Off-beat tale fails when a writer and his stenographer live out the characters in his novel that he is desperately trying to write and complete in 30 days-so that mobsters will not kill him for owing money. He is depending on the money from the book to keep him alive.This premise would have made for an ideal comedy. Instead, the picture goes nowhere with the two people living out the book he is writing. Kate Hudson as the stenographer is constantly interjecting. She has the far more difficult part as he is constantly changing the women in the household where he is tutoring in the summer of 1924.The film becomes such a mess that even the mobsters play out in the book. A good novel should have good plot development; however, there is little plot development here as our 2 people find eventual love while literally torturing us with scenes from the book.Sophie Marceau plays the wealthy woman in the book who literally comes back to life as it becomes serious for our writer (Luke Wilson) and Ms. Dinsmore. (Hudson) David Paymer and Cloris Leachman briefly appear. They have very little to do and should be grateful for that.

Hi, None of the «professional» film critics, as far as I've read or known, has bothered to mention that «Alex & Emma», quite before being a kind of remake of «Paris when it sizzles» (1964) -- starring William Holden & Audrey Hepburn --, it is first of all an «adaptation» -- not to say a remake -- of a great film French movie, «La Fête à Henriette» (1952), by Julien Duvivier, starring Dany Robin & Michel Auclair (not «Eauclaire, as many mistakingly called him !).PS: Perhaps a trivial remark, when who has noticed how many stars' billing rank or order may change within a few years -- in the «stock-exchange» up and downs of crowds favourites of the cinema ? This is a sort of «extreme» example -- time-wise -- since 10 years went by between «Sabrina» (1954) -- in which Miss Hepburn was billed BEFORE Mr. Holden, and «Paris when it sizzles» when this billing order WAS REVERSED !What a shame that Spencer Tracy and Humphrey Bogart didn't ever appear together in a movie ! This was due to the fact that both great stars wanted to have first billing in William Wyler's «The Desperate Hours» (1955)... and neither would give in ! Who said that «Vanity or vanities, all's but vanity» ?

While it is not mentioned much, this film is an obvious remake/rethink of the Holden/Hepburn comedy "Paris When It Sizzles." This is a case of the remake being better than the original. Audrey Hepburn was always charming, but "Paris" is some of her worst, most posy, artificial acting work.The strength of the re-write is the re-writes of "the book" (film within the film) that give Hudson the chance to to big slapstick characters. Far from deserving praise as a great actress that she got for this role, these characters were as deep as the wigs, costumes, and huge caricatures, but she was FUN. It was like going to see your friend's daughter in her highschool play. 100 actresses could have done it just as well, but she got the part, and at least she is game to take some chances.Wilson is her straight man, and is always convincing in being the messy guy who falls for the girl even though he doesn't know it. Like "Paris" this film relys mainly on the leading lady's charms. Hudson is adequate. It could have been funnier and more original with more inventive casting. It would have been wonderful to see someone like the hilarious Jennifer Coolidge, or the brilliant chameleon Catherine O'Hara in this role, THAT would be ten stars. This ain't.

This film may be "loosely" based on A True Love Story. That is what other people have said about it. It is "EXACTLY" based on "Paris When It Sizzles". This was a film with William Holden and Audrey Hepburn, using exactly the same premise and conflict. It follows the premise of the story so closely it could almost be scene for scene. I'll always take the former, Holden and Hepburn as the two to watch, but, Kate and Like were certainly acceptable in their performances. They made the film entertaining. It is light hearted and appealing, just as originally intended. It follows that old Hollywood guideline, when every film had to have a happy ending. No deep message here, just fun.