Review

THE TWLIGHT SAGA
 BREAKING DAWN: PART TWO

Released: 2012
Director: Bill Condon
Starring: Kristen Stewart & Robert Pattinson

Grade: C++

I think something is wrong with me. I went to see Twilight Breaking Dawn: Part Two (on opening day no less) intending to mock and ridicule it for your enjoyment. After all, I had to make a drinking game just to survive the last one. As the previews started, I fantasized about the hilarious quips and biting satire I could write about this final film in the four part Twilight saga. And then something strange happened; I found myself actually enjoying the movie. Was I losing my mind or had someone actually produced a halfway decent film in the Twilight saga?

Even if you haven’t been keeping up with the series, you probably know about the human/vampire love affair at it’s heart. (This parody trailer will help you catch up on the rest of the plot). In many ways this movies feels distinctive from the rest of the series because Bella (Kristen Stewart) finally starts to resemble an actual character- with a personality and everything! And all it took was a makeover, er, a vampire-over. Breaking Dawn: Part One ended with Bella giving birth and being turned into a vampire. Which in the Twilight world means waking up with perfect makeup, a rockin’ bod and a form fitting blue dress. Now that Bella is pretty, she’s actually able to form complete sentences and express opinions. What a difference a makeover makes!

As a vampire, Bella’s confident, funny, and outspoken. A far cry from the brooding, stuttering, constipated girl of the first three movies. Bella wakes up perfectly coiffed, slightly sassy and ready for a little hunting. At some point she mentions something about that baby she WENT CRAZY trying to save in Breaking Dawn: Part One, but overall she seems way more interested in Edward (Robert Pattinson) than in her ridiculously named offspring, Renesmee. Thankfully baby-obsessed Rosalee is there to steal, I mean watch, the baby. (When Bella asks where the baby sleeps Rosalee replies, “In my arms.” Not at all creepy….) Edward and Bella hunt and then get it on vampire style, fulfilling the soft-core-porn dreams of Twilight’s tween audience. 

There are a few missteps in the first half of the film. Whoever decided a CGI baby would be a good idea has hopefully been fired by now, because that sucker was terrifying. No baby should have eyes that big. I also missed Bella’s awesome human friends who provided some surprisingly solid material in the first few films. I suppose Anna Kendrick finally realized she was way too famous to be a supporting character in a vampire love story. The Jacob-imprinting-on-Renesmee thing remains remarkably creepy. Stephanie Meyer did a decent job of explaining it on paper, but let’s face it, a grown man being in love with a baby is never going to work onscreen. At least the film does what it can to acknowledge the oddity and even wring a few laughs from the situation.

What’s most impressive about this entry in the Twilight series is its humor. Don’t get me wrong, all of the Twilight films have been hilarious, but I’ve usually been laughing at the movies, not with them. This film gives us some intentional humor that actually lands. Bella’s dad, Charlie (Billy Burke), is one of the best things about the series and he has a great scene with Jacob (Taylor Lautner) that manages to make fun of Lautner’s much lauded physique while also advancing the plot. I feel like I’ve died and gone to vampire heaven. 

Speaking of plot, this film actually has one, which is a huge improvement from the past three films. The Volturi (aka the vampire mafia) aren’t too happy with Reneesmee because they assume she’s an “Immortal Child,” a human toddler turned into a vampire. Immortal Children used to be all the rage in the middle ages because they were totes adorbs, but they also had a nasty habit of killing entire villages. And because vampires don’t age, there was no hope of teaching them better behavior. Immortal Children were outlawed and the Volturi come a-callin’ to kill Renesmee & Co. and protect vampire secrecy.

The Cullens decide to gather some witnesses to attest to how awesome/not evil Renesmee is. The second act of the film is essentially an extended assembling-the-team sequence. The Cullens have vampire friends from all over the global which means we’re treated to a veritable buffet of ethnic stereotypes. The Amazon vampires show up in “tribal” clothes which may or may not have been purchased at a post-Halloween Party City sale. The Irish vampires have red hair and love rebellion. The Russian vampires are  blonde, gay and reminiscent of SNL’s Stefan. And those poor hipster nomads don’t get a single line. There are too many characters to keep them all straight and I can only assume that one of the two scruffy, brooding vampire men inexplicably leaves because someone realized they had accidentally double-cast the role.

