In "Alex & Emma" Alex, a writer, Alex (Wilson), spends most of the run dictating a romance novel to his stenographer, Emma (Hudson), in his Boston apartment. As the novel develops, Emma becomes more involved in the process and, of course, in Alex. Periodically the film cuts away to vignettes in the world of the novel with Wilson and Hudson playing the lead characters. As a result we get to watch the couple slowly gravitate toward one another with predictable results. Overall the film is watchable though not memorable, eminently predictable, and relies heavily on Wilson and Hudson. Production value is par, the chemistry is just so-so, the ending is clever and twisty, and the sum of the parts is something which will be most enjoyed by sentimental romcom junkies. (C+)
Add a Review
-
=G=24 December 2003
-
fambouma26 November 2005I've seen the movie yesterday, on DVD. I had read most comments after buying, but I do not regret. I found the beginning rather slow and not very much to laugh about. But when Emma is going to work for Alex, there is a plot. The way the film has been made, by showing the real story (writing a book) mixed with played scenes from the book (the characters come alive), I liked very much. Well cut, fast, telling, and never a dull moment. Not a magnificent film, but quite entertaining. I think if the parts had been played by famous actors, like Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, the appreciation would have been higher. But Kate and Luke have enough appeal to be attractive to look at and to be convincing.
-
ScottDMenzel8 July 2003I was actually looking forward to going to see Alex and Emma. I think Kate Hudson is a terrific actress and Luke Wilson is a good actor as long as he plays the right role. Sadly these two could not hold this movie together.
The movie's whole plot is really ridiculous. Luke Wilson's character Alex is supposed to finish writing his second novel in a month in order to pay off the mob. So Kate Hudson's character (Emma) works with Alex to help him write the book as he recites it. Well after that the movie starts getting rather slow and drags on. The only thing that makes this movie any fun is the arguments between Alex and Emma about how the scene in the book should be written. This makes most of the movie enjoyable. Another thing I enjoyed was Kate Hudson playing many different roles. They were amusing. Other than that, this film was very dull and forgettable. It's a shame because this movie, I think, had a lot of potential but the writing on this baby was pretty bad. The movie also has a very unoriginal ending which I am sure anyone without seeing the movie can guess. I really wonder why writers cannot create a different and unique ending for romantic movies.
Alex and Emma is not worth the night showing at the theater but it is worth a matinee or Video rental. I would have to give Alex and Emma a 6/10. -
MovieAddict201614 November 2003I will admit that I went into "Alex & Emma" with great hesitation, but came out with a renewed feeling of surprisement. Here's a film that got bad word of mouth from press screenings and essentially flopped -- but I enjoyed it. It's not as clever a contrast between the sexes as "When Harry Met Sally...," and it's not quite as fun as "Sleepless in Seattle." But, for all it's worth, I consider one of the better romantic comedies of 2003.
Luke Wilson is Alex, a genius writer living in a crusty apartment in Manhattan. He has thirty days to write a full-length work of fiction and turn it into his publisher for over one hundred grand, otherwise the Cuban Mafia is going to hunt him down and kill him. Why? He owes them 100,000 dollars of his income.
Kate Hudson is Emma, a stenographer hired by Alex to transcribe his words onto paper, since his laptop was smashed up by the Cubans. She begins the job with hesitation and offers helpful advice from a reader's perspective throughout the process.
Meanwhile, we get a story-within-a-story when the film moves from Alex's world to Adam's, the subject of Alex's novel. Adam (Wilson) is heading to the fictional island of St. Charles, located near Maine. I missed why he was coming in the first place because I have a short attention span, but it had something to do with collecting a payment.
When he arrives, he meets a beautiful French woman (Sophie Marceau) and the man who wants to marry her (David Paymer). The only problem is that he finds himself falling for her, too. And the woman's servant, Ylsa, or Illsa, or...I forget, they kept changing her name, from Swedish to German to Latino to American. I don't remember who she finally turned out to be. Let's just say Ylsa ("spelled the way it sounds," Alex says), also played by Kate Hudson.
Life parallels fiction. Of course, I guessed the "surprise" twist of it all about a mile away. But that didn't matter, because this is a pretty funny movie. There are some great one-liners and little gags, especially for writers. It spoofs the process of it all. Of course, if you view the movie with a critical eye you'll find many flaws. (Roger Ebert pointed out that Alex, when dictating, never seems to pause to find words and never messes up sentences, but hey...it's a movie, how interesting would it be if he just kept starting his sentences over and over?)
