Strictly average movie

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

A sad story about friends in love, but who can't admit it. The story had huge holes and lacked the details to flush out interest in this story. The acting wasn't too bad, but the script was so weak, I couldn't force myself to stay engaged.

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.

She doesn't trust anyone, nit even herself! Can't commit to one man! Oddly, Jane Seymour has been married four times, so this is a part she can "act" pretty well. I like/d the actress, ever since I saw her as a 22 year old in James Bond's "Live and Let Die"... This movie may appeal to some, I suffered it through half a dozen "love" scenes with various men and it's not my cup of tea as I believe in monogamy, to have one partner for better or worse, something no one follows or believes in these days. I honestly can't recommend this film, unless someone is in the middle of an imminent break up and want to use it for reference on what not to do or say. Maybe I am biased because I was in a relationship for a few years and it ended because she felt she didn't know what she wanted, but even tho I gave her all she wanted, it was not enough ...

It seems like the main character spends half her dialogue or more explaining why she chooses to only be in relationships with men who are married.Nowhere in the movie are there discussions regarding infidelity or the betrayal of any of the men's spouses. Needless to say this is not a movie to watch with your wife. A morality tale this is not.The thing that seems to be missing is rationale. Something to explain why anyone should care about a woman who deliberately endeavors to assist men in cheating on their wives. Where is the dignity in this kind of behavior?The acting is okay. I have always liked Jane Seymour since her Bond-girl days. Maybe I expected this to be something more, something meaningful and dignified. Parker Stevenson is okay, but since the Hardy Boys (I read all of the books and seen probably every episode) I have never seen him in anything I cared for much at all. Just not very believable as an actor.Basically this is a movie about a serial mistress and the men she pretends she is in a relationship with while they all ignore the betrayal in which they are engaging. Near the end is the obligatory high-school music soundtrack montage where her and her best-friend realize they love each other. Also her co-worker is a married gay comedian who tells a joke about blackmailing jocks in high school. Then her best-friend admits he loves her. She says the same thing back to him. HINT: For his entire adult life she has been a serial mistress, including with him. He and she both should understand that neither one of them understand concepts like fidelity or monogamy. But they end up together anyway.