Ruby Sparks

.

On paper Ruby Sparks sounds like it would be a decent quirky indie film and the potential for it to be such was clearly evident throughout. However, the film makers completely went about it the wrong way and turned it into a poorly scripted, over-serious film and some serious mis-casting/ill judged characters that completely ruined its potential. For instance, it was a silly idea to have the main character as a 'has-been' writer struggling with his new book because it felt like a contrived but not very well thought out background story and it stopped him being an everyday character like you or I but with quirks, with whom you could relate. Instead he was a miserable 29 year old millionaire living in a house with a pool and struggling to come up with an idea for his second novel. I did not feel sorry for him and this successful background did not seem to fit comfortably with the quirky indie vibe that this film was half-trying to give out. Also this aspect felt like a poor rip off of Wonder Boys, especially with the Steve Coogan character, who was a pointless replica of the Robert Downy Jr character in WB. Another thing that was also at odds with the vibe was the straight-laced, very boring brother of the main character. He was another character that seemed to be just placed there for padding, with having no real effect on the story what so ever and just seeming completely unnecessary. He was the most badly written/cast character of the film. He could have had so much potential to bring a much needed comedy and quirky element to the film but instead they just made him bland and useless. Then there's Elliot Gould, who makes a brief appearance as a psychiatrist. Unfortinately, like Coogan and the brother, he is another pointless, ineffectual character that has no impact on the story and is just more padding. What a waste! As for Ruby Sparks, well, every time she is on screen you can't help but think the film makers would have just loved to have had Zooey Deschanel in the role. She is a replica of the character that Deschanel has come to personify from her roles in things like 500 Days of Summer and New Girl. The story itself ends up being a bit naff and the main character is so egotistical, miserable and useless that it's a struggle to care enough to watch the whole thing. I was really disappointed in this film because the potential for it to be great was evident in almost every scene but the film makers failed to grasp the potential that was laid before them.

After reading several reviews about Ruby Sparks, my observation that many think that an indie film somehow must be bitter, jaded or even downright mean to its characters to be good was reinforced. Well, I suspect it's those reviewers who are jaded. Ruby Sparks is romance. It's funny in places, it's quirky (and has its flaws, sure, but they're easily forgiven). So don't watch it under a microscope. Watch it for what it is: a mildly oddball romantic comedy with a nice, superbly-refreshing twist. Don't watch it if you simply can't stand sweetness in an "independent film." It's not sappy, it's not laid on thick. To me, it was just the right amount. And left me feeling warm and good inside. Performances are excellent. The story line may border on formulaic...or APPEAR to. Give it a chance to break away. Sweetness is NOT a bad thing. Enjoy.

This is a movie that you can either love or hate, based on how you see it. On one side, it is a fantasy movie with "Groundhog day" accents (no, the day doesn't repeat again and again). On the other side, it is a beautiful metaphor which if you recognize, it is impossible not to give it a 10. Not because it is perfect. It has charm but it is a bit slow paced at times and the execution is not amazing. But rather because ... it feels so familiar. It is one of those movies describing what we've done, what we've felt, like it is our story. It is a different setting, different people, different circumstances but it is our personal story, at least for a large majority of people. This is why I like it and this is why I've decided to write this review. It made me think. It made me feel. It made me remember some parts of my life. It made me go over the plot holes and the "how the hell this can happen" type of scenes but rather, just think ... "Would I do the same?" and most importantly ... "Have I've done the same?". That's why you should watch this movie. The plot is not that important. The underlying message of this movie is. While I don't like romantic comedies so much, I can place it next to two other movies "If I stay" and "Tres Metro El Cielo". And while these two movies may seem as a "How to boost your estrogen level in 90 minutes" types of art, they also carry a very profound lesson.