But some of the jokes are very funny. For example, during his writing process, Emma interrupts to tell Alex that the name "Ylsa" is not spelled the way it sounds. He says it is. She says it would be, "Ilsa." He disagrees. So in his book, he makes the character Adam ask how it is spelled, and he has Ylsa, respond, "Y-l-s-a, spelled just how it sounds."
Rob Reiner takes a small role as Alex's publisher. When writing out his check to Alex he says, "Now, is it made out to Cuban Mafia or The Cuban Mafia?" I love this stuff. Reiner has directed some great films in his past ("This is Spinal Tap," "The Princess Bride," "When Harry Met Sally," "A Few Good Men," am I missing any?). He has directed another winner.
I really don't understand this film's negative reviews. Okay, so it isn't the most original film to come along in years, but what film is?Compared to so many other "romantic comedies," this one made me laugh. A lot more than I thought I would. After starting to grow weary of Luke Wilson after seeing his smug role in "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde," I was surprised by his turn here. He's getting back to his roots. Kate Hudson (daughter of Goldie Hawn) has yet to really surprise me in any way, but she's not too bad.
When I occasionally enjoy a movie that got bad reviews, I can usually see why the movie got them. Here, on the other hand, I can not really see what the problem is. It's got a simple premise, a cute story, engaging leads, and an interesting story with more than a handful of laughs. I laughed less at last year's "The Hot Chick" and that was considered a comedy. So is this a bad movie? No, I don't think so. Not at all. But, apparently, many people do. It's too bad.
Note: There's a direct reference to "When Harry Met Sally..." in this film. Emma says she always turns to the last page of a book before she reads it. If you recall, Billy Crystal said the same thing one time back in 1989.
3/4 stars -
John Ulmer -
I'm worried about you movie fans. If you're reading this review, you might be thinking about watching 'Alex & Emma'. If you saw it already, all hope is lost. For those who haven't seen this unromantic and unfunny rom-com yet, here are a dozen helpful hints. Yes, I've just created the exclusive Alex & Emma 12 Step Program. This is critical, so take notes!
You can...
1. set every clock in your house to the plot developments
2. gulp a shot of whiskey every time you laugh (WARNING: you won't even catch a buzz)
3. wonder what the heck happened to that talented Rob Reiner fellow
4. yell at Hudson to "just shut your annoying trap and type, dummy"
5. imagine Luke's brother Owen playing Alex because that's what Luke did
6. set your eyebrows on fire to keep yourself awake
7. make your stuffed animals kiss each other (they'll probably teach you more about passion than Alex or Emma)
8. breathe a sigh of relief because no one will actually publish the lame novel the characters co-write
9. check Hudson's IMDb page to confirm if she has indeed played this same character 287 times already (yup)
10. start writing a snarky review halfway through the movie
11. return the DVD to the video store, rent something else, and never think of spending 96 minutes with 'Alex & Emma' again
12. repeat 12 step process as necessary -
Despite what I've read review wise on this site, I got this movie because I enjoy Kate and Luke and thought that together they may make a great team. An unconventional love story that makes sense, the move from reality to fiction is smooth and sweet. Luke's funny, crazy, a bit charming and sweet as Alex, a writer who has to write his next book in 30 days or be killed by Loan Sharks. He hires Emma (Kate Hudson) a sweet, opinionated and odd character, so he can narrate and she can type. Things get strange from there as Alex narrates and envisions them as the characters, but it's charming none the less. I giggled and enjoyed the scenes and I thought it was a very cute film that people have read to much into. Meant to be a sweet and enjoyable film, it's not meant to be the next Gone With the Wind. Charming and cute none the less with Rob Reiner behind the camera. Worth 7 stars for it's cute effort.
-
While it is not mentioned much, this film is an obvious remake/rethink of the Holden/Hepburn comedy "Paris When It Sizzles." This is a case of the remake being better than the original. Audrey Hepburn was always charming, but "Paris" is some of her worst, most posy, artificial acting work.
The strength of the re-write is the re-writes of "the book" (film within the film) that give Hudson the chance to to big slapstick characters. Far from deserving praise as a great actress that she got for this role, these characters were as deep as the wigs, costumes, and huge caricatures, but she was FUN. It was like going to see your friend's daughter in her highschool play. 100 actresses could have done it just as well, but she got the part, and at least she is game to take some chances.
