Les Miserables

To be honest, I feel conflicted about Les Miserables. Not that I have a vested interest in the musical, or even Victor Hugo's novel. I don't – I've not read the novel nor seen the musical or even heard most of the music. It's just that, as personal preference, this sort of story is not a type of which I'm particularly fond. And there were issues with the style which bothered me to the point of distraction.

As for the story, my problem is that it starts as one story then becomes a different one. At the beginning it's about Jean Valjean and Javert. Jean Valjean, released on parole, decides to start a new life, under a new identity, and skip out on his parole. Even though he becomes a respected, well-to-do, man, he must always be alert because he can still be found out and sent back to prison. Everywhere he goes, eventually Javert shows up and recognizes Jean Valjean, forcing him to run again. I really liked this portion of the movie.

But, then, the story becomes about Cosette, the young girl who Jean Valjean feels responsible for after discovering he had not come to the defense of her mother, Fantine, when she worked for him and then turned to selling herself – hair, teeth, and body – and finally dying. Not only does it become about her, it becomes about her and Marius, a young student involved in the uprising against the French government. Their romance and the building revolt dominate the latter half of the story. As it's own entity, I liked this portion also.

Jean Valjean and Javert are still there, but they're more or less reduced to secondary characters. So what's the story? Who are the main characters? What is the main conflict? I have no problem when a story eschews these conventions and doesn't really contain them at all, but when a story changes mid-course it feels sloppy and unfocused to me. I could deal with two storylines being told in unison, alongside each other, but this feels more like one usurping the other. Or as though the Jean Valjean/Javert story is really just the setup for the Cosette/Marius story. But it feels like an awfully long way to go for a set up. Of course, this is an issue between my tastes and the source material. How can I really hold that against the film when it's a part of not just a classic musical but also a classic piece of literature on which it's based? If these two stories were distinctly separate from each other, with one ending before the other begins, I'd not have a problem. But telling them as one bothers me.

For its part, I think the film tells this story (these stories?) well. It's very effective. Each time Javert shows up again in Jean Valjean's life you feel for him – he's become a good man, in the grand scheme of things he's more than made up for any sins he's committed, but it makes no difference in the eyes of the law. And while the Cosette/Marius romance is of the 'love at first sight/I don't know you but I love you/star-crossed lovers' type, it's not bad. It adds stakes to the revolt section (whether you – or rather, I – think it's necessary). Jean Valjean's turn to accepting Cosette's and Marius' love doesn't really add anything to me, it doesn't add anything to his character as we already see him as an honorable and caring man, which I think adds to my distaste for the change in direction of the story. It seems a way to force him into the revolt story.

In the end, I feel like Javert is the most interesting character. The others are, more or less, static, they don't really grow or change. But Javert, he spends his whole life chasing Jean Valjean, and when he finally has the chance to get Valjean, he saves Javert's life – Javert becomes struck by the conflict, then, that what is lawful (to arrest and bring in Valjean) is immoral (because Valjean could've just left Javert to die and been free once and for all, but didn't), but to act morally is to be unlawful and go against everything he stands for, so he commits suicide by jumping off a bridge.

As for the issues with the style, I felt as though an inordinate amount of the film was told in close-up, and often somewhat awkwardly framed with too much head room and with the faces too close to the edge of the frame. This would seem, to me, to be a result of them recording the actors singing the song live, on set, as opposed to pre-recorded in a studio with actors lip-synching to playback. That approach would seem to not really allow the flexibility of multiple takes, without the use of a multi-camera set up, because each take the actor might have a different tempo, different rhythm, different take on the meldoy, etc. With close-ups, when the actors are moving around, the frame will need the extra headroom and lead room in anticipation of them moving. But it doesn't really work well when you're not intercutting between wide or medium shots and just using the properly framed portions of the take. Plus, it seems the actors are looking straight into the camera a lot, which increases the awkwardness.

Also, we often end up not seeing the actors interacting with the other actors. You have, really, an excellent cast, but we don't get to see them working together as much as we, maybe, should. It's almost as though most of the movie was shot one actor at a time – that's the feeling I got. But when the frame opens up, such as with the “Master of the House” sequence, it's really fantastic. When we get to see two or more actors together on screen, it's good. It's just that nearly the whole movie is singing and nearly all the songs are shot in that close-up style. For me it got distracting when I realized most of it was just faces singing at me. That's a shame because it undermines the portions that were shot with fantastic style.

