Boy meets girl. They have sex shortly after meeting -- perhaps on the first date. After a month of good sex, they move in together. They have more sex. After nine months, they get engaged, then married.

Then, on their honeymoon, they're suprised that: (a) they don't really know each other that well (b) they don't really share common interests (c) they're not really interested in intimacy anymore, and (d) he has major character flaws.

Her family is rich. His, not so much so. Her mother has counselled her that it takes more than love to make a marriage work. What's missing? Commitment? No, more knowledge about herself. He promises they will be in love every day of their life. Of course, all married couples feel love 24/7 -- nope, no days where we don't just feel the love.

Yet, at each point, he chooses his ego above her (and everyone else's) well being. After nearly burning down an expensive hotel, rather than just apologize and take responsibility, he blames the manager for not printing warning signs in English. (Though she had warned him explicitly, in English.) In Vienna, rather than admit he's wrong, he insists they spend the night in a roach-infested pensioner.

Things are complicated for them by Peter, the well-to-do handsome courtier who followers her, trying to lure her away from her husband. Why didn't she marry him? Is it because he's an arrogant jerk? Is it because he's ambitious and would book as soon as her looks started to go? Is it because his attempts to seduce her prove he has no respect for marriage? Is it because character counts?

No, no, no. None of that. She doesn't like Peter because her life would be (gasp, wait for it ...) predictable. (Horreurs!) She likes Tom because her life would be completely unpredictable -- not because he's a better person or anything. That's so not part of the equation.

He's unpredictable. That'll be sooo helpful if they have kids.

What lesson will we learn from this? That delayed gratification might not be the worst thing in the world, if it helps you learn more about that person you're planning to commit the rest of your life to? That character is important when choosing a mate? That feeling "in love" each day is not a reasonable expectation, but choosing to act out love is? That commitment is important in making a marriage work?

Uh, actually, amazingly, yes. A bit anyway, on that last one. Little to negative on the other points, though. Guess we should be satisfied with even one small helpful point.

Does it outweigh the other bad advice connoted throughout the movie? Well, if one is already married, the message "be committed" is a good one. But I suspect the target audience here are unmarried teens, and frankly, getting to know the person, learning the importance of character, and of choosing the right kind of mate before marriage will head off a heck of problems before they even start.

Prevention is the best cure, after all.

We're given the message "love conquerors all", and "love is a feeling," and given the impression falling in love is unpredictable, like a lightning strike.

But really, true love is a decision to act in the best interest of a particular person, putting their best interest on par with or ahead of your own. And feelings of romantic attachment and arousal follow our values, choices, and will. If you have good communication and friendship, you'll have good sex. But no amount of good sex can get a couple through a hard time if they don't first have actual love, respect, and integrity.

The most important aspect of a marriage is the character and personality of the person you're marrying, not a frequent, daily check to make sure they have working genitalia and that it's going to fit with yours. In my experience, the latter intereferes with the former. Look at the stats and see how often married couples talk versus how often they make love, and judge which you think will be more important.

When these issues come up, the least helpful message possible is sent.

Okay, I'm dealing with this as a moral teaching tool, not a piece of entertainment. But it does teach, regardless of whether I focus on that or not. If images on screens didn't teach, advertisers wouldn't be paying through the nose for 20 minutes of time before the movie starts. And a movie can be fun while teaching something positive as easily as teaching something negative. And it isn't like they didn't try to shove a moral or ten down our throat, already.

Strictly as entertainment? Cute ending. Cute couple, except that he never apologises, really. She'll still have to deal with his ego. I guess I'm past the point of thinking the jerk who will never apologize makes a sympathetic hero. That aside, plays like an extended TV sitcom episode.

I've seen worse, though.

I wouldn't rent it for more than $1. Which is what I paid. :-)