We Love Happy Endings!

Jane Lockhart (Karen Gillan) is not a happy person. She hates her publisher Frenchman Tom Duval for changing the title of her book to Happy Ending. The book becomes a best seller. She reconnects with her estranged father Benny. Her boyfriend Willie Scott is writing the screenplay. Everything seems to be perfect but she can't finish her second book. She's stuck on Chapter 37. Her fictional protagonist Darsie starts hounding her. Tom fears her writer's block threatens his company. With his assistant Roddy, Tom tries to make her unhappy like before so she would finish her book. Her happiness is only on the surface and Tom finds himself falling for her.

I want Karen Gillan to get better material than this. This is not that funny. Any smile-worthy moments come from Karen being Karen. She's not really a comedian. She has some physical comedic skills but it's not enough. There are very few relationships with chemistry in this movie. The best one is probably the father daughter struggles. Gary Lewis is the only one doing any worthwhile acting. Stanley Weber is rather stiff and he doesn't have enough time with Gillan. They need more screen time together to develop that chemistry. On the other side, Henry Ian Cusick is playing a superficial villain. This is not good enough.

Why do so many rom-coms rely on preposterous premises? When they work (rarely, such as in Sliding Doors) the overall feel of the film can overcome its shortcomings. In this case, without it's female lead it would be pretty much unwatchable. I liked the idea of Jane's protagonist, Darcie, dogging her during the writer's block, but this was too underplayed and could have provided a lot more comedy than it did. The male lead character lacks all credibility and Stanley Weber's performance is mind-numbing. Otherwise, the supporting characters are badly drawn and barely justify their screen time. In particular the male support to Weber, supposedly a secondary school teacher is laughable, in all the wrong ways (how did he manage to get hold of a taxi?), while Jane's sleazeball, mistaken love interest (Willie) is stereotyping at it's worst. Karen Gillan carries the film on her own, and it's worth watching just for her performance. In the end the overall feeling is that there was a much better film trying to get out. Continuity and editing weren't much good either, but nice locations. Curiosity point: interesting to see non-sexualized nudity actually justified by the plot.

Everyone has to admit that its originality makes this one of the best movies of all time. It will always be one of my favorites. Silly but fun, it is the story of what happens when a struggling publisher discovers his only successful author is blocked he knows he has to unblock her or he's finished. From an artistic standpoint, there were some plot elements and character developments I didn't think were totally needed. They do however drive the story, which seemed to be their purpose, so I can accept them. God bless this film. The acting is very effective. This is the kind of film that proves that a small story can be much more meaningful than a larger one.

I really can't understand cynics. Whilst this one will never be as revered as the Bill Forsyth classic "Gregory's Girl", it more than deserve's it's own place in Scottish cinema's finer moments. Beautiful cinematography shot in and around Glasgow in a way that's almost unrecognisable, with lead characters who command every scene they're in (The delicious Karen Gillan a real star in waiting) I can't understand why anyone could find anything negative to report on this movie, unless of course they turned up with something sharp stuck firmly between their rear cheeks. Of course when you're working with a small budget, you're restricted to a degree in a way that the Hollywood romcoms of the like they churn out regular, featuring this weeks Aniston or Rudd don't have to put up with. So to produce superior, fresh, well written entertainment (albeit, not too taxing on the brain) with the tools available, I can only commend. Anyone who sees it and says different, really should question why they went in the first place.

I am a Karen Gillan fan, that is why I watched this movie on Amazon streaming. But a word of warning, there is a scene in her apartment where she is fully nude, someone had suggested writing while nude might be a cure for writer's block and she decides to try it.

In this movie she is Jane Lockhart, a writer with a first success and now under contract for the second book is having trouble finishing it. Gillan is of course superb, she is in everything she does. This is an entertaining movie right at 90 minutes long. Gillan was right about 25 when this movie was made.