While they may be underdeveloped, the plethora of characters at least add a jolt of energy to the Cullen clan. Apparently vampires have superpowers and we get to learn about those as the good guys prep for their epic battle. The Volturi (lead by a scenery-chewing Michael Sheen) arrive in their hammy bad guy glory. They’re all lusciously designed capes, menacing stares and androgynous angst- just what you’d expect undead Italian villains to be. There’s a good guy vs. bad guy standoff and I give major props to the filmmakers for finding a clever way to introduce some action to a remarkably anti-climatic novel. It’s a pretty brilliant move that took my audience completely by surprise.

The cinematography occasionally has a nice sense of style and the visual landscape of the movie is far superior to the script. Renesmee’s super power is to project some sort of visual story to anyone she touches. The film refuses to ever depict these visions however, a move that feels like a cop-out from a director wary of making things too abstract. As a rule, the CGI in this film is awful (though nothing is as bad as that baby). I imagine a teenager with iMovie and some time on his hands could produce better results. Bella’s constant narration is also a bit tiresome, but this movie at least feels less reliant upon it than the past few.

As in the previous films, the romance feels a little flat, but Bella’s personality make-over seems to do the central relationship a lot of good. Edward even admits he has a bad habit of underestimating her; a remarkable feat for a relationship in which communication seemed to be a nonexistent priority. Overall the film is fun, funny and action-packed, three words I never thought I’d use in relation to Twilight.

So readers I leave this in your hands. Have I lost my mind or has the Twilight saga ended on a high note? Let me know in the comments section below! 

Reality factor: I would hate to be a vampire, eating and sleeping are probably my two favorite things in life. [0 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: For all of his weaknesses as an actor, Taylor Lautner does have a smoking body. Plus Robert Pattinson is allowed to smile in this film. Much better than all of that brooding. [5 out of 5]

Aww factor: The sweetest (and strangest) part of the movie was when they gave a shout-out in the credits to Rachelle Lefevre, the actress who was replaced between movies one and two. Way to support your own, Twilight. [2 out of 5]

Review

FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL

Released: 1994
Director: Mike Newell
Starring: Andie MacDowell & Hugh Grant

Grade: B+
  

How much you enjoy Four Weddings and a Funeral probably depends upon how much realism you expect from your romantic comedies. It might seem naive to expect rom coms to have more than the barest resemblance to reality, after all they pretty much exist to create a fantasy world where the audience can live vicariously through the characters’ happy endings. Rom coms are notorious for their fairy tale endings, whirlwind romances and love-at-first-sight-contrivances. I’m not sure that’s entirely fair to the genre. Sure some (I’d even say most) rom coms sacrifice realism for romance, but the best examples of the genre are able to develop a romance that still feels rooted in reality. In these reviews alone I’ve praised When Harry Meet Sally, 500 Days of Summer, and even Definitely, Maybe for creating central romances that are both satisfyingly romantic and still believable. Sadly, Four Weddings does not fall into that category. It's central romance is pure underdeveloped, fluff.

There isn’t much of a point to trying to recount the plot of Four Weddings and a Funeral  because this film is more of a character piece than anything else. The most interesting dramatic tension comes from the film’s title. We know there are going to be four weddings and a funeral because that’s what the film is called. This gives some sense of rising action to the movie (there’s only one wedding left!), but I wonder what it would be like to watch this film without knowing what it was called. Would it feel more plodding? More aimless? Thankfully, we don’t have to concern ourselves with such concerns because the film’s title is part of its charm. Audiences agreed and in 1994 this movie became the highest grossing British film to date, making over $245 million. It was also nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture, pretty high praise for an unassuming romantic comedy.

The romance in Four Weddings comes secondary to the friendship of a ragtag bunch of weirdos. (It’s like Friends except everyone is Phoebe). At the center of the group is Charles (Hugh Grant), an awkward cad who is both charming and insecure. Scarlet (Charlotte Coleman) is Charles’ roommate, a flaming redhead with disarming honesty. The group’s heart belongs to sensible Matthew (John Hannah) and his boisterous lover Gareth (Simon Callow). Rounding out the company is icily sarcastic Fiona (Kristin Scott Thomas), her awkward, aristocratic brother Tom (James Fleet) and Charles’ optimistic, deaf brother David (David Bower). There’s something slightly morose about each of these friends. It’s like they escaped from a Tim Burton movie and wound up in a quirky British romance, but are determined to make the best of it.

