Rom-coms are notoriously hard to get right, when one such genre piece is all but a direct to DVD offering it really doesn't bode well for a good film. It Had To Be You isn't a great film, but it's the sort of sweet and harmless piece that fills a time slot when you are stuck for a viewing one afternoon.Natasha Henstridge {Anna} and Michael Vartan {Charlie} play two pretty people, who are soon to be married to other people, who get to know each other in the course of planning their respective weddings in the Big Apple. Cue pretty people clearly meant to be together unable to do so out of loyalty to their respective, and clearly wrong for them, intended aisle walking partners. Cue best friends involved, gags and set ups come and go and the ending is never really in doubt. There's even time for some demon exorcising thrown in for added emotional impact.If that sounds cheekily simple in summary? Then that's because it's befitting the film. It's a simple tale that's been told many times before, both better and worse than this. Vartan and Nat fail to generate much chemistry yet remain charming throughout, and the comedy is good enough to raise a smile or two. Particularly from Michael Rispoli & Olivia d'Abo as the couple's best friends. It's decently shot and unobtrusively directed, while that obvious ending still has the ability to warm the cockles of even the coldest of hearts. Should have been better for sure, but by no means a time waster in the basic sense of the saying. 5.5/10

I'd have given this film a few stars, simply because it was a "Lifetime" presentation actually filmed in the location represented in the story - here, New York City. Most on this channel, whether "set" there, in rural Iowa, Oregon, Virginia, L.A. etc., are filmed in Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto or some other Canadian locale.But if there ever were one deserving the top rating - 10* on this site, it's this movie. Certainly not for originality, for this story has been done many times, in many variations, with several very similar to this specific one. It's also been done pretty often on the big screen, with mega-stars, past and present, from Cary Grant, James Garner, Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, et al - and Deborah Kerr, Doris Day, Meg Ryan, and many more. I can think of at least 10-12 more, just as prominent, past to present, off the top of my head, who could be added now, and there are probably many others which could be brought to mind.Not to drone on, but my point is that, in my opinion, this is by far one of the best of this genre I've seen. I caught it by chance on a mid-day Friday, at a time when I had the TV on only because I was taking a couple of hours following a particularly hectic week. I'd never run across this flick in the 8 years since it was made. And, while the two leads have done enough to be known to most, they were completely unknown to me. The only two actors I knew were Phyllis Newman (Anna's mother) whom I'd seen in some things from her younger days, and Michael Rispoli (Henry, Charlie's best friend) who was outstanding as "Gramma," the menacing juice loan, tough, street guy from "Rounders." The chance meeting and coupling between both leads' best friends, as a sub-story romance, with the correlation of their being such to Anna and Charlie being only revealed to all later, is an oft-done plot contrivance within the genre, but makes no difference to the enjoyment here (in fact, it enhances it).Checking some other comments, I agree completely with those which are the most positive. The primary word describing this film is ENGAGING, in caps. This adjective describes the performers; the characters; the chemistry between and among all of the characters, in whatever combination presented, and all of the supporting and even minor roles.I love films with a "harder edge:" "Rounders;" the escapist Schwarzenegger/Stallone fare; "Goodfellows;" even the classics like "Casablanca," "Gone With the Wind," "Citizen Kane." But for pure, uncomplicated enjoyment, this one was outstanding. With a bare fraction of their budgets, it was equal to the results achieved by "You've Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle." And Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan couldn't have done better than Natasha Henstridge and Michael Vartan here; the co-stars and support personnel here were equivalent to those in these mega-films, as well.

I just can't understand the negative comments about this film. Yes it is a typical boy-meets-girl romance but it is done with such flair and polish that the time just flies by. Henstridge (talk about winning the gene-pool lottery!) is as magnetic and alluring as ever (who says the golden age of cinema is dead?) and Vartan holds his own.There is simmering chemistry between the two leads; the film is most alive when they share a scene - lots! It is done so well that you find yourself willing them to get together...Ignore the negative comments - if you are feeling a bit blue, watch this flick, you will feel so much better. If you are already happy, then you will be euphoric.(PS: I am 33, Male, from the UK and a hopeless romantic still searching for his Princess...)

" It had to be You" is another sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas. This picture is about Charlie Hudson a former police officer turned Author. When Charlie's fiancé goes out of town he's stuck with all of the wedding planning. He spends a week at a fancy hotel and meets Anna Penn a teacher who just happens to also be getting married. The two quickly become friends and set out to plan their separate weddings together. This is when the plot gets boring, Charlie falls in love with Anna and she has to choose between a safe life or Charlie. This movie rips off every romantic comedy ever made and just has you waiting for the end of the movie so you can do something else. Micahel Vartan and Natasha Henstridge give really mediocre performances which just makes this movie all the more gut wrenching to watch.