dr_wolfi_d I found the intrinsic denouement, i.e. Liam's/Gabriel August's revealing his true identity, came WAY TOO LATE, and when it came, it turned into utter disappointment. Gabriel August had several opportunities and may I say weakly and meekly eschewed each of them -- and when he finally did reveal himself, it turned into a disaster. The viewer had been looking forward to the resolution for quite some time, and when it finally did occur, it was not a joyous moment of surprise but a painful-to-watch disintegration, a falling apart of the plot. I imagine the screenwriter, a Hanz Wasserburger, struggled to write a script that could hold suspense for 1 hr 26 min. The movie held my suspense for quite a while, but one can only be patient that long, AND THEN one is rewarded with disappointment.

Mo Zi I have a question: which year is now? Is it 1950? 1800 or 2016? It's not a start of a cinema. But in this movie actors simply don't know how to act. Good idea was turned down by terrible acting. Dylan Bruce looks scared all the time, afraid of something or somebody. I'm not convinced with such low acting. Charles S. Dutton also acts like in school drama - shy and scared. What's going on? Overall - boring, way too boring. The movie could be splendid but actors playing is weak. While watching the only thought was in mind: fake fake fake. Such movies you forget after less than an hour... I don't recommend to waist time. Giving 2 stars only for the theme - books.

surangaf I only gave it 5/10, judging it as a general movie. But as a romantic comedy it scores much higher.It ticks off all the usual romantic comedy plot points, very competently and satisfyingly. Man meets woman, falls in love, unwilling concealments leads to misunderstandings and obstacles, everything gets worked out at end with help of friends and love, there are tears. Though thankfully there is no villain.It has likable (but not perfect) clean cut white characters, with token minority characters. It is shot in tourist brochure backgrounds.It stays within the bounds of modern western politically correct 'liberal' ideology, as such is outside bounds of realism. It preaches honesty, being true to yourself, reality and power of perfect love, etc. As such most of the dialogue is not worth any attention.However, i found movie genuinely funny at points, not unintentionally either.Another extra, it has Amy Acker, always a very good thing in any movie or TV. Other actors were not bad performers either, though some of the direction was bit clumsy.

Michelle Panacre "A Novel Romance" was not only cliché, but actually painful.I watched this movie on my laptop and I honestly had to pause it so I could breathe and move on. Not in the "oh this is so sweet I'm blushing and forgetting how to breathe" way but the "let me close my eyes for a moment as I consider how a two year old could have better written, directed and starred in this movie" way, a "let me focus on breathing so I don't throw up from all this cheese" way.The entire thing was cheesy and predictable. Every moment was hard to watch and while I'd like to think myself an appreciator of cliché romcoms, this was something else. By now I've watched enough films to know that you shouldn't be constantly reminded that people are acting, there should be a level of suspension of disbelief. For goodness sake, some Disney Channel Original TV movies are better than this.I think that the concept of the film was okay, but that it was the execution in every sense, that ultimately let "A Novel Romance" down. A good script, performance and cinematography should make you feel something, move you, and the only thing that this film made me feel, was queasy. 1/10