So, as you can see, I just don't know how quite to feel about this. I can't deny the story is big and grand and has power and weight to it. I can't deny that parts were shot really well. The music is excellent, though I thought perhaps the conversational nature the actors took with it occasionally didn't always serve it well (as though at times they weren't sure whether to say a line or sing it and kind of change their mind halfway through delivering it). Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean, Russell Crowe as Javert, and especially Anne Hathaway as Fantine give fantastic performances – if there were no other reasons, they make the film worth seeing. I enjoyed the film, I truly did. I think it's a good film, all in all. There were just issues that I had that, at least upon this initial viewing, drove me to distraction. I suppose the best way I could put it is that I would definitely be willing to watch the film again and give it another chance because none of those issues were of the variety that make me not like it.

3 out of 5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Let's get this out of the way. Do you love the book, The Hobbit? Do you want a movie that is simply the book on film? Then you should stay home and read the book. If you got upset and distracted by the way Peter Jackson wasn't strictly faithful to the timelines and events of the Lord of the Rings books in his adaptations, then save yourself, and everyone else, the bother and read the freaking book again. You're not going to be happy. You're just not – you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Peter Jackson is taking the opportunity of telling The Hobbit to also fill out more of the Middle Earth story. He's including other material that Tolkien wrote to make a more complete Middle Earth story, together with the Lord of the Rings films, than would be possible with sticking only to what is in The Hobbit book. When this series of films is finished, it looks like the goal is to be able to watch these and the Lord of the Rings films as one singular tale, as opposed to two separate entities that are tied together only by Bilbo, who doesn't feature heavily in the latter story, and the ring, which doesn't feature heavily in this story.

And, so far, it looks like the two series will fit together quite well, at least as far as look and style are concerned. Unlike, say, the Star Wars films, where the original set of films and the prequels look and feel like very different entities. Although Jackson has switched to shooting on digital and can do more with CG now than before, he still uses a lot of the same techniques, and uses much of the same crew. The result is unity and consistency to both series.

I felt like there were some times where they forced thing a bit, particularly emotion. For instance, when Bilbo meets up with the rest of the group after escaping Gollum. They believe he has run away and so much the better, because all he's wanted to do is go home anyway. He hears them and after a few moments of doubt, he sneaks up on them, invisible because of the ring, takes it off, reappears, and makes a speech about why he wants to help them. And immediately everyone's happy and they believe in him, where a minute ago they didn't. It felt like a cheesy, forced moment. And there's a couple of them. It is something that Jackson indulged in with the Lord of the Rings series as well, with emotional, inspirational speeches.

The film is nearly 3 hours, but I didn't notice the length. Once they leave the Shire, the movie keeps a pretty good pace. So it moves along well. I think they incorporated the additional story elements well, bringing back story and more motivation to some of the characters than in the book. In the book, it's basically just that they want to get their ancestor's gold and treasure, because they like gold and treasure. But with the added story elements there's more about regaining their lost kingdom and home. It makes for a more fulfilling story with greater character depth.

I saw the film in 3D. It was filmed in 3D, not a post-conversion. I thought it looked very natural. I've given up on 3D actually adding anything, it doesn't and didn't here. It just looked good. But nothing will be missed by seeing it in 2D. I didn't see it in the 48 frames-per-second that Jackson shot it in, so I can't comment on that.

The film is cast well. It's a large cast because there's a lot of characters. And because there's so many characters, you don't really get to know most of them that well, aside from the real main ones. But that is the result of the source material. Like the Lord of the Rings series, the special effects, make-up, and costumes are all outstanding. The film is fun and exciting. I'm interested what they do with the story in the next two films.

3 1/2 out of 5

Anna Karenina

I've never read Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. I also have never seen any previous film versions of it. I've also not seen any of Joe Wright's previous films. I also hadn't really heard much about this film. I'm stating all this here to note that I can't comment on how this film treats the story, as compared to the novel; how effective it is in telling the story, as compared to previous film treatments; or how the director's style or tendencies come into play. Basically, I know nothing about anything to do with this film and can only speak from the vacuum of this film in and of itself. Why point this out?

Well, the film is very stylistic. The film has a theatric quality to it. Occasionally. Every once in a while they call back to a stage, as though it's a play being performed. And every once in a while the actors make their way through the 'backstage' area on their way from one scene to the next. And every once in a while the actors in a scene move as though choreographed. And I like this. It's very unique. The choreography sense makes it feel very musical in a way. They set this up in the opening minutes. And once it becomes clear, I totally bought into it.

