Made for Each Other

Teryl Rothery, what were you thinking? How did you get roped into this role? The mother of the lead can be very bad, in the sense of too controlling, but this performance is ridiculous. Rothery is so much better than this. And the thing is that there is no reason this part had to be played so badly.

Except for Rothery, the bride's husband, and David's nephew, the rest of the acting was mostly good. Aaron O'Connell's Clay could have been easy to overplay, but O'Connell walked a fine line between too naive and being normal. Obviously Clay can't be normal, but neither is he too ridiculous. A few times, he goes just a little bit silly and then recovers before it gets too far.

I thought Alexandra Turshen and Matt Cohen had good chemistry. This is another tough situation because their screen time together was cut into by the time with Rachel and Clay and for that matter David and Clay.

The story was not as predictable as I expected. The premise of a statue coming to life in order to be the perfect mate seems like it is going to go in an obvious direction, and in this case that part was unavoidable, but the way it was done was fresh. The subtext of needing challenges in life rather than everything going perfectly was nicely folded into the story without being too preachy. The climax was a little wild which fit the story perfectly.

The dialogue was very good. I don't laugh at much on TV, but I got a few good ones between the standup and the banter.

All the good stuff is in Acts II and III, so don't give up on it.

Made for Each Other is a riff on the "invented boyfriend" trope, except in this case, the boyfriend isn't pretending due to some deal, but magically created via ancient magic from a sculpture!

And let me say early on we laughed out LOUD at lot during this movie.

Arron O'Connell, who plays the sculpture come to life--named "Clay" :-)--folds himself into the role of the perfect man amusingly. Thus the writers get away with a "Gary Stu", the perfect character who can do no wrong.

We've seen Matt Cohen on the other side of this trope, playing a Jewish actor playing the female leads' boyfriend whom she takes home for Christmas. We think that movie is a hoot, too.

Teryl Rothery had a long run as the base doctor on Stargate SG-1, but she's transitioned nicely into playing motherly types in Hallmark films. Here she plays the Jewish mother with an agenda for her daughter ... get married ... and marry a PROVIDER.

We haven't seen Alexandra Turshen before, but she provided some truly amusing moments herself.

I was stunned at how bad this movie seemed during the first half hour. And despite recovering with occasional flashes of heart, bits of interesting and amusing "be careful what you wish for" moments, and a few glimpses of a relationship that had some chemistry, Made For Each Other ends up being really bonkers- and not in a good way.

Alexandra Turshen plays Rachel who went to an Ivy League college, but now teaches sculpture (do you really need to go to an Ivy League school to learn how to be a sculptor?). And, somehow, she apparently makes enough as an art teacher to afford to live in a nice apartment in Manhattan (there are several levels of fantasy at play in this movie). She's also not much of a teacher. When she isn't sending students away to explore the city after they show up for class, she teaches sculpture by merely encouraging her students without actually teaching them anything remotely resembling technique. Heck, at one point, she actually takes over a student's project and does it herself while ignoring the rest of the class.

The movie begins with Rachel as a child sculpting her ideal future husband and then, after a quick time jump, she's shown to have sculpted a larger version of her ideal man ("couldn't find a perfect boyfriend, so I made one"). Unlike all the famous sculptures, Rachel's sculpture is modest and shown wearing a towel. OK, that's ridiculous, but this is Hallmark. Viewers would no doubt clutch their pearls, faint and switch to GAF if the sculpture looked anything like Michelangelo's David.

But the most annoying thing about this movie is Rachel's mother, played by reliable veteran Hallmark actress Teryl Rothery. Unfortunately, she was given a thankless role (blame the writing and direction, don't blame the actress). Her character is written as an overbearing, intrusive, and meddling stereotype. Her public embarrassment of her daughter Rachel at her class' showcase was cringeworthy, as was the foisting of another potential date on her while she and the group looked on awkwardly as creepy spectators.

