Permettimi di amarti

Fortunately, I didn't pay a dime to watch this piece of rubbish. However, I pity my friend who did.. I'll explain the reasons why: 1. Acting: Way below par even from those actors and actresses I consider to have some sort of talent (Seymour/Shockley). Shockley is still "trapped" in his DQMW "Hank Lawson" role and he needs to snap out of it; 2. Plot: Nothing to see here; 3. Dialogue: Nonsensical and in the best of cases, annoyingly whiny and infested with self-pity; All in all, this film was so overbearing with pretentious and irreverently bland acting, incongruous plot and no meaningful dialogue nor interpersonal dynamics between the main characters involved. What a self-indulgent and ridiculous pile of rubbish. To reiterate, I'm glad I didn't pay a dime to watch this. However, I did waste circa 2 hours of my life for it..

This is just awful, it's so beneath you Jane Seymour. I've always loved your work but this was just dire. I think for me it just dragged on. The plot was just appalling, It wasn't about female empowerment as much as a woman who quite clearly didn't mind being used. There's nothing empowering in that. The ending is just bizarre, a relationship built on lies. Good luck with that one deary. Plus point, good on you for not hiding your age you are still a lovely looking woman and in a business where youth and looks seem to be important that's impressive. As far as I'm concerned it's an hour and a half I won't get back. Also how has it got such a positive rating on here. No accounting for tase I suppose.

I thought this was a very circumspective love story with a most reasonable if not believable plot. I was caught off guard by William Shockley being one of Veronica's love interest's and couldn't place him at first then BINGO, "Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman" and the crazy saloon keeper, Hank. -So to see him in this dynamic opposite with Jane Seymour as a love interest was rather provocative. While the movie was a bit slow? I totally understand the relationships including the well played gay couple who added great interest to Veronica's life if not that of Brandon. Being in "the vicinity" of Jane Seymour's peer group? I totally and completely found many of her traits identifiable and realistic. Though I felt Brandon was too much a "cut above" the average man to be as enlightened as he was. I'm actually very impressed with many of the made for TV movies and others that JS has played in - in the past decade. She was also good in her Netflix role of the "Kominsky Method" of late. I hope she continues on as she is as a beautiful actress with a real style and class that few continue to possess in her/my age group. Very enjoyable movie; not "earth shaking" but most definitely, thought provoking.

Gosh! Who on earth scores this so highly??

It's an interesting concept - a serial mistress wanting no commitments - but it's cliched, a bit predictable and the plot develops through 'logical argument' rather than character drives.

Ok, one at a time...

Cliched - ok, we'll give it the Rom cliche - girl meets boy, girl loses boy - girl may or may not get boy back (so as to avoid any spoilers) - but she works in a bookshop - or ows it or part owns it, it's not clear - and one of her best friends also works there (or owns it) and is gay. Ring any bells? All the meetings she has are in swanky restaurants or hotels. That defines a type of Chic Lit fiction which perhaps this is.

A bit predictable. After the initial intro you know where it's heading. As is often the case with RomComs (altho this is a RomDrama) but there were plenty of opportunities to step off the path a bit.

Plot development. Ok, this is the worst thing and it appears in many, many American series. It's where the author wants a relationship to change and they do it by constructing a 'logical' (or sometimes not so logical) argument between the characters. Probably not the first example, but I became increasingly aware of the technique in The Arrow series and then it seemed to pop up everywhere. There's a lot of talking in the movie, and a lot of these arguments.

Other than that... :-)

Well, I love Jane Seymour but she's no spring chicken. In fact she's 66 and she's playing a 40-something. I hope to god she's not supposed to be a 30-something. Hey, maybe she's a 50-something. That would make more sense but I feel the character is def in her 40s. Having said that she looks terrific and very foxy!

Parker Stevenson is a year younger but he looks his age so we have a 40-something with a 60-something. Nothing wrong with that particularly but he's also dating a definitie 30-ish woman. Like it or not, such age differences do matter and do need to be discussed in a relationship but it's not mentioned here when so many other things are.

Anyway, the movie didn't quite hang together for me. Nor for most of the reviewers, so who's giving it these high score?

It might work for you, but don't expect too much.

Jane Seymour was the reason I initially watched and then stuck through this. She plays a woman who relishes her life as a mistress, only having relationships with married men, she then finds her feelings tested by an old friend but can't admit it.

Not a great movie, on a made for T.V/ Hallmarkish sort of style & budget, it was nice to see a woman Jane's age, with...gasp... wrinkles in a romance, she's still beautiful. There are some kinda gross love scenes, even disregarding the age factor that had way too much open mouthed kissing, Jane looked like she was going to eat Parker Stevenson at one point, I had too look away.