[mwonch]

Yeah, Shaun, I saw it. Wish I could give it a stellar review...but can't. I'll try to keep this short.

The premise is, of course, yet another rip-off/adjustment of another classic film... It might have been a good film but for three things:

1. They cut too many scenes, and

2. The writing was pretty juvenile, and

3. The writers obviously do not have a creative bone in their bodies because they didn't change much other than the subject (love v. Christmas)

Fact is, overall, it sucks. Romantic Comedies are generally predictable, but what makes a GOOD one is getting to the obvious end. This was not a fun journey.

There were a few places where I laughed or chuckled, sure. The thing has a few bright spots (both funny and serious). However, once the "ghost guides" started appear it turned ludicrous.

The first Ghost was Michael Douglas' character. now HE was good...and funny. The second was the first "guide." Those scenes were so campy it was painful to watch. The second "guide" was better, for obvious reasons (if you see it, then you will know). But the third was hilarious. She didn't say a dang thing, and McC's first words to her were one of the brighter moments.

As I said, Douglas was superb in his role. Wish they'd had him in there a bit more. McC's seemed lackluster, actually. Garner seemed bored - I didn't feel a thing for her character, even when her heart was broken. The other characters were shallow and could have been cardboard cutouts.

I must admit to getting a kick out of the bride's parents, though.

But now we get to Chabert. Her roles when she plays crazy or nutty are USUALLY good. This time, in my opinion, not good. Her best moments were near the end...when her character stopped being a loon and just became a bride-to-be. Sad to say, until the end, she really didn't pull it off. She COULD have, I think, but there must have been extreme time or financial constraints for filming. I hate to say it...but...it sure looked as if she did this film for money and fame rather than for the love of her art. That could be a good thing in the long run, however, so if true I'm not dissing that (yet). If she doesn;t become a narcissist in the process, then I think we can tolerate one or two marginal or even bad films from major studios. Overall, in this film, she was okay and could have been better.

It made no sense that the film was set in Winter. Really, it could have been set in the deserts of Africa (any of them) and it would have made no difference. If the setting itself was supposed to make some kind of point...I missed it - or maybe those scenes were cut. Who knows?

My prediction? This film will quickly drop out of the top 10, or even the top 50, new releases. It will probably make a profit, but not much if so. It will not be remembered as one of the greats...or even one of those good enough for "date nights." The film is totally forgettable, and I'd love to personally smack the back of the head of the executive who green-lighted it as it was on paper. I'd smack the board members doubly hard for authorizing a release as it is now.

No wonder Sundance is going gangbusters these last several years...

Whatever Chabert has been doing with her time this past year of seeming non-existence... I hope it was worth it. If this is where the majors will stick her, then perhaps it is best that she remain in television. Sucks, but still...

Anyway, that's my take. If anyone disagrees, please...by all means...say so and provide a different perspective.