Sabrina Peterson is a rising young journalist with a Chicago newspaper. Peter Brackett is a veteran columnist for a rival paper. After they are assigned by their respective editors to cover a major train accident they stumble upon a dangerous conspiracy (involving wrongdoing by a big chemical company). This could have been the plot of a standard thriller, something like Julia Roberts' previous film, "The Pelican Brief", in which a rising young lawyer teams up with a journalist to expose a dangerous conspiracy involving wrongdoing by a big oil company. "I Love Trouble," however, is not a standard thriller, but rather a light-hearted romantic comedy with thriller elements. A strong influence seems to have been the "screwball" comedies of the thirties and forties; one can imagine the role of Sabrina being taken by Katharine Hepburn with Cary Grant or Spencer Tracy as Peter.A common feature of these films is an element of friction between the male and female leads; they quarrel throughout but nevertheless end up falling in love. Perhaps the best modern example of a screwball comedy is the Coen brothers' "Intolerable Cruelty" in which George Clooney plays a cynical, manipulative divorce lawyer and Catherine Zeta Jones plays the mercenary, gold-digging ex-wife of one of his clients. In "I Love Trouble" the element of friction is provided by the rivalry between the two newspapers, which turns into rivalry between the two journalists. Peter initially takes a patronising attitude to Sabrina, whom he sees as raw and inexperienced, but she starts to win his respect when she scoops him over the train crash story. When they uncover the conspiracy they are forced to work together in order to survive, but nevertheless still continually try to outwit one another to get scoops for their papers.Since 1994 Roberts has become one of Hollywood's most successful romantic comedy actresses, but this was only her second film in the genre. The first, of course, was "Pretty Woman", the film which first made her a major star, and like the earlier film, "I Love Trouble" is heavily dependent on Roberts. She not only looks lovely but also brings her brand of star quality, the ability to seize hold of a film and to make it her own personal property. Nick Nolte is not an actor whom I would necessarily have associated with romantic comedy, but here as Peter he makes a likable hero, even if at 53 (twice Roberts' age) he is perhaps rather too old for the part. Roberts and Nolte bring out the contrast between their two characters; she bright and enthusiastic, he cynical, hard-bitten and more laid back."I Love Trouble" is a film which has largely been overlooked; even Roberts' greatest admirers would rarely rank it among her greatest achievements, and its current rating on this board is only 4.9. This is an attitude which I find difficult to understand. The film is not perhaps as complex as "Pretty Woman" or "Notting Hill", or as funny as "America's Sweethearts", but I would certainly prefer it to something like the over-formulaic and predictable "Runaway Bride". Like most rom-coms it is a lightweight film, but it is an amusing and entertaining one which moves along at a good pace. 6/10

This is a wonderfully entertaining love story, spiced up with adventure and intrigue. Nick Nolte plays the rough, tough male chauvinist while Julia Roberts charms us with her usual warm and attractive personality. The two are competing newspaper reporters who while chasing after the same headline story stumble upon a government and corporate conspiracy to conceal the truth about genetically enhanced milk producing cows. The director has beautifully combined the excitement of uncovering the conspiracy with the excitement of Nolte and Roberts falling in love. The interaction and chemistry between Nolte and Roberts is acted out superbly, never too much, never too little just enough to keep you excited with them to the very end.

If you're a heterosexual male, there's only one reason for seeing this movie, or any part of it. And if you're reading this comment, you probably already know what it is, from the one line summary. I did write it to get the attention of aforementioned group. If you're not in it, feel free to ignore this comment or despise me. I'm used to it. Anyway, yes, in this movie, there is one scene where Julia Roberts is, even confirmed by the trivia segment of the main site for this film, completely naked. Of course, we don't see all that much... she is against nude scenes, after all. But what we see is enough to form about as close to a complete (and realistic, mind you) mental picture of her body. Anyway, it's probably as close as we're ever going to get, anyway. About the one-hour mark in the movie, about halfway in, Roberts is bathing nude in some water. She gets up and begins to pick up her clothes, covered by Nolte whom she stands behind. Then some boy-scouts show up, and, being heterosexual males, they of course stare at the lovely Julia, and who can blame them? Anyway, after some chit-chat between Nolte and Roberts, Nick decides to be a man and let the boys have an eyeful... he walks away, leaving Roberts standing butt-naked in front of the boys. We get plenty of alluring shots of her back, legs and thighs from behind, and this sight alone is enough to please me... no need for full nude shots. This sequence is the only thing in the movie worth watching for any straight man, I'm sorry to say. Should I go through the normal routine? Why not. The plot is dull and pointless, not to mention predictable. The pacing is awful. The acting is flat. The characters are mostly stereotypes, and all paper-thin. If you are forced to watch this movie by a girl who couldn't tell a good movie if it hit her in the face, just look forward to that one scene. If it's on TV one night, just keep half an eye open for that scene. If you're able to see it on VHS or DVD for free with no obligation to see the whole thing, fast-forward or go directly to the scene. If you're not in the group that this comment refers to, then by all means see the movie. Try desperately to explain how the movie is good, or even decent. I'll gladly shoot your comments into the ground with simple reasoning. I have seen the movie a few times, and after the first time(where I payed attention) I have only seen this one scene attentively. Do I have anything against the two stars? Not at all. Do I have something against formulaic movies? Yes, but not if the movie does offer something new. Argue with me all you want, in my eyes there is nothing worth spending time on in this movie apart from that one scene, if you're a straight guy. I recommend this film only to people who don't care about quality in movies, and big fans of the actors. I do think, though, that every single straight guy in the world should see the scene I've mentioned at least once in their lifetime, unless they find Julia Roberts to be more than just a little unattractive, of course. 5/10

When a train crash happens, veteran newspaperman Peter Brackett is sent from the Tribune to cover the story despite him being a columnist. At the scene of the crash he meets the beautiful young reporter Sabrina Peterson who he tries to hit on without much success, before dismissing her as an inexperienced youth. The next morning she scoops him in the Globe, getting an angle on the story that he didn't have. This sparks a rivalry between the two journalists but, as they find out more about the story they find themselves in mortal danger and are forced to form an uneasy partnership.In case you are film-illiterate, this film has even called a character `Thin Man' to help you realise what it is clearly aspiring to be. The fast talking, battling characters aspire to be like those in the Thin Man series. However the main problem here is that this film has none of the wit, spark or fun of that series at it's best; instead it is all a bit lifeless and flat. The plot is good but it doesn't decide to be a mystery thriller until very late in the game; the final set piece is good but, because the film had been aiming for `playful' up till that point, it just doesn't work out well and it can't just suddenly create tension out of nowhere.The rest of the film tries to be light and witty but it doesn't manage it either. A major fault in this regard is with the script; it doesn't have any really good lines or sequences. As much as I accept that Woody Allen is not everyone's cup of tea, he would have been the perfect part of a writing team here - witty dialogue in The Thin Man style is really his thing. The other problem is with the cast. Nolte and Roberts may both be big names, but they sadly have ZERO chemistry and this is a big problem. The two have no lines and their lack of spark just makes it worse, to compare this with the Thin Man series does that a great disservice. The support cast fares a bit better and contains quite a few famous faces such as Rubinek, Rebhorn, Loggia, Dukakis, Levy, Martin Smith and Gleason. They all do OK but they can't help the failings in the script, atmosphere and in the two stars.Overall this is just about watchable but it's hard to ignore what it clearly intended to be. It is pretty much a big failure as it fails to amuse, excite or entertain on anywhere near the level that it was aiming for.