In Defense of "Bad" Movies: One for the Money

One for the money, two for the show.  Heigl's underrated and deserves another go!

In this recurring feature, I'll be discussing films that received negative critical and audience reaction and explain why I feel they deserve a second chance.  I won't likely be claiming any of these films as true masterpieces or anything, but rather as enjoyable works of entertainment if taken for what they are and not what people want them to be.

I'll start off with a very recent critical and commercial bomb: Lionsgate's One for the Money.  Based on the first entry in Janet Evanovich's wildly popular series about amateur bounty hunter Stephanie Plum, the film seemed an ideal beginning to a new summer franchise for women, to offset the vast number of male-oriented action blockbusters that usually occupy the timeframe.  The plot concerns New Jersey native Stephanie Plum (Katherine Heigl), recently fired from her job as a lingerie buyer for Macy's in Newark, moving back to Trenton to try and get a grip on her life.  Visiting her sleazy cousin Vinnie's (Patrick Fischler) bail bonds office in the hopes of obtaining a temporary filing job, office manager Connie Rossoli (Ana Reeder) instead persuades her to fill in as a bounty hunter while regular skip chaser Morty Byers (Fischer Stevens) is on medical leave.  Initially planning to take on some simple civil cases, Stephanie is shocked to find that an old flame, Joseph Morelli (Jason O'Mara), is wanted for murder on a $500,000 bond, meaning she'd get $50,000 if she brought him in.  Considering that Joe humped and dumped her back in high school, she decides bringing him in would be a perfect act of revenge in addition to curing her financial woes.  Receiving training from primo bounty hunter Ranger (Daniel Sunjata), and obtaining some useful clues from a friendly hooker named Lula (Sherri Shepherd), Stephanie soon learns there's more to the case than meets the eye, and becomes just as concerned at proving Joe's innocence as she is with nabbing the money.

First published in 1994, One for the Money proved a tremendous success for author Janet Evanovich, a former romance novelist, who has since penned 18 Plum novels (the 19th is due in November this year), 4 Plum novellas, and several other series to boot.  The material has long had the elements Hollywood loves to film: action, romance, comedy, sex, crime and thriller all rolled into one delightful package, yet for some reason they waited 17 years before acting on it.  Though Evanovich sold the film rights to the book before it was even published, it continued to linger in development hell.  A pilot for a proposed TV series was done in 2002, featuring Lynn Collins (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) as Stephanie, but the show wasn't picked up.  One insider claims it was dreadful.  Finally, in 2010, producers Sidney Kimmel and Wendy Finerman, working with a script by Liz Brixius, were able to get the film greenlit at long last.      

Originally slated for a July 2011 release, Lionsgate abruptly delayed the opening to January 2012, hinting that executives feared critical backlash and financial losses on the final product.  Thus the film opened with little fanfare and much derision in the bleak midwinter, barely recouping its $40 million budget and putting a final nail in the coffin for a Stephanie Plum film franchise anytime soon.

Holding a surprising and arguably unfair 2% "rotten" raiting on Rotten Tomatoes, almost nobody had anything nice to say about the film.  The script and direction received universal denounciation, and star Katherine Heigl fared little better.  The announcement of Heigl's casting in 2010 was a shock to most people, as she apparently hadn't made it on to many "Stephanie Plum dream cast" lists.  While several reviewers felt she was the best thing about the film (and that she deserved better material), most felt she was terribly miscast and that her Jersey "accent" was awful.  This translated into audience reaction as well.  Heigl's confident assertion that "I will be your vision of Stephanie Plum" seems to have backfired horribly, and was perhaps spoken in haste by an actress who just felt extremely passionate about her new project.

One of the few people who was pleased with Heigl, and the whole film for that matter, was Janet Evanovich.  Janet sang the film's praises the moment she saw it, and even did several joint interviews with Heigl to promote it.  Calling Heigl "the perfect Stephanie Plum", she declared that the film was an improvement on her novel and that it gave her a whole new perspective on the world she created.  Yet in spite of her endorsement, many fans were unimpressed with the final product, refusing to translate what was onscreen to the visions they had in their head, while non readers for the most part just seemed bored.  What exactly went wrong?  If the author could accept this interpretation of her work, why couldn't everyone else?

For the moviegoing public in general, not just the book readers, there was one obvious drawback that hurt this film even before it began shooting: a little 2010 comedy called The Bounty Hunter.  Starring Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler, the film was not well received and seemed to sour the public on bounty hunter stories, which are more prevalent in fiction nowadays than they were in 1994.  Perhaps had the movie been made 15 years ago when it was newer and fresher, One for the Money may have made more of an impact.  Perhaps the timing was not right for all to appreciate the film on its own merits, given the competition, and hopefully its life on TV and home video will reveal its many charms over time.  But for those who have their minds made up on who these characters are, there's probably no adaptation that could appease them.

