Rating: 
Summary: It's really not that bad.
Review: You have seen all the bad reviews, but I have to say, it's really not that stupid. First of all, you obviously can not expect a story that's going to change your life, it's only a teen movie! Secondly, it had a light and believable plot, and many funny moments; it was a healthy movie (I can't believe people are giving this 3 star average while giving American Pie 4.5). What I am trying to say is, if you are a young girl, or a light-hearted boy, you really wouldn't get disappointed at the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Punishment...Pain...Anguish...
Review: Three words that describe this trainwreck of a movie starring the "Chico Without the Man", Freddie Prinze Jr. I'm sure 14 year old girls think that he's just wonderful, and the hoochie models were thrown in to attract male movie goers but this movie has no redeeming value whatsoever. Freddie can't act, in fact most of the cast of this waste of film had trouble with the whole "acting thing". Monica Potter's bleating and whining made my ears bleed. Please Mr. Hollywood Producer, stop making these movies already!
Rating: 
Summary: Crude and Sometimes Funny Comedy
Review: Head Over Heels has it's ups and down all throughout the film but overall it is a funny and charming comedy. It's about Amanda who falls for Jim, who may or may not be a murderer. The whole film is trying to find out if Jim is actually murderer. Monica Potter is charming and cute in the role of Amanda, and givin the right role she could be the next Julia Roberts. Freddie Prinze Jr is also very charming and likeable as Jim, but it's hard for me to believe that Jim is a hot fashion executive. Freddie still looks like he's 18. The movie goes for the laughs by having Amanda be a klutz and it has it's moments, but how many times can you laugh at her falling down the stairs. Freddies character does not fair so well with the laughs. The writers deciede to for crude and disgusting. Do we really want to hear Freddie Prinze Jr going to the bathroom, and being very, very loud about it, if you know what I mean. This has no relevance to the story except just to get a laugh. The 4 models Amanda lives with are very funny and likeable. There is a hysterical scene where the girls get stuck in a resturant bathroom, that leads them to believe Jim is gay. This scene is also very crude and disgusting, but it has a something to do with the plot of the story(kind of). The movie moves along quite nicely but the ending scene is quite rediculous and not at all what I was hoping the ending would be. Most of you will enjoy this movie alot, but most of you will probably get bored and turn it off halfway through.
Rating: 
Summary: Too expensive for a cheap copy
Review: Here we have a classic example of the good-natured movie that fails the Gene Siskel test - it's less interesting than a documentary of the actors having lunch and discussing the script would be.It's Monica Potter's first attempt at comedy (unless, unlike me, you consider "Patch Adams" a comedy), and she does a serviceable job, word-mangling and pratfalling like a real trouper. She plays Amanda, a painting restorer at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, who lucks into an enormous Westside apartment for $500 per month. This is the first of several elements in which it is impossible to believe, but it's pretty standard stuff next to the reason given for the low rent. See, the apartment belongs to a modeling agency that lets four girls stay in it for free, and they decide to rent out a closet as a bedroom to get some extra cash. Now, I ask you; if you were a New York high fashion model, could you get by on $500 per month in spending money? Divided four ways? Be that as it may, Amanda, who proudly announces to the women in the audience "I know you think you have the world's worst taste in men, but you don't, I do," falls for the fashion executive across the street, after a classic Meet Cute featuring an amorous Great Dane named Hamlet. Get it? In case you don't, Amanda explains it for you. The fashion exec is Jim, played by Freddie Prinze Jr. with all the personality of a loaf of white bread. Well, okay, not a loaf of white bread; we get plenty of chances to observe his muscle tone as the girls ogle him through his conveniently uncurtained windows, which are apparently opaque from the inside since he never notices that he's being spied on from fifty feet away. We don't get a chance to see his acting ability, since he's playing Cary Grant Lite. Then Amanda sees him bash an attractive blonde's head in with a baseball bat. The cops won't listen. Amanda enlists her supermodel roommates to conduct their own investigation before her Saturday date with this presumed psycho killer. So the supermodels reluctantly endure some of the more grotesque bathroom humor of recent years, the New York subway and a variety of other Manhattan exteriors to spy on Jim. Despite their height, perfect makeup and designer outfits, no one notices them, least of all the man they're following. Hijincks ensue. In short, this is a combination of Rear Window and North by Northwest, with a few uninspired screwball comedy reflexes thrown in. Now, in my book, good performances make up for a lot of sins, and there are several nice ones here. The supermodels hired to play the supermodels in particular acquit themselves well, especially Shalom Harlow as an opportunistic Jewish American Princess and Ivana Milicevic as a cynical Russian, along with Sarah O'Hare as a klutzy Aussie and Tomika Fraser as an intelligent African-American. Indeed, the four of them manage to outshine Potter and Prinze both, and it's a shame they weren't given a movie of their own. Or at least some of the screen time otherwise devoted to the aforementioned bathroom humor, tired romantic-thriller plot, and whining voiceovers. Or that documentary of the four of them having lunch. I'd be interested in a movie about four good-natured models thrashing through the New York fashion world - I'd enjoy looking at them, of course, and I might learn something about fashion, too. I certainly didn't learn much about that from this movie, although the filmmakers apparently did. Their script, design and direction partake of a well-known fashion technique, that of the knockoff. Same design as a classic, in this case Alfred Hitchcock's combination of thriller and comedy elements, only made with much weaker materials. Benshlomo says, Knockoffs are only worthwhile if they're cheaper than the real thing.
