This is the first Michael Vartan movie i've seen-i haven't seen Alias- and i was curious to see if the guy can act.He sure can and is likable in this movie.Natasha Henstridge is of course gorgeous but she is usually in more physical and action roles,so i found her very good and lovable in this different"sweet" role of a schoolteacher. Some of the negative comments i read are true,the movie is full of clichés and the story doesn't ring true at all.Also,even though every character in the movie remarks how good they look together,i don't think there is screen chemistry there. However,i enjoyed this movie.The locales are nice,the characters are likable and goodlooking and the supporting actors are pretty good. If you are expecting to see a great romance,this is not it.But if you want to see a pleasant innocent goodlooking movie with likable characters its very good.
58 Reviews
That's it? That's the big juice?
hitchcockthelegend18 October 2009
Rom-coms are notoriously hard to get right, when one such genre piece is all but a direct to DVD offering it really doesn't bode well for a good film. It Had To Be You isn't a great film, but it's the sort of sweet and harmless piece that fills a time slot when you are stuck for a viewing one afternoon.
Natasha Henstridge {Anna} and Michael Vartan {Charlie} play two pretty people, who are soon to be married to other people, who get to know each other in the course of planning their respective weddings in the Big Apple. Cue pretty people clearly meant to be together unable to do so out of loyalty to their respective, and clearly wrong for them, intended aisle walking partners. Cue best friends involved, gags and set ups come and go and the ending is never really in doubt. There's even time for some demon exorcising thrown in for added emotional impact.
If that sounds cheekily simple in summary? Then that's because it's befitting the film. It's a simple tale that's been told many times before, both better and worse than this. Vartan and Nat fail to generate much chemistry yet remain charming throughout, and the comedy is good enough to raise a smile or two. Particularly from Michael Rispoli & Olivia d'Abo as the couple's best friends. It's decently shot and unobtrusively directed, while that obvious ending still has the ability to warm the cockles of even the coldest of hearts. Should have been better for sure, but by no means a time waster in the basic sense of the saying. 5.5/10
Natasha Henstridge {Anna} and Michael Vartan {Charlie} play two pretty people, who are soon to be married to other people, who get to know each other in the course of planning their respective weddings in the Big Apple. Cue pretty people clearly meant to be together unable to do so out of loyalty to their respective, and clearly wrong for them, intended aisle walking partners. Cue best friends involved, gags and set ups come and go and the ending is never really in doubt. There's even time for some demon exorcising thrown in for added emotional impact.
If that sounds cheekily simple in summary? Then that's because it's befitting the film. It's a simple tale that's been told many times before, both better and worse than this. Vartan and Nat fail to generate much chemistry yet remain charming throughout, and the comedy is good enough to raise a smile or two. Particularly from Michael Rispoli & Olivia d'Abo as the couple's best friends. It's decently shot and unobtrusively directed, while that obvious ending still has the ability to warm the cockles of even the coldest of hearts. Should have been better for sure, but by no means a time waster in the basic sense of the saying. 5.5/10
A very sweet story, told quietly and with dignity
inkblot111 May 2005
Anna is a teacher who is in the big city to register at a large department store for her approaching wedding. Charlie, a writer, is there for the same reason. Their partners, it seems, have very busy lives and have left it to Anna and Charlie to deal with the mundane tasks of their engagements. It happens that Anna and Charlie meet at the store and strike up a conversation. When they run into each other later at a restaurant, they decide to share a meal. It appears a friendship is blossoming. Throughout a week, they will meet several times. Is the "just friends" routine becoming something else? This is nice, dignified story about two adults who go down a road that each of them did not expect to travel on. Engaged to others, they share a mutual attraction but make it clear that promises to their partners are very important to them. This makes the demise uncertain. Henstridge and Vartan are very elegant and attractive people who convey their mixed-up feelings effortlessly. The costumes and sets are alluring, too. If you would like to try an adult love story with scruples and gentle humor, for a change, this one is quite lovely.
