Movie Review – “The Proposal”

July 2, 2009

I normally don’t read movie reviews in much detail until after I’ve seen the movie. Before the movie, I might peruse the review to see if the movie is something I could even possibly like, and to generally exclude those that get the thumbs down.

After the movie, particularly if its one I’ve liked, I’ll consume the review in great detail, largely to receive confirmation about my own feelings about the movie. This is somewhat ironic, since I largely believe the traditional structure of the what we receive expert opinions on versus public opinion is reversed. For instance, we survey the general public about complicated issues of national policy about which they have no idea, and use those opinion polls as the basis for legislative decision-making, and even foreign policy.

On the other hand, we send one guy into a restaurant whose taste buds are no better than anyone else’s to tell us whether the restaurant is good, when what we should really be looking at his is how crowded the restaurant is. The situation is somewhat ditto for movies – at least we should be looking at how crowded the theater is after the first weekend, when some of the effect of the pre-premier hype has worn off.

Anyway, my review of The Proposal is this: I like the movie even though its a chick flick, but:

1. Seeing Sandra Bullock naked is no reason to go. First of all, you can’t see any private parts. Second, she’s old enough to be my sister, which at this point is not a good thing. Yes, she still looks good, obviously having had a lot of work done, though I never thought she was hot even when she was younger. But its not exactly like she looks good enough where I’d wanting her sitting on my face – unless I was rolling on E. On top of that, she plays a cunt - so its just not believable that a rich guy barely half her age rich would fall for her.

2. The movie serves as the final admission, as if it were still necessary, that the bulk of contemporary American women are whores, as if you didn’t know already from seeing so many rich models end up marrying old billionaires. Hollywood does not put out a mainstream movie such as this without extensive marketing research. In this movie, Bullock plays a presumably around-her-own-ageish (44) successful NYC magazine editor, who manages a floor full of people. The plot has her needing to get married immediately, so she proposes to her secretary, a tall, decent-looking-in-shape guy three years out of college. Eventually, they end up marrying, and a very large part of his appeal is that, as Bullock learns upon visiting his home in Alaska – and as repeatedly hammered home at many turns – it turns out the guysecretary is loaded – “Alaskan Kennedys,” as the Bullock character notes.

In other words, Hollywood marketing has determined that in order for the movie to max its appeal as a chick-flick, not only does the incredibly successful nearly-twice-the-guy’s-age cougar land the guy, but he has to be loaded. To the hilt. It isn’t enough that, despite obviously not needing his money, the cougar lands a guy around half her age. The half-her-age guy has to have big dough, now, too.

If you’re a reverse cougar like me, don’t see this film, at least not with a date. My date was 25. Less than two weeks before she had given me a lap dance in a strip club. When I left her after dinner after this movie, she evaded a kiss on the lips. We haven’t communicated in the three days since. Based upon the age difference between Bullock and her co-star, I can only assume my date, whose idea it was to see this film, would have preferred to be on a date with a five-year old Kennedy-type – perhaps a Jolie-Pitt.

Meanwhile, it appears that we are still giving favorable treatment to white women in employment, so they can have better jobs than they deserve in addition to being born on third base by having vaginas. And the future for most guys is going to be like what? Where does it end?

Click on pen to