John Goodman and Joan Cusak. Really. When have they ever been in a bad movie. They played second fiddle but they were perfectly wonderful. Isla Fisher was beautiful and funny all at the same time. And this Hugh Dansey. Never heard of this guy before but he was like a young Hugh Grant who I don't care what anyone says, is hilarious. Of course the young and the stupid gave this a bad rating. That is because the only comedy they understand is someone who is dumb. Dumb and Dumber. This is smart comedy with a flare. Good family fun. Just make sure there are some onions around to blame for the tears toward the end.

Romantic comedies are really not my thing, but if they're well made they can be enjoyable enough fluff, certainly helpful when one is looking to pass some time. Unfortunately, I didn't find this enjoyable. Perhaps it was because I just didn't find it all that interesting. First, I've heard it said that one basic difference between men and women revolves around shopping. For men, shopping is a chore - get in the store and get what you want and leave; for women, shopping is an adventure - have fun with it, keep looking even if you don't buy anything and you don't even really need a plan. That's obviously an over-generalization (and, to its credit, the movie notes that men can just as easily become "shopaholics" as women by having a couple of men in the 12-step group dealing with the problem) but the over-generalization has basically been true in my experience. So a lot of this I really couldn't relate to. There were some positives to this movie, though, that I want to acknowledge.First, I thought that, intentional or not, there was a fairly good look at addiction and addictive behaviour. In this case, the addiction was to shopping. Rebecca (Isla Fisher) just shops. She not only shops - she buys. She sees what she wants and she buys it uncontrollably. She can't resist. I look at that and wonder - why? What's so hard about seeing something you'd like but realizing that you can't buy it? I do it all the time. But, of course, it's like any addiction - drugs, alcohol, sex, shopping. Whatever. It's uncontrollable behaviour that compensates for something. Rebecca actually had a fairly thoughtful if simple line in this movie about addictive behaviour: "When I shop the world seems better." Which sums addiction up and explains why destructive behaviours nevertheless become both compulsive and addictive. For a little while, they make things seem better - until the high wears off and you need to do it again. So I could buy that reflection on addictive behaviour. The movie also didn't hold back in looking at the consequences of addictive behaviour. Relationships were damaged and people were hurt because of Rebecca's actions - although reconciliation perhaps came about too quickly to be believable. Rebecca also had to overcome her denial about being a shopaholic. Again, quite accurate. But in spite of the decent enough reflection on addiction, this movie didn't work for me.It is, after all, a romantic comedy. For a romantic comedy to work it has to have at least one of two things going for it - it either has to have a story that's downright charming, or it has to have a good chemistry between the leads. I didn't get a sense of either. There was literally no charm to this movie. I didn't like the characters particularly; I didn't feel anything for them. Ironically, to me the only character I felt sympathy for was Derek Smeath - the collections agent who was trying to get Rebecca to pay her bills. The guy was just doing his job. She had a huge debt that she was literally refusing to pay off and was making excuses about. Rebecca's escapes might have been humorous, but I really disliked (REALLY!) the decision to turn Smeath into an arch-villain toward the end when he publicly confronted Rebecca on national television and humiliated her. (And, yes, that was also the only time in the movie I felt any real sympathy for Rebecca as well.) That was just not necessary. Smeath didn't have to be turned into the standard arch-villain. Just doing his job (and Rebecca trying to avoid him) was enough to move the story forward. I also felt little chemistry between Fisher and Hugh Dancy, who played her boss/love interest Luke. I just didn't feel that they worked that well together. The relationship seemed forced and unreal all the way through. And the humour in this movie fell flat to me. There was real potential for this to be very funny. The basic plot has all sorts of possibilities - an out of control shopaholic with a mountain of debt gets a job writing a column giving saving advice for readers of a financial magazine. More could have been done with that, in my opinion.The negatives to this far outweighed the positives for me. And, not being much of a fan of John Goodman, his fortunately limited appearances as Rebecca's father nevertheless grated on me. (3/10)

