I liked this movie a lot, for all the reasons that have been so ably stated in the many user reviews that I read - great performances, sensitive and realistic portrayal of Asperger's, etc etc. I would have given it a higher rating, but ultimately I thought the movie was frustrating and unsatisfying.
**SPOLIER ALERT** I thought the movie ended up being quite inconsistent with it's own stated philosophy: at the beginning of the movie, Beth says that she learned everything about love from Adam, and later says, quoting her father, that loving is more important that feeling loved. But the movie resolved the relationship between Beth and Adam in the exact opposite way - she decided that she did not "feel loved" by Adam enough to join him in California, and the type of love that he offered was not enough for her. I'm not saying that's inauthentic for the character or the situation, only that it's not what the movie told us it was going to be about. I don't need a "happily ever after" ending, I just want the movie to be true to it's own stated philosophy of life. I was particularly surprised that Beth chose to end her relationship with Adam, as she had been encouraged to do by her father. I felt like the audience was supposed to think the father was wrong about Adam, the same way that he was wrong about other things.
I liked the movie and I liked the relationship between Beth and Adam, and the way it developed, but I thought the ending was ridiculous. I thought it was surprising and unrealistic that Adam moves to California and gets settled without any help at all. I also thought it was unlikely that he would understand what Beth meant by writing the children's book about him. I felt like the rug got pulled out from under me, and I was left scratching my head over the message of this movie.
I think Maze, about a man with Tourette's, and Dedication, about a man with OCD, were both more interesting and more satisfying portrayals of "troubled" men falling in love with "normal" women.
One more thing, which I feel compelled to mention - why was Rose's father Jewish? The family's religion serves no purpose in the larger story (the way it does in, say, Liberty Heights), and the father's character is shown to be deeply flawed, in both business and his personal affairs. So making him Jewish, frankly, seems to just affirm a stereotype about greedy businessmen. I was a bit offended by this, and it affected the way I felt about an otherwise lovely film which addresses an important issue.
**SPOLIER ALERT** I thought the movie ended up being quite inconsistent with it's own stated philosophy: at the beginning of the movie, Beth says that she learned everything about love from Adam, and later says, quoting her father, that loving is more important that feeling loved. But the movie resolved the relationship between Beth and Adam in the exact opposite way - she decided that she did not "feel loved" by Adam enough to join him in California, and the type of love that he offered was not enough for her. I'm not saying that's inauthentic for the character or the situation, only that it's not what the movie told us it was going to be about. I don't need a "happily ever after" ending, I just want the movie to be true to it's own stated philosophy of life. I was particularly surprised that Beth chose to end her relationship with Adam, as she had been encouraged to do by her father. I felt like the audience was supposed to think the father was wrong about Adam, the same way that he was wrong about other things.
I liked the movie and I liked the relationship between Beth and Adam, and the way it developed, but I thought the ending was ridiculous. I thought it was surprising and unrealistic that Adam moves to California and gets settled without any help at all. I also thought it was unlikely that he would understand what Beth meant by writing the children's book about him. I felt like the rug got pulled out from under me, and I was left scratching my head over the message of this movie.
I think Maze, about a man with Tourette's, and Dedication, about a man with OCD, were both more interesting and more satisfying portrayals of "troubled" men falling in love with "normal" women.
One more thing, which I feel compelled to mention - why was Rose's father Jewish? The family's religion serves no purpose in the larger story (the way it does in, say, Liberty Heights), and the father's character is shown to be deeply flawed, in both business and his personal affairs. So making him Jewish, frankly, seems to just affirm a stereotype about greedy businessmen. I was a bit offended by this, and it affected the way I felt about an otherwise lovely film which addresses an important issue.