Oh Amy Adams...: Leap Year

Who is she proposing to? Me?

Directed by Anand Tucker

Starring Amy Adams, Matthew Goode, and John Lithgow for exactly 2 minutes

SYNOPSIS: Apparently in Ireland a woman can propose to a man on Leap Day. Why this seemed like a good premise for a movie remains a mystery.

THE GOOD: Matthew Goode is really good looking. I mean really good-looking. It had very pretty settings. It's clear that they shot on location in Ireland, which is nice to see in a movie rather than substituting Vancouver for New York (yes this is a common practice in the industry). Amy Adams is so cute, it's hard not to root for her despite her character being a spoiled brat, which I'll talk more about below.

What's my motivation? I don't know just look sexy.

THE BAD: Well...it really was just a poorly written movie. Let's start with the premise. Apartment stager (does this actually exist?) whose name I've already forgotten...oh it's Anna it's on the poster good. Ok anyway Anna lives a privileged life. She has a weird job, a weird looking doctor boyfriend, and she's months away in living in her dream apartment. The one thing Anna wants is to be married, but her boyfriend doesn't deliver. It sounds ok so far right? Except Anna's character is about as developed as light exposed film, which is to say not at all. There's no reason why Anna wants these things. The movie relies on an outdated code of cultural values that don't really make sense in a modern world. Add to this the fact that despite Anna's posh life she was raised poor by a deadbeat father. This might explain why she lusts after this so called "perfect" life, but there's not even a hint of trying to develop this part of her life.

I wonder if I can exchange this bag for a well-developed character?

Even a simple flashback could have solved a lot of Anna's character problems. I think it's alright to leave some character traits to the imagination, but to have to infer the entire motivation of a character means a lack of writing and thought. Also I can understand that as a consequence of her poor upbringing Anna wants a better life, but I did not believe that she could become such a spoiled brat! Everything about her says materialism, but if you worked two jobs as a teenager I think you could understand the value of money without it making you some sort of uptight socialite. And it would be ok if this was just a mask to fit into upper crust society, but it's not. It's who she has really become and I just don't buy it.

Another issue besides the character development (I didn't talk about the others because they're standard cliches-The jilted grumpy love interest whose cruelty masks a broken heart and the posh, a little cold-hearted fiancee who is all wrong for our heroine) is the actual plot of the film. Again these outdated cultural values create a convoluted premise. Why does Anna need to travel to Ireland to propose? The film could have stood on its own without the Leap Day proposal aspect. I think the writer just wanted a time constraint. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a woman to propose to a man in America. Add to this the perfect uselessness of John Lithgow as Anna's father who appears only to give the information that it is considered "appropriate" for a woman to propose to a man on Leap Day in Ireland. I mean really, that's literally all he says.

The brief appearance of John Lithgow

Honestly, by the end I think even the actors were tired of this pantomime. The chemistry between Goode and Adams was practically non-existent by the denouement. Admittedly it's hard to get into a character who you know nothing about and whose character seems to be in contrast with their experiences. The love story was completely lacking. It's not enough for them to be attractive and hating each other and then just fall in love. That doesn't make sense! There needs to be some sort of bond forged between them-I don't know I'm just brainstorming.

Why did we do this movie?

THE VERDICT: It's really not worth it. At all.

I give it 1 out of 5*