It was obvious from the title this would be a chick flick, I didn't realise it was based on British books, so the Americanisation was obvious as well, I just decided to watch it and see what it would be like because the premise sounded alright to me, from director P.J. Hogan (Muriel's Wedding, My Best Friend's Wedding, Peter Pan). Basically in New York young Rebecca Bloomwood (Definitely, Maybe's Isla Fisher) has an obsession for shopping, especially for the latest bargains and fashionable clothes, outfits, accessories and garments, and due to all this addictive buying she in deep debt with unpaid credit card purchases. When she loses the source of her income she is forced into trying to get a job as a journalist, while she battles to control her shopping habits, and after a seemingly unsuccessful interview with financial magazine Successful Saving editor Luke Brandon (Hugh Dancy) and writing him a drunken insulting letter she unintentionally lands herself a job as writer for his magazine. Luke wants Rebecca to write an article based on how to save money, she fails on her first attempt to do this because she cheated using another book, but her second article using simple language and metaphors, based on her experiences of shopping, this article becomes successful. Soon enough, with the pseudonym "The Green in the Green Scarf", she becomes a successful journalist for the magazine, and is introduced to the big names of the finance and shopping industries, but she has to try and get away from debt collector Derek Smeath (Robert Stanton), she gets him away from her by saying he is an ex-boyfriend stalking her. As time goes by and they spend more time with each other, in interviews and elsewhere, Rebecca and Luke are falling in love, but she is still obsessively shopping, and not completely paying attention to her "shopaholics anonymous" group sessions, and her best friend Suze Cleath-Stewart (Krysten Ritter) has chosen her to be her bridesmaid for her wedding. Eventually everyone finds out about Rebecca's shopping habits when Smeath is on live television reading all her debts that she hasn't paid, and she lost the bridesmaid dress she needed which angers Suze, and offered a job with her dream company Alette, she declines. Rebecca sells off all her clothes that she had been hiding to pay off her debts, she gets back her bridesmaid dress, Luke starts new company Brandon Communications, she attends Suze's wedding which goes well, and Luke shows up to give Rebecca back her green scarf and they embrace their feelings. Also starring Joan Cusack as Jane Bloomwood, John Goodman as Graham Bloomwood, John Lithgow as Edgar West, Kristin Scott Thomas as Alette Naylor, Leslie Bibb as Alicia Billington, Fred Armisen as Ryan Koenig, Airplane!'s Julie Hagerty as Hayley, Lynn Redgrave as Drunken Lady at Ball, The Cabin in the Woods's Kristen Connolly as Girl in Pink and The Hangover's Ed Helms as Garret E. Barton. Fisher is suitably for the role of the girly girl with an obsession for quality fashion when bargains are on and has no thought for how much she is spending and feels the need to have almost everything in a store, Marsden is alright as her English love interest, I can agree with the two stars out of five the critics give, because the story is a bit predictable, the character personalities are annoying and obvious, the love story is mushy, and overall it just feels dull, a slightly disappointing romantic comedy. Okay!

This has unbroken yummy colors, very nice leads, rapid-fire pace, and funny everything.Although (Isla Fisher) isn't that charismatic, but she proves how brilliantly comedic she can be; many moments confirm that, however still the improvised dance stands alone as something exceptionally and unforgettably risible. I loved her magical natural combination of zany childishness and hot femininity. (Krysten Ritter) is an eye candy, a queen of sweetness and one of a heck scene stealer. I was craving for every frame she was in. And (Hugh Dancy) was handled fine character and performed it finely. The supporting cast was priceless; (John Goodman), (John Lithgow) and dear (Kristin Scott Thomas) who gave me a big laugh only by raising her voice briefly !The comedy doesn't stop in this movie, from amusing characters and ironic situations, to well-done slapstick and good lines. The directing was lively. The camera has an adrenaline rush, and the cast acts in a bubbly sense. It's hard to ignore the lovely cartoonish spirit of the whole thing. The atmosphere reminded me with the 1960s comedies, with colorful sets, flashy costumes, and a perky blonde who suffers in work and love (kind of crazy Doris Day, yet for the 2010s). And I adored the image's colors; they were perfectly fascinating, rather sexy. It joins movies like Sky High (2005) in my list for the most sexily-colored movies I have ever watched lately. So, generally, wonderful is what it is. But meaty is what it isn't ! The main problem of this movie, and it's a huge problem, is its script. Among the hilarity it cleverly made, it forgot its serious side. Therefore the tragedy of that shopaholic was all along blur. And the message behind it couldn't be reached rightly. For instance, I didn't accurately catch on why the lead refused the opportunity of working in the high-profile magazine near the end? I ascribe that to the fact that the script's seriousness was badly diluted, or – at least – overshadowed by style and humor. And when you find yourself wondering why she turned into shopaholic in the first place? Then, you'll discover that this script didn't ask itself the right questions since the start.The pace was flagrantly an accomplice. True it runs in a cartoonish manner, which is in harmony and desirable, but that was against the story's own good sometimes ! At one point, the heroine switches 2 of her letters which might cause a disaster, and at another she gets out all the troubles unharmed. Well, to be frank with you, I didn't get this or that fully, and I'm not by any mean a green viewer ! Thus, that supersonic pace made some matters unclear or quicker than understanding, so how about that in a movie that summarized its seriousness earlier as well ?! It's clear that this vivid comedy was too hasty to make a solid substance (even the 2 leads' kisses were abbreviated, as if the movie has no time for anything !).While (Confessions of a Shopaholic) is another formulaic Hollywood rom-com, it has a new lead actress, and a sort of a new lead character, with some message about important subject like the consumption craze, but alas, it ends up as a speedy and short roller-coaster in a world of comedy and fashion, without much to think about. All in all, it's a good deal of laughs, colors but not thoughts, which's sadly deficient under a title like that.