Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

If you like romantic comedies, this almost certainly has been on your repertoire. If not, immediately correct this omission. If you don't like them, see this one and you'll change your mind. I don't know if I ever laughed so hard as when I first watched this movie.Seth, young, successful and rich, enters a passionate affair with the beautiful and fiery Chelsea, not knowing that from the first moment her goal was marriage. In the first part of the movie she tries in all possible ways to make him propose, and when she realizes it might never happen she goes for hell of revenge. From the technical point of view, this film has nothing worth the attention, but the scenario is intelligent, witty and full of (un)expected twists, and French Stewart and Bridgette Wilson are perfect in their role of love-hate couple. To me, this is one of top 10 (un)romantic comedies of all time.9/10

Being a middle-aged woman, I am not this movie's target audience, and I had my doubts about how bad, or good, this movie was going to be. I was just checking out streaming movies from Netflix and this showed up and I thought, "How bad could it be?" I mean, if it's that's bad then I just stop watching. But this movie had me in stitches and I often had to stop the movie as I would miss some line because I was laughing that hard. Yes, it's from a man's point of view, and yes it shows how some women can become raving lunatics to at least get to say, I was married. The plot is your basic boy-meets-girl story, though in this case we have a guy who is afraid of committing to any relationship, especially one he soon realizes is with a crazy person. But we also somewhat get to see the woman's point of view (there is a line she says early on in the movie that supports this view). The supporting cast worked well together and with the stars, and my only complaint is that they tried to make French Stewart look younger than he actually is. Overall, this movie has some of the funniest lines and scenes. Well worth the time, regardless of your age or gender.

Oh no. No, no, no. I didn't just spend time watching this movie from beginning to end, did I? I was out, I was having a good time, I stopped by for a burger on the way home, then I flipped the lights on and turned on my TV just in time to catch the credits of this movie. This didn't actually catch my attention, did it? And I watched it, what, for pride? I just had to watch it all the way through, didn't I? Oh, I feel so ashamed. It's a common cliché to say "if I could give less than one star I would" but I look at my one star and I can't see what it's doing there. This would-be comedy of a guy who inexplicably gets together with a woman who inexplicably has an obsession to get married is an utter waste of time for any citizen of the world. Played by French Stewart and Bridgitte Wilson - neither of whom can act, I quickly discovered (and then they're still too good for this screenplay) - this couple is the kind of characters only invented as an excuse to, for some reason, tell a story that amounts to nothing. Rarely have I seen such unoriginal dead jokes and unfunny, miscalculated attempts at comedy. I guess I was baffled by the movie's complete nothingness. About the time our male main character realises he's together with an idiot and starts a kind of war of the roses with her, he doesn't seem to think about why he hooked up with her in the first place. Why did he? There's no answer! Who needs the questions! This movie just exists! It takes up space! Who can blame him, I guess, he's just a bad, hollow movie character attracted to another bad, hollow movie character.Contrary to belief, comedy requires comedic talent. If there's no talent involved, any comedy will implode into a strange, awkward and inexplicable waste of time. It's been a while since I happened to catch a movie that so well demonstrates this. From beginning to end the movie is pointless, incomprehensible and worthless. Or, let me put it like this, and I never thought I'd ever in a million years say this: Tyra Banks is way too good for this.

*Potential spoilers* Don't be fooled by the title of this movie. It's not about love in any way. It's about a woman who thinks she ought to get married and a guy who thinks he ought to have sex. When each of them fails to attain their projected goals, hell is unleashed. Reading the comments like 'women want to control men' and 'it's only the guy who is emotionally impotent' gives you an idea what this movie is about: the inability of its characters, the inability to love. Even when, in the end, the two come together and marry, it's not out of love but out of some manic drive to 'get it done'. Hence the title of the film makes about as much sense as if you'd call a film about people starving to death 'food sucks'.So for all you guys and gals out there who project their fears and inability to love on the other sex: Try loving first. A superfluous film, with irrelevant characters having irrelevant 'problems' and an insult to the very word. As if there weren't any real problems on this earth. Best to be missed.