Paper Heart

I give the creators props, it's creative and this is a kinda movie that hasn't been done before (to my knowledge) it could pass as a very real documentary. But it's not. And I find myself wondering why this was made. I think it works, it's rather entertaining and has some funny interviews from folks (not sure if they're real or not but I'm assuming most of them are). But what's all it for? I dunno maybe I'm missing the point. If it wasn't for Michael Cera this movie would be a 3 or 4. Instead its a 5.5

This was a very clever film and it was funny, entertaining and a little sad all in one. There are a lot of cameos of people just playing themselves. I think just the guy filming it was not playing himself. It was filmed in a documentary style and for awhile you think it is all real. Charlyne Yi is the star that thinks she will never fall in love or even feel it. There are parts when you can really see how she is feeling and she is a joy to watch. Michael Cera plays the guy she starts to like. He uses the same type of comedy you usually see him use in other movies he is in. The director is played by Jake Johnson; the only guy not playing himself. He was an interesting character to add. He shows he felt for the main character, being her friend. But he really wanted to end the movie. We have all felt like Charlyne sometimes. I know I have. That is why I had a connection to this film. So I think this film can only connect to certain audiences. There were some very interesting hand made scenes in the film with paper and other things. That was a nice little art style to add. I was enjoying this film all the way until the end. I will not ruin it, but I will say it was not what I wanted and I think it was a really bad move on their part to end it that way. But overall, a charming movie with a great cast of actors just playing themselves.

This movie is very much like Charlene Yi. It pretends to be something it's not, and doesn't quite succeed enough on any level. Is it a documentary? No. Is it a scripted movie? Much more so than it pretends not to be.

By blending predictable, scripted and entirely acted romantic comedy elements in with what "appears" to be more standard documentary-style interviews, the viewer is left to wonder if anything they are seeing is real, and once that foundation of belief is cracked, the entire movie loses legitimacy. It's not good enough to be a documentary; it's not good enough to be a romantic comedy. Two negatives do not equal a positive.

The movie borders on a saccharine-styled Blair Witch Project with better production values. Li further carries this deception into the real world, denying that she's dating Michael Cera, but then noting in other places that their relationship ended in 2009, conveniently as the movie is released. She also tried to create fiction around her age, pretending to be ten years or more older than Cera, even though she looks she could sit in a high school geometry class. This leaves us to wonder, Why? The deception adds nothing to the movie plot, it's not a cutting-edge move, it's really nothing more than an annoyance.

From the acting side, Li's cutesy nerd style plays well at the start, but wears thin as the movie progresses. Cera is normally a solid actor, but interesting his scenes are the ones where it's most obvious the movie has drifted from faux documentary to a clearly acted and scripted production. It's a bit unsettling.

It's not unwatchable, there's even one or two points where it's almost charming, but many viewers are going to walk away feeling a bit flat, and a bit played.

You don't need to dive to find the remote to turn this movie off it it happens to show up for free on your TV. Yet you're not missing anything if you make it through your earthly existence without seeing Paper Heart. It's mildly entertaining, but just as easily could have been produced by a second-year NYU film student.

As you may have noticed with all the comments, this movie might be mediocre, terrible, great, or some weird combo. I'm one of those who think this was a great movie, but I hope to explain the discrepancies.

First, let's get my biases out of the way, so that you can judge my comment accordingly. I am a Michael Cera fan. I am an indie movie fan, but not an aficionado. I wanted to see this movie. I'm a young guy who likes some romantic movies, but they have to be rather good. I didn't know anything about this movie aside from what the trailer tells me. I think that does it.

A lot of the comments on IMDb about this movie center around the format. I agree that the style is important to talk about, but not the only thing. The style is documentary, but with certain deviating aspects. It isn't Blair Witch Project; it has decent editing and lighting. The angle is natural, all from a guy or three carrying cameras. Certain scenes are done in paper cutouts in paper scenery and wires for movement. These are usually the scenes that they didn't catch on camera and are important to the plot. These scenes are really charming because of their scale and their construction.

The "acting" is also good. The most controversial aspect of this movie is the content, or the plot. Some think that this movie is either simply an observation of life or a movie about an observation of life. Either real or reel, some might say. I tend towards some middle ground. I think that this movie is a documentary about real life including a documentary about real life. There are staged things and things that look really genuine, so I think that it's more of an embellished real story. The cynic in me thinks that a lot of it is fake, but they did a really convincing job so I hope its all real.

If you are an optimist, this story will be really cute and lovable. If you believe it to be faked, it's a bad movie. That is why I think it is mostly genuine, if not completely. If this was produced in any really directed way, it would not have included some things in it that it did. But then again, they could have included it to make you think that. Whether you're paranoid about that sort of thing is beside the point. This movie feels very real. I know some of my dates were almost exactly like some in this movie. Charlyne is believable and so is Michael Cera.

Michael Cera plays a really cool guy with a cute awkward disposition. If you're a fan of Michael Cera, you'll recognize his characteristic style, but now I believe that style to be more of just how he is instead of an acting style. Regardless, he's endearing. Charlyne is also really lovable because she's funny and easily embarrassed. The two are quite genuine and work really well together because of their similar personalities.

Overall, a cute and lovable movie. The ending is unsatisfactory, but that's because there is no end that would fit the story and remain truthful to real life.

"Paper Heart" falls in line with the "Bruno/Borat" style of film-making, where viewers will probably be asking themselves, "How much of this is real and how much is staged?" Maybe in this case it isn't staged at all. I personally don't know, but I have to say "Paper Heart" feels very real, which is an obvious difference to those two Sacha Baron Cohen movies.

The plot has a documentary crew following around Charlyne Yi who's looking to understand the concept of love, by traveling around America and interviewing people. Charlyne is an offbeat young woman who doesn't believe in true love, herself. She could easily be a geeky friend of Summer from "(500) Days of Summer", another recent Sundance romcom. Charlyne meets Michael Cera at a house party, who acts just like the characters he played in "Juno" and "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist". Charlyne and Michael soon become a couple, although Charlyne not surprisingly retains her status of true love.

While on the road, she meets couples who share their feelings of love and give stories on how they met. Some of these stories are re-enacted in a very whimsical fashion, by using cardboard, cotton, marker, etc. If you saw "The Science of Sleep", they're similar to those fantasy scenes, except those probably were more time consuming to make compared to "Paper Heart". While these scenes are still cute and funny, they are a bit predictable and, yes, pretentious. But hey, I can give credit to the filmmakers for trying to be creative. In fact, the final scene in the movie is the best, because it parodies those scenes in an awesomely over-the-top fashion.

The movie itself is charming and often funny, but it does wear out its welcome after awhile. I felt like there were scenes that could be cut shorter or didn't really have to be included, like the interview with kids at a playground about love. It seems like it was done just for fun or for timing. It does have one good line where a girl says she's in love with Chris Brown (or someone named Brown) and says to Charlyne, "At least I admit it."

"Paper Heart" doesn't have any real direction, but neither does life. Are Charlyne and Michael made for each other? What if their relationship doesn't last? It's something the filmmakers just have to work with. From what I got, there's no defining message about what love is, other than it's to each his own.