J. A. Brown (jabrownstoryteller) I agree with the other reviewers that the summary of this movie is wrong. He doesn't fall in love with his wife, he's always loved her, kept her separate from himself, and apart from the way he measured himself as a man, but there is never any doubt for me that he loved her. She's his touchstone, but their relationship is not enough to define his own definition of what it is to be a man. He keeps that score based on how many women he sleeps with. All meaningless encounters that amount to notches in his belt, and reassure him that his man card has the right amount of stamps on it it. It's a situation he finds perfect until his wife, who knows about his countless infidelities, finally reaches her limit on and says, no more. Her abrupt departure from his life makes him reevaluate what matters most to him and how he has been measuring his existence and he realizes that he has been wrong about pretty much everything. For her, she wants to understand what she did or didn't do that led them here, and comes to realize that it was never about the changes she made in herself, or the compromises she accepted to maintain her marriage, because the problem was in his view of how men are "supposed" to behave, and in hers about what women are "supposed" to tolerate.This is story about stereotypes and the havoc they can cause in a relationship. To be a man he has to behave this way, and to be a woman is to tolerate it, because that is what they do. Neither of those is true, but many relationships have ended because of people's belief that this is what they are "supposed to do."I loved this movie. I loved the games they played together. I loved the way the leads interacted, and reacted to each other together and apart. I loved that even though their relationship was ending (or seemed to be) they were both still very certain of how they felt for each other. I could have done without the scene where he helped her pack and destroyed her clothes because he was petulant and angry, but I suppose that level of emotional immaturity needed to be visually displayed. I probably could have also done without the incredible number or women that came onto him time and time again. It made it almost seem like he was a prisoner of others actions and not responsible for his own choices.I liked that they acknowledged that so much history between two people is hard to walk away from, even if the history is painful.I also liked the way it ends. Full of hope and possibility even after everything that has happened. Both leads were amazing, and more people should give this film a chance.

Tony Heck "We haven't talked like that since we first met." Nina (Tripplehorn) and James (Schreiber) are a happily married couple, at least that is what Nina thinks. One day as a joke she follows one of her friends as she heads home. When she catches her with her husband her life is shattered. When she moves out she finds its not as easy to get over him as he thought. In order for closure she calls him as another woman and the romance starts to spark again. This is a hard movie to explain. First of all the synopsis I gave is what I read the movie is about before I started to watch. The only problem with this is that explanation doesn't really seem to be the main focus of the movie. While that is an aspect of it I really think the main plot of the movie is watching how James deals with his actions and how it affects him and everyone and and everything around him. All that said the movie isn't bad but it had the definite feel of a Lifetime movie. The movie itself is a little slow moving and very hard to get into but keep in mind that I am a man and not into the Lifetime-type movies. Overall, another movie where the idea sounds better then the execution. I give this a C+.

callanvass Nina (Tripplehorn) has had enough of her Husband's cheating, giving him the boot in the process. James (Schreiber) unintentionally falls back in love with Nina after she pretends to be another woman on the phone. I liked the idea of the "reverse" love story. It did an original thing by not going the predictable route. The way it is executed really disappointed me. It is so dull. I had no interest in the two leads. They were unlikable people that I had no sympathy for. Tripplehorn's character is easier to sympathize than Schreiber's, obviously, but that didn't change that I didn't like her either. Why did she put up with this for so long in the first place? He should have been gone the first or second time that she caught him cheating. As a big romantic, I hated this film. The dog stole every scene he was in as far as i'm concerned3/10

A_Different_Drummer Engaging, well-directed, beautifully photographed, "backwards" romantic comedy, very quirky, very indie, and clearly destined to be very unappreciated - especially since (many thanks for the 'headsup' from another IMDb user) it was actually made in 2000 under another working title, and could not find a distributor until now. Some notes: 1. Jeanne Tripplehorn is one of the most under-utilized actresses in the game, and this film makes that fact very clear. Although Liev Schreiber is good, she is never less than great. To revive an old cliché, she "delivers entire lines of dialogue using only her eyes." Nice eyes too. It had been almost 10 years, for example, since then-superstar Kevin Costner selected Tripplehorn to provide all the oestrogen (ie, female energy) for an entire epic, Waterworld (also a somewhat misunderstood film) and frankly she still looked spectacular in this one. 2. This is indie and it shows. Not a bad thing. Sometimes avoiding the Hollywood formula subliminally frees the viewers from having to respond to certain scenes in a predictable way (Pavlovian) and gives both the film-maker and the audience more room to experiment. If this film had been made in the mainstream, for example, it would star Michelle Monaghan. It's "that" kind of film. 3. The story? Instead of guy finds girl, guy gets girl (the standard), here we have guy already has girl, guy loses girl, guy (may) get a shot at retrieving girl. Again, this is a "backwards" story but, given a chance, it works just fine. 4. The IMDb synopsis explains it is all about a guy who falls in love with his wife "all over again" over the phone while believing she is someone else. This is incorrect. Not IMDb's fault -- no doubt taken from the PR material provided by whatever distributor is still desperately trying to move the product. But that plot twist is entirely incidental to the main story, it is indeed not the story, and it misrepresents the story. The fact that even the people distributing the film may not have actually seen it tells you that this flick is still unlikely to find the audience it deserves. 5. Supporting cast is excellent. Joelle Carter, well ahead of her success in Justified, is radiant (er, hot) as ever, and Louise Fletcher, also fairly underexposed, is more than adequate. Even the dog gives a brilliant performance. (He plays a dog, but an exceptionally friendly one). 6. Some reviewers may tell you this is a film about marriage. Bunk. It is a film about men and women, and the communication issues therein. It is well worth a look.