The Proposal
Movie Review
"The Proposal"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: C-
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, June 19, 2009
Directed by:
Cast:
She's a cold-hearted scary boss lady; he's her much-abused personal assistant. In order to avoid being deported to her native Canada, she tells the immigration office that he's her fiance -- which means now they have to meet his family and pretend to be in love! Even though they don't get along! But as the charade continues, they're surprised to discover that sometimes the thing you pretend is true actually turns out to be true....
That's "The Proposal." Surely the sound of it makes you want to drive an ice pick through your eye. But while the plot is generic, unimaginative, brainless romantic-comedy fodder at its most basic, the movie proves bearable thanks to Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds' charismatic performances. Please note that I said bearable, not good. Not even average. Given the plot summary, though, you have to admit that anything better than "I took my own life halfway through the screening" is impressive. It's sort of like when someone opens fire on a crowded shopping mall and "only" two people are injured. Yay! I mean, boo, still, of course, but ... yay!
Bullock plays Margaret Tate, a no-nonsense, no-smiles editor at a New York publishing house, thus adhering to the law which states that all heroines of romantic comedies must live in Manhattan and work in the media industry (usually fashion magazines, but book publishers are OK). Reynolds plays Andrew Paxton, her assistant, gofer, and abuse recipient. Since Margaret is a workaholic, Andrew has to be, too. He doesn't like her, and neither does anyone else. Margaret, for her part, doesn't think about Andrew enough to have formed an opinion of him.
When Margaret is told by her bosses that her visa has expired and she will have to return to Canada, she impulsively declares that no, no, it's OK, because she's engaged to an American citizen. Andrew is the obvious choice for her ruse. The wily immigration officer, Gilbertson (Denis O'Hare), doesn't buy their story -- people try stuff like this all the time, you know -- but Margaret says they're going to Alaska to meet Andrew's family and announce their engagement this very weekend.
Andrew is from a tiny fishing village where everything is named after his family. "Why didn't you tell me you were some kind of Alaskan Kennedy?" Margaret asks. "How could I?" Andrew replies. "We were in the middle of talking about you. For the last three years."
Andrew's father, Joe (Craig T. Nelson), is disappointed in him for leaving Alaska for the big city. His mother, Grace (Mary Steenburgen), and grandmother, Annie (Betty White), are thrilled that he's brought a girlfriend. For most of the film, Grace and Annie stand around leering suggestively, apparently giddy at the idea of Andrew having sex. You expect this sort of behavior from Betty White, who has been a dirty old woman since the Depression, but Mary Steenburgen?
As usual with these things, Andrew and Margaret "pretend" to be in love by acting squeamish when called upon to kiss and generally avoiding one another. Why? Because that's "funnier" than if they actually put on a good act and convincingly faked being in love. Lots of crazy things happen to Margaret, like witnessing a male strip show, and letting the family dog get carried off by an eagle. Because she's a big-city girl who never has any fun, you see. Ha, ha. Get it?
The screenplay, by first-timer Pete Chiarelli, is obligated to include a hometown ex-girlfriend for Andrew, the pleasant but blank Gertrude (a pleasant but blank Malin Akerman). Her character, just like Andrew's mom, is woefully underdeveloped, serving almost no purpose in the story. Since there's never any question of whether Andrew and Margaret will eventually fall in love, and since Gertrude is never presented as a serious alternative, why is she even here? She feels like a character who had most of her scenes cut in post-production.
Hmm. It sounds like I hated this movie. I suppose I did, mostly. Did I mention yet that Andrew and Margaret get talked into having the wedding immediately, this weekend, while the family is all together in Alaska? And that the suspicious immigration officer SHOWS UP to investigate the veracity of their true love and affection? And that the entire plot, from top to bottom, is even less plausible than most romantic-comedy plots? And that the whole affair was directed by Anne Fletcher, the choreographer-turned-director who made "Step Up" and "27 Dresses"?
But there's something about Bullock and Reynolds. They have chemistry -- not romantic (goodness no!), but comic. They both play sarcasm well, and their impeccable timing means that even some of their terrible rom-com dialogue earns a chuckle here and there. Bullock was once America's Sweetheart, you'll recall, and you can see vestiges of her former glory in this anything-goes performance. In fact, you can see more than that in the scene where Andrew and Margaret, compelled to share a bedroom, accidentally see each other naked. Without sacrificing the PG-13 rating, Bullock reveals a lot more of herself than you'd expect. Anything for comedy, right? I admire that attitude, even if "The Proposal" is ultimately only slightly better than awful.
Grade: C-
Rated PG-13, a little profanity, a fair amount of sexual language, some partial nudity
1 hr., 44 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 20 comments
June 18, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Funny review Eric! I still can't believe they keep making the most predictable and overused plot they can think of. I'm sure the leads made it better than expected........but it's always sad when these types of movies do really good at the box office (which I have a feeling this will).