What a shock--a movie with likable characters
JR-5930 August 2003
It was a happy accident to stumble across this movie while channel surfing. The New York setting (a very effective use of locations not always used in the movies) got me, and the characters held on to me. It was a sort of formulaic plot, but that didn't matter so much, as it was a film with people that you could like and emphasize with.
Having been familiar with Natasha Henstridge only with her Science Fiction and TV roles, it was a major revelation to see her in a gentle, likable part. I hope that she gets other roles like this.
Having been familiar with Natasha Henstridge only with her Science Fiction and TV roles, it was a major revelation to see her in a gentle, likable part. I hope that she gets other roles like this.
Sorry
abiwren2 June 2004
Sorry guys, I've already written my opinion of this movie but today was the first day I looked at some of the other reviews. There are a quite a lot of people who agree with me but what's scary is that there are some people who seem to really like this movie. I don't like to write nasty reviews or criticise other people's opinions but I think it's only fair to warn anybody out there who may be debating whether or not to see this movie. This is not a good movie. I really like movies and I'll watch just about anything but this movie made it onto the incredibly short list of movies I watched and was happy to leave halfway through. If you really are incredibly tempted, watch the trailer...that's the mistake I made because the entire movie is essentially in the trailer...after that there are no surprises, just some shockingly bad dialogue to waste time. I love Michael Vartan in Alias and would hate to criticise him but I think it's my duty to stop other people wasting hours of their life on a movie like this!!
Enjoyed this movie. Sweet with a good hook.
filmbuffed12 March 2003
As we all know a romantic comedy is the genre with the ending already known. The two leads always have to get together. Late in the third act I was trying to figure out how this will wrap up and how they will end up together. A clue was given right from the start, but you'll never realize it until the end. It's a simple hook, but it works. It Had To Be You cover a lot of the usual ground, but takes a fresh spin when ever possible. I liked all the NY characters and I loved the locations. It's a postcard of NY. Also it was nice to watch a film and not find anything offensive in it. So, if you like a good old fashion romantic movie ... then this is for you.
Pretty Bad
MovieHead12331 January 2022
So are we supposed to believe that the model is a 4th grade teacher and likes hotdogs and ice cream sandwiches? Also, the scripts was just BAD. Michael Vartan is a decent actor, but because the script is so bad, he comes off as an amateur. The scene towards the end where the girl (Emmy Rossum) is on the ledge is laughable because the way he talks her down is ridiculous. "I bet you have a best friend. Would you like to stay the night at her house tonight?" Umm... what? She is not going home. She is going straight to the hospital where they will keep her on a suicide hold.
See one you've seen before
abiwren30 May 2004
Look, there's nothing spectacularly offensive about this film, it's just boring. It's a typical rom-com with an ending you can see coming before you've seen so much as the trailer. The key difference is that the classic rom-coms tackle their stories with wit and a lack of pretension. This movie has no pretension but it really has no sense of movement, you feel as though you could get up and walk away at any moment. The production of the movie also has the feel of a debut movie made about fifteen years ago. I'd recommend re-watching a classic movie like When Harry Met Sally instead of this shallow imitation. Oh, one other BIG problem...no chemistry. If you're used to seeing Michael looking all cute as Vaughn in Alias, you're going to be seriously disappointed with the way they've made him look here.
Boy meets girl, boy loses girl
Go_Skins2 February 2005
This was a good movie. It was two people falling in love, obviously! The guy keeps running into another woman and eventually falls in love with her. She knows she may have feelings for him but she knows they are supposed to be marrying other people. They don't really show much of the people's significant other's for some reason. I guess the movie is not really about them rather more about the main couple. I like both Natasha Henstridge's character and the other guy that played opposite her. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone that is looking for a movie about two people that are supposed to be together. I especially liked the ending of it. It really made the movie come together.