But you may notice I used words like “occasionally” and “every once in a while” up there. And that's the rub. It sets up this feeling, it says 'here's what we're doing' and you go 'okay, I'm ready.' But then it doesn't really follow up that style of the first few minutes consistently throughout the rest of the film. This device didn't seem to be used for any particular characters specifically or for particular types of scenes. Just every once in a while 'oh look, there's the stage' or 'oh look, they're going backstage.' Everything else is done in a traditional film style on contained sets. And when he decides to show a scene or a character on this stage, it's not as though they're playing to anyone or that it is a play being put on.

There's a scene after Anna's husband, Count Alexei Alexandrovich Karenin, finds out she is in love with Count Alexei Kirillovich Vronsky where he leaves the room and goes into his study. We follow him into the room and he's sitting on a chair on the stage, the camera behind him looking out to an empty hall. Maybe he's going to soliloquize or put on an act in some way, you think. But no, he just sits there. On a stage. For what purpose? I don't know.

So, essentially, this effect is just there for show. It's there to be there. When it's there at all. Which is a shame because, as I said, I liked it. I just didn't feel it added anything or was implemented in a way which said something about the story or the characters. I thought 'maybe it's representing the artifice of their society,' but in that scene I described above, her husband is displaying no artifice, it's a display of honest emotion from him. So...what was it?

The film looks beautiful. The sets and costumes are outstanding. It's shot gorgeously. The camera work is superb. The cast is fantastic. The moments that seem choreographed have a musical energy (Stiva walking through his office, all the men stamping paperwork in unison, rising as he approaches and sitting as he passes like a wave rolling by, while his assistant puts a coat on him without him missing a step or having to stop, for instance) that just grabs you – though as I talked about, these moments seem to be there merely for stylistic points.

It's a good film. All in all, the story is told well. It's just that there seem to be poorly implemented stylistic touches from the director. It's disappointing to walk away from the film thinking more about what purpose these touches served than about the merits of the storytelling itself. And that's why my rating for this film is so low - it's better than might be suggested, but the distraction of the style is too much. That's the failure of the film.

2 1/2 out of 5

Skyfall

2012 marks 50 years of James Bond films, starting in 1962 with Dr. No. And the latest installment in the series, Skyfall, is one hell of a way to celebrate. Daniel Craig returns for his third go as Bond. Sam Mendes, director of films like American Beauty, Jarhead, and Revolutionary Road, takes over behind the camera. While the renewed series took a bit of a misstep with the last film, Quantum of Solace (a film hurt by the writer's strike, often having to work without a script and unable to get proper rewrites), after the magnificent Casino Royale, Skyfall gets the series back on the right track.

Bond starts on a mission to recover a hard drive which contains the identities of undercover NATO agents in terrorist organizations from a mercenary. He's shot and falls off a bridge. MI6 presumes him dead. Bond, of course, isn't dead. He uses his apparent death to retire, a bit upset that M gave the order for his partner, Eve, to take a shot though she didn't have a clear view and could easily hit Bond instead (which she did). However when MI6 headquarters is blown up, he makes the decision to return. He's reinstated though he performed poorly in the tests. He uses shrapnel he had been hit with in his fight with the mercenary to find him.

Bond tracks the mercenary to Shanghai, where he finds him in the middle of a job. They fight in a high rise, but before Bond can find out who he works for, the mercenary falls to his death. Bond searches through his kit and finds a chip for a Macau casino. Bond goes to the casino where he finds a woman whom he saw in the room with the mercenary's victim in Shanghai. She had seen him also and warns him that he is going to be killed. Bond disposes of his would-be dispatchers and joins her as she makes her way to her boss' island. They're captured and Bond is introduced to Raoul, the mastermind behind the attacks on MI6 and the undercover NATO agents. Raoul blames M for the torture he received when he was an MI6 agent. Bond is able to dispatch Raoul's henchmen and apprehend him, with MI6 having found them thanks to the radio transmitter Bond was given by Q.

So Raoul is captured and imprisoned in MI6's emergency headquarters. However, this was part of his plan. Knowing that they'd tried to access his hard drives to see what's on them, it instead hacks into the MI6 computer system when they crack it and opens all the doors, including his cell. Raoul kills his guards and escapes to go after M while she is at a public hearing over the stolen hard drive Bond was originally after. Raoul shoots up the hearing, Bond, who had been chasing him, shows up to save M. He arranges for Q to show a false computer trail of where they're heading, and takes her to his childhood home, Skyfall, in Scotland.

