Leslie Hope shines in this watchable if predictable TV movie. She is very convincing in her role as an architect who cannot find love until it turns up at her door, well next-door. There are many strands to the story, some are left unexplored while others take center stage; yet what holds it together is Hope's charming performance. She rises above the predictable material and never overacts. We can sympathize with her character. The story itself is obvious from the beginning but the tone is typically Canadian - low-key and unsentimental. This low-key tone is quite unusual for a Harlequin film, but it's part of its charm even though it feels like a soap opera most of the time.
9 Reviews
one thing or another
blanche-230 March 2013
Harlequin romance movies can be a fun escape, and "This Matter of Marriage" is no exception. From 1998, it stars Leslie Hope, Sherry Miller, Michael Nouri, and Rick Peters. Made in Canada.
Hope plays Hallie Mitchell, a 32-year-old with her own architectural design business which she runs with a partner, Donnalee (Sherry Miller, who looks like a blond Mary Tyler Moore). Donnalee wants to get married and have a family and goes the cyberdating route, probably pretty new in 1998, if I recall, and she encourages the independent, strong Hallie to try it.
For someone whom we hear so much about not having any action, Hallie has a lot of men around her. There's her neighbor (Rick Peters), unhappily separated from his wife, who is trying to solve a water pressure problem in the building and cope with an unhappy young daughter. There's her cyberdate. There's her old classmate from high school. In her professional life, she's trying to keep the business afloat while she pulls out all the stops to get a big contract.
This is a nice film, and young women will relate to the problems of a career, meeting crazies, being afraid of hurt, and a little bit of defensiveness.
There's not too much else to say about it. The acting is fine. Pleasant watching.
Hope plays Hallie Mitchell, a 32-year-old with her own architectural design business which she runs with a partner, Donnalee (Sherry Miller, who looks like a blond Mary Tyler Moore). Donnalee wants to get married and have a family and goes the cyberdating route, probably pretty new in 1998, if I recall, and she encourages the independent, strong Hallie to try it.
For someone whom we hear so much about not having any action, Hallie has a lot of men around her. There's her neighbor (Rick Peters), unhappily separated from his wife, who is trying to solve a water pressure problem in the building and cope with an unhappy young daughter. There's her cyberdate. There's her old classmate from high school. In her professional life, she's trying to keep the business afloat while she pulls out all the stops to get a big contract.
This is a nice film, and young women will relate to the problems of a career, meeting crazies, being afraid of hurt, and a little bit of defensiveness.
There's not too much else to say about it. The acting is fine. Pleasant watching.
errors in previous comment
vachona00729 July 2007
Above-average chick flick.
Please note: the facts in the previous summary had the main female characters mixed up.
Hallie (Leslie Hope) is the main female lead, with Donnalee (Sherry Miller) being the first one who tries video dating, which then spurs Hallie on to give it a try, but with less success.
Also, Hallie is the one who lives next door to the guy with the daughter, who is going through his own personal crisis.
The acting was pretty good, with the two ladies being the strongest. And, for the most part, there was a good deal of character development -- this was not the standard piece of fluff.
Please note: the facts in the previous summary had the main female characters mixed up.
Hallie (Leslie Hope) is the main female lead, with Donnalee (Sherry Miller) being the first one who tries video dating, which then spurs Hallie on to give it a try, but with less success.
Also, Hallie is the one who lives next door to the guy with the daughter, who is going through his own personal crisis.
The acting was pretty good, with the two ladies being the strongest. And, for the most part, there was a good deal of character development -- this was not the standard piece of fluff.
Love for the woman over thirty
inkblot119 November 2004
Donnalee (Sherry Miller) is an architect with a history of romantic disappointment. Her business partner, Hallie (Leslie Hope) is in the same predicament. When Hallie finds success through a video dating company, Donnalee feels the urge to give it a try as well. Meanwhile, the ladies land a big project for their business and Donnalee has a nice-looking but agitating man and his grumpy daughter move in next door. What does the future hold for these gals, professionally and romantically?
