Fly Away with Me

I hardly know where to begin, but I'll start with my shock that the doorman in this movie quoted Gladys Taber, a "woman's writer" who died in 1980, and whose "hearth and home" type column ("Butternut Wisdom,") my mother and I read in "Family Circle" magazine until the column ended in 1967. It makes me wonder if the author of this script is some Hallmark bigwig's 80-year-old mom who wanted to try her hand at script writing for the first time in her life...

I mentioned the doorman. It so happens that, to me, he was the most interesting and convincing character in the movie. That should tell you something!

As other reviews here have mentioned, the script was silly, disconnected, and made almost no sense. The direction was...odd. It would seem the director advised one actress, Melinda Michael, who plays the building manager, to overact to a maddening degree, but no one else got that memo. Also, a director with any sense would have had "Ted" simply stash the chew bone under the toss pillow (which was RIGHT THERE,) instead of sticking it under his arm. No, that move did not make the scene funnier.

Natalie Hall sings to her adopted parrot in this movie - and, although the scene was silly, she demonstrates that she has FAR more singing talent than acting talent. She's a pretty girl, but her acting is just... Let's just say she should pursue singing as a career, instead. She has a beautiful voice.

As to Peter Mooney, his casual charm and ability to throw away a line (actors will hear this,) are wasted on this ridiculous script. I would love to see him as the lead in a decent Hallmark movie, playing against an actress who can match him in the believability department.

Some reviewers have mentioned the clothes, and I agree! The female lead and her "bestie" look absurd most of the time due to the costuming. I noticed that the men weren't in silly get-ups. Does the costumer have something against women? (I'm far from a feminist, but can't help but wonder!)

Note to Hallmark: Since many actors who have repeatedly played fatherly mentor roles in your romances over the years are aging out of Hallmark, I advise you to hang onto that guy who played the doorman.

I can't think of a premise like this one. And it brings a lot of funny situations and physical comedy. The dialogue is good.

Natalie Hall has been hit or miss for me in past movies, but I liked her quite a lot in this one. Angie has a playful side and Hall does it well with a bit of showwomanship. I've seen Peter Mooney before in lighthearted roles and he's perfect for this. They have definite chemistry and good comedic timing.

The mystery bird provides the opportunity for a quest for Angie and Ted to figure out his story and hopefully where he belongs. And there's the constant efforts to hide the pets. You know how long that will stay secret.

I was a little surprised the two villains didn't overplay their parts. Melinda Michael did a good job as the strict landlord without going overboard. Joseph Kathrein wasn't quite as good as Kyle but could have been worse.

I was surprised at how much I liked this. I'm pretty sure I'll watch it again.

Because the acting was quite good, I overlooked the fact that the plot was probably not very likely in reality. The leads were really fun to watch and see the slow progression of their relationship. However, when the female lead felt betrayed by a situation that could not have been helped without the male lead being put in a terrible position, I actually said out loud, "You've got to be kidding!" I don't know why almost ALL Hallmark movies seem to need a major misunderstanding or disagreement between the lead couple. You would think with some imagination the writers could developed their relationship in a more interesting way so that all the movies aren't alike with this same plot twist. So I'm sorry to say that what I was enjoying really let me down.

Apparently, in Chicago you can't get three things: a job, a boyfriend and an apartment. Angie is lucky enough to get the last one which she won in a lottery. There she meets Ted, who she is instantly attracted too. One day, a parrot flies into her apartment which has a no pet policy.

It was a cute, okay movie. Kind of silly, but enjoyable nonetheless. Natalie Hall is Hallmark leading lady material and she proves it time and time again. Our leading man was not bad either.

This story was original, not something we have seen before. I'm glad Hallmark is trying new things. I like that the story developed at a nice pace: first neighbours, then complicits, friends and then finally a love interest. The "villains" of the story are ok.

My favorite part was the ending. It is quite funny and wasn't expecting it. I won't watch it again but it definitely pushed me to watch more movies Natalie's in.

Natalie Hall is sweet and pretty, and I liked her in the horribly titled, but surprisingly entertaining Hallmark food truck movie, You're Bacon Me Crazy. But I absolutely hated the last movie she was in (Road Trip Romance) and the script for this movie did her no favors.

Hallmark once did a pretty good (and more realistic) movie about a character with a pet, living in a "no pet" rental (Nine Lives of Christmas). But doubling down with TWO such characters, each with noisy pets, in a luxury high rise "no pets" apartment building, that has a lobby security desk, with security cameras, and an ever present rules loving building manager, just made no sense.

First, it's not like Angie tried to move in with her pet. As the movie begins, a noisy macaw literally flies into her unit just as she's moving in and minutes before the building manager drops by. So why not simply tell that to the building manager (who was somehow able to evict the prior tenant for "feeding the pigeons")? Angie had zero connection to the bird at that point and yet inexplicably lied and went into full stealth and deceit mode for a pet that wasn't even hers. Why?

Second, Ted has a big dog that needs to walk and pee and poop every day. And likely barks if left behind (and even when Ted is there). Which means that dog is coming and going multiple times a day. Past the "security" guard, past the cameras, past other tenants, and past the "condo cop". What was he thinking? Answer: his part was written by a lazy writer unconcerned with logic and reality.

Third, given how hard it was to find a decent rental, why would Angie or Ted jeopardize their hard to find rental units by repeatedly lying to the building manager and blatantly violating the rules?

Otherwise (if you overlook the fundamentally flawed main premise of the movie, which colors every aspect of the story) the romance between the leads was believable, pleasant and would have worked in a different movie.

Random observations:

Having Hall's character do an elaborate jumping and dancing routine out on the deck, in a stunningly ineffective attempt to get the bird to leave its cage, was just ridiculous.

The luxury apartment is at least 15 stories tall and seems big. If daddy owns it, and his daughter is the building manager, why isn't she living there?

Who moves in and out of a rental unit one plant at a time?

If you're trying to pretend you don't have a pet, why are you carrying a LARGE uncovered pet cage?

Tenants can't be immediately evicted. Even if they break the rules. There's a process. Sometimes it takes months.

Arguably, a truly "new" no pets policy would only affect future tenants, unless the existing leases already had that prohibition or purported to make tenants subject to future policy changes.

The casting director on that TV commercial needs to be fired.

Where did wannabe pilot Ted get that pilot's uniform?

Hallmark writers, like many of their characters, seem to have a childlike sense of financial realities.

Sometimes, a workplace is so toxic you have to quit even if you don't have a new job lined up; other times, quitting is just stupid unless you're a trust fund baby.

Good luck paying rent anywhere, let alone for a luxury apartment, without a job.

Good luck turning a first script into spendable cash right after (almost) finishing it.

And the "lines" that we heard from her script sounded more like descriptive text from a novel.

Gladys Taber once said "BEING a good neighbor is an art which makes life richer." But Louis says "a good neighbor is an art which makes life richer." The missing verb is the key to the original quote. The neighbor isn't the "art" , it's the act of "BEING a good neighbor" that's an "art"

Louis seems like a nice guy. But he's REALLY bad at his job and is begging to get fired (has he met his boss?)