Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Desertman84 How To Lose Your Lover is a romantic comedy that stars Paul Schneider, Tori Spelling,Poppy Montgomery and Jennifer Westfeldt. The story is about a biographer that decides to leave Los Angeles and restart his life on the East coast who suddenly meets the woman of his dreams before leaving.It is the feature debut of writer,producer and director Jordan Hawley.Owen,played by Schneider,wants to be a serious writer.He wants to move from Los Angeles since the only work he can get is co-writing trashy autobiographies for people who'd prefer he omit the unseemly truth.He thinks L.A. is keeping him from achieving his romantic and professional goals.Unfortunately,he can't bring himself to leave. After an earthquake,Owen's manipulative, unfaithful ex-girlfriend to tell him she wants nothing more to do with him.This inspire him to finally decides to get out of town. He arranges to write a biography for a Princeton physicist and then he tells all his friends and acquaintances the brutal truth so that he has every reason to leave L.A. He admits to Stephanie,played by Tori Spelling, that his other house mate, Allison,portrayed by the beauteous Poppy Montgomery, has always found her attractive, but he neglected to tell the former this because he doesn't like her. But he can't bring himself to say anything unpleasant to his promiscuous bisexual best friend, Allison. Owen is at the airport, ready to board his flight, when he runs into Val,played by Jennifer Westfeldt,who happens to be an attractive acquaintance of his ex. She's seeing off her former boyfriend and invites him to have coffee which caused him to miss his flight. There's an immediate attraction. But still,he is determined to leave town especially now that no one wants him around, but he has to take a few days to prove to himself that things would never work out with Val.Will Owen and Val end up together? The romantic comedy had its moments but it was boring most of the time.There was a feeling that some instances were contrived.Also,the most jokes weren't really that funny and the story wasn't even engaging as it was far from being well-written and well-developed. What's worse is that the ending came out of nowhere. Although I have a feeling that the movie tried to be an uncommon romcom,it unfortunately made the story somewhat preposterous and insult to the viewer's intelligence. Honestly,I felt that the romance between Owen and Val served as a misdirection as the viewer got engaged with the development of their relationship and yet it tries to surprise him at what going to happen in the end.And the worse did happen.At the conclusion of the movie, they don't it end up together due to some preposterous reason.When a writer uses misdirection instead of the plot device,then the viewer definitely feels cheated. What makes up for the poorly conceived story is the performances of the actors and actresses particularly Paul Schneider and Jennifer Westfeldt.I think that they did their best to make sure that the movie was still entertaining and far from being terrible.I still managed to give this a 7 out of 10 rating because of it.

DarkVulcan29 Did any of the actors put any thought while reading the script. Or they just had nothing better to do with there time. I thought How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days sure had its perks. This movie started out good, a good Hollywood setting, about the adventures and misadventures of romance in L.A. But as the film went on it just really got bad, and annoying to sit through. My thoughts on this is, who wrote this stupidity anyone dares to call it self a movie script. The characters seriously become very unsympathetic. Poppy Montgomery and Tori Spellings characters make this film very unwatchable. Not that they are bad actress's, they just deserve better then this.

Knuckle Like the title, everything in "50 Ways To Leave Your Lover" is swiped or cribbed from another, greater source.In this monstrosity, Paul Schneider, plays the main character Owen, a weedy author of pot boiler murderer biographies who aspires to become a legitimate, serious author. Far from being a sympathetic schlep who we can sympathize with for falling short of his dreams, Owen comes off as a petty, whiny, vindictive loser who does more to sabotage his own efforts than the supposedly cynical, money-is-everything city that surrounds him.Given an opportunity to enter the world of legitimate literature by writing the biography of a scientist, Owen for some reason feels the need to leave the city in the rudest way possible. Ostensibly, this is so he will never be tempted to come back but it comes off as a contrived way to allow our hero to scandalize, verbally brutalize, and otherwise act in a horribly anti-social way to everyone that he has been associating with over the past few years. But then, just as he has burned every single bridge imaginable, he meets and falls madly in love with the girl of his dreams. Oh, the humanity...Aside from some highly derivative dialog (you'll notice some Albert Brooks-esquire lines and deliveries in there) there is a scene involving lime Jell-O that will have you screaming, "That's EXACTLY like the lobster scene in "Annie Hall!" None of Owen's pranks, and the situations that arise from them, are particularly original, clever, or compelling and so when you come to the highly predictable end you are almost relieved. That is, ALMOST. A likelier scenario is that you will be left feeling gypped of your time and money, with your intelligence thoroughly insulted.

Andy (luciditynow) This film started out with a humorous, well-written screenplay that had potential, but this was wasted by the incompetent direction of its writer, Jordan Hawley. This film is Hawley's directorial debut and it couldn't be a better illustration of his complete lack of directorial confidence, creativity, or thoughtfulness. The dialogue is delivered in a forced, emotionally false way. There are many comedic cheap shots and the humor has a needlessly mean spirit. On a technical note, the cinematography is pretty good with some vibrant colors and a few of the supporting performances, notably Fred Willard's, are funny. However, the film panders to the lowest common denominator and follows a predictable formula. Despite its low- budget, this film has none of the wit and edge you would expect of an indie. It is "mainstream comedy" in the worst sense of the term.