One for the Money
One for the Money
PG-13 | 27 January 2012 (USA)
One for the Money Trailers

An unemployed lingerie buyer convinces her bail bondsman cousin to give her a shot as a bounty hunter. Her first assignment is to track down a former cop on the run for murder – the same man who broke her heart years before. With the help of some friends and the best bounty hunter in the business, she slowly learns what it takes to be a true bounty hunter.

Reviews
XoWizIama

Excellent adaptation.

... View More
Odelecol

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

... View More
Aubrey Hackett

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

... View More
Lachlan Coulson

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

... View More
snowybird

This movie is about as average as you can get. The story itself isn't really important, pretty average for a light crime flick, but it's not really in focus. It's mostly about the characters, and I'll grant the movie this, they are for the most part decently played and engaging enough.The main character who carries us through the flick has her charms, and I did quite like the voiceover, that tries to be hard boiled but is clearly inexperienced about it. The main guy, Morelli, played by Jason O'Mara, is nowhere near as charming as the movie seems to think, and some of his attempts at flirting wih our lead are not much more than uncomfortable. I won't go into it too much, but there was a bit of a troubling undercurrent of the movie of the minority characters either being jokes or bastards, in a way that came off uncomfortably to me. Nothing about this movie seemed malignant (hell too much flavor either way might disturb it's made-for-tv-ness), but it's not impressing on many nuance fronts.All in all, acceptable watch if you really have emptied out Netflix and the popcorn's already made, but otherwise not enough style or substance to be particularly memorable.

... View More
thisanant

I try to watch Katherine Heigl's movies so that was my first reason and I love comedies . this is pretty funny movie , fully focused on Heigl , simple story , some mystery and nice looking settings .

... View More
jennyus

They need to do other movies based on the books. I've read the whole series, the reviews don't get it right. This movie was a disappointment because in the books Stephanie is naturally good looking and normal sized, The cast was all wrong. When you read the books Stephanie is normal sized but naturally attractive, so yes they cast too small of a woman. However, they also missed the boat with the men. The actors they used weren't good looking and natural enough. The books and the story lines are better than the typical LMN movie, they just need to cast them right. Apparently whoever picked the actors and actress didn't read the novels, or can't comprehend well enough to picture characters when they do read them.

... View More
kmayes-80640

I will preface this by saying I am an avid reader of these books, but I also recognize that production companies have liberties to change some of the content when they buy the film rights for any type of book series. HOWEVER, we all know that there are production companies and writing teams out there that have done a much better, much more respectful job at translating a story from book to screen. One that comes to mind is Outlander. This movie was a mess. I didn't mind Heigl as Stephanie, I didn't mind that they clearly used Pittsburgh instead of Jersey, what I did mind was the major deviations they took with the script and with character casting. Some of the casting they got spot on, some it was so bad it makes me shake my head and wonder if the casting agents ever spoke with Evanovich (the author) or read any of the books, all of which gave very, very descriptive pictures of the characters. Heigl, eh, she was OK, her accent sucked, but I can handle it. One thing that irked me was the clothes they put her in in several scenes. Those who have read the books know they were out of character for Stephanie and distract from what was going on in the scene. Vinnie, Connie, and Lula? Spot on, great job. Grandma Mazur? As much as I love Debbie Reynolds, she is not at all Grandma Mazur, she is regular described in the book as not aging well with a body like a soup chicken. She's feisty, over the top, and really old. Now, in spite of all of those not so flattering characteristics, I think Cloris Leachman would have been much better. Another not so great casting choice was Daniel Sunjata. He wasn't the worst guy who could have been picked for Ranger, but there were much better choices. Ranger is a former Army Special Forces Cuban American in his early to mid thirties. He's shorter than Morrelli and some times has long hair pulled back in a pony tail. He barely says anything except Babe, exudes sexiness, he's mysterious and dangerous, and is the best bond enforcement agent. Stephanie secretly thinks he's Batman. Where was ANY of that in the movie? He talked away too much and Sunjata didn't use an accent. The Jersey/Cuban accent was part of the sexiness about him. Adam Rodriguez would have been better. The casting choice that partly ruined the movie was the guy they cast for Morrelli. They chose Jason O'Mara a born and raised Irishman to play the Italian of all Italian Stallions (book reference) Joseph Morrelli. Morrelli is a Trenton cop, mostly reformed bad boy/womanizer. He's not allowed to wear a uniform on the job because he would look like a casino pit boss. He's over 6 feet tall, has dark eyes, classic Italian good looks, and dark wavy hair. Nothing about O'Mara remotely resembled or was able to translate to be Morrelli. Although they did remember a slightly obscure detail: Morrelli's tattoo from his Navy days. A much better choice, Joe Manganiello. He actually is Italian American. We all know he's drop dead sexy and can act as seen in multiple films/TV shows. The other part that made it so terrible is that they took out a lot of the more violent parts of the plot and added in other elements that were supposed to be funny and weren't. I watched an interview with Janet Evanovich and she said they did this to appeal to a greater audience. That was a bad decision. The dialogue sucked. Many of the lines sounded like they were wrote by middle school students. The movie plot focused a lot on one aspect of the relationships that is not so heavily used in the book. I realize that with films there is a great deal that has to be compacted to fit in about 90 minutes, but these changes were again disrespectful to the source material and the characters. Outlander is another adapted book to screen series that has has a huge following for the books and now the show. It has deviations from the books, but they do not stray so far from the source material that you are left scratching your heads. It all works beautifully. It is VERY popular. However, it's on Starz which gives it the space and the rating room that it needs to be properly adapted from the books. Furthermore, one of the key scenes was severely watered down to where the impact of the violence is not as devastating as it needed to be. I assume this was watered down to get the PG-13 rating and again appeal to a wider audience under the umbrella of light, popcorn romantic comedies. Evanovich's books are funny, they don't go too deep, but they were raunchier, more violent, and smarter than what this disaster of a film was. I gladly have paid money to watch a rated r Stephanie Plum movie and I'm sure that a lot of other Plum fans would too. The movie bombed and no surprise. Hopefully, Netflix or HBO/Starz/Showtime kind of channels will pick it up and give it the room and the time that it needs to be as awesome as the books are.

... View More
You May Also Like