User reviews

The current score of this movie is 4 and unless you are a devoted fan of the books that's harsh. If you are in love with the twenty or so books you must have known less than two hours worth of movie will never compare, ever. I sympathize, beloved books are difficult to put on film, but this was actually rather amusing. On par with most romantic comedies and even better than some. It's not actually a romantic comedy though, an outlandish-girly-action-mystery-comedy is a more accurate description. The previews are representative of the film.

I will say the PG-13 rating was forced, mostly in the "language" category. Cable TV after 10 pm has more bite. An R rating with a few swearing felons would have been a bit more realistic, especially since the sexual situations are more than a 13-year-old should be watching and the storyline definitely adult. The writers must have sacrificed 10 swears for 3 bras and a shower curtain or something equally un-creative.

The comedy was there, sexual and self-deprecating and physical as advertised. On opening weekend (with the $6 groupon) the theater was full and the audience was seated throughout and laughing regularly.

Eavesdropping, the book fans were a little disappointed but mostly because they know so much more about the characters at this point. They wanted more Lula and Grandma and quirky little side scenes they remembered from the novel. Katherine Heigl was not loved as Stephanie Plum, but not hated enough to curse. Expectations were met.

I will agree it wasn't worth $11.25, but a lot of movies aren't. As a matinée or a DVD, go for it.

Maybe it's because I find Katherine Heigl a woman so radiantly lovely I can't get overly concerned about her reputation for being a Satanic wart-hog diva.

I can't understand why the hostility toward One for the Money, wherein Heigl is newbie skip tracer Stephanie Plum.

I can't comprehend why a movie that has some decent soul, a good amount of humor, and captures the essence of Janet Evanovich's heroine and cast of characters is so reviled.

I can tell you that I've read a few of Evanovich's Plum books, and I didn't have trouble blending what I saw in my mind's eye with the film-maker's vision.

Since I am, at heart, a pig, I also can imagine Heigl cuffed to her shower curtain rod and it's an R-rated movie.

Sudsy!

Decent and enjoyable. She played a nice role and enjoyable to look at...

I wanted to love "One for the Money", and I should have. It had fantastic source material, a writer from one of my favorite shows ("Nurse Jackie"), and an actress from what used to be one of my favorite shows ("Grey's Anatomy"), but this film could not have been any more disastrous. There was a movie that I hated a few years ago called "The Bounty Hunter", with Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler. I felt like that film was as contrived as could be, and was unfunny, unromantic and incredibly unconvincing. I hate to say that "One for the Money fell into that same ball park.

One of the reasons why I love the book, "One for the Money", by Janet Evanovich is because its heart, Stephanie Plum was an unapologetic badass, profane and saucy. I always pictured someone like Sandra Bullock playing the lead role, a born-and-raised Jersey girl who was down on her luck, who finds her inner badass through a series of misadventures, but ultimately comes out on top in the end.

I don't necessarily blame Katherine Heigl for ruining this movie. She did the best she could, even though her Jersey accent is laughably bad. She was simply miscast. She should have never discontinued her work on "Grey's Anatomy, because if these are the kinds of roles she's getting, her future's only going to get worse.

Julie Ann Robinson ("The Last Song") directed, who I blame for the movie's obviously unclear vision. You get the idea that she didn't know what she wanted this movie to be. Maybe she thought that after all of the books that had been written, fans don't remember the first chapter of the franchise. Did she and the rest of the filmmakers intend this to be a film franchise as well? You get the idea that no one really cared, given the film's messy ending and sitcom-y writing.

Liz Brixius (Nurse Jackie), Karen McCullah Lutz (Legally Blonde) and Kristen Smith (The Ugly Truth) are responsible for the travesty of a screenplay. Women ARE funny. There have been so many funny and smart movies that had primarily female writers, actors and directors, so why does this film seem misogynist? It's a mixed message, and an implication that I really don't like. Their version of Stephanie Plum is an idiot. She's not a saucy badass, like the one I loved in the books. Her profanity is turned down, too, because of the meaningless desire that the filmmakers must have had to get a PG-13 rating. Why would kids want to see this movie? Oh, of course...Katherine Heigl's inevitable "sideboob".

I enjoy the work of Liz Brixius, considering that she is the creator of one of my favorite shows, "Nurse Jackie". She has shown over the years that she knows how to properly illustrate complicated characters. She is not beyond character development, and making characters fully realized...so what went wrong here? Why didn't she scream at the other two writers, "what the hell are you doing?!"

I can only imagine how bad true fans of the books felt about this travesty. There are eighteen Stephanie Plum novels, plus short stories, novellas and crossovers. People clearly like this character, and there have got to be a bunch of true fans out there. The first book was written in 1994, and there was talk of a movie then. It had been in development hell since then, and it's a shame to say that it probably should have stayed there.