Two people meet one weekend and begin to fall in love. Just one problem... THEY'RE BOTH GETTING MARRIED!
ilovethecarebears5 October 2005
I just want to make one thing clear- I love Michael Vartan! But this film really lets him down. His acting is still superb, he's still as charming as ever, and he still looks great. But the film itself is a load of rubbish! Natasha Henstridge, I'm sorry to say it, comes over bit manly... you're constantly waiting for her to run off with her best friend, who's own sub-storyline is a little weird. Myself and my family (who sat down and watched the film with me) were also put off by the soundtrack to the film; at times the music just didn't fit with what was going on in the scenes. However, even this was not the worst aspect of what I found to be a very disappointing film. I could forgive the leading lady's butch-ness, I could forgive the freakish characters that were thrown in to the mix, and I could forgive the poor choice of musical accompaniment, but whose choice was it to cut out the whole middle section of the film and skip straight to the end??? The ending was obviously planned from the beginning but how it gets there is left untold. If you're a Michael Vartan fan skip this film: buy yourself a poster instead.
This film is great...what did everyone expect?
sweetbaby-121 September 2005
I just can't understand the negative comments about this film. Yes it is a typical boy-meets-girl romance but it is done with such flair and polish that the time just flies by. Henstridge (talk about winning the gene-pool lottery!) is as magnetic and alluring as ever (who says the golden age of cinema is dead?) and Vartan holds his own.
There is simmering chemistry between the two leads; the film is most alive when they share a scene - lots! It is done so well that you find yourself willing them to get together...
Ignore the negative comments - if you are feeling a bit blue, watch this flick, you will feel so much better. If you are already happy, then you will be euphoric.
(PS: I am 33, Male, from the UK and a hopeless romantic still searching for his Princess...)
There is simmering chemistry between the two leads; the film is most alive when they share a scene - lots! It is done so well that you find yourself willing them to get together...
Ignore the negative comments - if you are feeling a bit blue, watch this flick, you will feel so much better. If you are already happy, then you will be euphoric.
(PS: I am 33, Male, from the UK and a hopeless romantic still searching for his Princess...)
New York soap opera, not bad
beauzee20 July 2015
some agreeable light drama and comedy set in the big apple, making nice use of tourist spots like Tavern on the Green and the PLaza Hotel.
excellent acting job by Natasha as the woman getting married, flat and dull performance by Michael, as the guy getting married (to another); excellent acting by Olivia, although I was never sure who she was in the movie (numerous wig changes and "accent" inconsistencies) and why she was doing what she did! (the street smart chick shows up in a local watering hole and is surprised she is "picked up" up by an alchoholic!).
first half really holds together well ; second half gets draggy near the end (typical for this "genre"); good script but a good chunk could have been excised. too much wistful whisperin' to the stars.
the Rock singer Lorraine Mazzola plays "Mindy", though I have to go back and review her scene. about 30 years after "Captain of your Ship". no mini skirt, I know that! :)
we have nice, quiet, conflicted people right in the heart of the unforgiving, fast paced, cynical city. will they cave to convention and marry the "right one" or go for it and marry the "crazy one"? *you* find out! :)
excellent acting job by Natasha as the woman getting married, flat and dull performance by Michael, as the guy getting married (to another); excellent acting by Olivia, although I was never sure who she was in the movie (numerous wig changes and "accent" inconsistencies) and why she was doing what she did! (the street smart chick shows up in a local watering hole and is surprised she is "picked up" up by an alchoholic!).
first half really holds together well ; second half gets draggy near the end (typical for this "genre"); good script but a good chunk could have been excised. too much wistful whisperin' to the stars.
the Rock singer Lorraine Mazzola plays "Mindy", though I have to go back and review her scene. about 30 years after "Captain of your Ship". no mini skirt, I know that! :)
we have nice, quiet, conflicted people right in the heart of the unforgiving, fast paced, cynical city. will they cave to convention and marry the "right one" or go for it and marry the "crazy one"? *you* find out! :)
Really Terrible Movie!
madonnawannbe26 May 2008
This really was the worst movie I have ever seen. Michael Vartan is hot, but who is this woman? And she looks absolutely awful through the whole movie, the hair is so bad! They talk in like monotone voices and there is nooo chemistry. The cover of the DVD does not even remotely come close to what the movie actually is. Really, really boring. I had to fast forward through some of it because it was so painful to watch. I really want to know how i on earth anyone could think this is good? hhaha they literally just like talk and say "yeah" and there is no passion whatsoever. I could not tell at all that they were in love. I'm sorry but this was the saddest excuse for a movie I think I have ever seen.