Wilson is her straight man, and is always convincing in being the messy guy who falls for the girl even though he doesn't know it. Like "Paris" this film relys mainly on the leading lady's charms. Hudson is adequate.
It could have been funnier and more original with more inventive casting. It would have been wonderful to see someone like the hilarious Jennifer Coolidge, or the brilliant chameleon Catherine O'Hara in this role, THAT would be ten stars. This ain't. -
tabuno25 January 201924 June 2003. This fun, entertaining romance comedy adds special fantasy scenarios and uses cute past historical romance with current day playwriting uses characters past and present. The twist towards the ending makes for a memorable dilemma. The premise and the script unfortunately were underplayed and the climax tame compared to its potential, but Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson make for a fun relationship with some great humor and entertaining date romp at the theaters. This is a decent, worthwhile movie, even though it could have played it for even greater drama and laughs. Seven out of ten stars.
-
Krog__20 August 2004What a waste of an interesting comedy. Could've been wonderful, seriously, it could've been, but...
Anyway, I've grown tired of this recent trend that romantic comedies can't be either romantic or a comedy. Well, I guess it's not a recent trend, but there's a huge problem with it. This movie was neither funny nor tear-jerking nor anything of importance. Which is really sad, considering its director.
The "plot" is that a writer has a limited time to write a book and so he dictates it to a hired secretary. Two romances are going on; one in the book world and one in the real world. Neither are romantic. A waste, a crying shame, whatever you want to call it, DON'T see this movie. Go watch Love, Actually or another good rom-com. Let this burn in the depths of Hollywood Hell. -
soundwall27 February 2005Just want to voice my support for this movie. It doesn't deserve such a low score as it is.
This is much better than I expected. As a matter of fact, some part of me was moved by it. Alex & Emma isn't a great movie, and it's not a masterpiece either, but it's a well produced film nevertheless. Both Luke(who excels at this kind of role) and Kate delivered it well above just being competent. A simple yet warm plot that works, plus a decent directing.
Sometimes we need to be reminded of the simple touch and warmth between us, just to get us going in the walk of life. -
legentillucide28 September 2009Hi,
None of the «professional» film critics, as far as I've read or known, has bothered to mention that «Alex & Emma», quite before being a kind of remake of «Paris when it sizzles» (1964) -- starring William Holden & Audrey Hepburn --, it is first of all an «adaptation» -- not to say a remake -- of a great film French movie, «La Fête à Henriette» (1952), by Julien Duvivier, starring Dany Robin & Michel Auclair (not «Eauclaire, as many mistakingly called him !).
PS: Perhaps a trivial remark, when who has noticed how many stars' billing rank or order may change within a few years -- in the «stock-exchange» up and downs of crowds favourites of the cinema ?
This is a sort of «extreme» example -- time-wise -- since 10 years went by between «Sabrina» (1954) -- in which Miss Hepburn was billed BEFORE Mr. Holden, and «Paris when it sizzles» when this billing order WAS REVERSED !
What a shame that Spencer Tracy and Humphrey Bogart didn't ever appear together in a movie ! This was due to the fact that both great stars wanted to have first billing in William Wyler's «The Desperate Hours» (1955)... and neither would give in !
