed but mostly because they know so much more about the characters at this point. They wanted more Lula and Grandma and quirky little side scenes they remembered from the novel. Katherine Heigl was not loved as Stephanie Plum, but not hated enough to curse. Expectations were met.

I will agree it wasn't worth $11.25, but a lot of movies aren't. As a matinée or a DVD, go for it.

Maybe it's because I find Katherine Heigl a woman so radiantly lovely I can't get overly concerned about her reputation for being a Satanic wart-hog diva.

I can't understand why the hostility toward One for the Money, wherein Heigl is newbie skip tracer Stephanie Plum.

I can't comprehend why a movie that has some decent soul, a good amount of humor, and captures the essence of Janet Evanovich's heroine and cast of characters is so reviled.

I can tell you that I've read a few of Evanovich's Plum books, and I didn't have trouble blending what I saw in my mind's eye with the film-maker's vision.

Since I am, at heart, a pig, I also can imagine Heigl cuffed to her shower curtain rod and it's an R-rated movie.

Sudsy!

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.

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.

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.