A_Different_Drummer Based on the notion "better late than never" this is a late review.Notes For Posterity: * what were they thinking? Marshall usually knows better but Hollywood, the land of "high concept," often falls for its own nonsense * you would have to be from another planet not to know that the original pairing in PRETTY WOMAN was one of the most successful films of all time. I think even now it is mandatory for young girls to see the film before they reach their teens. (Hey, don't smirk, if they can force you to take vaccinations, they can force you to watch a film) * even the best Hollywood Power Agent can't fight Father Time. Gere was 50 when this was filmed, Roberts some 20 years younger. Trivia question for readers of the future: was he playing YOUNGER or was she playing OLDER? Actually -- surprise! -- not a bad movie if you "get" it is about the stars working with outrageous material and yet somehow pulling it off -- sorta -- by sheer force of will. Plus, I am a big fan of Joan ("Are you breaking up with me?") Cusack. SKIP THE LAST 15 MINUTES. SERIOUSLY. HAVE I EVER LED YOU ASTRAY?Back in Hollywood's glory days they used to test the ending with a live audience before release. Had Marshall done this -- instead of spending all his time looking in the mirror and telling himself how clever he was -- he would have noticed the movie had a really solid ending about 15 minutes before the ending he used. The actual ending is horribly annoying.

jr73340 Julia Roberts has been around for a long time. Every couple years I end up seeing one of her movies, and every single time I ask the same question - why on earth is this woman so famous? There's a couple of things about her acting I can't stand: 1)Facial Expression: In every movie I've watched with Julia Roberts she has the same stilted-emotionless expression on her face during the whole movie. I call it the "deer-in-headlights" look. She doesn't even look comfortable speaking. She looks like some child actor who is staring wide-eyed into the camera, struggling to speak her lines.2) Delivery: Her delivery is equally terrible. She always speaks her lines in the same monotone-deadpan voice. It does not matter what scene she is in. She is incapable of altering the pitch or loudness of her voice. She sounds like that computer "Hal" from 2001: A Space Odyssey.3) A totally uninteresting actor: Julia Roberts does not adapt herself to any role. She always plays herself. Many great actors do this (aka Robert De Niro, Al Pacino etc). It works for them because they are actually interesting-dynamic people and hence their characters are always interesting and dynamic. This is not the case with Julia. It doesn't matter if she's playing a queen, a mother, a prostitute or a wife. You always get the same monotone-stilted performance.She is the most overrated female actress in history.

kxok630 Some crazy lady dramatically escapes weddings on horseback or something. A lazy journalist irresponsibly writes about her without researching the facts, and gets axed. Then he goes to meet her. Twisted premise, puzzling plot holes. Why do guys keep proposing to this creep? Why would someone with obvious mental illness be the heroine of a rom-com? Never explained.Another question: why Richard Gere? He looks like a grenade exploded in his mouth and blew his face away. His vapid acting is about as effective as you would expect from somebody without a face, too. As for Julia Roberts, even playing Little Bo Peep would be almost too complex for her. The script is just the usual "unlikely couple becomes a couple while other goofy stuff happens" story line. But it does't work with such vile lead characters. Not to mention the horrible acting of grenade face and bo-peep. The endless subliminal messages to subscribe to USA Today don't help, either. To be fair; a few jokes work, such as the wedding rehearsal scene. But that's about it. Otherwise, this is one long winded product placement infomercial. I hope director Gary Marshall enjoyed his complementary copy of USA Today after making this.

Eugene Ainur This film is about a girl who kept running away while someone was trying to marry her. Literally so: she had already escaped amazing number of weddings, when a newspaper journalist wrote an article about her heroic deeds. Since his article was not based on facts, he got fired. His last chance was to prove that the story was true, that’s why he set off after the girl. And then we learn some more details about her behaviour.I don’t know the end of the story because I haven’t watched the film up to the end. I guess that newspaper journalist has finally married the girl and got his job back at the same time. Those kind of movies always have happy end so you don't need to watch them through. I think there is nothing special about the film, it is just a mediocre entertainment.