Read Here for the sad truth
cafe80s22 May 2003
Honestly, it was painful watching this movie, for two reasons.
The First is pretty obvious: the movie was entirely predictable. I mean, really, with the cheesy lines and ridiculously out-of-place, underdeveloped sub-plot, could there have been any ending other than the one that happened.
Second, the dialogue sucked. It was so bad, it made the actors look uncomfortable (or maybe they just sucked). Either way, it did not give me the feeling I was watching a movie; I thought I was watching friends of mine who were bad at acting read off of a script, and not really understand what they were saying.
Do not see this movie.
The First is pretty obvious: the movie was entirely predictable. I mean, really, with the cheesy lines and ridiculously out-of-place, underdeveloped sub-plot, could there have been any ending other than the one that happened.
Second, the dialogue sucked. It was so bad, it made the actors look uncomfortable (or maybe they just sucked). Either way, it did not give me the feeling I was watching a movie; I thought I was watching friends of mine who were bad at acting read off of a script, and not really understand what they were saying.
Do not see this movie.
Awful
jody323227 October 2003
I'm a sucker for a good romance, but this one doesn't qualify as either good or a romance. I had the plot nailed down before the credits were through. With such poor dialog, plot and character development, I suggest investing your hour and a half elsehere. I had to rush out and rent Serendipity for the third time so I could get the bad taste of this one out of my mouth.
The Actors Salvage the Movie
mikerjones25 September 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The opening scene is bad. Almost turned to something else. But as soon as the two leads meet, it perks up. I don't give the script writer much credit. The. Ending scene has no dialogue; instead it depends on a particular song playing over the 'action'. I wonder if getting the original hit version of "At Last" was what held this movie up for 2 years. HOWEVER, the actors saved the show, The character actors stole almost every scene they were in. The leads were ok, they did work well together, but the best friends were the best. Michael Rispoli (who I will always refer to as Joe Jr) was terrific. Olivia D'abo born in London did a NYC accent that occasionally slipped, but was also very likeable. My wife and I both enjoyed the movie and would have no problem watching it again. Unlike so many movies today, there is no one to hate in this one. Well, except Bobby Love.
Talented Cast Struggle With Weak Script.
jehaccess615 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I bought this DVD after seeing Natasha Henstridge in 'Species'. Her beauty seemed to leap off the screen. The fate of her male victims seemed an acceptable price for spending some quality time with her. Natasha has remarked in her IMDb biography that she has difficulty judging the merit of submitted scripts. Her appearance in this film is proof of the accuracy of that observation.
The Anna Penn character (Natasha Henstridge) is clearly conflicted about her upcoming nuptials. She spots the very handsome Charlie Hudson character (Michael Vartan) in her hotel lobby and deliberately joins him in the elevator on the way up to their rooms. She flirts with the handsome stranger and finds out his name and room number. Anna, realizing that Charlie is in the room directly below her, cleverly creates a flood in his room by overflowing her bathtub. This is guaranteed to make an impression on Charlie and create another opportunity to meet him. Although I would have expected Charlie's bathroom to be directly below Anna's and the flood would not likely be directly over his bed.
Charley Hudson is engaged to Claire Parker (Joelle Carter), a shrewd and ambitious business woman who in reality would never even consider him a suitable mate. Charlie is a kept man in his fiancée's swanky home while attempting to write the great novel he is ill-equipped to produce. He is so out of step that he pecks away at a portable typewriter years after real authors have switched to computer word processors. Do publishers still accept typed manuscripts instead of e-mail or on computer disks? Strangely, Claire notices nothing amiss in Charlie's archaic choice of equipment to produce his breakthrough novel. I doubt that the writers of this screenplay produced their product on typewriters, why are they consigning their character to such an obtuse choice of equipment?