Rating:
Summary: Gag, avoid this movie at all costs
Review: I can't believe I wasted 87 minutes of my life on this garbage. There were a few mildly funny moments, but nowhere near enough to make this pile of doggie doo redeemable. Another Freddie Prinze playing Freddie Prinze again and some terrible performances by female "actresses" whose agents might want to consider shutting the garage and turning on the ignition. Terrible and worthless film.
Rating:
Summary: A FEW LAUGHS BUT NO REEL CLASS
Review: Have you seen the wonderful romantic comedies with Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant? (Think "The Philadelphia Story".) Did you notice the timing, the grace, the sly humor? What about the films of Claudette Colbert, Jimmy Stewart? Don't confuse "Head Over Heels" or Prinze and Potter with any of the above. This film is a bit of forgettable fluff - sometimes funny and perhaps an apropos first date movie. Amanda Pierce (Potter) shares digs with a bevy of models. When the models aren't screening the horde of men clamoring outside their door for a smile or a date, they peep into the windows of handsome neighbor Jim Winston (Prinze), a bigwig in the fashion industry.. We find out later that Jim Winston isn't really Jim Winston. Of course, Amanda falls for the adonis - that is, until she thinks she sees him commit murder. The contingent of cuties takes it upon themselves to investigate the crime, which leads to a myriad of mix-ups that you might guess would happen all along. The story skitters and weaves with the addition of Russian diamond smugglers. Prank piles upon prank until a chase scene at, of course, a fashion show. "Head Over Heels" is eye candy with some giggles but not any reel class.
Rating:
Summary: MADE ME LAUGH MORE THAN A FEW TIMES :)
Review: "Head Over Heels" is just one of those movies that you have to go into with an open mind. Just go in expecting a few good laughs and you'll like it. Monica Potter was simply gorgeus. I won't give anything away, but there is this one scene where she falls face-first while pretending to model a dress... TOO FUNNY. Worth a rental.
Rating:
Summary: Cute Movie
Review: This movie is really cute and alot of funny lines. I found the models really entertaining, especially Sarah O'Hare's character. And unlike Mila Jovovich, these girls can actually act! Plus Monica Potter is a really really cute leading lady without being annoying and obnoxious. The bad part? The plotline is really far-fetched. But if you are just looking for a cute romantic comedy, this movie delivers. And you can check out some of Beautiful Vancouver! (the aquarium...)
Rating:
Summary: Two out of three females liked this movie.
Review: They thought it was "kinda stupid but cute"... but then they're both under 16. I, the only adult present, thought it was "kinda stupid" and Trying Hard To Be Cute, which is not the same as actually being worth watching. There were a lot of attempts to be funny, but few payoffs; it did have some amusing moments, but I could've counted on one hand the times I chuckled out loud. The plot was silly, which is excusable; the dialogue was often ridiculous, again excusable... but most of the jokes just weren't very funny. NOT excusable. Not in a comedy. Did anybody else want to personally neuter that dog with a pair of garden shears? It was a pretty tame movie as far as vulgarity. Ok, there was some toilet humor, which is to be expected as we near the end (hopefully) of the cycle that started with "Dumb and Dumber." And that nasty dog. And frequent sexual references. But the sex scenes themselves were of the old-fashioned cut-away variety (they fall onto the bed and the scene changes), which was a pleasant surprise. So if you're fairly liberal-minded, you should be able to okay this for your young teens and tweens. Mine liked it. But it is PG-13, so if what you've read offends you, at least you're forewarned.
Rating:
Summary: Ugh!
Review: No amount of extras could make me watch this again. Stupid, stupid, stupid
|