Despite the fact that they don't get a ton of individual screen time, there’s a sense that these characters exist when we’re not seeing them. I realize that sounds a little ridiculous, as they obviously don’t exist when we’re not seeing them, but they feel like real human beings, not stock characters thrown on screen for laughs. The group dynamic makes perfect sense; although they don’t fit with the rest of the world, they fit with each other. When one member of the group dies (I don’t think that’s too much of a spoiler given the film’s title), the loss is palpable. Kristen Scott Thomas and John Hannah (aka that guy from The Mummy) are particular standouts amongst a stellar cast. Thomas displays just the right amount of vulnerability behind her icy exterior and Hannah delivers a dozy of a eulogy that’s heartbreaking, but not mawkish.

Compared to the thespian-glory of her costars, Andie MacDowell looks sadly miscast as Charles’ American love interest, Carrie. She’s not particularly alluring, intelligent or funny. The role itself is fairly underwritten, but I can’t help feeling like a more capable actress could have given Carrie a little more spark. In my mind it’s England: 7, America: zip. In fact, let’s make it England: 17 because Hugh Grant gives a performance worth 10 points.

By 2012 Hugh Grant has long become a caricature of himself. He’s moved from actor to persona and I imagine there are plenty of casting calls that go out looking for “a Hugh Grant type.” But in 1994 Hugh Grant was an unknown entity and Four Weddings and a Funeral was his breakout role. Before the prostitution scandal, before the ever-repetitive performances, before he was the king of rom coms, Hugh Grant was just a sort of nebbishy guy looking for love. Watching Four Weddings, it’s easy to see what launched Hugh Grant to superstardom. Charles is a completely self-conscious character, but there is not an ounce of self-consciousness in Grant’s performance. (He’s also got a brilliant comic timing. There’s a small bit near the beginning where Grant is banging his head against the wall in despair and suddenly turns to give a polite greeting as an old lady walks by. I don’t know if such a small bit of physical comedy has ever made me laugh so hard).

MacDowell has the challenge of making a bland character likeable, but Grant has an even greater challenge. Let’s face it, Charles is kind of a dick at the end of the movie. He decides to marry a former girlfriend even though he doesn’t really love her, and then he dumps the poor girl at the alter to run away with a woman he barely knows. It’s a tall order to make such a selfish character likeable, and Grant succeeds with flying colors. He single-handedly sells a dull romance through sheer force of will and a dash of charm. Not too bad for his first leading role.

So back to the question of whether or not realism matters in rom coms. To me, it doesn’t, at least to a point. What I mean is this: although Four Weddings has a pretty ridiculous central romance, I still enjoyed the movie immensely. That underdeveloped romance is really the only thing keeping me from giving this film an “A”. When you think about it, by the end of the movie Charles and Carrie could barely be classified as acquaintances. They met and sleep together at one wedding, at the next wedding she introduces him to her finance and then sleeps with Charles again, they go shopping one afternoon and he confesses his love, he attends her wedding, they met at a funeral, and she shows up single at his nuptials. Which means by the film’s climax they’ve known each other for a total of six days. And yet we’re supposed to believe that Charles is willing to call off his own wedding to be with her. It’s a pretty callous move on his part and to really buy into it Carrie has got to be the most enchanting woman in the world (she’s not) or the two have to have unbelievable chemistry (they don’t).

So the central romance is weak at best and disturbing at worst. And yet the rest of the movie is so utterly delightful that it almost doesn’t matter. MacDowell is a significant weak link as an actress and Carrie is a misstep as a character, but what’s really enchanting about this little British rom com is not the romantic relationship, but the familial relationship between a little band of weird misfits. And when you find yourself genuinely wanting to spend time with the characters onscreen, the film must be doing something right.

Reality factor: Am I the only one who wanted Charles to end up with Fiona, not Carrie? Her confession of love perfectly highlights the way Fiona uses a frosty facade to hide her real vulnerability. A pair of lifelong friends falling in love would make for a much more realistic story than a love-at-first-sight romance. [2 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: “Awkward”, “funny”, “insecure” and “British” are probably the four words I would use to describe my dream man.  [4 out of 5]

Aww factor: I’m a huge fan of stories that feature friends-as-family and I tend to find them more affecting than dramatic romances. The group’s shorthanded way of speaking and constant teasing feels true to life. And the line “All these years we've been single and proud of it and never noticed that two of us were, in effect, married all this time” is just a beautifully captured sentiment. 