Anna's best friend Tracy (Olivia D'Abo) first appears with a dark wig in her job in a beauty parlor. In every subsequent appearance, Tracy has this horrible strawberry blonde hairdo that is hardly attractive. Somehow, I would expect a hairdresser to look more appealing than that if she ever expected to get other women to trust their hair to her.
Anyway, Charlie really starts to warm up to Anna and eagerly accepts any excuse to keep the new relationship going. Anna now starts to get cold feet and back off on their undeclared romance. This seems strange considering the fact that Anna's mother and prospective mother-in-law clearly despise each other when the three women meet for a luncheon. The effect of this animosity would almost certainly doom any marriage. Anna seems determined to marry her fiancée while clearly enjoying the company of Charlie more than she should.
I really wondered at all the mutual hugging the cops engaged in in this movie. No parting of friends or successful accomplishment of a suicide prevention was complete without a lot of hugs. I suppose that cops have become a lot more sensitive types since the days of Dick Tracy. The criminals in New York must look on with tearful approval on the new enlightenment.
The conclusion of the film was so contrived as to be unbearable. Anna's fellow teacher reads Charlie's completed novel and relates the plot over lunch in the teacher's lounge. Anna realizes that both she and Charlie have broken off their engagements and are free to wed. The two love birds reunite and tie the knot and all is resolved.
The film ends with the wonderful song 'At Last' by Etta James. This song does a lot to end the film on a high note (literaly). Natasha and Michael do their best with such a flawed script. Some parts of the film are even enjoyable, if you don't think too much about the plot. The two leads had detectable chemistry and you wanted them to get together. Let's hope they choose better material if they want long careers.
The Anna Penn character (Natasha Henstridge) is clearly conflicted about her upcoming nuptials. She spots the very handsome Charlie Hudson character (Michael Vartan) in her hotel lobby and deliberately joins him in the elevator on the way up to their rooms. She flirts with the handsome stranger and finds out his name and room number. Anna, realizing that Charlie is in the room directly below her, cleverly creates a flood in his room by overflowing her bathtub. This is guaranteed to make an impression on Charlie and create another opportunity to meet him. Although I would have expected Charlie's bathroom to be directly below Anna's and the flood would not likely be directly over his bed.
Charley Hudson is engaged to Claire Parker (Joelle Carter), a shrewd and ambitious business woman who in reality would never even consider him a suitable mate. Charlie is a kept man in his fiancée's swanky home while attempting to write the great novel he is ill-equipped to produce. He is so out of step that he pecks away at a portable typewriter years after real authors have switched to computer word processors. Do publishers still accept typed manuscripts instead of e-mail or on computer disks? Strangely, Claire notices nothing amiss in Charlie's archaic choice of equipment to produce his breakthrough novel. I doubt that the writers of this screenplay produced their product on typewriters, why are they consigning their character to such an obtuse choice of equipment?
Anna's best friend Tracy (Olivia D'Abo) first appears with a dark wig in her job in a beauty parlor. In every subsequent appearance, Tracy has this horrible strawberry blonde hairdo that is hardly attractive. Somehow, I would expect a hairdresser to look more appealing than that if she ever expected to get other women to trust their hair to her.
Anyway, Charlie really starts to warm up to Anna and eagerly accepts any excuse to keep the new relationship going. Anna now starts to get cold feet and back off on their undeclared romance. This seems strange considering the fact that Anna's mother and prospective mother-in-law clearly despise each other when the three women meet for a luncheon. The effect of this animosity would almost certainly doom any marriage. Anna seems determined to marry her fiancée while clearly enjoying the company of Charlie more than she should.