To be fair, 17 years is a fair amount of time for long-term readers to nail a definite image of these characters in their heads.  Even if the chosen cast matches the general template of character descriptions given in the book, die-hard readers will be critical of even the smallest difference.  In the book, Stephanie Plum has curly brown hair, fair skin, good fashion sense, a nice figure, and a plucky attitude that disguises some of her insecurities and apprehension.  As Plum, Katherine Heigl has curly brown hair (a very convincing wig), fair skin, GREAT fashion sense, a nice figure, and displays a plucky attitude that disguises some of the characters insecurities and apprehension.  So the question in my mind is, what exactly did she do wrong?  Did she look exactly like the character as pictured in my head?  No.  In fact, she fit the description of the book character better than I had ever pictured her.  Evanovich said that she will be picturing Heigl from now on when writing the character, and I will be picturing Heigl in the part from now on as well.  After viewing her performance, I honestly can't imagine another actress out there I'd rather see do the role. 

Part of the reaction may have less to do with her performance and more to do with Katherine Heigl being one of the least popular actresses in Hollywood at the moment.  I find the backlash against her very surprising and quite unfair.  So she spoke her mind about a few things and some feelings got hurt, big deal!  She's a talented actress who seems like a person you'd enjoy spending time with, and in my eye she imbibes Stephanie with these qualities as well.  True, her movies on the whole have not been stellar choices that ideally display her full talent, and a number of people probably had the perception that this was just another Heigl "rom-com".  While it may have similarities to some of her other roles, if you take her performance for what it is without any outside association (and I've seen very little of her work), she's perfect.  I can't vouch for the accuracy of the accent that so many people criticised, but Janet said she did a good job with it so that's good enough for me.  I think most people also have an exaggerated view of what a "Joisey" accent really is, and I commend Heigl for keeping it minimal and not attempting to overdo anything.

The rest of the cast fairs quite well too, in my opinion.  Jason O'Mara, despite being Irish instead of Italian, infuses Morelli with sexual energy and much testosterone, and he and Heigl work well together, in spite of the press feeling otherwise.  With the exception of Debbie Reynolds, in a delightful cameo as Stephanie's eccentric grandmother, the film has few big names.  A lot of faces you may recognize from television, but no marquee headliners.  Frankly, I found it quite refreshing to see a film that was cast with actors the creative team felt suited the characters, and not stuffed with A-listers just for the sake of luring in crowds to an unsure property.  Some found them bland, but I found them fun and engaging, and most gave me new faces to put to the characters when I read the books from now on.       

Director Julie Ann Robinson has been criticised for not nailing down a definite tone for the film, which does shift between comedy and action and crime quite rapidly.  Many people seem to be locked in to "conventional" scripting techniques, and anything that deviates from the strict 3 act structure is wrong.  Janet's books intertwine all of those tones and so does the film.  While it's true that the mystery portion doesn't quite have the suspense or urgency it needs, it's certainly serviceable, and makes for a decent backdrop for this debut outing. 

Heigl also provides some narrative voiceover, with some of the prose from the novel ported over to help tell the story through Stephanie's eyes.  The voiceover was not a part of the original cut, as confirmed by Heigl, and those lines were obviously contributed by Stacy Sherman and Karen Ray, the two scribes credited before Brixius and therefore responsible for rewrites.  The narration is surprisingly effective most of the time, but gets a bit redundant towards the end.  Still, it's a nice touch that makes it a very personal story.

The cinematography and editing, while not awe inspiring, do what they need to do to tell the story.  It's a rather low key story and it's shot in a low key way, but it looks great for what it needs to be.  While parts of the story may be a tad underwhelming for some audiences, it's nice to see a film that doesn't resort to extremes the way so many Hollywood movies do.  It plants itself firmly in the middle and remains solid because of it.

Is One for the Money groundbreaking cinema?  Hardly.  Is it really as bad as everyone says?  Not at all.  Is it a fair adaptation of a popular novel that retains the spirit of the story while adding a new perspective? Absolutely!  I hope its life on home video and television will show people that there's a lot to be enjoyed from this little outing.  Clocking in at a scant 91 minutes (the credits actually start to role at the 85 minute mark) it's fun, tight and really not much of a time commitment for those who are hesitant about sitting all the way through it.  Some fans may be just as content to rely on their original book images, and if so I say go for it.  But don't spoil it for those who do enjoy alternate interpretations.  Just because it isn't done your way doesn't mean it's necessarily the wrong way.  If the author of the books can set aside her original vision for it and allow this new one to enhance her experience of enjoying these stories, I don't see why we all can't make the effort.  It's a shame the cast won't likely have the opportunity to film the next installment, Two for the Dough, as the characters become more defined as the series progresses and these actors could do a lot with the material.  Perhaps with a more film inclined director at the helm the series could easily have a longer life ahead of it, but Hollywood isn't big on second chances at the moment, especially if it's an expensive gamble, as any sequel to this film would unfortunately be.  I am grateful, at least, that we have one such Plum to enjoy for now.

You may have been told that it's a rotten plum, but I encourage you to take a bite out of it.  It's much tastier than you might think.