[5 out of 5]

Review

DEFINITELY, MAYBE 

Released: 2008
Director: Adam Brooks
Starring: Abigail Breslin, some potential moms & Ryan Reynolds

Grade: A

 

I take movie watching very seriously. Probably too seriously. If my friends and I venture to the movie theater or rent a movie, I have strict no talking policy. I won’t even respond if someone asks, “What did he say?” If you missed it, too bad. (This might be why no one wants to watch movies with me). The one time I make an exception to my movie watching policy is when I’m watching a movie on TV. Then pretty much all rules go out the window. Unlike at the movie theater or video store where I spend money on a particular film I really want to see, a movie on TV is just the least objectionable option. Scenes are edited out, commercials awkwardly break-up the film’s rhythm, and those lovely little commercials can add up to an hour to the movie’s run time. It’s easy to channel surf during the commercial breaks, leave to make a snack, or decide now might be a good time to reorganize your DVD collection.

This is how I first started watching Definitely, Maybe on FX yesterday. I actually watched the first five minutes thinking I was about to watch The Proposal, another Ryan Reynold’s rom com. Definitely, Maybe is essentially How I Met Your Mother the movie. About-to-be-divorced dad Will Hayes (Reynolds) agrees to tell his daughter (Abigail Breslin) the story of how he fell in love with her mother. That story involves Will’s three great loves- Emily (Elizabeth Banks), the college sweetheart, April (Isla Fisher), the opinionated friend, and Summer (Rachel Weisz), the free spirited journalist.

I started to watch this movie in the halfhearted way I watch many movies on TV. I heated up last night’s couscous for lunch and I chatted with my roommate about her plans for the day. About halfway through, though, something started to happened. I no longer walked away during the commercials. I closed my computer and turned my full attention to the TV screen. Without even realizing it, I was totally invested in this unassuming little romantic comedy.

Definitely, Maybe is a somewhat treacherous premise for a rom com. It’s got a precocious  child, a Ted Moseby-like leading man, and three female leads, which in the rom com world often equals three over-the-top, irrational women. Definitely, Maybe manages to deftly avoid these pitfalls. Abigail Breslin’s character, Maya, toes the line of being too cheeky, but brings some nice emotional depth to the movie’s final stretch. Reynolds is surprisingly funny in an understated way and has believable chemistry with all four of his leading ladies. There are some limits to his range as an actor, but the direction largely hides these, allowing Reynolds to shine as both a comic and dramatic presence.

It’s pretty common for romantic comedies to give the male protagonist conflicting love interests. What’s not common, though, is to make them all equally likeable. Normally, the women who are doomed for rejection are deeply flawed- too controlling, too overworked or too desperate, and there’s little suspense over who the guy will end up with (hint, hint: the one who’s not crazy.) In Definitely, Maybe, however, each of the female romantic interests has her own strengths and flaws (hmmm, almost like a real woman might) and I was uncertain who Will would end up with. Even better, my guess turned out to be wrong and the film genuinely surprised me.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how my various friends fulfill different roles in my life. I feel like I’m a slightly different person around each of them. (Maybe that’s why I’m so neurotic at parties). It’s not that I’m changing my personality, it’s more like each person brings out something different in me. Definitely, Maybe does a good job of depicting how each of Will’s three relationships offer him a different version of himself. With Emily he’s comfortable and romantic, with Summer he’s funny and impulsive, with April he’s opinionated and passionate. Definitely, Maybe doesn’t present one woman as “better” than the others and doesn’t argue that there is only one person for each of us. Instead it depicts love as a journey not just a goal. It’s a cliched message, but the set-up is unique enough to keep the film from feeling stale.

Many rom coms try to cram an entire relationship into a quick whirlwind romance which ends up making all the characters feel shallow and impulsive. The flashback structure of Definitely, Maybe allows the characters’ relationships to build over years rather than weeks. Time itself is almost a character in the film. Emily remarks that change is good so long as both members of a relationship are changing together. April’s theory is that people don’t find “the one” until they reach a certain age and decide it’s time to settle down. The script gives its characters the time they need to test both theories. Growing up doesn’t happen over night and the film’s clever storytelling structure gives the film a realistic timeline while allowing us to skip past the boring parts.