Grade: D-

Very enjoyable light entertainment. A crime story that revolves around a clueless but persistent woman. The crime itself isn't all that important, and the focus is not on the narrative drive forward (which is good because it's kinda predictable). The focus is instead on the character of the female lead. Oddly, it's not about her growing as a character, or even about her getting more and more confident about her chosen line of work. It's not even about proving herself to everyone that she is capable.

The story is about persistence, about how this character is somehow ideally suited for this situation, but just lacks the knowledge to be truly successful.

If this wasn't such a light and airy movie, I would suspect that it was a metaphor for living in the age of the Internet, where knowledge is a commodity and anyone who has access to specific areas of knowledge can be an expert. Alas, it's a little less than that.

Unfortunately for the movie, the lack of character depth and the cumbersome box-like production make it seem very TV-ish. Like this was the pilot episode of a series. It also suffers from useless-narrator syndrome. I didn't read the book, but I suspect the source material may share some of the blame for that via lazy exposition.

Speaking from a guy's point of view about what is essentially a chick movie, it doesn't hurt that Heigl is hot, has a nice smile, and can handle a gun. And is a pretty good actress, sure, yeah... that. The casting could have been a lot worse. I would watch Heigl in just about anything if she stayed brunette.

If you haven't read the book you MIGHT like the movie. If you've read and loved the books this movie leaves a lot to be desired.

I suppose the MAIN part of the plot is the same but the details are scrambled or in some cases completely left out. Maybe I'm in the minority but a lot of the really funny stuff in the book was in the details and these parts got lost in the translation to the big screen. There was nothing too extreme in the book that might not have fit in the PG-13 rating so why did they change so many things? It was like the added more dialog in places and took out the fun and exciting stuff. Time shouldn't have been the reason either because the movie ran only an hour and a half - if they'd gone for two they could have had a much better (and closer to the book) adaptation.

I didn't care for the casting. Lula, Connie, and Vinnie matched the book descriptions of the characters fairly well but everyone else was off. It was like the casting director didn't read the book.

I'm disappointed because I had high hopes for the movie. I won't be buying the DVD or going to any sequels. Really, I think they'd have been better off to cast all unknowns that FITTED the characters and stuck to the plot from the book - it would have had a better shot.

This adaptation of Janet Evanivich's book is well done and a lot of fun. Katherine Heigl is excellent in the role of Stephanie Plum. Apparently the author considered Katherine perfect for this role after seeing her in another movie. I'm so glad it was directed by a woman and combines the chick flick aspect with the mystery/bounty hunter storyline. Women's dates will be well rewarded, by Heigl's charm and beauty, for being along for the ride.

Heigl proves again what she showed in her television work in Grey's Anatomy and Roswell, that she's an excellent and versatile actress. She displays the vulnerability combined with toughness and a certain likable gullibility that are exactly as the book portrays the main character.

The movie is only 91 minutes long. Since the book and the movie depend more on the fun of getting to know the characters, including the first-person narrator, Stephanie Plum, it would have been so easy, and would have made it much better IMO, to include more scenes with the family, especially Grandma Mazur (Debbie Reynolds!), and with Lula (Sherri Shepherd is also wonderful). As it is, the "action" plot takes over in the second half, and it left me wishing for more of the fun character interactions.

Plum, Morelli and Ranger are really well portrayed and quite a lot like I imagined them while reading the book. This is light entertainment with a few quirks and unpredictable points of view, like the book, and overall a very enjoyable hour and a half.

My daughter and I have been Stephanie fans since the beginning, although we both have the admit the last (3) books have been rather ho hum - I have to presume the author has run out of story lines. My daughter had seen the trailers and I had not- she told me the characters would disappoint me- I did not believe her.

This is one of the only movies I was ready to leave before it was finished. I agree with another reviewer that Sandra Bullock would have been more believable for Stephanie- nothing against Katherine. From Grandma Mazur to Ranger - none of these were what I pictured when I read the series- and what is this about, promoting Eddie suddenly from street cop, a chunky, donut loving patrol officer(which he loves) to LT, WHY? I always pictured Grandma as a little blue haired lady- much like the adorable matriarch on the Golden Girls. In my opinion- Debbie Reynolds did not fit the bill at all. Very disappointed- As my grandson would say" we don't need to buy this one grandma".

I have never read the books this came from and I don't really care as this is a film review, not a "how close to the book review." I love Katerine Heigl when she does comedy as her facial expressions are hilarious. This is a fun movie and a good entertainment. Debbie Reynolds nails her role too as the grandmother and you really want to see more of her in this. I only wish that this became a franchise movie series as I want to see a sequel .

