Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

So much average

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Head Over Heels (2001): Dir: Mark Waters / Cast: Monica Potter, Freddie Prinze Jr., Shalom Harlow, Sarah O'Hare, Tomiko Fraser: Exaggerated mess about wrong impressions and curiosity that leads to trouble. Monica Potter preserves portraits and lives with four brainless supermodels and they believe that Freddie Prinze Jr. murdered someone in the apartment across the way. She goes undercover with the brainless supermodels to find out whether this seemingly sweet guy is a killer. Mark Waters directs this crap half-heartedly and the reference to the great Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece Rear Window is obvious but the difference is that the Hitchcock film is engaging and suspenseful while the Waters film is merely stupid. Then we are given the Russian mob plus toilet humour complete with sound effects. Potter plays an idiot with weak knees who is constantly saying the wrong thing. She is featured in a scene where a dog jumps her from behind and appears to be humping her. This cannot be her best moment. This also ranks in a long list of terrible performances by Prinze Jr. whose identity will surprise no one. The four supermodels are also a bad distraction of complete overacting. None of them are given an ounce of personality and they greatly subtract any credibility every time they open their mouths. Absurd comedy should be tossed head over heels into the back of a garbage truck. Score: 2 / 10

Amanda (Monica Potter) is an art restorer for a New York City museum. Needing a new apartment with a miniscule rent, she finds a tiny room. It is located in the spacious apartment of four supermodels! Amanda gets the large closet. When a good-looking man (Freddie Prinze, Jr.) moves into an apartment nearby, the models encourage Amanda to express an interest in him. However, Mandy thinks she sees him commit a murder! What's happening?Monica Potter is so lovely and charming in this film, one wishes she had a better vehicle. The plot is okay but takes a long time to develop. However, the costumes and sets are great and Prinze and the models make wonderful eye candy, too. One could do worse than spend an afternoon with all of these attractive folks. Recommended as an alternate choice for those who have laughed and cried through two dozen other romantic comedies with mild suspense.

My girlfriend warned me for Potter's movie 'I'm with Lucy', and Prinze Jr. isn't the greatest actor alive (as we all know), but I still decided to give this one a chance... I regret I did.The story starts as Potter finds her boyfriend cheating, and her looking for another place to live. Now this is where the movie makes a mistake. Normally, I'm not that big on complaining about small details in a movie but when the movie sucks, I have to comment. What happened? Potter's character decides to live with 4 models, who apparently need her 500 dollars a month for pocketmoney... but why? As we progress in the movie it shows these models live for free, get thousands of dollars for their modelling and when they have a $1200 dinner the check gets picked up by some boyfriend... Just a mistake? Well, an annoying one.Then let me talk about a second mistake. It is a pretty depraved one. First of, we see Potter attacked quite sexually by a dog. And it's intented to have a sexual meaning. It really made me sick. Not nearly as much though as the comments of the 'Australian' model, who talkes about her uncle playing charades (or something) with her, completely naked. Such stupid jokes about phedophiles and incest I find hard to take in what is a romantic comedy. So please, next time, take them out.Back again to the story and Amanda, Potter's character. One day she meets Jim (Prinze Jr.), and (surprise surprise) falls for him. It turns out he's the neighbour across the street. They meet again at a party, once more on the street and... fall for each other. Why? Erm... dunno. But it fits nicely in the story I guess. Now all this happens during the first 30 minutes. So you know there's gonna be a mix-up, a surprise, something that's gonna drive the two lovers out of each other. Is it an old boyfriend? A secret from the past? No, this is where the movie takes quite a different turn than all those other romantic comedies... (TAKE WARNING, SPOILERS BEGIN NOW)... One night, Amanda sees how Jim kills a woman across the street (well, at least, that's what she thinks).Now, this is where the movie can go two ways. Either Jim IS the killer and it turns out to be a thriller kinda movie, or he isn't (and we all know it) and it's just a goofy comedy. But the movie doesn't decide... So we hear Jim talking about how 'the girl isn't a problem anymore' which can be interpreted a thousand ways. So we just don't know. But then, the key moment in the movie. Amanda finds out the woman she thinks she saw really was murdered, so she knows (well, she thinks she knows :)) Jim is the killer, and she confronts him... and finds out he ISN'T, but an FBI agent pretending. So we, the public, only think for less than 10 seconds he really is the killer... this is all the excitement the movie offers. As we say in Holland, it's neither meat nor fish (I love that expression). So let's just think what would happen if Jim flat-out said: 'yeah I killed the b*tch'. Now, this would have fitted his role. Us at home would really think he IS a killer. Excitement. Now THAT would be an OK movie...The rest of the movie is just a silly wrap-up of a bad thriller kinda movie (Miss Congeniality comes to mind). Only good part is that the end is at a fashion-show by Alfredo's... I really hope that's a tribute to Hitchcock (and his Rear Window). For the rest: yuck! 2/10.

This movie is just funny. I do not believe that the writers wanted to make a movie other than funny. Surely they didn't mean to make a masterpiece you could compare to the best comedies in the history of the cinema. This is just entertainment, to help you let go heavy thoughts for a while. That's it. Monica Potter's acting is the best thing in the film. She is really communicative and can be as expressive as a child. She is lovable. In the first part of the movie she strongly reminded me a young Monica Vitti; an Italian bright actress. Even in the look. I wonder if she knows Monica Vitti and I would like to know what does she think about her. The first part of the movie was very promising. In the second part, the movie is a bit too banal, even for a movie intentionally based on common places. Anyway all the clueless situations in the movie are there to put in evidence the "story of love" in it. So the movie is not stupid or clueless itself, nor a file of gags. In the end, head over heels wants us to notice the value of sincerity, contrasting with all the incredible, absurd and clueless situations of life. Amanda is the only one that, in the middle of confusion, tries to keep her "head on the shoulders" and coherently searches for a true love. But she is a bit unsure. So Jim/Bob is the x along the story until the happy end. So the movie speaks about... you know, the old good sincerity that wins against appearance and oddity. The old good values. Nothing more, nothing less. :) Alan Dammit