Definitely, Maybe could have been a by-the-numbers rom com, instead it’s a surprisingly adult depiction of growing up, messing up, and figuring out what you really want in life. It has a happy ending, yes, but it also doesn’t shy away from heartbreak, and doesn’t hide the fact that not everyone ends up with a fairytale life. While the tone of the film is firmly optimistic, it’s tinged with just enough realism to keep it grounded. It’s refreshing, in fact, to see a modern day romantic comedy that avoids overblown drama in favor of a more realistic portrayal of love and friendship.

In some ways Definitely, Maybe might be the perfect movie to watch on TV. It’s flashback format gives the film natural breaks, perfect for inserting commercials. And in some ways, those commercials help reinforce the sense of time passing. (The film’s 112 minute runtime was extended to 180 on TV). The film doesn’t take itself too seriously, but has enough mystery to keep a casual viewer invested. And while it’s not exactly a gritty real-life drama, the relationships rang true to life and got me thinking about my own life. Pretty high praise for a star filled rom com. (Compare this with something like the pure-fluff Valentine’s Day).

Perhaps what’s most remarkable is that Definitely, Maybe got me rethinking my strict movie watching rules. I think I can definitely say that taking movies a little less seriously wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. Maybe.  

Reality factor: A surprisingly realistic look at how love isn’t as black and white as the movies portray it.  [4 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: If there’s one thing I like more than romantic Ryan Reynolds, it’s adorable dad Ryan Reynolds.  [4 out of 5]

Aww factor: Ryan Reynolds gets to be four times as charming as he normally is- playing off a demure Elizabeth Banks, a sexy Rachel Weisz, a feisty Isla Fisher and an adorable Abigail Breslin. [4 out of 5]

What did you think of Definitely, Maybe? Mold-breaking romance or clichéd rom com? Let me know in the

Review

THE DECOY BRIDE

Released: 2011
Director: Sheree Folkson
Starring: Kelly Macdonald & David Tennant

Grade: B+
  

Unless you’ve been exclusively watching rom coms and Doctor Who episodes, you’ve probably never heard of this movie. If you’re nerdy passions happen to align with mine, then chances are high that Netflix Instant has constantly been flinging this movie in your face too. You see, this is a rom com starring the Doctor himself, David Tennant, and it’s cheap looking poster has been staring out at me for weeks on the “Netflix Recommends” page. The Decoy Bride is about as formulaic as they come. It’s the kind of convoluted yet predictable plot you might find in an ABC Family made-for-TV movie you spend the afternoon half-watching as you clean your living room. Its UK roots, however, give it a certain kind of charm and a couple of really lovely performances kept me way more engaged than I expected. I fired up my Netflix, fully expecting this film to be terrible. That might be part of the reason I enjoyed it as much as I did.

To fill you in, The Decoy Bride is a small film produced by a British production company called Ecosse Films and made on a shoestring budget. If you want to get a taste of what you’ve been missing, you can check out the trailer here. The plot is fairly silly, even for a rom com. Since I’m again assuming you’ve never heard of this one, I’ll fill you in on some of the highlights. Famous actress and it-girl Lara Tyler (Alice Eve) is determined to keep her wedding to author James Arber (David Tennant) paparazzi-free. Deterred by freakishly dedicated photographers in the past, Lara decides to move the wedding to the tiny Scottish island of Hegg ,where James theoretically spent time doing research for his one and only successful novel. Turns out, however, he’s never actually been to Hegg (“You googled the entire book!”) which leads to one or two lost-on-the-island jokes and not much else.

Hegg, as we learn, has a population of 75 people and the most exciting thing to happen recently is the drowning of one of Donald’s sheep. Yet this is where Katie Nic Aodh (Kelly Macdonald) calls home. Katie is a writer whose biggest gig so far was writing the description of pants for a catalogue. She’s got a rough history with men and after her most recent break-up, she moves back in with her mom, reclaims her job at the local convenience store, and declares herself "man vegan." She also reclaims the title of only-single-girl-under-50 on the island. 

Katie is the film’s heart, a down-on-her-luck girl who manages to be both self-deprecating and optimistic. Kelly MacDonald is truly a delight and I was shocked to find out this was her first and only rom com. She’s got great comedic timing and her quirkiness never feels put on. Two-thirds of the way through the movie, Katie’s mom asks if she likes James. Katie replies, “He's an emotionally retarded arty-boy who’s in love with another woman. Of course I like him.” I don’t know if I’ve ever related more to a rom com heroine.