Calvin (Paul Dano) is a financially successful writer who lives alone with his dog. Calvin suffers from writer's block and hasn't recovered from the demise of his previous relationship. He spends his days moping around his LA Mansion and occasionally hanging out with his brother Harry (Chris Messina). Who can break Calvin's writer's block and drag him out of his self-imposed exile back into the sunlight of real life? Why, a manic pixie dream-girl, of course! The eponymous Ruby (played by Zoe Kazan who also wrote the screenplay) is a literally a dream girl since she first appears in Calvin's dreams the comes to life as he writes about her. In fact, it turns out that Calvin controls her behavior by writing about her. Will he seek to control her or will he "set her free"? This is the slender thread on which the movie hangs. Ruby Sparks is an indie-style treatment of a Hollywood rom-com gimmick. It has some charm and a salutary (if somewhat hackneyed) message about the need to "give someone space" if you want to have a successful relationship. While its heart is in the right place, there is a major problem with the main character. Calvin is presented as so emotionally blocked that he can't form any relationships. His only significant romantic relationship as collapsed and he literally has no friends other than his brother. It hard to believe that such a stunted personality could write a coherent laundry list, much less a great novel which is beloved by millions. It is even harder to sympathize with his "poor little rich boy" problems. Furthermore, Calvin is apparently estranged from his mother (Annette Bening) and his stepfather (played by Antonio Banderas having fun hamming it up as a Big Sur dropout) for no apparent reason other than to make him even more mopey and estranged. So, five stars for Zoe Kazan's and Antonio Banderas' performances and some fleeting moments of charm. Not a movie to avoid, but not one to seek out either.

The premise is interesting - a blocked author writes about a woman and his creation comes to life as his girlfriend. Unfortunately it's not well done and the dialog is stilted, the situations are painful strained and obvious. Writer and star Zoe Kazan isn't polished enough a writer or appealing enough an actress to pull this one off. The main actors are of course unattractive. Paul Dano just looks terrible. Zoe Kazan shows she hasn't quite got the comic timing or physical appeal to lead a romantic comedy. Annette Benning and Antonio Banderas are out of place in their small roles. They are above this kind of silly stuff. It might have worked if better writers and a slightly more endearing cast had been involved. Woody Allen or the Farrelly Brothers could have done a much better job with the idea.

Were you excited to see what the follow up from the acclaimed directors of "Little Miss Sunshine" would be? And when you heard the excellent actor, Paul Dano, not only stars but co- wrote the script didn't that sweeten the pot? So it's with sincere disappointment that I report what a dull, dull, silly little move this is. It has both the premise and the depth of a bad short film, the kind your room-mate made in film school and forced you to watch...only now everything is in focus and the acting is fine, though oddly this only highlights the weaknesses in the story-telling. The premise, as you can tell from the trailer, is that a man writes the woman of his dreams. Sadly it is never more than that. Paul Dano feels miscast. Perhaps neurotic comedy is not in his wheelhouse. And the real Achilles Heel is Zoe Kazan as Ruby, who is never as charming or interesting as he finds her. If you are going to create a fictional woman from the ether, one would hope she would be more compelling than this. Flat and dull, and never as smart as it wants to be (NEEDS TO BE) I would not recommend.

It is an honest movie. In the beginning it is cute and funny, but then it quickly turns very serious and a little bit dark. Calvin creates a very similar relationship, to his last, with a woman who appears after he writes about her. It is a movie about their struggles as he attempts to create his perfect relationship by changing it on paper. It is a beautifully written story. Most movies today are about the special effects and don't have enough of the story. This movie is full of story and a great one. You will leave the movie theater feeling like you just watched a really great movie! Must see! This is what movie making should be about.

O dear, I have to write ten lines about this pseudo-indie movie instead of just warning you off the overwhelmingly positive reception it has garnered among those apparently besotted by its smugly conceptual cleverness. Yes it has a 'guest' appearance by Annete Bening (though that whole part has no real function in the film), and the principal actors are just fine in their puppet-like roles. But there is a problem that makes it all into some kind of queasy, warped, tract: Once entering the realm of magical realism, it is essential to play by the rules, which this film does not do. The writer, who is supposed to be a very good writer, does not behave towards the character he creates as a good writer would. This figures, really, for it betrays a misunderstanding of literary creation that is reflected in the writing of the movie too. The whole thing is merely a construct, and further cheapened by the hypocritical grinding of too familiar axes, as well as a stupid supposedly sweetly paradoxical ending. Beware Hollywood in indie clothing.

The storyline is original and very well written. I thought it was great. It's not about superheroes or an action movie or a thriller or a blockbuster. So who would enjoy it? Geeks, smart people, romantics, sci- fi lovers ... Regarding the latter, I'm sure the writer was not thinking in terms of sci fi, but it meets my #1 criterion for great sci fi, namely, it changes one aspect of ordinary reality, preferably the here and now and not the distant future, and through that change gives insight into that ordinary reality that we live in. Despite its' being about impossible fiction, it seemed more real than most movies. A lot of the best writing has a writer as the main character - so maybe it's true that one should write about what one knows best. Of course, it's about romance and objectification as well and that's well done as well.