Someone with a modicum of brains should be able to write Ms. Bullock a decent part. She is too old to play these ingenue pieces and needs someone to make her into the milf that she is. Chicks are from 16-29 years old, not 40-ish. She is funny and sexy but by no means is she young.

For goodness sake, this is a standard enjoyable Romcom, not a documentary about the state of the publishing industry. It is completely irrelevant whether the job situation is realistic in these "challenging times" - it is supposed to be escapist....

I must defend Ryan Reynolds' track record. Loved him in Just Friends (a surprisingly funny and sweet romcom, or rather more of a comrom). He was also great in The Nines and Smokin' Aces, but was overshadowed by the sheer craptitude of the films as a whole. I find Reynolds immensely likeable, and think he's got great comic timing and some acting talent. Plus he's cute.

He is a somewhat unlikely leading man, as he is not exactly handsome. But whoever picks his vehicles must be really smart. He's now emerging as a "star" -- is it just me or does it seem as if his marriage to Scarlett really upped his visibility (If one of the sexiest women in the world finds him sexy, after all -- !)

I've seen him now on two talk shows: Rachael Ray and Letterman. What I can say is: he really knows how to work the diffident charm (though did feel that on Letterman he was trying just a tad too hard -- and I think Letterman sensed it, too. I love that Letterman asked him: How does it feel to know that your wife is "feeling chemistry" with an on-screen co-star?)

Love Sandra Bullock. A forty-ish woman ought to be able to play in a rom-com without people making a reference to her actual age.

Screenwriters are shockingly lazy.

How is it that, oh, 90 percent of all movies ever made involve the leads working in publishing, advertising or the fashion industry?

Literally no one ever sits at a desk and does actual work (though obviously some movies are the obvious exception).

The point being that if your a screenwriter you should feel guilty as hell for cashing that $2 million check for writting such hackneyed shit. It's stealing (at the very least you stole two hours of my time with a script it took you 2 days to write. You simply cut and paste the plot/dialogue from a dozen other RomCom's....nearly verbatum)

Handsome Leading Man falls for Beautiful Leading Lady and they both work at glamourous/exciting jobs. Smash cut to happy ending, cue pop song as leads kiss and fade to credits!

EARN the money and write something that has been written 57 times before.

((How is it that, oh, 90 percent of all movies ever made involve the leads working in publishing, advertising or the fashion industry?))

There are plenty of movies where the characters have non-glamorous jobs. Indeed, "Adventureland" has already been mentioned in the comments.

There is a certain type of movie where everyone has a glamorous job. The amusing thing about your comment there is that, first of all, anyone who has actually worked in publishing or advertising is likely to laugh at the depiction of their job. Secondly, in this sort of movie, the characters are in the 95th percentile of physical attractiveness, have beautiful expensive apartments, sophisticated friends and fancy cars, but the only glamor you notice is that of their jobs.

This film has been done before, so many freaking times. It pisses me off - as soon as I see the previews I know it'll be cute and fluffy and the ending is moot.

Why does it piss me off? Because I'm a wannabe screenwriter stuck in cubicle hell. I don't expect any of my stuff to be made - only a tiny percentage of scripts actually get made.

But recently I got notes on something I wrote to the effect of "it's been done before". Only, ya know, it hadn't. It was apparent that after a couple pages, the reader decided "Oh, these two characters get together, just like in XXX or YYYY!"

Only, ya know, that's not what happens.

But with his assumption, he stopped reading (it's obvious; he doesn't even mention the actual love interest's name, or give any notes on the structure or plot). Boom, rejected because he thinks "it's been done before".

And yet we get this crap plot line that HAS been done before, over and over? It's as if the same thing happened - someone read 5 pages or whatever - and they said "It's been Done Before! And made money! When do we start shooting!!"

There are literally thousands upon thousands of ideas out here. Maybe mine suck big time, who knows, but it's not possible that everyone's suck. Out of those thousands, if even .1% of them are any good, we shouldn't have to sit through such predictable stuff.

Surely there is a place for something NEW?

Rant over.

Do the producers of today's romantic comedies just fill out a standardized form, or something? These pieces of unmemorable brain candy have become so indistinguishable from one another that it almost seems pointless to produce new ones.

This review makes the The Proposal sound like No Reservations or The Devil Wears Prada, or, well, any number of others in which a single successful woman is presented some sort of monster and/or incurably lonely. I'm so tired of this theme in books and movies! Here's a better idea; single, successful female is courted by many because she's intelligent and dynamic (therin adoringly flubbed efforts to "catch" her ensue, followed by many laughs), but in the end decides she prefers her network of friends or her solitude. Now, that's a happy but not mushy ending!

I loved Ryan Reynolds in "Just Friends" and I loved the movie "Two Weeks Notice," with Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant. I tend to hate romantic comedies, but the silly sweetness of those two worked. I'm looking forward to this one. (I also tend to disagree with Zacharek 98% of the time, so that's another good reason to see it.)