Life as We Know It

First Hit: We all know the end before it begins, yet it was presented well enough to enjoy.

Katherine Heigl does have talent. And as Holly Berenson she plays a single successful small business owner who doesn’t date much and has friends who like to set her up.

Although not all her talents are on display in this film, many of them are; which include, she is funny - she has a nice sense of timing in her pointed barbs. She also does a scene as having had too much to drink which came off fairly well, she cries well - it feels real and not manufactured, she effectively displays an air of being intelligent and she is attractive.

All of these are limitedly displayed in this film, but one senses there is more to her than what is in this film. Conversely, Josh Duhamel (as Eric Messer) showed a lack of depth in both the character as well as the energy he brought to this part. I’m not sure who would have been a better co-star but I think a stronger match for Heigl would have made a stronger picture.

The basic plot is that their close friends die and leave them their child. They move into the deceased parent’s house and start raising the child they were given while also attempting to live their own lives. As they begin to realize that the parents aren’t coming back they begin to take on the challenges of making a life for themselves and the child.

The scenes of the child Sophie (played by Alexis Clagett, Brynn Clagett and Brook Clagett) are fun and realistic. I especially liked the scene when she first started to walk and she was walking/running with a diaper and tennis shoes on – perfect. They eventually break up but we all know they’ll get back together and eventually they do.

However, the way the script was written it wasn’t very strong or pointed.

Heigl is very good and very believable in her role. Duhamel wasn’t strong enough to do this role justice, it just seemed too lackadaisical. Josh Lucas as Sam the pediatrician was great and actually made the film more believable. Greg Berlanti directed the film in a mixed way in that some scenes were strong (Heigl and Duhamel being interviewed by the social worker) while others were rather weak (neighbors coming by unexpectedly).

Overall: Entertaining enough and definitely a Sunday afternoon bit of enjoyable fluff.

When in Rome

First Hit: Very few laughs and very little substance.

 I don’t know the idea or concept on which this film was based, but walking out of the theater it felt as if very little went into the script.

It is a simple story about Beth (played by Kristen Bell), a New York art curator who is overworked and under pressure by her overbearing boss Celeste (played by Anjelica Huston). Beth has had a couple broken relationships and is reluctant to get involved with anyone. Her sister announces, after two weeks of dating a new Italian man, that she is going to immediately marry him.

Based on her experience Beth is concerned for her sister. Beth is the bridesmaid at the wedding and meets the best man Nick (played by Josh Duhamel). There is chemistry between Nick and Beth but the script is written in such a way it never really gets explored.

In a solitary drunk moment Beth stands in the “Fountain of Love” and picks up 4 coins and a poker chip. Afterword she is told that the owners of those coins will now fall in love with her and seek her out. This is where the semi-lunatic characters interacting with Beth try to make this a comedy.

The fallacy of this is what's the probability that she would select only coins tossed in by men? Answer; slim to none and it is here that the story and film loses all credibility. Think of it, if you had 10 single men and 10 single women standing in front of a “Fountain of Love” what is probability that 100% of the men would throw a coin wishing for the love of their life?

Probably less than 75%. What is the probability of 100% of the women doing the same? Probably more than 75%. Then, out of those who throw a coin, what is the probability that someone randomly picking up 5 of those coins would have selected coins only belonging to men? 

Zero, it just isn’t realistic and that is how this film plays – unrealistic.

Bell is OK with what she had to work with. I’d like to see her in something more dramatic to see if she has acting chops, I suspect yes. Duhamel is reasonable in his role as Bell’s love interest but again this script doesn’t allow for any display of interesting acting. The writers; they needed to have their head examined.

Overall: This is a poorly conceived story and not worth the time or money it took to make it.