Movie Review: THE PROPOSAL (Touchstone)

Mike LoManaco

HERE COMES THE BRIBE...


This was like a parallel universe for the screenplay of Bullock's early sapster While You Were Sleeping -- right down to the final sequence where she walks down an aisle to get married in a hideous looking bridal gown but yet the entire thing is a fake.

The last time I nearly vomited Captain Crunch into my lap watching anything Ryan Reynolds was in came when he starred -- completely inaccurately -- in the remake of Stuart Rosenberg's The Amityville Horror. In that ridiculously inaccurate re-telling of the Lutz family and their ordeal in Amityville, New York's famous haunted Dutch Colonial, Reynolds was completely miscast as George Lutz, co-owner of 112 Ocean Avenue (which was changed in the remake). While Lutz NEVER boasted a six-pack stomach nor hacked his own dog to death in real life, Reynolds was so entirely odd in the casting that it bordered on inhuman. Fast-forward to wedding season, 2009: Reynolds again finds himself in an implausible situation (this time with the plot of a film, not a casting mistake) when he portrays an overworked "personal assistant" to a bitchy publishing executive played by Sandra Bullock. With themes mixed between The Devil Wears Prada and New in Town, The Proposal borrowed heavily from both films, mainly in the way Bullock's character finds herself on an Alaskan island with stilletos and Louis Vutton luggage but with no clue as to navigate the terrain.

Let's go back a bit: The Proposal centers around Reynolds and the abuse he takes from Bullock, until Bullock is called into her boss' office to be told her Visa has been rejected for residency in the U.S. (she's from Canada). In a frenzy to remedy this so she doesn't lose her high powered job at the publishing firm in New York, she quickly devises a scheme to have Reynolds marry her. Against his will, she joins him in a weekend trip to his family in Alaska, where father Craig T. Nelson and mom (played by Ted Danson's wife) AND Grandma Betty White are all told of their sudden engagement. Meanwhile, an INS agent threatens them should they be lying about their marriage and if it's just a scheme to get Bullock to stay in the U.S., they're both in big trouble.

Once in Alaska, the film suddenly becomes While You Were Sleeping all over again, where Reynold's weird family take to Bullock -- right down to Betty White doing a grind dance with her in the woods to some rap song while White dons some Indian feathers and blankets...I'm NOT kidding. What follows is the typical blueprint for this type of film -- Bullock ends up telling the family the truth just before their "mock" marriage in Alaska (just like in Sleeping) and even though they both blackmailed each other to keep their jobs (in Reynold's case, a raise to Editor position if he goes through with this fake wedding to prove Bullock's case to INS), Bullock goes into the INS agent's custody and prepares to be deported. But, alas -- Reynolds is really in love with his boss! And so even through flirting with his ex in Alaska, he flies back to New York just in time to catch Bullock packing her things in her office at their publishing company. Of course, the two of them share their feelings for each other in front of a plethora of cubicle workers, kiss passionately and decide to get married to each other -- FOR REAL.

The Proposal makes you wonder just how far someone would go to secure a job or get a raise in this world -- and it's pathetic. I know I personally wouldn't succumb to the tactics outlined here, no matter how good the pay was; there's such a thing as pride. The semantics are ridiculously obvious and predictable in the film, but the actions are just unrealistic -- I mean, your boss wouldn't make out with you in front of dozens of co-workers and agree to marry you while the two of you wonder what you're going to do for work. :rolleyes:

At any rate, the fianc

Mike LoManaco

So I see others have seen this, eh?

You Polk fellas are disappointing me...:eek::eek::p

McLoki

I thought it was a very fun movie. I had a great time while I was there and while you certainly would not lose anything waiting for the DVD - I did not consider it a waste of money to see at the theater either.

I will be purchasing the blu-ray it when it comes out.

So - out of curiosity - are their any "chick flicks" that you have see that you did like? (just wondering if it is the movie or genera that you dislike...)

Michael

Mike LoManaco

McLoki wrote: »

So - out of curiosity - are their any "chick flicks" that you have see that you did like? (just wondering if it is the movie or genera that you dislike...)

Michael

Why would I like a chick flick? I boast testosterone...:rolleyes:

McLoki

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Why would I like a chick flick? I boast testosterone...:rolleyes:

Better question would be why try to do a review of a movie that you know you will dislike going in. Really - who is that benefitting?

Why not just post a thread titled "all chick flicks" with the review of "it sucked, save your money and time" will save alot of reading time on our part and writing time on yours.....

I do enjoy many of your reviews (more for your video and audio analysis), but you seem highly biased based on genre. Very odd for a "professional" reviewer.

Mike LoManaco

McLoki wrote: »

Better question would be why try to do a review of a movie that you know you will dislike going in. Really - who is that benefitting?

What does that have to do with anything? Plenty of reviews are written pre-biased by authors, but the fact is, the film is reviewed even though there may seem as if there is some heady predjudice in the overview. Who is it benefitting if I say I LOVE chick flicks in the review?

Why not just post a thread titled "all chick flicks" with the review of "it sucked, save your money and time" will save alot of reading time on our part and writing time on yours.....

I enjoy the writing end; as for the reading, it's just one person's opinion about a given film (mine, in this case). I made a simple remark (as mainly a joke) that you guys are disappointing me because of the comments in the other thread about enjoying The Proposal (as men), and suddenly we're back to arguments -- again, it's my opinion about all these guys commenting on a girly flick.

I do enjoy many of your reviews (more for your video and audio analysis), but you seem highly biased based on genre. Very odd for a "professional" reviewer.