First of I just learned that this film was based on a novel, and that it's the first of like 23 stories about this woman bountyhunter. So my viewpoint is based on the film, and nothing else.

I had a lot of fun with this one. It reminded me of an other character from an entirely different novel series. There the tough girl is called Anita Blake and she is a vampire hunter. Same way she starts clumsy and comes out on top in a manly (albeit fantastic) occupation. She handles guns, she gets into rough situations. I'm a man, but it's still fun seeing a woman being tough. And similarly to Anita Blake, this girl stays a woman while being though.

All the other characters were great too, my favourite was Ranger I guess, I liked the professional attitude.

To all those who think it's a bad film because it's not like the novels: I haven't read those books, but I was entertained with this film. I may even read into those books, so I guess the film reached it's goal.

This was Debbie Reynolds' last movie but a waste of great talent including Louis Mustillo and many others.

It is alright for something running in the background or while you are reading, but not a film as the main entertainment.

I give it a 6 for the cast and, as I said, Debbie's last movie, out of respect.

The trailer would remind you of the forgettable The Bounty Hunter starring Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston with the former being the titular character whose target happens to be his ex-wife, having them bicker and run from various misadventures together. Reverse the roles in order to have a female bounty hunter going after an ex-boyfriend, and the stage is set for more of the same, no? Not quite. One for the Money has a lot more going for it, predominantly being a film written by and made by females for its intended audience, and being an engaging flick chick that wonderfully encapsulates a whodunnit.

Katherine Heigl seems to be on a successful roll on celluloid, and is in her element here in this romantic action adventure comedy as lead character Stephanie Plum, a rookie bounty hunter drawn to the profession only because she's desperate for a job to pay off impending bills. An ex-lingerie model, we follow her transition from girly girl to a somewhat tough cookie ready to hold her own in her cousin's business, where an added incentive is to hunt down and bring in her ex-boyfriend Joe Morelli (Jason O'Mara), a cop wanted for the gunning down an unarmed felon.

Yes one would expect the usual laughs coming from her inexperience in a new field, her constantly being outwitted by slier opponents in the big bad town of Trenton, New Jersey, and having that pitch perfect sexual charisma with her mark since they share a common romantic history before in their youths. But to my surprise One for the Money has a little bit more depth in its story than I would have imagined, playing out like a mystery with a crime at hand to solve, with Stephanie stumbling her way from fact to fact, interacting with various interesting caricatures who don't bore, and plays out exactly like an 80s private detective film of old in spirit.

Written by Stacy Sherman, Karen Ray and Liz Brixius off the well received novel of the same name by Janet Evanovich, this probably accounts for a lot of female-centric focus on elements in the storyline, as well as director Julie Anne Robinson's ability to center this very much like a chick flick, wrapped around an old fashioned whodunnit. I mean, only in a story with an attractive female protagonist would you have other females in the story either old, or matronly, and having not one but two hunks - Morelli and fellow alpha-male bounty hunter Ranger (Daniel Sunjata) - involved at the crossroads of her life. Plenty of characterization goes into the lead character of Stephanie Plum, and Heigl brings a certain sass to the role, with little street smarts that cover for her lack of experience in the field.

Granted the mystery doesn't quite play out with that kind of tension and suspense as one would expect from a true blur genre film, but it does enough with its slight touch and managed to keep interest afloat. While there are 18 novels to date in the series of Stephanie Plum's adventures in bounty hunting, with each novel title starting with a number / numerically related, reality is that any subsequent film will have to rely on how much this makes at the box office. My bet is that it'll likely be something quite modest with a potential of 17 more films made only if Heigl wants to be stereotyped (if not already) or typecast. Still, One for the Money sits above average on the entertainment scale, and can be recommended fare if you'd give it a chance.

Production values, script and acting were abysmal. Surely, the only reason Katherine Heigl made this movie is "For the Money". Despite all this it is mildly amusing which warrants a 3 instead of a 1 which this movie really deserves. There is a reason why Jason O'Mara is a career TV actor and, sadly, he kept the performance at that level as did Heigl. As much as I wanted to like this movie (being a fan of Heigl and Leguizamo), this would have failed as a bad made for TV movie. Heigl's performance reminds me of Rebecca DiMornay after Risky Business and Theresa Russell after Black Widow. THAT paints a bad picture for Heigl. Next time, wait for a good product and a great co-star. Don't follow the lead of DiMornay and Russell.

Katherine Heighl and Jason Mara are so great! I love Patrick Flescher even though he's barely in it. Bounty Hunter type movies are so good/thrilling I always enjoy the adventure of trying to get a suspect. I've seen this movie years ago I forgot how much fun it is and glossy.