I really wondered at all the mutual hugging the cops engaged in in this movie. No parting of friends or successful accomplishment of a suicide prevention was complete without a lot of hugs. I suppose that cops have become a lot more sensitive types since the days of Dick Tracy. The criminals in New York must look on with tearful approval on the new enlightenment.
The conclusion of the film was so contrived as to be unbearable. Anna's fellow teacher reads Charlie's completed novel and relates the plot over lunch in the teacher's lounge. Anna realizes that both she and Charlie have broken off their engagements and are free to wed. The two love birds reunite and tie the knot and all is resolved.
The film ends with the wonderful song 'At Last' by Etta James. This song does a lot to end the film on a high note (literaly). Natasha and Michael do their best with such a flawed script. Some parts of the film are even enjoyable, if you don't think too much about the plot. The two leads had detectable chemistry and you wanted them to get together. Let's hope they choose better material if they want long careers.
Very predictable romantic comedy
lisafordeay12 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
It Had To Be You is a 2000 Romantic Comedy starring Michael Vartan,Natasha Henstridge and Phyllis Newman.
The story follows a young man named Charlie Hudson(Vartan), a retired cop for the NYPD who meets a woman named Anna Penn(Henstridge) who happens to be a grade teacher at an Elementary school ,at the Plaza Hotel and they both hit it off.
To everyone they seem like the perfect couple,but in reality there is a problem. Both are engaged to other people(Anna with David and Charlie with Claire).
What happens next is both Charlie and Anna keep bumping into each other and they fall in love. Will they or won't they be together in the end?.
Overall it was a very predictable rom com as you know what's going to happen.
If you like Sleepless In Seattle and Serendipity then check this one out.
Available on YouTube and Amazon Prime.
The story follows a young man named Charlie Hudson(Vartan), a retired cop for the NYPD who meets a woman named Anna Penn(Henstridge) who happens to be a grade teacher at an Elementary school ,at the Plaza Hotel and they both hit it off.
To everyone they seem like the perfect couple,but in reality there is a problem. Both are engaged to other people(Anna with David and Charlie with Claire).
What happens next is both Charlie and Anna keep bumping into each other and they fall in love. Will they or won't they be together in the end?.
Overall it was a very predictable rom com as you know what's going to happen.
If you like Sleepless In Seattle and Serendipity then check this one out.
Available on YouTube and Amazon Prime.
Wardrobe hell!
maddiedat9 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Sure, it had some of the makings of a good film. The storyline is good, if a bit bland and the acting was good enough though I didn't understand why Olivia d'Abo had such a pronounced Australian accent if her character was supposed to have been raised in the US. My biggest problem, however, was with the wardrobe. I know as rule, the average American is considered a frumpy dresser by any self-respecting European but this was beyond that. Anna's colour combinations were positively ghastly!! And that potato sack-like, sad excuse for a coat she wore throughout the film made me break out in hives. I suppose the idea was to be as realistic as possible (how many school teachers walk around in Prada?) but simple doesn't mean an absolute lack of taste. A word to the wise...
A weaker Serendipity
vinman0716 October 2021
Nice looking but lacking in rom or com
phd_travel17 March 2019
Natasha Henstridge is pretty here and she looks right with Michael Vartan. They are both staying in the Plaza Hotel planning their weddings to other people but meet and start a romance. The on location filming is nice.
It's not very funny by rom com standards though.
A Sweet Romance
hmcusn2944 October 2006
Sure, this movie is sappy and sweet and full of clichés, but it's entertaining, and that's what I watch movies for. To be entertained. Natasha Henstridge is stunning, even with the short hair. Her smile is radiant and her beauty can't be disguised. As for Michael Vartan, I'm sure the women love him. The two of them seemed to really like eacb other in this film. I don't understand the comments that there was no chemistry between them. I guess we see what we want to see.
Olivia d'Abo and Michael Rigoli were fun to watch, even if d'Abo's British accent did creep into her supposed Bronx speech. To tell you the truth I hadn't really noticed it until I read these comments, but I went back to the DVD and now her dialogue sounds more British than American to me, but she was ideal for her role with that one exception.