Earlier, Rachel had understandably expressed her disappointment with some guy who showed up late and then ordered for her. Suggestions are one thing, but unilaterally ordering for a woman in 2023? On a first date (or any date)? Ugh. Hardly "picky" to find that unacceptable. And the guy at the showcase came across as a complete dweeb (he literally insulted one of the kids' sculptures). Again, hardly "picky" as her sister claimed: "Rachel's ideal man is a complete fantasy". Maybe, but when asked what Rachel looked for in a man, she said somebody who is "kind, smart, loyal, and dedicated." Yeah, why would any woman want to hold out for someone like that?

I like Hallmark movies and tuned in after seeing a commercial that made me think of the old Pygmalion and Galatea Greek myth (I love the Jean-Leon Gerome painting of Galatea). But this movie is supposedly based on the Legend of the Golem, an old Jewish folklore story about a sculpture made by rabbis that comes to life (I do give credit to increasingly inclusive and diverse Hallmark for making yet another very Jewish movie). Rachel's friend Doris tells her the story and then just happened to be carrying an amulet (that's hundreds of years old) which her "bubbe" told her could bring a statue to life. Doesn't everybody just wander around town with magical family heirlooms that are hundreds of years old?

Doris (played in trademark fashion by veteran character actress Ileana Douglas) tells Rachel to think of her ideal man, put the amulet around her sculpture's neck, and wait for "The Universe" to bring her that ideal man. She calls it a "manifestation exercise".

Rachel, who has longed for the perfect man to come into her life, responds: "a sculpture that does dishes; a girl can dream" (admittedly, there are a few good lines in the movie).

Aaron O'Connell is great as the statue that comes to life. He's an extraordinary physical specimen and his earnest fish out of water character is actually the best thing about the movie. His "perfect" qualities are meant to seem silly and unrealistic, but there's a lot to like about someone so kind, thoughtful and supportive.

Matt Cohen plays David Cohen, the best friend of Rachel's brother in law. His performance is fine, and he plays a nice guy, but the fact that David used to be a lawyer before trying his luck as as a stand up comic reminded me of that old comic insult: "Hey, don't quit your day job." He's just not funny. The first time we see him on stage, he finishes up his act with some unfunny introductory lines that should've been used at the start of his act. Again, that's bad writing, not bad acting.

And despite giving up his career as a lawyer, for a career where his best opportunity (Laugh Fest) pays him nothing, David is somehow, like Rachel, also able to afford a beautiful Manhattan apartment. That's a bigger fantasy than a statue that comes to life.

The movie was bookended by some truly cringeworthy moments. The Big Ending and the timing of the Grand Gestures were not only "imperfect" they were so bad and ridiculous it may be worth watching just to marvel at how insane it all was. The ending completely undercut the movie's message about following your dreams and respecting the dreams of others. One Big Moment was casually tossed aside, while another was ruined by a "hey, let me interrupt your Big Moment and make it about me".

No one involved in this production apparently believes that "timing is everything".

I'm open to the idea of a Pygmalion type fantasy. I like a good fantasy. In fact, there was a great one done a few years ago called Ruby Sparks that was 10 times better than this movie.

Watch Ruby Sparks instead.

I absolutely love this movie. The main character really nailed it. His expressions were filled with so much joy in a goofy way. Really an entertaining watch. It was kind of strange for me, because the romance didn't end up working out for him. I took two stars off because the side characters had an uninteresting romance. I disagree with the notion that the perfect man didn't challenge the girl. Yes he did, it just wasn't the way she wanted to be challenged. He challenged her to be more giving, as giving as he is. She wasn't so interested in that though. That's OK, some of us don't have a big capacity to love and therefore are unwilling to try to become a better person for the other.

I don't usually like Hallmark movies, cause they're usually boring and uninteresting. But this one is different. It's funnier than the rest of Hallmark rom-coms, and it's not as rigid as other Hallmark dramas. The idea is very unique, using Golem as a medium in rom-com. Cause from what I've learned about Golems, that's not how they're made. And that's certainly not how they look like. But I guess we can be a little more versatile in its application? But I'm rambling now. Back to the movie, it's well delivered, well acted, and not to mention has a great moral value for everyone about love : it's not about perfection, it's about what you need.