June 18, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I'm kind of hoping this will be the type of movie ravenously defended by barley-literate teenage girls (a la "Sex and the City" or "Titanic.")
June 18, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I think I liked this plot better on The Drew Carey Show, or on any sitcom which delved into this particular situation (of which I'm sure there are many). As always, though, great review, Mr. Snider!
June 18, 2009 at 7:06 pm
@Michael:
Or perhaps even oats-literate. Any type of grain, I suppose, would be acceptable. :-)
June 18, 2009 at 8:39 pm
As David Spade used to put it on his Hollywood minute sketches, "I remember seeing this movie back in the 80's. That was when it was called Green Card!" That was my initial reaction when I first saw the trailer for this movie.
June 19, 2009 at 7:31 am
I am surprised it was rated as high as it was.
June 19, 2009 at 12:45 pm
@Savvy-Veteran
I guess that just proves my point that when you're criticizing someone else's grammar, your chances of making a mistake multiply exponentially.
June 19, 2009 at 3:35 pm
As an immigration attorney, I can assure you that 1) people do try this all the time, 2) can't be just engaged - must be married, 3) such a marriage is presumed not to be bona fide - can be done, but very hard, and 4) I really am this anal. Which is probably yet another reason to watch this.
June 20, 2009 at 1:30 pm
A few years ago Sandra Bullock was being interviewed on The Today Show to promote another film. In the middle of it there was some kind of technical problem in the studio that I can't recall and she was forced to do a 5 minute riff on the news of the day. Jay Leno and David Letterman should have been there to take notes. I suspect that's why she may be given free reign to ad-lib on many of her rom-coms: She's funnier and more engaging that anything an average screenwriter can whip up, and I suspect it's the same deal with this movie. And if true she's anything close to au natural in it, I somehow think it won't be hurting the comedy.
June 21, 2009 at 1:50 am
@Bob:
Please elaborate on point #3.
June 24, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Good one, Eric. I know that the plot is overdone and hardly true to life - but it sounds like there's good acting, and I'm a sucker for a good performance.
I wasn't going to see it - but I'll check it out for Bullock and Reynolds.
Thanks!
June 29, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Loved the movie! It was really funny and would recommend this to all my friends. Sandra Bullock was great!
June 30, 2009 at 5:10 am
i usually hate romantic comedies because they are so predictable, and they always have the same ending, but i liked this one more than most- sandra bullock made the movie!
June 30, 2009 at 5:16 am
by the way, i'm a "barely-literate teenage girl."
July 12, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Tee-hee.
July 14, 2009 at 10:26 am
Bob didn't come back, but I work for immigration too. Basically, if someone gets married right after being ordered to leave, or when they are being sent to a judge who might tell them to leave, it is almost automatically assumed that the marriage is fake, and they have to prove that it isn't. The burden of proof is much higher in these cases.
September 17, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I intend to see the film at the dollar theater, but only by paying for another film and then sneaking into this SB film. Ms. Bullock was good in Speed, I must admit, but attorcious in While you were Sleeping.
Re Cheri's grammar: "someone" is singular, while "they" and "them" are plural. Ergo, it is better to jump back and forth between "he" and "she" as the antecedent for "someone."
September 17, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I intend to see the film at the dollar theater, but only by paying for another film and then sneaking into this SB film. Ms. Bullock was good in Speed, I must admit, but attorcious in While you were Sleeping.
Re Cheri's grammar: "someone" is singular, while "they" and "them" are plural. Ergo, it is better to jump back and forth between "he" and "she" as the antecedent for "someone."
When unnecessarily correcting someone's minor errors, it's good not to misspell words (like "atrocious"). Also, "he" and "she" wouldn't be the antecedents of "someone"; "someone" would be the antecedent of "he" or "she." And heck, while we're at it, those movie titles you mentioned should have quotation marks around them. See, once you get started unnecessarily correcting someone's minor errors, it's hard to stop.
September 25, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I love your review, Eric.
Though, I must admit it's (rather strangely) made me more curious to see it now!
I will report back.
November 30, 2009 at 10:29 am
I saw the Propo...I mean, "The Proposal" over the weekend, and enjoyed it far more than I expected. Of course, I had expected to spend the entire duration cringing, so it didn't take much to improve on that. Eric's review is spot on; Bullock and Reynolds (and a lot of the supporting actors as well) were MUCH better than the source material. Who do you blame when the movie has problems like this one had? The director, for not making sure things like the first kiss and developing romance are more believable and supported? Producers, for cutting character development? Writers, for being dreadful in the first place?