SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

SnoopyStyle Alex Whitman (Matthew Perry) is sent to Las Vegas to supervise a construction project. Isabel Fuentes (Salma Hayek) has just arrived in Vegas. She's superstitious and believes in fate unlike him. They meet in a line for the bathroom at a Mexican restaurant. They have an one night stand. Three months later, she shows up to tell him that she's pregnant. She takes him back to her parents. Overwhelmed, he proposes to her and they get married. She is shocked to find that he's moving back to NYC. Their marriage deteriorates.I don't find much chemistry between Perry and Hayek. I think it has a lot to do with the backwards relationship between the two. It disrupts the traditional build up of the rom-com formula. It feels like the characters are constantly trying to catch up emotionally to their situation. I actually think they would make a good rom-com pairing otherwise. Perry's joking around could work as long as Hayek is willing to laugh at him. There is a little too little of that going on. The jokes aren't that funny at all.

FlashCallahan Alex Whitman is a New Yorker sent to Las Vegas to oversee a construction project.There he meets Isabel, and some serious chemistry brings them together for one night.But Alex doesn't see Isabel again until three months later, when he learns she is pregnant.On a whim and prayer, he proposes.However, there's more to marriage than a Vegas chapel and an Elvis impersonator, as Alex and Isabel soon learn......I can imagine the producers saying to Perry on the first day of filming 'just be Chandler, everyone loves Chandler', and that is what he does, not because he has no other range but because the makers know that people of a certain age will relate to him, and see the film because of his success in Friends.And thats wherein the problem lies. The vehicle isn't for Perry, it's for Chandler, and in my opinion, he is the most annoying one from that series.So thank heavens for Hayek, who shows here that she isn't just beautiful, but she can carry a film and make it that little more interesting when shes on screen.The story is amiable enough and quite sweet, but it's nothing we haven't seen before, and we will see plenty of them again.It's pretty forgettable stuff, which is a shame, because Hayek is great..

hte-trasme I caught this on television with my girlfriend, having no expectations coming in. In almost every aspect, this is a competent and well-made movie. However, nobody involved seems to have had much of an interest in making anything beyond a competent and well-made movie. It's essentially a paint-by-numbers entry into the "romantic comedy" genre that doesn't have enough blood in the comedy or in the romance to be very memorable or involving beyond casual TV viewing.Matthew Perry and Salma Hayek are the leads. I can understand why they were cast (Perry for his sitcom fame, Hayek for her good looks), but neither one really impresses me as a very good actor -- Perry mainly stand around looking helpless and conflicted and moves his arms in random directions when he speaks, and Hayek comes up with some line readings that make me wonder whether she bothered to read the script.The plot, which is a not-too-imaginative variation on a ubiquitous one that plays pretty heavily on stereotypes of Mexicans and rich people from Connecticut (a rich man from Connecticut gets a Mexican woman pregnant, then decides to marry her for love, but runs into complications with their respective goals, families, and customs), is time-tested, solid, and has a lot of opportunity for good drama, but that opportunity is mainly squandered -- we don't really get to follow HOW the two protagonists get over their differences and earn their happy ending.This movie seems to serve up its romance with a generous side of it's-good-to-believe-in-signs, which as a non-superstitious viewer I did not really buy, but it's easily ignored for the character device it is.That said, there are some amusing moments, and there are some sweet moments -- just fitting the requirements for the genre the film is a product of. It's a perfectly adequate date movie or television time-killer if you're in the mood for it (most movie viewers will be able to read a short description and know just what to expect), but don't go in looking for anything special.

jpschapira When I watched "Boys" yesterday and I said I liked it, I explained it was because it made justice to its title even when it contained a small dose of reality. However, it put its characters in relatively possible situations. "Fools Rush In", on the other hand, makes justice to its title but the things the film's characters live are virtually impossible. Alex Whitman (Matthew Perry) and Isabel Fuentes (Salma Hayek) meet one night and they have sex in something three months later Alex calls "one of those beautiful, spontaneous things of life", in one of Katherine Reback's only script's few well written scenes (no wonder she never worked again). But now Isabel is pregnant, and when the film married them very soon, I stayed quiet and waited, because 'fools rush in', you know, and maybe the best was about to come.In formulaic romantic comedies, you have two basic plot-lines: 1)the couple meets but they are never really together until the final moments, whatever may happen in the middle; 2)they are well together (as in marriage or a nice relationship) and then something comes and screws things up and someone has to make them right.That second road is the one director Andy Tennant, from the also regular "Sweet Home Alabama", takes with this piece. It's not a bad road to take, and the script's premise is not a poor one, but its development is. And you have to blame writer and director for turning something interesting into a bunch of stereotypes about culture and religion.During one scene, Alex's father and Isabel's discuss why their respective sons shouldn't be together. It's a ridiculous moment; they talk about black and white, about Christians and Presbyterians and other subjects the movie hadn't brought until that point? Why do it so late then? Both John Bennett Perry and Tomas Milian overact the scene completely and they should be embarrassed.Actually, there's a lot of overacting in "Fools Rush In", and if it weren't for Hayek and Perry's chemistry it would be a bad film. They make it an enjoyable rush. Both look so young, Perry with all the success from "Friends" at the time, Hayek in her first romantic lead in Hollywood. Jon Tenney and Siobhan Fallon also help in their respective "best friend" character. But that's that, and sometimes it can be almost enough for a good film. I know I didn't explain the impossible situations, but it's something you should experience without me giving examples. I'll say one however: if I leave a Mercedes Benz in the middle of nowhere and go away for a whole day, do you seriously think no one is going to come and take it away?