FILM
Adam (12A)
2/5
IN A NUTSHELL
A loner with Asperger's syndrome and his new neighbour make a fragile connection in this off-beat New York romance.
REVIEW
Adam is a star-gazing loner with Asperger's syndrome. Teacher Beth has been scarred by life and is having a stab at solo flight. Flung together in a New York brownstone, this pair of winsome drifters collide in that awkward manner that lovers must do in Act One.
But here's the flaw in the big idea. Adam only appears to have Asperger's when it suits the plot. When a crisis is due, Adam comes over all Rain Man and starts cracking his head against things and banging his temples like a baboon dislodging Lego from its ear.
When the plot demands that Adam (Hugh Dancy) reaches out to Beth, he's suddenly that super-sensitive geek who takes his wounded paramour to see raccoons scampering around Central Park or spooning on their bed, "taking it slow". He's all cutesy smiles, thick brown jumpers and neat one-liners. ("I'm not Forrest Gump," he says when presented with a box of chocolates.)
And Beth? Well, there's nothing in Beth's (Rose Byrne) history to suggest that she would entertain the idea of becoming Adam's de facto mum just for some face time with a sweet guy. Especially when the face time is hallmarked by Adam's David Blunkett-a-like eye twitchery, as though he's forever tracing the flightpath of a mosquito on Magner's.
This is a slight tale, shot beautifully, using the burnished colours of autumnal New York and some stylish cinematography to good effect. Writer-director Max Mayer's movie is not without its interesting ideas and tender touches, not least because Dancy and Byrne make the most of wafer-thin roles by painting over the inconsistencies with daubs of sincerity.
But the overplayed subplots (a tacked-on tale of Beth's father facing fraud charges and Adam's hokey pal Harlan issuing life advice in handipack anecdotes) merely emphasize the paucity of genuine progress in the central romance.
So it's not Adam that has Asperger's (and shout if you've seen this coming) it's the movie itself, finding itself unable to engage, misreading minds and motives and preferring a sense of routine to exaggeration or excitement.