Do we really need to stoop to merely following in the exact footsteps of everyone who joined the "you're laughable!" bandwagon in the "Knowing" thread? It's pathetic; follow your own course. :rolleyes:

As for me being "biased," AGAIN, it's a matter of personal opinion -- and may times, I conclude a review by stating that while not for me, the title may be someone else's cup of tea, or "YOUR mileage may vary."

Ron Temple

I like Ryan Reynolds, I like Sondra Bullock and while prior to watching this one, I thought she was a bit long in tooth to pull this off, I was wrong. I don't go to the theatre often (why bother, it's better at home), my wife wanted to see this, so we went. I thoroughly enjoyed it, well written, funny and well acted. Sure it's formulaic, but so are action movies. Ryan Reynolds, aside from being a master of Van Wilder type smartassiness, can actually act. Every actor trying to get traction early on does stinkers like Amityville. At least it didn't hurt him. There are lots of "chickflicks" I can't stomach, but give me a few laughs, a decent story and execution then Romantic Comedy works for my house. The Proposal had more than a few laughs.

Mike LoManaco

Ron Temple wrote: »

Every actor trying to get traction early on does stinkers like Amityville. At least it didn't hurt him.

Ron,

The problem goes way beyond the remake of Amityville Horror "being a stinker"...I know a great deal about the real Amityville murders story, having lived minutes from 112 Ocean Avenue, and researching the case for pre-law classes at New York's Hofstra University; Reynolds was COMPLETELY and UTTERLY miscast for the role of George Lutz. His age, mannerisms and looks were ridiculously inaccurate, and sure, this was the fault of Michael Bay and the rest of the team that put the casting together for that travesty, but I found it disturbing that as with the case of all modern horror remakes, they turned Mr. Lutz (who recently passed in Las Vegas) into some six-pack-stomached sexy '70s dude just so girls of the current generation could "learn" of the Amityville case and drool over Reynolds' hard stomach. It's actually nauseating; the memories of the De Feo family have been disgraced by that remake, but that's an entirely different argument. :rolleyes:

Ron Temple

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Ron,

The problem goes way beyond the remake of Amityville Horror "being a stinker"...I know a great deal about the real Amityville murders story, having lived minutes from 112 Ocean Avenue, and researching the case for pre-law classes at New York's Hofstra University; Reynolds was COMPLETELY and UTTERLY miscast for the role of George Lutz. His age, mannerisms and looks were ridiculously inaccurate, and sure, this was the fault of Michael Bay and the rest of the team that put the casting together for that travesty, but I found it disturbing that as with the case of all modern horror remakes, they turned Mr. Lutz (who recently passed in Las Vegas) into some six-pack-stomached sexy '70s dude just so girls of the current generation could "learn" of the Amityville case and drool over Reynolds' hard stomach. It's actually nauseating; the memories of the De Feo family have been disgraced by that remake, but that's an entirely different argument. :rolleyes:

Well obviously this story strikes close to home for you. I saw the original with Jame Brolin...ehh...back then I was a horror fan. I wasn't impressed. The fact that the story has a basis in true life experience wasn't enough to make it interesting. I passed on every other rendition of the franchise. So what if RR was miscast, very few watched with any critical appreciation for the film or it's true story. It's a bump in the road for his career and totally forgotten by most...but, evidently not by MLM .

Mike LoManaco

Ron Temple wrote: »

Well obviously this story strikes close to home for you. I saw the original with Jame Brolin...ehh...back then I was a horror fan. I wasn't impressed. The fact that the story has a basis in true life experience wasn't enough to make it interesting. I passed on every other rendition of the franchise. So what if RR was miscast, very few watched with any critical appreciation for the film or it's true story. It's a bump in the road for his career and totally forgotten by most...but, evidently not by MLM .

Well, being that my family KNEW the De Feos personally struck a chord with us, and I found your statements regarding "so what" to be a bit harsh, in that Reynold's performance kind of disgraced the memory of the Lutzes (both now deceased, except for their children of course) and the De Feos because it was a total mess, and completely inaccurate. Of course, this was the fault of the FILM MAKERS as well, mostly, but you are right -- it's NOT forgotten by me nor others who took the miscasting of Reynolds seriously, many of which I know personally. You are wrong in the fact that the horrible rendition of Lutz and his family has been "forgotten by most" because there's a big interested fan base out there on this subject.

At any rate, after his performance in the Amityville remake, I couldn't take him serious anymore, although he was decent in "Proposal" I suppose.

avelanchefan

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

So I see others have seen this, eh?

You Polk fellas are disappointing me...:eek::eek::p

Not trying to fan the flames, but there was another thread on this before you posted your review. Did not really feel like responding twice to it.

Plus I really liked it.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84940

Mike LoManaco

avelanchefan wrote: »

Not trying to fan the flames, but there was another thread on this before you posted your review. Did not really feel like responding twice to it.

I don't believe that was written before mine, unless it was recently bumped to the top.

Plus I really liked it.

You really liked it? May I respectfully ask why? What was it?

Re-reading your post in the other thread, it seems you liked Betty White's performance (I don't understand why, but okay!) and you "like" Ryan Reynolds; were those the major factors?

Ron-P

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

I don't believe that was written before mine, unless it was recently bumped to the top.

Look right above the poster's name, it states the date. A simple search before anyone posts will greatly reduce multiple threads on one topic.

AudioGenics

i think the wife is heading to blockbuster for this one...

Mike LoManaco

jvc wrote: »

i think the wife is heading to blockbuster for this one...

Don't let her do it!!!

Unfortunately, it recently hit theaters, so it's not at Blockbuster yet...