Movie Review - Love, Guaranteed

Mark Steven Johnson is a filmmaker who started out mostly as a screenwriter. His first feature script, which got produced, probably remains his best, that of Grumpy Old Men (1993), which he made before he turned 30. He eventually made the switch to directing in the late 90's. His two biggest projects as director were Daredevil (2003) with Ben Affleck and Ghost Rider (2007) with Nicolas Cage. He's made a handful of films since then, but the most comparable would probably be When in Rome (2010), a romantic comedy with a quirky, if not magical premise. The premise here isn't magical but arguably can't be called any less quirky or ridiculous. The idea is that a man is suing the corporation behind a dating app that guarantees a user will find love in 1,000 different dating partners or less. It's not clear if it's a case against false advertising or breach of contract, presumably the latter.

Johnson didn't write the script here. Elizabeth Hackett and Hilary Galanoy wrote this feature. The writing pair also wrote the rom-com, Falling Inn Love (2019). Hackett and Galanoy though don't seem all that interested in the legal aspects. Distinguishing between false advertising and breach of contract is something they clearly had no interest in doing. On the corporate side, it seems unlikely that the company's legal department wouldn't have come up with a contingency in case someone decided to sue them on these terms that wouldn't already be in whatever contract or language that established the terms of the app. Most apps have "terms of service" or "terms of use" agreements, which are long, complex and detailed in order to protect from these kinds of lawsuits, but I suppose we're supposed to accept the company as not being that attuned.

Rachel Leigh Cook (Perception and She's All That) stars as Susan Whitaker, a lawyer in Seattle who has her own practice, which consists of just herself, an accountant and a paralegal. Her small office is drowning in bills. She's not bringing in a lot of work, so she's strapped for cash. She drives an old Volkswagen with a broken door. She lives in a duplex home next door to her pregnant sister. She pays rent to her sister's husband. She occasionally babysits her nephew, but she's in danger of losing her business.

Damon Wayans Jr. (Happy Endings and New Girl) co-stars as Nick Evans, a man who is said to be an ex-professional athlete who now works at a physical rehabilitation facility. He's handsome, charming and funny, but he comes to Susan's firm to sue a dating app because it promised that he would fall in love in 1,000 different dates or less. He comes to her after he only has a dozen or so to go before 1,000. There's some question of whether or not this is a frivolous lawsuit or if Nick is doing this because he's trying to exploit a loophole. If so, it would mean that he's intentionally not looking for love, but just a payday from a huge corporation. Even though it's never said, from the way he dresses and the expensive-appearing apartment in which he lives, it seems as if he isn't doing this for the money.

However, the concept does present a fairly interesting legal battle, one that you could see playing out in a very entertaining way, like an episode of Ally McBeal on FOX or The Good Wife on CBS. However, the film doesn't even get into the court room until almost 70 minutes into it with less than 20 minutes left. It's a romantic comedy, so obviously the goal is to see Susan and Nick fall in love, even though it's highly inappropriate for a lawyer to date her client. But, when you put this idea of a guy who has gone through 1,000 women all of a sudden falling for a workaholic who never dates, it could seem romantic, as if she's the diamond in the rough, but the film never makes the case as to why Nick rejected all of those women.

Obviously, the film would have to become a multi-season TV series, if it really wanted to take the time to show or explain what was it about the 1,000 women that didn't interest him. The film tries to show or explain, but what we learn is that he dismisses the women he's dated after only one date. He dismisses them because of something awkward or quirky they did on that first date. Based on that one thing, that's supposed to define those women as bad fits for him or unlikely candidates for him to love. The obvious question that is never asked is how can he definitively say that he doesn't love them after only one date. Allegedly, he never goes out on a second date with any of these women. For him to think he can judge a person based on just one date is the definition of superficial. It also defies what we see as Nick's love for Susan or her love for him.

The first day that the two met, Nick followed Susan in a way that made her feel uncomfortable. If they had been how she felt on their first date, she would probably move on and never see him again. It was only because of the case that they were then forced to interact with each other again several times. It allowed for her initial impression of him to change and for her to learn things about him that she didn't know or didn't assume during their initial encounter. I'm sure it was vice-versa for him unless he claims that he was in love with her from the first moment he saw her, which he never claimed. If that was the case, then why would he need to date someone if he knew he loved them simply by looking at them once and not even talking to them?

The point is that you can't know if you love someone based on only one date, which this film essentially proves but never truly acknowledges because if it did, it would have to acknowledge that Nick potentially passed over love hundreds of times because of his superficial judgements of all of those women.

The film is also bloodless in that there are other obvious questions that never get explored. We get no insight into Nick's personal life beyond the fact that he seems to spend every free moment going on these dates. We have no clue what his family thinks about what he's doing or what any of his friends think. The only other person besides Susan with whom we see Nick interact is a patient at the rehab facility who is old enough to be his father but who isn't. It makes you wonder if Nick has any male friends his own age. Even if he doesn't, he should have some family who can give objective or even subjective perspective to his situation. Susan has a sister and even friends/co-workers who provide commentary to her situation, but Nick doesn't.

Nick's lack of a regular social circle felt like a contrivance in order to force this plot because if Nick had friends or family members, some of them might have interjected after his 500th date or so. I can't imagine that he would have hidden what he was doing from his friends or family, so where were they? Another thing, going back to this film being bloodless, meaning also lacking in passion, is Nick claims to only have had one date each with these thousand women. Unless he's been having one night stands here and there, it means he hasn't had much of a sex life for the two years or so he's been doing this. He could be furiously masturbating, but this bloodless and passion-free film doesn't appear to have the guts to make that joke.

Rated TV-PG.
Running Time: 1 hr. and 31 mins.

Available on Netflix.