The majority of the user reviews focuses on bad acting performances and although the acting performances truly are a great component to the integrity of a movie, it still can not be the main reason to judge whether the movie is good or bad.
So first of all the acting sure is not this movie's greatest virtue, but neither it's worst one. Let us just stay with saying that the casting is debatable.
When you read Life in a year's summary of a plot you know exactly what to expect. You know there is going to be a romance between a boy and a dying girl with a sad ending. You know that. You go with that. You are in a mood for that sort of a movie, or you need some low-brain activity relaxation. Movies like that purely entertain and that is great, we need those kinds of movies.
One movie critic once said that romance movies are the hardest to write. Why? Because the audience knows what is going to happen, yet a screenplay writer still has to come up with a script that in some way is going to differ from other romcoms. This movie could not fail more in this aspect. There is nothing wrong with a few cliches in a romantic movie because you expect them. They are comforting, they are relying upon that the audience just excepts them, the audience won't judge them, they just feel them. But if the movie is stringing them up one after the other the outcome is a bad movie.
You have a wild and lively parentless girl Isabelle with a terminal disease, you have Daryn, a nerd kid who needs some unruliness in his life, but his strict and controlling father gets in the way. You have a loving mother who loves and supports her son's romance and sees a bigger picture. You have two friends who help Daryn to reach his goal. Now imagine a plot. Write down scene after scene (some of them look like a music video - you know driving on a road 15 km/h so the actress' hair is not flattering in the wind), add a few cringes. Then you watch Life in a year. You probably guessed the majority of the scenes in this movie. This movie is begging writers for some sort of creativity but it gets none.
When you read Life in a year's summary of a plot you know exactly what to expect. You know there is going to be a romance between a boy and a dying girl with a sad ending. You know that. You go with that. You are in a mood for that sort of a movie, or you need some low-brain activity relaxation. Movies like that purely entertain and that is great, we need those kinds of movies.
One movie critic once said that romance movies are the hardest to write. Why? Because the audience knows what is going to happen, yet a screenplay writer still has to come up with a script that in some way is going to differ from other romcoms. This movie could not fail more in this aspect. There is nothing wrong with a few cliches in a romantic movie because you expect them. They are comforting, they are relying upon that the audience just excepts them, the audience won't judge them, they just feel them. But if the movie is stringing them up one after the other the outcome is a bad movie.
You have a wild and lively parentless girl Isabelle with a terminal disease, you have Daryn, a nerd kid who needs some unruliness in his life, but his strict and controlling father gets in the way. You have a loving mother who loves and supports her son's romance and sees a bigger picture. You have two friends who help Daryn to reach his goal. Now imagine a plot. Write down scene after scene (some of them look like a music video - you know driving on a road 15 km/h so the actress' hair is not flattering in the wind), add a few cringes. Then you watch Life in a year. You probably guessed the majority of the scenes in this movie. This movie is begging writers for some sort of creativity but it gets none.