They know that Raoul will eventually find them, but they use the time to prepare. It almost becomes a grown-up version of Home Alone as they set up traps around the house. In the eventual fight, the house is destroyed and Bond kills Raoul (this is a very oversimplified summary as I don't feel like going over all of it because that's not why I'm writing this and I don't want to give everything away).

The film is exciting and interesting. They get back to making Bond a real character, like they did in Casino Royale. He's vulnerable and has actual emotions (he cries here. Bond cries!). The third act, at Skyfall, is very different to the rest of the film but very intense. You never know what's going to happen. Craig gives a great performance as Bond, again. Javier Bardem is extremely creepy, in the best possible way, as a Raoul. He makes you uncomfortable and isn't that what the best Bond villains often do?

I think the most striking thing about the film is how beautiful it is. It was shot by renowned cinematographer Roger Deakins (his other works include O, Brother Where Art Thou?, No Country For Old Men, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and The Shawshank Redemption, among many, many others, seriously, look up his filmography). I think it's safe to say that no Bond movie has ever looked as amazing as Skyfall does. The fight between Bond and the mercenary in the Shanghai high-rise, silhouetted against video screen advertisements on buildings across the way is just simply gorgeous. A wonderful sequence of shadow and lights reflecting off the glass walls. Bond's approach to the casino in Macau is also extremely striking. This isn't just an action movie, this is pure visual art.

Raoul's incredibly forethought plans in the middle of the film (to get captured, that they'd search his laptop so have it ready to hack their systems, have disguises, explosions ready, etc) stretches believability a little bit. I didn't find it particularly distracting though. It's more or less par-for-the-course for these types of movies (the Joker's plans in The Dark Knight come to mind) really. It wouldn't make a very interesting movie, or for a formidable opponent, if the villain's plans fell apart easily and the hero didn't feel and appear to always be a couple steps behind. But it's otherwise a really excellent film, with great story elements that build the Bond character, story, and legend, with some nice little call backs of the older films. A fantastic way to mark half a century of Bond films.

4 1/2 out of 5

Bonus! Because I really can't talk of Roger Deakins' cinematography enough, here's some screenshots:

Flight

Robert Zemeckis makes his return to directing live-action films with Flight (his last live-action film was 2000's Cast Away, he has a thing for plane crashes apparently). Denzel Washington stars as an alcoholic pilot, who deals with the aftermath of a plane crash in which he saved all but 6 people on board, but was drunk and high on cocaine at the time. With the investigation, he could go to jail for a few years for flying under the influence or for the rest of his life if they find his state was the cause of the crash and, thus, the 6 deaths. Or, with the help of his union's lawyer, he could go free.

The beginning of the film is fantastic. Whip wakes up from a night of drinking and sex with one of the flight attendants, Katerina. To wake himself up after the rough, late night, he snorts a couple lines of cocaine. He goes to the airport and prepares for the flight and shows no ill-effects. They take off in rough weather, experience severe turbulence but finally pull through it (an excellent fake-out when you know a crash is coming). The crash sequence is excellent. It's uncomfortable and hits at that innate fear of crashing that even people who are not afraid of flying must have. When they roll the plane it is absolutely terrifying. Finally, Whip lands the plane in a field by a church.

In the hospital, Whip makes the decision to quit drinking. His friend Harling (played by John Goodman) brings him supplies but he tells Harling to take away the alcohol he brought. In the hospital, he sneaks into a stairwell for a cigarette and meets Nicole, a former photographer in the hospital after overdosing on heroin.

When he's discharged from the hospital, Whip goes to his deceased father's farm instead of his own home to avoid the press. He's able to keep away from the press, however, there is the matter of the NTSB investigation into the crash he has to deal with. After a few days of successfully avoiding the temptation to drink, the pressure of the investigation drives him back to drinking. His drinking drives away Nicole, with whom he had a budding relationship, as she tries to deal with her addiction issues.

