This movie is so clearly not bad. Fools Rush In is one of the better romantic comedies, that's a little known fact. It has really sharp editing, fine directing, good cinematography, really good acting and really good writing. Fools Rush In's editing and story presentation is particularly very strong. Fools Rush In has very rich colors. The writing is natural, genuine. It's really funny, but Fools Rush In is more so good than funny, which is much more of an accomplishment.This movie is all about Alex Whitman and Isabel Fuentes. Matthew Perry is in his best role. Perry's very well-cast and there aren't many actors out of anybody better for the part. He's good for the character and is very lovable. Perry poses as the main star but he's just for show. This is quietly though obviously Salma Hayek's film. She is perfect for the part, perfect. Salma Hayek gives you real heart acting very womanly and comes across as all too sweet. Fools Rush In is a very sweet romantic comedy. It's an easy film to enjoy. I am particularly very fond of Fools Rush In.

Boy {Matthew Perry} meets Girl {Salma Hayek} in a queue for the toilet in a club. Cue both people from different ethnicities ending up in bed together doing something that neither of them have done before. Cue three months later and Girl tuns up in Boys life announcing she's pregnant. Cue emotions pulled apart, a hasty marriage, family strife and many stumbling blocks getting in the way of potential true love.Sound familiar? Not surprisingly this retread of a formula that is as old as the hills has very little originality. The script is desperately dull, the ending is exactly what the world expects and the leads have zero chemistry. That only Perry and Hayek are "names" in the film speaks volumes one feels. You get the sense that what budget there was went on getting the sexy Hayek and Perry {riding on the crest of his Friends wave} to appear. Little flashes of comedy do from time to time surface, and, yes, those who like a cheery cup of the love froth with their rom-coms will feel fuzzy come the end. But really it's a poorly constructed and executed picture, the type that unfortunately seems to come out on a yearly basis. You have been warned, stick with a Cary Grant movie instead. 3/10

Yet another story inserted in the conventional romance film invaded by comedy and with a comedian in the main role.There's nothing relevant here, if you like Matthew Perry as a TV actor he won't disappoint you here, i suppose. He made a good part of his career in television and that shows (on the negative side) on his films. See 'the whole nine yards' and compare his comedy timings with those of Bruce Willis or compare his cinema performances with those of other actors more rooted in cinema like Brendan Fraser. He doesn't pull things off like they do. But here he is, TV fans of him will probably appreciate something of what he does here.The common cliché of portraying Latin American cultures in Hollywood films (most of all the mexicans, for proximity) is something that look odd today. These last 11 years brought to a mass distribution many films from some Latin American cinema industries, and the lives depicted in those films proved films like this one ridiculous. There's more than coloured walls, Christian beliefs and certain paternal macho attitudes in Mexican culture, as in any culture. Probably in 11 years we'll see similar odd things in films being made right now.My opinion: 1/5 http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

When I watched "Boys" yesterday and I said I liked it, I explained it was because it made justice to its title even when it contained a small dose of reality. However, it put its characters in relatively possible situations. "Fools Rush In", on the other hand, makes justice to its title but the things the film's characters live are virtually impossible. Alex Whitman (Matthew Perry) and Isabel Fuentes (Salma Hayek) meet one night and they have sex in something three months later Alex calls "one of those beautiful, spontaneous things of life", in one of Katherine Reback's only script's few well written scenes (no wonder she never worked again). But now Isabel is pregnant, and when the film married them very soon, I stayed quiet and waited, because 'fools rush in', you know, and maybe the best was about to come.In formulaic romantic comedies, you have two basic plot-lines: 1)the couple meets but they are never really together until the final moments, whatever may happen in the middle; 2)they are well together (as in marriage or a nice relationship) and then something comes and screws things up and someone has to make them right.That second road is the one director Andy Tennant, from the also regular "Sweet Home Alabama", takes with this piece. It's not a bad road to take, and the script's premise is not a poor one, but its development is. And you have to blame writer and director for turning something interesting into a bunch of stereotypes about culture and religion.During one scene, Alex's father and Isabel's discuss why their respective sons shouldn't be together. It's a ridiculous moment; they talk about black and white, about Christians and Presbyterians and other subjects the movie hadn't brought until that point? Why do it so late then? Both John Bennett Perry and Tomas Milian overact the scene completely and they should be embarrassed.Actually, there's a lot of overacting in "Fools Rush In", and if it weren't for Hayek and Perry's chemistry it would be a bad film. They make it an enjoyable rush. Both look so young, Perry with all the success from "Friends" at the time, Hayek in her first romantic lead in Hollywood. Jon Tenney and Siobhan Fallon also help in their respective "best friend" character. But that's that, and sometimes it can be almost enough for a good film. I know I didn't explain the impossible situations, but it's something you should experience without me giving examples. I'll say one however: if I leave a Mercedes Benz in the middle of nowhere and go away for a whole day, do you seriously think no one is going to come and take it away?