Greetings,
I think one of the hardest types of movie to make is one adapted from a book. Not only do you have to try and make a good movie for everyone, you have to try extra hard to please a built in and sometimes rabid fan base, which many books that get made into films have. Or you could just not try at all, which is what I feel happened in the case of One For the Money.
Here's some back story. One For the Money is the first book in a long-running series by Janet Evanovich centered around a New Jersey woman named Stephanie Plum. After she gets divorced and fired, she ends up working for her cousin as a bounty hunter, and then, hijinks ensue. I know that doesn't sound like much, but, honestly, I've read the books, and they're good. They're really fun and funny, and you get some action and thrills and romance in there, which, in the hands of a bad writer, probably wouldn't work out. But Janet Evanovich is a good writer, especially for books like this. Like I said, they're just books you read to have a really good time. So what the heck happened with the movie?
Before I get to the major problems, which somehow every viewer has managed to agree on, let me give you a quick synopsis of the plot. So, as I said, Stephanie gets a job working for her cousin as a bounty hunter, a job that is really out of her league. Her first assignment is to bring in a guy named Joe Morelli, a cop wanted for murder who skipped bail and also the guy who was her "first" at age seventeen. And, then, when he didn't call her back, she kind of hit him with her car. Water under the bridge, right? Anyway, if she brings him in, she gets fifty grand. A lot of crazy stuff happens, like witnesses turning up dead and explosions and whatnot, and even with the help Stephanie gets from some friendly hookers and a mysterious guy named Ranger, she still has a hard time of things while hoping to get her man. And that's basically it. I actually won't spoil the ending, but more so because I want you to read the book. Oh, and about that.
It's been a long, long while since I read the book, so, whilst I remember the main plot, some of the more detailed parts aren't as clear anymore. Still, I'd have to say that the movie was pretty close to what happened in the book. Normally, that's a good thing, but not here. When I say that movie events and book events were close, I mean that it's as though someone made a numbered list of what happened in the book and then checked things off while they were writing the script. You can't do that. Well, you can't do ONLY that. It is, of course, important to get things as close as possible, but it's more than that. The thing that makes the Plum book series so appealing is less the events of the story and more the way that the events are presented. These books have so much humor, the characters are so full of personality and that is really what people love about them. Whomever put this film together seemed to completely leave that out. They left out the joy of it all. As I watched it, I was thinking, "Okay, I remember this thing happening in the book, but only funnier and more entertaining." And that was how I felt about the whole movie. Now let's get to the major, MAJOR problem that most people have with this film - the casting.
So, Stephanie Plum has been this beloved character for nearly twenty years. People seriously love her. And why not? She's feisty and fun, and she has some edge, but also some vulnerabilities. She's kind of an every woman, who you totally want to be your best friend but who can also kick some butt for people in need if it's necessary. The bottom line is that she is an extremely likable character. So who would be the worst choice of an actress to play her? How about one of the most unlikable people in Hollywood? Not good. Well, that's what they did. I was so excited when I heard they were making this film, as were a lot of fans, and then we were shattered at the news that Katherine Heigl would be playing our protagonist. I hate to be mean, but, for real, no. Forget that a lot of people don't like her, forget that a lot of people think she is %100 overrated as an actress. She just does not fit the part. At all. Ever since that casting was announced, people were sounding off on who would have been better, and the consensus was...anybody. Seriously, though, the top choice seemed to be Sandra Bullock. Or perhaps, Marisa Tomei. Of course, some said they were too old for the part. Maybe, but that's just another reason why it sucks this thing had been in development for nearly a decade and a half! Also, if they would have started getting it seriously going seven years ago or so, my pick for the role would have been Brittany Murphy. I mean, she had the likability and talent, the edge and vulnerability. I just think she would have been perfect, and it probably would have out her back on the map as an A-list actress, perhaps, leading her life in a different direction. Sorry to be a downer, but it's how I feel. Anyway, all things considered, I would have enjoyed someone like Zooey Deschanel in the part. I think she could have pulled it off really well, and, though she may have a hater or two, it's nowhere near as bad as some other actresses.
Besides Stephanie, people tended to have issues with two other main parts in this. That of Joe Morelli and Ranger, played by Jason O'Mara and Daniel Sunjata, respectively. Whist I do like these guys and I think they've done some good acting otherwise, I've read the book. I know what Morelli and Ranger are supposed to look like. I know how they are supposed to be. These actors, again, just did not fit the roles. Honestly, if you were to read only the passages that describe their appearance, you might agree. Frankly, I would have gone with Joe Manganiello and Edgar Ramirez, but that's just me.
Okay, now even though I am on board with everyone who said these main characters were not portrayed accurately, I don't really feel that way about the rest of the cast. Actually, I think the secondary characters were cast quite well. At worst, they were okay. At best, they were nearly perfect. Some of the best were Patrick Fischer as Vinnie, John Leguizamo as Jimmy Alpha, and Sherry Shepherd as Lula. We even got a decent cameo by Fisher Stevens as Morty. They all did a really great job. And I didn't mind Debbie Reynolds as Grandma Mazur either, though most people said they would have preferred Betty White. Agree. Then again, these days, we pretty much prefer Betty White for everything. Kidding aside, even with these standout performances, the film could not be salvaged.
Interestingly enough, Janet Evanovich has given the movie a lot of praise. Now, with some authors, I'd think that would be all about the money. I mean, the more the film makes, the more the author makes. But considering how much of a genuinely nice and kind woman I've always seen Janet Evanovich to be, I couldn't imagine her bad mouthing this thing, no matter how much it deserves it.
So, yeah, I am not at all recommending that you watch this film. I am, however, recommending that you read the book and those that follow. Actually, if there is one good thing this movie has done, it has made us appreciate the books a lot more. And I hope that someday, mostly because Janet Evanovich, her characters, and her readers deserve better, they decide to make another film that can fix this mess. Or even a TV series or something. In the meantime, avoid this film, but enjoy the book.
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