He spirals out of control and eventually shows up at the home of his union handler to keep him clean in the days leading up to his NTSB hearing. He's kept clean for a week and the night the before the hearing he's checked into a hotel with a guard and a mini-fridge stocked with non-alcoholic beverages. However, during the night, he discovers the door connecting the hotel room next door is ajar. And their mini-fridge is full of alcohol. The next morning, the morning of his hearing, he's found drunk, passed out on his bathroom floor. He's woken up and asks for Harling, who comes and peps Whip up with a few lines of cocaine. He gets through the hearing, his union lawyer was able to get his toxicology report thrown out for being done improperly and with out-of-calibration equipment. The NTSB knows that a couple bottles of vodka were consumed during the flight (which Whip drank), though there was no drink service on the flight, so they could only have been consumed by the crew. Katerina's toxicology report was the only one that was admissible that came back positive for intoxication. When he's asked if, in his opinion, she drank the bottles, he has a change of heart and admits that it was him and he was drunk.

The movie lost me here because what kind of a question is that? In his opinion, did she drink those bottles of vodka? Who would ask that? It just feels like a purely movie question meant to make a movie character have a change-of-heart movie moment. It didn't feel real in the slightest. And when the rest of the movie did a pretty good job of being realistic with emotions and motivations (though the union rep and union lawyer assenting to call Harling to drug Whip in order to protect him was a bit of a stretch, though humorous), that sort of thing is a real let down.

I also found the religious overtones a bit out of place. They seemed to go out of their way to have characters express religious beliefs and sentiments. For instance, when Whip meets Nicole in the stairway, they also meet a cancer patient who's sneaking out for a cigarette as well. He talks about how God gave him cancer, it's God's plan, it was God's plan for Whip to land the plane and save those people, it was God's plan for Whip and Nicole to meet. This guy is never seen again. Was God involved in any of it? I don't know. God is mentioned all throughout, it makes you think there's going to be something to it. But it's just, sort of...there. I can't even say that Whip's reversal at the hearing was some sort of divine epiphany – it seemed more as though Whip couldn't bring himself to tarnish the memory of someone he cared about (Katerina died in the plane crash, the result of helping a boy who fell out of his seat when the plane rolled and being unable to get herself back into her seat before the crash). He clearly cared for her, when he woke up after the crash he wanted to know if she survived. So why'd they make such a big point of that stuff if it didn't add anything or lead anywhere?

In the end, it felt like an uneven film. There's some good stuff to the story and there's some that didn't really work. The highlight is Denzel's performance. It's fantastic. A great performance, no doubt. John Goodman is also great as Harling, extremely funny, however it's somewhat disappointing how little he's in the film. He shows up in the beginning for a few minutes then disappears until another few minutes at the end. Don Cheadle also shines as the union lawyer. It's these performances and the crash sequence that carry the movie. Flight is a good film, I just wasn't sure what it was going for at times, so I'm not sure what it was aiming for or if it hit the mark.

3 out of 5

Argo

Argo is Ben Affleck's latest film, following Gone, Baby, Gone and The Town. It's based on the true story of what is referred to as the Canadian Caper – in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis, ex filtrating 6 embassy workers, who escaped as the students stormed the embassy and were in hiding at the residence of the Canadian ambassador to Iran, under the guise of being a Canadian film crew scouting locations.

The film starts with a brief history lesson on what led to the taking of the American embassy. The United States' involvement in overthrowing the Iranian leader and supporting a dictator before a revolt overthrew the American-backed government and replaced the shah with the Ayatollah Khomeini. The shah fled Iran, eventually seeking medical treatment in the United States. The Iranians wanted the shah sent back to Iran so that he could be tried for the abuses of his regime. The United States' refusal to send him back thus led to rising anger, demonstrations, and, finally, storming the American embassy and taking hostages.

As the students were taking over the embassy, six workers were in a part of the embassy that they could escape onto the streets. They managed to evade detection and get bounced from embassy to embassy looking for a place to hide. Finally, the Canadian ambassador agreed to let them stay in his residence. In Washington, D.C., when they get the news of the six escapees (from the Canadian government, the film underplays the role of the Canadians), the C.I.A. gets to work planning a way to get them out.

The best (best-bad) idea they have is to create a cover story of a film crew scouting locations for a science-fiction movie in need of exotic locations. With the help of a Hollywood make-up artist, who had worked with the C.I.A. previously, a script is purchased (titled Argo), production company set up, offices obtained, casting calls set up, script readings done, and press releases put out. All in order to create a convincing cover story.