Who said that «Vanity or vanities, all's but vanity» ? -
dtb21 January 2004Rob Reiner's return to the romantic comedy genre starts out pleasant but unremarkable -- that is, until the Central Casting Cuban loan sharks leave (though it's funny when they appear in the novel-within-the-movie as shady flamenco dancers) and wastrel writer Alex Sheldon (any relation to Paul Sheldon in Reiner's earlier adaptation of MISERY? Hmm... :-) starts dictating his novel to smart, opinionated stenographer Emma Dinsmore. That's when ALEX & EMMA springs to life like a goofy cross between ADAPTATION and PARIS WHEN IT SIZZLES. Luke Wilson is likable enough as Alex, but I must admit I think his brother Owen Wilson would've brought more verve and magnetism to the role. (Man, Owen Wilson and Kate Hudson together on the big screen -- I'd pay full admission price for that! But I digress... :-) As Emma, our household fave Kate Hudson plays a slightly starchier brunette version of her usual endearing self. In particular, she seems to be having great fun playing not only Emma, but also several variations of the same constantly-revamped au pair/cook/all-purpose domestic in Alex's novel-in-progress as it's enacted onscreen. I liked Emma as soon as I realized she and I share a certain quirk: we both like to read the end of books before buying them (albeit for slightly different reasons: Emma feels if the ending isn't good, it's a waste of time to read the book, whereas I like to see how the rest of the book happened to lead up to that particular ending. But I'm digressing again -- this movie had that effect on me; make of that what you will! :-)! I think writers would appreciate ALEX AND EMMA more than most moviegoers, if only because it does a pretty good job of getting into a writer's head, and the gags involving the novel-within-the-film are funny and inventive. Interestingly, ALEX & EMMA is very loosely based on Dostoyevsky's relationship with his stenographer, who he wed in real life. In fact, the movie's original title, LOOSELY BASED ON A TRUE LOVE STORY, would also have fit the novel-within-the-film, which turns out to have more parallels with Alex's real-life experiences than he'd previously admitted. (THOSE SWEET WORDS would've been a good title as well, especially since that's also the name of the Norah Jones song over the end credits.) Anyway, ALEX & EMMA would be a nice "date movie" for writers and the people who love them; now that it's available on home video, why not rent it for a snuggly movie-watching evening at home? :-)
-
I go to a romantic comedy to see the tension between two people and the suspense of the plot. Well, there was little of both. I felt like the screenwriters didn't want to write a movie, but it was time to make money on past accomplishments (Rob Reiner). The story contained too many characters. I didn't think the different foreign characters of Emma was needed. The plot should have been stronger than to use that bad trick. The Cuban loan sharks were insulting and dumb. I got tired of Alex's apartment. The one scene that should have played the best was when the couple spent the day not working and decided to go into the city. Opportunity missed! At the end of that day, they should have had there first kiss. Hello! When the two finally got together later in the film it was anti-climatic. Maybe I am crazy, but Alex could of seemed a little more happy when he looked at Emma. Kate Hudson is beautiful. What a smile! If you are looking for a better romantic comedy with the same premise check out "My Dear Secretary (1948)." Rob Reiner if you ever get to read this, I waited a month to see this movie and was very disappointed.
-
tltpanic9 July 2003There is no chemistry between Hudson and Wilson. The story drags...and drags. The use of so many different characters does not have the desired effect (whatever that may have been), this gimmick only makes the movie more tiresome. My friend and left long before the end, and that was the only part of the experience I do not regret.
-
Alex and Emma (2003) Luke Wilson, Kate Hudson, Sophie Marceau, David Paymer, Alexander Wauthier, Leili Kramer, Rob Reiner, Rip Taylor, Cloris Leachman, D: Rob Reiner. Disappointingly lightweight WHEN HARRY MET SALLY-ish romantic comedy, especially with Reiner's stroke of novelty and use of charm, has Hudson in five roles with not all of them genuine. Deceitful hypochondriac (Wilson) who writes books for a living gets himself in a jam when he has to make a $100 grand for a pair of Cuban Mafia loan sharks in thirty days by writing another work of fiction so he doesn't wind up six feet under. So he hires an opinionated stenographer (Hudson) to help him sculpt a love triangle on paper that then percolates into a real-life romance budding between the two. Though both stories soon come together, the trouble with the film is that it flips pages back and forth from its outside story set in contemporary Boston to a New England island set in the 1920s for its story within a story, which is rich in tedium. A line spoken from Hudson about Wilson's fictional triangle is exactly like the film itself; the story shoves itself into a corner, where it has nowhere to go except a typically old-fashioned and too quickly enfolded finale. What redeems the film is its endearing leads and airy sense of romance, and occasionally a witty one-liner. Running Time: 96 minutes and rated PG-13 for language and sexual content. **
-
Mr_Sensitive6 February 2005Another romantic comedy from K. Hudson that you actually not care about; after all her last movie (How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days) sucks badly. But this movie is actually not that bad and is actually have more senses and have pretty good story line.
The movie went great until almost at the end of the movie when it adapted most of the typical romantic movie storyline (i.e. when couple fight and makeup later).
Anyway the movie might make it for the romantic movie lover, for then I think it would be boring for everyone else since the movie is quite slow.