Donnalee and Hallie are job smart and love dummies. Miller and Hope are lovely to look at and portray the frustration of the single woman over 30 very, very well. But, if only they would use their brains! The script is just a tad beyond mediocrity and the costumes or art direction are not noteworthy, either. Yet, the film is still worth watching for those who love romance movies beyond all others. Hold a showing at a gathering of thirty-something women soon, if you can locate a copy.
Donnalee and Hallie are job smart and love dummies. Miller and Hope are lovely to look at and portray the frustration of the single woman over 30 very, very well. But, if only they would use their brains! The script is just a tad beyond mediocrity and the costumes or art direction are not noteworthy, either. Yet, the film is still worth watching for those who love romance movies beyond all others. Hold a showing at a gathering of thirty-something women soon, if you can locate a copy.
It was alright... give it a B-/C+,
tardusty22 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I used to be a SUPER ADDICTED romance novel reader back when I was 12 years old. (I'm 26 now) Naturally, I've became cynical through the years so I don't really read romance novels anymore. HOWEVER, a week ago I found out that about this Harlequin romance novels turned into TV movies. I was like WHAAAATT???? Where there hell was I and why didn't I find out about this sooner?! Of course I just had to watch ^_^ I guess I still love my memories of Harlequin romance novels! So what's my review (POSSIBLE SPOILERS) The pacing of the movie was good. There were no boring parts. As I was watching it, I was trying to imagine if I was actually reading the book - you know when the main characters are saying their lines, etc. The female heroine, Hallie, is very pretty. The hero who Hallie ends up with, Steve I think is his name, is cute in an outdoorsy rugged kinda way. All the actors were very good and acted well. Now as for the story, I didn't really like the story. I thought the hero, Steve, was pretty ordinary. I don't understand why Hallie didn't end up with her college crush and I agree with the other reviewer. Too many divorces. Ack! In my opinion, how they are able to go from one relationship to the other with a recent divorce is sorta ?? But overall, I'm glad I watched this movie. I don't know how similar the book and the movie is but if it is similar then obviously I just don't like the story and I probably wouldn't have bought the book. Now I plan to watch other Harlequin Romance turned to TV. I'm pretty excited because I liked the plot of Diamond Girl (which I bought) and I'm getting soon hopefully. I also got So hard to forget. As soon as I watch those two, I'll write a review.
So 90's
Jackbv12315 January 2019
Big hair!
This is an interesting mix of independent women and Rom/Com. Two women run an architectural firm and deep down they want it all, i.e. marriage and kids. There is nothing wrong with that concept, but in this movie the two concepts kept conflicting with one another. And the attitudes ran deep. Most of the men tended to think more in terms of possessing and the two women leaned toward the idea that they had to succeed totally on their own. It is interesting how it all works out even if it takes a bit of a leap to get there.
Most of the acting was OK with a blatant exception of Hallie's first online matchmaking date. For a bit part like that, can you at least make sure his weeping is a little realistic?
For a movie that was almost tame enough to be Hallmark, the shower scene was a bit out of place and the way it was shot, unnecessary.
This is an interesting mix of independent women and Rom/Com. Two women run an architectural firm and deep down they want it all, i.e. marriage and kids. There is nothing wrong with that concept, but in this movie the two concepts kept conflicting with one another. And the attitudes ran deep. Most of the men tended to think more in terms of possessing and the two women leaned toward the idea that they had to succeed totally on their own. It is interesting how it all works out even if it takes a bit of a leap to get there.
Most of the acting was OK with a blatant exception of Hallie's first online matchmaking date. For a bit part like that, can you at least make sure his weeping is a little realistic?
For a movie that was almost tame enough to be Hallmark, the shower scene was a bit out of place and the way it was shot, unnecessary.
Could be worse
caa82125 February 2008
When I was a youngster, there was a very popular, clever and funny disc jockey on one of our radio stations.
One holiday season, the newspaper did a feature story on him. Among its details, it described the upscale neighborhood in which he lived, including that it had some homes which had some of the most elaborate Christmas decorations in the city.
The DJ, however, in keeping with his weird sense of humor, had nothing on his house or lawn, except an electric sign which said, "See our exhibit across the street."
I'm tempted to say here, with regard to my feelings about this flick, "See the prior comment entered by 'don-249'."