I will preface this by saying I am an avid reader of these books, but I also recognize that production companies have liberties to change some of the content when they buy the film rights for any type of book series. HOWEVER, we all know that there are production companies and writing teams out there that have done a much better, much more respectful job at translating a story from book to screen. One that comes to mind is Outlander. This movie was a mess. I didn't mind Heigl as Stephanie, I didn't mind that they clearly used Pittsburgh instead of Jersey, what I did mind was the major deviations they took with the script and with character casting. Some of the casting they got spot on, some it was so bad it makes me shake my head and wonder if the casting agents ever spoke with Evanovich (the author) or read any of the books, all of which gave very, very descriptive pictures of the characters. Heigl, eh, she was OK, her accent sucked, but I can handle it. One thing that irked me was the clothes they put her in in several scenes. Those who have read the books know they were out of character for Stephanie and distract from what was going on in the scene. Vinnie, Connie, and Lula? Spot on, great job. Grandma Mazur? As much as I love Debbie Reynolds, she is not at all Grandma Mazur, she is regular described in the book as not aging well with a body like a soup chicken. She's feisty, over the top, and really old. Now, in spite of all of those not so flattering characteristics, I think Cloris Leachman would have been much better. Another not so great casting choice was Daniel Sunjata. He wasn't the worst guy who could have been picked for Ranger, but there were much better choices. Ranger is a former Army Special Forces Cuban American in his early to mid thirties. He's shorter than Morrelli and some times has long hair pulled back in a pony tail. He barely says anything except Babe, exudes sexiness, he's mysterious and dangerous, and is the best bond enforcement agent. Stephanie secretly thinks he's Batman. Where was ANY of that in the movie? He talked away too much and Sunjata didn't use an accent. The Jersey/Cuban accent was part of the sexiness about him. Adam Rodriguez would have been better. The casting choice that partly ruined the movie was the guy they cast for Morrelli. They chose Jason O'Mara a born and raised Irishman to play the Italian of all Italian Stallions (book reference) Joseph Morrelli. Morrelli is a Trenton cop, mostly reformed bad boy/womanizer. He's not allowed to wear a uniform on the job because he would look like a casino pit boss. He's over 6 feet tall, has dark eyes, classic Italian good looks, and dark wavy hair. Nothing about O'Mara remotely resembled or was able to translate to be Morrelli. Although they did remember a slightly obscure detail: Morrelli's tattoo from his Navy days. A much better choice, Joe Manganiello. He actually is Italian American. We all know he's drop dead sexy and can act as seen in multiple films/TV shows. The other part that made it so terrible is that they took out a lot of the more violent parts of the plot and added in other elements that were supposed to be funny and weren't. I watched an interview with Janet Evanovich and she said they did this to appeal to a greater audience. That was a bad decision. The dialogue sucked. Many of the lines sounded like they were wrote by middle school students. The movie plot focused a lot on one aspect of the relationships that is not so heavily used in the book. I realize that with films there is a great deal that has to be compacted to fit in about 90 minutes, but these changes were again disrespectful to the source material and the characters. Outlander is another adapted book to screen series that has has a huge following for the books and now the show. It has deviations from the books, but they do not stray so far from the source material that you are left scratching your heads. It all works beautifully. It is VERY popular. However, it's on Starz which gives it the space and the rating room that it needs to be properly adapted from the books. Furthermore, one of the key scenes was severely watered down to where the impact of the violence is not as devastating as it needed to be. I assume this was watered down to get the PG-13 rating and again appeal to a wider audience under the umbrella of light, popcorn romantic comedies. Evanovich's books are funny, they don't go too deep, but they were raunchier, more violent, and smarter than what this disaster of a film was. I gladly have paid money to watch a rated r Stephanie Plum movie and I'm sure that a lot of other Plum fans would too. The movie bombed and no surprise. Hopefully, Netflix or HBO/Starz/Showtime kind of channels will pick it up and give it the room and the time that it needs to be as awesome as the books are.

My mother, sister and I are huge fans of the Stephanie Plum book series and have been counting down the days until opening night. Usually I try to prepare myself for movies that were adapted from my favorite books, I always tell myself, its not going to be as good as the book, books express things movies cant & vice versa, but I will admit I went into this with no pep talk. The books are great, not deeply emotional just funny & really entertaining. It all literally takes place in a small section of jersey, no crazy special effects, just funny lines & funny situations. I could not have prepared myself for the disaster that I paid 11 (yeah thats right) dollars for. What happened to the funny dialogue, situations & over the top characters that make the book funny?? The only person that was cast correctly was Vinny. Katherine H did a good job with what she was given. Not one person sounded or looked like they were actually from Jersey!!! and the music, don't even get me started....it sounded like and old porn soundtrack!! I could continue on with my list of complaints, but Im limited to 1000 words. This movie just fails across the board! Save your cash and watch, if you must, when it comes out on TV, which will be really soon, i bet.