Recommendation: Worth One Watch (so rent it) Rating: 5.5/10 (Grade: C) -
JohnHowardReid20 June 2015I enjoyed this movie. I agree with many reviewers that it has faults. It's none too believable for instance, but what movie is? The problem is that this movie's make-believe world is just too obvious. Deliberately so! That factor didn't worry me. Nor did the ridiculous depiction of the writer himself until the very end when his agent hands him $100,000. Now this is really fairy-tale land! I can put up with a writer who is blank one moment, word-perfect the next, but no agent ever handed any writer an advance of even $10, let alone $100,000! Agents don't give their clients advances. On rare occasions in the past, a publisher might he induced by the author's agent to hand a really consistently bestselling author an advance of $10,000 – from which the agent will subtract at least 10% and maybe even 15% or 20% – but those days are gone with the wind, alas! All the same, despite its faults, this movie is still worth seeing, if only for Kate Hudson who excels here in not one but FIVE roles! Available on an excellent Warner Brothers DVD.
-
Love S20 June 2004The idea for the story is a good one for a romantic comedy. So after I ready the tagline and basic summary I thought to myself 'This could be really good and cute'. Boy where I mistaken. This is the worst romantic comedy I've ever seen, it should've gotten some kind of award for being so bad. The whole movie (not kidding here) focuses on developing the fictional characters in Alex's book instead of the real ones Ales (Luke Wilson) and Emma (Kate Hudson). For the first 5 minutes it seems like fun, but after 20 you just realize that you no longer care about the real main characters because they're so underdeveloped. Also it's ridiculous and insulting to the audience to have Alex and Emma fall in love in this mad and stormy way from just sitting in his apartment working 24/7 almost completely without actually talking to each other. When most of the movie was done, it became clear that they'd wasted a really good story setting this way. It's kind of ironic, because the book that Alex is writing in the movie obviously suck in the same way. This is by the way another mistake in the movie. The script is so bad, that everything Alex tells us (the audience) about the book he's writing throughout the movie makes it seem like a real piece of crap. The ending is really good (for a romantic film that is), and it's too bad they didn't tried harder when they made the movie.
-
drriley3 July 2003This is a cerebral movie, OK? Don't expect loud noises and lots of action. It's a sweet love story, gentle and thoughtful. It felt good to watch. I'll see it again and I'll buy it when it's available. I can't say that for much that comes out these days. Kate Hudson is truly delightful.
-
insaneo26 June 2003I cannot believe I wasted my money on this garbage? While watching this, I asked myself "Why would ANYONE, especially Kate Hudson and Luke Wilson, want to make such a crappy movie like this?!" My goodness, what happened to Kate Hudson after Almost Famous? It was bad acting, bad directing, a cheesy script and a lack of chemistry that made this movie a giant stinker. I didn't laugh at all, and the plot made no sense. I suggest you save your money, or go watch something like "Whale Rider" or "Finding Nemo". 1/10 stars
-
mashcity22 June 2003This was a sweet little movie, a bit too long, but nice. Not all movies are great, or loaded with action, this one is fun. The movie brings up one very good point-do we really know what we want & are we strong enough to go after it?
-
ljp-227 June 2003"Alex and Emma" has nifty opening credits, done in a kind of 1920's art-deco style that mirrored the 1920's story within a story. Unfortunately, it was all downhill from there. This isn't a bad or reprehensible movie, just a dull, uninspired one.
What went wrong? That's what I kept asking myself all the time I was watching it. Rob Reiner is (or was) a fine director; after all, he made "When Harry Met Sally," the gold standard for romantic comedies. The idea had some promise: a writer's work reflects and is reflected by his real life and love. Usually I really love this type of literary stuff. So why???
Partly the fault lies with the script. Reiner seems to have literally thrown Jeremy Leven's first rough draft up on the screen. The script is so poorly thought out even in its basics that you can't believe any thought was devoted to it.
For instance, if you were a Cuban thug and your only way of getting the money a guy owes your Mafia boss is to make sure your victim gets an advan ce for his book, would the first thing you do really be to destroy the computer he's writing it on? Evidently Cuban thugs aren't very bright (at least not in this movie). Alex's need for a stenographer is unbelievable too. He couldn't ask his editor for the loan of just a few dollars to rent a laptop or at least a typewriter? (Maybe they should have had the thugs break his arm, so he would have to hire a stenographer). And why lie to her right off the bat for no reason -- no reason, that is, except that in a romantic comedy, the guy always lies to the girl? Again, Adam, the lead in the novel that Alex is writing is supposed to be going on vacation to write the great American novel, but we never hear of him writing a word once he gets there.