It's a story of two nice people who are getting married to significant others, but who find their soul mates in one another. It may be an unlikely story, but who says movies are all supposed to play like documentaries? It is no more unrealistic than any of the dramas that are screened every hour on the tube. That's why we watch them, to escape from the humdrum of daily living for a short time and enter the world of the characters on the screen. I thought these actors did a good job of it, but hey, I'm a sentimental guy who tears up easily. Don't get me wrong though, it has to be a sentimental scene, and this movie had plenty of those.
I give it 9/10 only because I'm saving my 10/10 for that yet unseen super magnificent movie that I know will come along some day. If you see it advertised as coming up on the Movie Channel or Lifetime Movies, or whatever, make a note to watch it. I think you'll like it.
Olivia d'Abo and Michael Rigoli were fun to watch, even if d'Abo's British accent did creep into her supposed Bronx speech. To tell you the truth I hadn't really noticed it until I read these comments, but I went back to the DVD and now her dialogue sounds more British than American to me, but she was ideal for her role with that one exception.
It's a story of two nice people who are getting married to significant others, but who find their soul mates in one another. It may be an unlikely story, but who says movies are all supposed to play like documentaries? It is no more unrealistic than any of the dramas that are screened every hour on the tube. That's why we watch them, to escape from the humdrum of daily living for a short time and enter the world of the characters on the screen. I thought these actors did a good job of it, but hey, I'm a sentimental guy who tears up easily. Don't get me wrong though, it has to be a sentimental scene, and this movie had plenty of those.
I give it 9/10 only because I'm saving my 10/10 for that yet unseen super magnificent movie that I know will come along some day. If you see it advertised as coming up on the Movie Channel or Lifetime Movies, or whatever, make a note to watch it. I think you'll like it.
What a waste of film
CAMACHO-424 July 2005
" It had to be You" is another sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas. This picture is about Charlie Hudson a former police officer turned Author. When Charlie's fiancé goes out of town he's stuck with all of the wedding planning. He spends a week at a fancy hotel and meets Anna Penn a teacher who just happens to also be getting married. The two quickly become friends and set out to plan their separate weddings together. This is when the plot gets boring, Charlie falls in love with Anna and she has to choose between a safe life or Charlie. This movie rips off every romantic comedy ever made and just has you waiting for the end of the movie so you can do something else. Micahel Vartan and Natasha Henstridge give really mediocre performances which just makes this movie all the more gut wrenching to watch.
decent premise - mixed performances and cringe-inducing writing
sufan25 January 2002
this movie isn't entirely awful...it had a decent premise and has a few good performances - it also has some pretty bad ones...
the lead actor, michael vartan seems uncomfortable during the entire film. stiff as a board. and not altogether convincing.
can someone please tell me what the deal was with tracy the hairdresser? she goes back and forth between english/newyork accents. choose one and stick with it!
how can one not cringe at the "...i was listening to sinatra" "you like sinatra?" "i love frank!" exchange... not to mention "you go to cha chas? i love cha chas!" you know the ending six minutes into the movie and it's a painful journey to get there... if natasha hentridge didn't deliver such a good performance as well as some of the secondary characters i'd rate this a 3 but they bump it to an almost watchable 5.
one only has so many hours in this lifetime...do you really want to waste two of yours?
the lead actor, michael vartan seems uncomfortable during the entire film. stiff as a board. and not altogether convincing.
can someone please tell me what the deal was with tracy the hairdresser? she goes back and forth between english/newyork accents. choose one and stick with it!
how can one not cringe at the "...i was listening to sinatra" "you like sinatra?" "i love frank!" exchange... not to mention "you go to cha chas? i love cha chas!" you know the ending six minutes into the movie and it's a painful journey to get there... if natasha hentridge didn't deliver such a good performance as well as some of the secondary characters i'd rate this a 3 but they bump it to an almost watchable 5.
one only has so many hours in this lifetime...do you really want to waste two of yours?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