I assume that Don is male also. He doesn't say how he came to watch this picture, obviously aimed (as the book genre on which it's based) at the ladies. In my case, it was a Monday morning where I was beat from a weekend which had a lot of unexpected, long work hours, instead of a trip we'd planned - so vegged-out for a couple of hours. This film was beginning, and like some of these Lifetime offerings, I'll watch for a bit, and then become fascinated enough to continue - "a few minutes at a time" - until all of a sudden, the two hours has elapsed.
Again, read "Don's" comments and ditto them, completely, for me.
I'd add that, of course, the leads are Canadian, the film was made in Canada, and the Lifetime Channel obviously is probably among of the top five or so elements supporting Canada's economy, with the network's movie-making there.
The lead gals were likable, but both of them, along with the neighbor (and most of the remainder of the cast) could best be summed-up a "pleasant, amiable doophuses" (or is it doophii?).
The most memorable aspect of the film, and the one facet worthy of a superlative, would be that the two neighbors' continuing "plumbing situation" has to be the lamest, most tiresome, contrived gimmick in the history of stage, film or print.
The best summation for the movie, for me, would be, "There are worse ways to spend a couple of hours."
One holiday season, the newspaper did a feature story on him. Among its details, it described the upscale neighborhood in which he lived, including that it had some homes which had some of the most elaborate Christmas decorations in the city.
The DJ, however, in keeping with his weird sense of humor, had nothing on his house or lawn, except an electric sign which said, "See our exhibit across the street."
I'm tempted to say here, with regard to my feelings about this flick, "See the prior comment entered by 'don-249'."
I assume that Don is male also. He doesn't say how he came to watch this picture, obviously aimed (as the book genre on which it's based) at the ladies. In my case, it was a Monday morning where I was beat from a weekend which had a lot of unexpected, long work hours, instead of a trip we'd planned - so vegged-out for a couple of hours. This film was beginning, and like some of these Lifetime offerings, I'll watch for a bit, and then become fascinated enough to continue - "a few minutes at a time" - until all of a sudden, the two hours has elapsed.
Again, read "Don's" comments and ditto them, completely, for me.
I'd add that, of course, the leads are Canadian, the film was made in Canada, and the Lifetime Channel obviously is probably among of the top five or so elements supporting Canada's economy, with the network's movie-making there.
The lead gals were likable, but both of them, along with the neighbor (and most of the remainder of the cast) could best be summed-up a "pleasant, amiable doophuses" (or is it doophii?).
The most memorable aspect of the film, and the one facet worthy of a superlative, would be that the two neighbors' continuing "plumbing situation" has to be the lamest, most tiresome, contrived gimmick in the history of stage, film or print.
The best summation for the movie, for me, would be, "There are worse ways to spend a couple of hours."
very poor chick flick
don-24920 August 2007
The acting was excellent but sabotaged by a poorly-written story. Too bad because the basic idea was good but the details stunk.
For example: They went to the well way too many times with the plumbing problem as an excuse to have them drop in on one another. How lame.
And the initial building proposal was absurd. There was nothing original there - just some towers. How did a proposal for an office building suddenly become a proposal for a community? But by far the worst was when the hero showed no interest whatsoever in her career ("So you're an architect. So how's the weather?") until later in the movie, he's basically drooling over her community design. It wasn't bad acting; it was bad writing.
It was apparent these two had nothing in common other than living next door. She had no experience with relationships. He had one experience - and didn't understand why it failed. And there wasn't even a glimmer of sexual passion between them. Prediction: One year max before they get divorced.
What a sad waste of good acting in a terrible movie.
For example: They went to the well way too many times with the plumbing problem as an excuse to have them drop in on one another. How lame.
And the initial building proposal was absurd. There was nothing original there - just some towers. How did a proposal for an office building suddenly become a proposal for a community? But by far the worst was when the hero showed no interest whatsoever in her career ("So you're an architect. So how's the weather?") until later in the movie, he's basically drooling over her community design. It wasn't bad acting; it was bad writing.
It was apparent these two had nothing in common other than living next door. She had no experience with relationships. He had one experience - and didn't understand why it failed. And there wasn't even a glimmer of sexual passion between them. Prediction: One year max before they get divorced.
What a sad waste of good acting in a terrible movie.
Excellent romance story
Jo165017 July 1999
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
