This movie had several different storylines: (1) Tom accidentally says on live TV that his girlfriend Jeana is still a virgin, (2) Jeana gave him $6,000 for cruise tickets that she now wants back, (3) a photographer named Paul accidentally meets Jeana and falls in love with her. I'm not saying a movie can't be complex, but the threads don't really connect here.
Everything about this movie was half-baked. Why was Tom talking about the fact that his girlfriend was a virgin? Why is this so important? Why do people start a movement over this, championing women's rights to keep their virginity? I'm not arguing against it, but I found it bizarre how the movement started so suddenly because of one guy running his mouth for ten seconds. Oh, and I totally believed Estella Warren was still a virgin. Yeah. Especially after the camera lingered over her perfect legs for about one third of the movie. And showed her in a bikini. And showed Paul taking pictures of her. Again, I'm not saying a woman has to lose her virginity, but, really?
Sadly, Warren's beauty does not translate into acting skills. This movie came out a bit after Planet of the Apes and Kangaroo Jack, but she still did not know much about emoting, or character. Not that the film gave her much to work with. She's supposed to be a firefighter/computer nerd, but I could not tell that at all from her demeanor. Michael Weatherly was at least in character - he was a womanizing pig. Christian Kane was decent as Paul, sort of conflicted in his personality.
But this movie tried to make statements on feminism, media's effect on people, the role of fate in your life, men's conceptions of women - and none of it went anywhere. The movie had one crazy scene with a violent, embittered lawyer, and then we never saw her again. Jeana seems to be furious with Tom, but she never actually tries to break up with him. Tom seems to begin a new relationship with another woman, and it was not clear to me how he made the transition. The points just don't connect. This movie had a few semi-interesting weird ideas in it, but no one sat down and figured out a coherent story to demonstrate those ideas.
This movie felt a lot longer than it was, which usually indicates poor structure. I can touch upon the different ideas here, but I couldn't give a definitive answer as to what the movie was "about." I feel like a romance writer skimmed the first chapter of a sociology book and decided, "I'm going to make a movie about how love works in today's society!" I guess there was an original statement lurking somewhere. I couldn't see it.
Everything about this movie was half-baked. Why was Tom talking about the fact that his girlfriend was a virgin? Why is this so important? Why do people start a movement over this, championing women's rights to keep their virginity? I'm not arguing against it, but I found it bizarre how the movement started so suddenly because of one guy running his mouth for ten seconds. Oh, and I totally believed Estella Warren was still a virgin. Yeah. Especially after the camera lingered over her perfect legs for about one third of the movie. And showed her in a bikini. And showed Paul taking pictures of her. Again, I'm not saying a woman has to lose her virginity, but, really?
Sadly, Warren's beauty does not translate into acting skills. This movie came out a bit after Planet of the Apes and Kangaroo Jack, but she still did not know much about emoting, or character. Not that the film gave her much to work with. She's supposed to be a firefighter/computer nerd, but I could not tell that at all from her demeanor. Michael Weatherly was at least in character - he was a womanizing pig. Christian Kane was decent as Paul, sort of conflicted in his personality.
But this movie tried to make statements on feminism, media's effect on people, the role of fate in your life, men's conceptions of women - and none of it went anywhere. The movie had one crazy scene with a violent, embittered lawyer, and then we never saw her again. Jeana seems to be furious with Tom, but she never actually tries to break up with him. Tom seems to begin a new relationship with another woman, and it was not clear to me how he made the transition. The points just don't connect. This movie had a few semi-interesting weird ideas in it, but no one sat down and figured out a coherent story to demonstrate those ideas.
This movie felt a lot longer than it was, which usually indicates poor structure. I can touch upon the different ideas here, but I couldn't give a definitive answer as to what the movie was "about." I feel like a romance writer skimmed the first chapter of a sociology book and decided, "I'm going to make a movie about how love works in today's society!" I guess there was an original statement lurking somewhere. I couldn't see it.