So for mine and my husband's two year anniversary, we decided to stay in and rent a few movies (though we ended up going to see Gamer and ate dinner at Sonny's as well). My husband chose The Proposal (we were sticking with romantic movies). All in all, I enjoyed it. I was never interested in seeing it, didn't like the premise, thought it would be annoying, and doubted the chemistry between the two leads. For the most part, I was wrong. The two leads had some really cute chemistry, and I laughed a lot. I liked how they began to like each other pretty much from the beginning, instead of the good ole hate-each other-half-the-movie-then-inexplicably-suddenly-fall-in-love-before-the-end-of-the-movie romantic comedy formula. From the first day they are outside the office element, you see the attraction for each other right away. That was refreshing, and I thought both characters were likeable. My problem with this film was the ending. I won't spoil it, but it was so cookie cutter and unrealistic. Also, the ex-girlfriend character (played by Malin Ackerman of The Watchmen and Couples Retreat) was a completely pointless character. This actress has already had a lead in a big movie; she didn't need to take this tiny pointless role that did absolutely nothing for her. All in all, a funny, light film with a little suspension of disbelief.
Again **
I liked it too. They worked well together.
ReplyDeleteCAn't wait to see her in the new movie?
I thought it was cute, but was a little disappointed. I just felt like something was missing. Maybe I've just gotten too used to Sandra Bullock being the anti-girly-girl next door rathern than the uptight prude she tried so hard to be in this one and Ryan being jock full of one-liners. He seemed a little distant to me in this movie. Not to dismiss this one entirely, I just felt things suddenly came together a little too quick.
ReplyDeleteshe was prudish in Two Weeks Notice (a movie I did not like) but the character had a little more depth. Like, she acted prudish but was also a hippie, and that was an interesting contradiction.
ReplyDelete