Fly Away with Me

6.4 stars.

Angie has a very promising career in the TV commercial business but has always wanted to write movie scripts. Ted is an air traffic controller but has always wanted to be a pilot. She moves in next to Ted and eventually they meet and share awkward attraction, and forced dialogue. There is little to zero chemistry between them. They have a common foe which is the landlord's daughter Gineen, who is very attracted to Ted and wants to find any way to evict Angie, because she can sense that Ted is somewhat attracted to Angie. Both Angie and Ted are hiding pets in their apartments which is an eviction offense.

This movie has potential, so much potential, and it's wasted from the get-go. The main plot, which is probably the romance, is blurred by a few side plots, like having pets, and her relationship with her boss Kyle is in question...are they dating, not dating? The doorman side plot is only brushed upon, but is the most intriguing and entertaining of all. We don't get to see anything personal about Ted except for the dog. This movie focuses a lot on Angie's parrot, but it's a totally unsatisfying plot line. Is she an animal lover, or not, what will happen with the bird, what about all the words this bird can say, will Angie piece them together to figure our who the true owner is? It's a very scattered and disorganized set of circumstances.

Therefore: 'Fly Away with Me' is a jumbled mess that totally dropped the ball.

Both actors are really adept at expressing emotions except for one: passion for each other. The best part of this film is the doorman Louis. I have added 2/10 of star for the fact of his existence in this movie. 6.2 stars becomes 6.4. Almost enough to round up to 7.

I hardly know where to begin, but I'll start with my shock that the doorman in this movie quoted Gladys Taber, a "woman's writer" who died in 1980, and whose "hearth and home" type column ("Butternut Wisdom,") my mother and I read in "Family Circle" magazine until the column ended in 1967. It makes me wonder if the author of this script is some Hallmark bigwig's 80-year-old mom who wanted to try her hand at script writing for the first time in her life...

I mentioned the doorman. It so happens that, to me, he was the most interesting and convincing character in the movie. That should tell you something!

As other reviews here have mentioned, the script was silly, disconnected, and made almost no sense. The direction was...odd. It would seem the director advised one actress, Melinda Michael, who plays the building manager, to overact to a maddening degree, but no one else got that memo. Also, a director with any sense would have had "Ted" simply stash the chew bone under the toss pillow (which was RIGHT THERE,) instead of sticking it under his arm. No, that move did not make the scene funnier.

Natalie Hall sings to her adopted parrot in this movie - and, although the scene was silly, she demonstrates that she has FAR more singing talent than acting talent. She's a pretty girl, but her acting is just... Let's just say she should pursue singing as a career, instead. She has a beautiful voice.

As to Peter Mooney, his casual charm and ability to throw away a line (actors will hear this,) are wasted on this ridiculous script. I would love to see him as the lead in a decent Hallmark movie, playing against an actress who can match him in the believability department.

Some reviewers have mentioned the clothes, and I agree! The female lead and her "bestie" look absurd most of the time due to the costuming. I noticed that the men weren't in silly get-ups. Does the costumer have something against women? (I'm far from a feminist, but can't help but wonder!)

Note to Hallmark: Since many actors who have repeatedly played fatherly mentor roles in your romances over the years are aging out of Hallmark, I advise you to hang onto that guy who played the doorman.

Because the acting was quite good, I overlooked the fact that the plot was probably not very likely in reality. The leads were really fun to watch and see the slow progression of their relationship. However, when the female lead felt betrayed by a situation that could not have been helped without the male lead being put in a terrible position, I actually said out loud, "You've got to be kidding!" I don't know why almost ALL Hallmark movies seem to need a major misunderstanding or disagreement between the lead couple. You would think with some imagination the writers could developed their relationship in a more interesting way so that all the movies aren't alike with this same plot twist. So I'm sorry to say that what I was enjoying really let me down.

Apparently, in Chicago you can't get three things: a job, a boyfriend and an apartment. Angie is lucky enough to get the last one which she won in a lottery. There she meets Ted, who she is instantly attracted too. One day, a parrot flies into her apartment which has a no pet policy.

It was a cute, okay movie. Kind of silly, but enjoyable nonetheless. Natalie Hall is Hallmark leading lady material and she proves it time and time again. Our leading man was not bad either.

This story was original, not something we have seen before. I'm glad Hallmark is trying new things. I like that the story developed at a nice pace: first neighbours, then complicits, friends and then finally a love interest. The "villains" of the story are ok.

My favorite part was the ending. It is quite funny and wasn't expecting it. I won't watch it again but it definitely pushed me to watch more movies Natalie's in.

I can't think of a premise like this one. And it brings a lot of funny situations and physical comedy. The dialogue is good.

Natalie Hall has been hit or miss for me in past movies, but I liked her quite a lot in this one. Angie has a playful side and Hall does it well with a bit of showwomanship. I've seen Peter Mooney before in lighthearted roles and he's perfect for this. They have definite chemistry and good comedic timing.

The mystery bird provides the opportunity for a quest for Angie and Ted to figure out his story and hopefully where he belongs. And there's the constant efforts to hide the pets. You know how long that will stay secret.

I was a little surprised the two villains didn't overplay their parts. Melinda Michael did a good job as the strict landlord without going overboard. Joseph Kathrein wasn't quite as good as Kyle but could have been worse.

I was surprised at how much I liked this. I'm pretty sure I'll watch it again.