There are a whole lot of plotlines in The Decoy Bride, most of which are entirely unnecessary. There’s a paparazzo obsessed with snapping Lara’s wedding photo who later falls in love with her (it’s just as creepy as it sounds). Lara has a stressed out team including her agent Steve (a toned-down Michael Urie of Ugly Betty fame) who must cater to her whims. Katie has a sick, wheelchair-bound mother and there’s a smattering of other Hegg residents who could have been used much more effectively if we’d gotten a little more time to know them.

The biggest problem, other than the predictability of the film, is that there’s no chemistry whatsoever between James and his bride-to-be Lara. Their whole relationship is just confusing. Apparently Lara is the hottest actress in Hollywood and James is in love with her largely because he feels he’s supposed to be in love with her. It’s hard to imagine Alice Eve either as a sex symbol or a brilliant actress, however, so the whole thing just feels hollow.

After Lara is spooked by a photog on Hegg, she goes on the lam and Steve decides to stage a fake wedding to throw off the press. Enter the titular decoy bride, our very own Katie (she’s the only young, single girl, remember?)  Katie accidentally signs her own name on the wedding register and she and James end up married. What a kooky dilemma! Katie and James must track down Lara, avoid the paparazzi, get a divorce, and of course, fall in love in the process.

The film is pretty much a checklist of clichés. Meet cute (in an abandoned bathroom), up the stakes (accidental marriage), rescue scene (Katie almost drowns), sexual tension (we’ve got to change our clothes separated only by a thin curtain as slow music plays). The major plot points are by-the-numbers, but thankfully some of the details are unique, courtesy of both the script and the actors. Plus I can’t complain too much about any film that finds an excuse to dress David Tennant like a long lost member of the Bee Gees.

Thankfully the farcical, over-the-top physical comedy that plagues so many modern rom coms is kept at a minimum and the film has a quiet British sensibility about it that I really enjoyed. Tennant is an unusual choice for a male romantic lead given that his real strengths lay decidedly in comedy and drama, and most leading men aren’t really allowed to reach either extreme. (Except in Shakespeare). Tennant does the best he can with the material he’s given, bringing a great sense of understated humor to a role that’s largely ill-defined for most of the movie.

You might be asking yourself what’s redeemable about this film and I have one word for you: Tenn-Donald. Mac-Nant. Alright, maybe their names don’t combine well, but Tennant and MacDonald are just so good together they deserve their own stupid nickname. Their onscreen chemistry is palpable and even though they’re just going through the bickering-turns-to-loving paces, it’s a joy to watch them do it. They are both so unassuming and awkward that their clichéd romance feels somehow fresh. I really can’t say enough about how good these two are and how good they are together. I suppose you can just toss it up to some weird Scottish connection (Tennant is Scottish as well, although he uses a British accent here.) Seriously, if this film were just the two of them trapped in a room together I would probably have it on my top ten favorite movies list.

I also have to give this film major points for having a rom com ending which reaches some great emotional high points without feeling too over-the-top. It’s a quiet, sweet ending to a film that is only sometimes quiet and sweet. It made my genuinely smile which is a rare feat for a cynical rom com reviewer like me.

The real question remains: is this movie worth watching? For me, the answer is a resounding yes- so long as you know what to expect going in. The Decoy Bride has shades of Knotting Hill (actor falls in love with an average joe) and the 2010 Amy Adam’s vehicle Leap Year (foreigner explores a tiny UK island looking for love.) While The Decoy Bride is nowhere near as good as Knotting Hill, it’s far superior to Leap Year, thanks largely to its fantastic central pairing. I wouldn’t make a special trip to the video store to rent it, but if you’ve got Netflix Instant and an hour and a half to waste, you could do a lot worse than watching two Scottish actors charm the pants off one another. 

Reality factor: Kelly MacDonald’s lovely grounded performance and her chemistry with Tennant are the only believable aspects in this overblown Hollywood fairy tale. [1 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: Only David Tennant can make high-waisted bell bottoms and fur vests look good. [4 out of 5]

Aww factor: I would watch a whole movie that was nothing but David Tennant kissing people on the forehead. [5 out of 5]