The film moves from drama to comedy with ease. John Goodman as make-up artist John Chambers (Oscar winner for his work on Planet of the Apes) and Alan Arkin as Lester Siegel (a fictional producer) are great comic relief. They ease the tension inherent in trying to set up and execute a rescue plan in a hostile territory. When plans can fall apart and the ruse be discovered, with the possibility of death, at any moment, it's good to provide that release or else the movie could be unbearably dark and heavy.

The film is well-paced and plotted. The words “based on a true story” should let you know that the film takes liberties with the truth – it's drama, not docu-drama. But it's to create a compelling film-story. The story is focused and clear, despite having to bounce between Iran, Washington, D.C., and Hollywood. You don't get lost in it or confused about what's going on and what people are doing. Credit for this has to go to screenwriter Chris Terrio and Affleck as director, they handle it with skill and confidence.

The film is well-acted by Goodman, Arkin, Bryan Cranston, and, yes, Affleck. Affleck keeps everyone on point. It's well-shot by Rodrigo Prieto. The film is compelling and incredibly enjoyable. A tense, funny, dark political-thriller and Hollywood-send-up.

4 1/2 out of 5

Ruby Sparks

Ruby Sparks left me thinking about it for quite a while. I thought it was funny. I thought it was a little disturbing. It was an interesting take on this sort of romantic-comedy, manic-pixie-dream-girl story. But I couldn't quite figure out if it was trying to say something about that type of story; about the type of man who imagines and hopes for something like that. I'm not sure if I ever quite came to any conclusion about it.

Calvin Weir-Fields is a young author, struggling to follow-up his first, smash novel, published when he was just 19. He feels the weight of the expectations and celebrity, clearly uncomfortable at readings and parties for him. He chastises people who call him a genius. To top it all off, he's single and lonely.

Calvin's therapist gives him a writing assignment – write one page about someone who likes his dog, Scotty. Calvin got Scotty to try and help open himself up and meet people, but he finds Scotty slightly embarrassing because he pees like a girl dog. Calvin has a dream about a woman and uses it as inspiration for the assignment. He writes pages and pages.

One morning, Calvin wakes up to find the woman he was writing about, Ruby Sparks, making breakfast for him. He freaks out, naturally. Believing her to be a figment of his imagination, he calls a college girl, who gave him her number at his last reading, for lunch. He tries to walk down the street and act as though Ruby isn't there. He tells her to wait at a corner while he goes to lunch, which she doesn't know about. While talking with the college girl, Ruby finally comes up to see wait Calvin is doing and causes a scene upon seeing him with the college girl. And, of course, once he realizes other people see her he knows that she is, in fact, real. Following this they start going out. Ruby doesn't realize she's a creation of Calvin's; Calvin puts the pages he wrote away and swears to not write any more about her or change her.

Naturally, what happens, at first everything is great, but after a while he grows weary of her free-spirit and not being able to just enjoy some quiet time and read, and she longs for a life beyond Calvin. She starts taking classes and making friends away from him and he becomes worried that she's thinking about leaving him.

The fear of losing Ruby and being alone drives Calvin to change her. And when the changes are unsatisfactory, as she becomes clingy (to the point of crying because they got separated crossing the street as he answers his phone and has to let go of her hand), he changes her again. Eventually, as things come to a head, he reveals to her that she is his creation and that he can control her, in an incredibly disturbing scene. When he realizes that he's gone too far, he sets her free, when she leaves she will have no memory of him or what's happened.

The idea of the manic-pixie-dream-girl is attractive, but not realistic. It's an attractive idea because of the thought that they'll set you free, your life will become exciting and interesting. But if you're not that type of person to begin with, and you're not interested in embracing that sort of change, inevitably it won't work out. Calvin wanted that, but he wanted it to work into his routine and be controlled, which defeats the purpose. He was the one who needed to change most if he wanted their relationship to last, but all he could think to do was try and change her – but by doing so he changed what it was he liked about her. He was too self-absorbed to look within.

It sounds heavy but it is actually very funny. Paul Dano is very good as Calvin, always a layer of sweetness and insecurity covering a self-absorbed and controlling character. While Ruby is a creation of Calvin's imagination, Zoe Kazan plays her with depth and enthusiasm. Kazan also wrote the screenplay which is wonderfully original, creative, and well-done. Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris direct the movie well, not heavy handed or with the idea they must try to be as quirky or weird as the story might suggest, they keep it grounded. Ruby Sparks is an interesting story that will make you laugh and think about relationships, your expectations of them, and yourself and how you'd deal with the reality of them.

3 out of 5