The general lack of imagination extends to the supposed comic bits, such as Emma being the au pairs of different nationalities, but almost nothing was done with the idea except to have her speak in funny accents for a few seconds for each one.
The flat, uninteresting characterizations are another problem. The ones in the 1920's story are, like the art deco credits, quite literally cartoons. The story within the story, as well as the writer-falls-in-love-with-stenographer idea, was taken from Dostoevsky's "The Gambler," but something sure as heck got lost in translation. Sophie Marceau is wasted in her role.
Alex and Emma themselves are no better. They are tenth-generation copies of the most stereotypical romantic comedy hero and heroine. Alex is your average nice guy, clueless in the generic way about women; Emma is the combination of anal-retentive annoyance and adorable ditz patented by Meg Ryan in "When Harry met Sally." (Her character is also astonishingly uninformed about the purpose and nature of literature, probably so Alex can explain it to the audience; this doesn't help).
I guess Reiner knows that this has worked before. Maybe that's the problem. Couldn't Alex, as a modern writer, have more edge? A little beard stubble is not enough. And a woman who wants to criticize a man's approach to romance, writing a sex scene, etc., could do much better than Emma does (though Adam's idea of a sex scene for his novel is one of the only vaguely witty bits in the film).
No matter how good the performances were, they couldn't save this movie. Luke Wilson is one of the most uncharismatic actors I know, and he seems barely able to move his body (though he at times has a nice energy with the lines and good comic timing). Kate Hudson at times is radiant, and is perhaps the thing most worth watching in this mess. She tosses off her accents with aplomb too.
But why can't there be a little re-thinking of the romantic comedy? It's getting a real black eye and a bad name it doesn't really deserve, as so many snide comments by guys on this site prove.
And for you guys on imdb who snicker at the very idea of "chick flicks" -- just go watch another movie based on a COMIC BOOK, OK? -
ed_lois24 November 2005My family and I saw this movie when it first came out and wanted more of Hudson and Wilson. The never ending interaction between these two was fun. We never knew what would happen next to his "new book". I thought it was fun to see and hear how a writer puts to words any story and Luke Wilson amazed us with his quick dictation. I thought it was funny when Emma keeps interrupting to put her two cents in, especially when she has no skill at telling a story. We were so glad to see Rob Reiner directing such a great movie again. This is definitely worth watching. We want more Mr.Reiner,please. We rank it up there with Princess Bride.
-
This satisfying romantic bonbon is a more substantial comedy than you might think. Luke Wilson plays novelist Alex who hires stenographer Emma (Kate Hudson) so he can make his deadline (emphasis on the "dead"), and along the way shows life imitating art imitating life imitating art...you get the idea.
But even if you know where the movie is going, you'll enjoy the journey. Droll Luke and vivacious Kate make great banter and ham it up with style. And you want to invite Rob Reiner over for dinner after the movie, as usual.
Now, they say you should write about what you know, which is why so many movie leads are anguished writers. In this case, the way Alex writes both reveals and mocks the creative process and authors in general. For instance, the title of Alex's earlier novel makes an allusion to a much more famous romance novel (and movie) set in Cambridge, Massachusetts. So there's some wit in the screenplay that makes the movie more than just a cheap chick-flick. -
rcavellero6 August 2003Ok Kate and Luke so what happened. Did you hate eachother? Did you just not read the script? Or were you the ones being held to this film by the cuban mafia and it just bled into it. It's hard to see how a disater like this could've come to screen. Especially since a group of old women behind me said that this was the most boring film they've ever seen. Now thats saying something. The cliche ridden borefest starts off with Wilson being threatened by the cuban mafia to finish his next novel in 30 days so that he can get a cash adavance to give to them. So he hires a stenographer(wouldn't you do that) to record his thoughts unto paper as they come into play. Coming to an inevitable totally unromantic partnership that spawns a candid affair. I can't believe this film and I'm not sure who is exactly to blame for it I mean Rob Reiner has had his good moments (When Harry Met Sally), Kate Hudson(Almost Famous, How to lose a guy in 10 days)and luke Wilson(charlie's Angels, Old school) so why this film. I don't understand but I guess some one does and i guess all the debts have been paid so we can move onto some better fare.