I Give It a Year (2013)

I Give It a Year has the standard-issue tone of most romantic comedies: nothing’s too heavy or serious, regardless of how dire the topic or situation might seem. Often times the plot and characters’ reactions border on ridiculous. The story is mostly predictable and boilerplate. But somehow despite all this, because it’s funny and its characters are likeable, the film exists comfortably in this unrealistic rom-com world. Surprisingly, it kinda works.

The movie opens with a scenes from a montage of a young, attractive couple’s relationship, played over Stephanie Mills’ disco classic “Never Knew Love Like This Before.” We see them on dates, at dance clubs—doing couple-y things—then ultimately getting married after only being together seven months. Big mistake? The film’s title is a clue.  

The pair are Josh (Rafe Spall) and Nat (Rose Byrne). Nat works at an impossibly upscale London marketing firm. It’s all glass walls and gorgeous views of the Thames. He’s a writer, pecking away at a keyboard in his home office. They’re surrounded by desperate-seeming people, most either unhappily-married couples, or lonely singles. Nat’s sister Naomi (a one-note-but-still-very-funny Minnie Driver; Good Will Hunting, Barney’s Version, Owning Mahowny, An Ideal Husband) is relentlessly bitter and critical of her sad-sack doctor husband (Snatch’s Jason Flemyng; also Benjamin Button, Layer Cake, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels). Friends, parents, co-workers all are either with someone or overtly searching.

As the wedding winds down, Josh’s parents reminisce about the many years of their union. Specifically, the myriad difficulties of surviving that first year together. That, they believe, is the toughest part. According to them, if you can somehow manage to get through those first twelve months, the rest is downhill. Its an ominous harbinger for our young protagonists.

Over and awkward dinner, we (and Nat) learn Josh used to date the pretty-but-plain Chloe (an intentionally drab, low-key, and hapless Anna Ferris; Lost in Translation, the Dictator). Years earlier she interrupted their relationship by leaving for Africa “to help stop the spread of disease.” Now she’s back, and clearly the romantic feelings they once shared still linger.

Nat, in turn, meets the good-looking, suave, persistent, and aptly-named Guy (Simon Baker; TVs the Mentalist) through work (he’s a potential client). Eschewing any rules of professional decorum, he hits on her like a runaway freight train. She’s reluctant to mention she’s married, thinking it improves her chances of landing the account if she comes across as available. Though she doesn’t exactly flirt back, she doesn’t quite quash his advances, either.

Increasingly unhappy in their floundering marriage (she finds it impossible not to list Josh’s shortcomings: during a bout of writers block, he lies on the couch watching bad TV; he leaves the toilet seat up, he won’t take out the trash until asked, etc…among other annoying idiosyncrasies), she’s slowly starts to find Guy’s looks, confidence and bank account charming and attractive. Or she starts to wither in the face of his constant pressure. Either one.

So the set-up is that, but for the inconvenience of their marriage, both halves of the couple would really prefer to be with someone else. But alas, there’s that pesky wedding vow standing in the way. What to do?

The cast is first rate. Spall (Life of Pi, Hot Fuzz, Prometheus) and the ubiquitous Byrne (Get Him to the Greek, Bridesmaids, Sunshine, the Internship, current theatrical release Neighbors) are likeable enough. Their foibles are common and relatable. Both seem viable partners, just not for each other.

-->

Frequent Ricky Gervais-collaborator Steve Merchant (the British Office, HBO’s Hello Ladies, the animated Ricky Gervais Show and Extras, Hot Fuzz, an Idiot Abroad, Life’s Too Short) delivers the funniest, most memorable first-man speech of all time. It’s the part of the movie you’ll remember after it’s over. Examine the picture above. Look closely at the faces of the speech giver, then the husband and the wife. Brilliant. Even if his character is mostly superfluous, Merchant’s scenes are all terrifically funny. They’re the highlights of the film.

The film’s told in flashback, with the couple relating their story from the office of a severely-dysfunctional marriage counselor. This adds to the sense that, despite their desires being decidedly elsewhere, Nat and Josh really would like to at least make it through the first year. If for no other reason than to say they did.

The movie looks great. London is bright, vibrant and alive. The interiors (offices, hotels, bars and flats) are all sleek and modern. There’s no poverty on display here. Maybe not even any middle class.

Distractingly, the filmmakers (Year was written and directed by Dan Mazer, producer for Sacha Baron Cohen’s hysterical Ali G, Bruno and Borat vehicles) also use a freeze-frame/snap-shot effect repeatedly, for no discernible reason. It’s an artistic flourish that, while it may look neat, doesn’t really fit in or add anything to the story telling.  

I never heard of I Give It a Year before seeing the trailer on DVD. Was it ever theatrically released in America? I don’t remember any ads for it. With all its flaws, I Give It a Year is still pleasant and mildly satisfying. Even though it’s kind of dopey, lacks cohesion and some parts are unoriginal, owing to the cast's undeniable energy, and probably more so because it doesn't take itself too seriously, I liked it. Really. In fact, I’ve probably seen better movies, and enjoyed them less. It’s not great by any measure (this review is likely entirely too long for this movie), but it’s certainly watchable. The kind of movie you want to see while sprawled on the couch, snuggled beneath blankets, when you’re home sick from work one day. It’s cheerful, entertaining, and doesn't take much effort. I’ll grant that it’s not very deep; by the end I knew no more about the characters, or why they behave the ways that they do, than at the start. Still, I’m happy I saw it, even if I probably never need to see it again. Merchant’s best-man speech alone is worth it.

PS- After writing this, I stumbled another author’s review and was reminded of several scenes I failed to mention here. Recalling them, I wound up feeling that I liked Year even more than I had before.

The other writer claims the film “is not romantic in the slightest.” Which is true. And an odd quality for a film that appears (on its surface, at least) to be a “romantic-comedy.” The writer also believes the film wants to be both “silly” and “sentimental.” Both are reasonable goals. However, she feels that that joining of the two under one roof is ultimately the film’s “fatal flaw.” Though I think there’s room for both, it’s still a keen insight. The film probably would have been better, and felt less stilted, if it had committed more to one over the other. At the risk of seeming a plagiarist, I found her perspective smart, and worth mention.