डाउन द लव

I saw this more as an experiment, a chance to pay homage to a time and place in movie-making. I was also reminded of "Breakfast at Tiffanys" a tad in its glamorization of that Jackie Kennedy/Audrey Hepburn period of high ladies fashion. It was sort of a 50's lag, a last vestige of the classy old styles before the hip/hippie modern era would sweep them away forever. Call it the end of elegance, if you will.

On the other hand, it was the end of an era for the more innocent screwball comedies/romances as well. Movies changed just as abruptly, and got just as down to earth in its realism as the fashions. So, we are seeing here a double homage, to the fashions, and the more lighthearted tenor of movies, in the 50's/early 60's.

The movie did well in the plot/story/jokes department. It was a tightrope, because if they got TOO risqué or hip, it would take away from the tenor and point of the whole retro/throwback thing. In that case, it inevitably would come across in some ways as a retread and stock, but that was the price paid for doing this. There simply was not much room to work with in any sense per plot development, and tongue-in-cheek can only go so far without betraying homage to the old school of doing things. With the aforementioned built-in restrictions, I think that Payton Reed did a pretty darn good job here! Well worth seeing, and a must-see for those who love retro fashions and movies.

This is an homage to the light romantic comedies of the early 60's and a strong influence by "Pillow Talk". Renee Zellweger is Barbara Novack and she writes a book about women and how they look at relationships and an editor at a publishing firm named Vicki Hiller (Sarah Paulson) convinces the board of directors to publish her book. One way to get attention to her book is for a well known writer to write an expose of it so they try to get Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor) to do the job but he's so busy womanizing that he keeps canceling their appointments so they try other methods to get attention to her book and they succeed as it becomes a best seller. Catcher is amazed by her success and bets his friend and coworker Peter MacMannus (David Hyde Pierce) that he can make her fall in love with him which would make her a hypocrite and he would have a big story to publish. Catcher pretends to be a shy astronaut from Florida and they start to date. This film is directed by Peyton Reed who has worked almost exclusively in television and is directing the "Fantastic Four" next. Film does an admirable job of recreating those type of films that were prevalent in those times. The sets are terrific with the decor for the offices and apartments. Even the scenes like when Zellweger is riding in a car its obvious that its a sound stage with a movie screen behind them showing stock footage of 1960's traffic. The script also does a good job of adding some flavor of 1960's culture like when one of the board of directors describes her as "The Farmers Daughter" from Maine. This is of course in reference to Debbie Reynolds and when MacGregor says he's an astronaut from Cocoa Beach Florida its from "I Dream Of Jeannie". All pop icons from the sixties. And having Tony Randall in the film gives it the ultimate cavalier compliment. Its not a perfect homage like the scene where Paulson accuses Pierce of being homosexual which would not have been allowed during those times but the lighthearted charm of the film remains intact. Zellweger is fine as usual as Barbara but its MacGregor that caught my eye. His performances in the last two years have never ceased to be interesting. He was almost unrecognizable in "Black Hawk Down" and then shows he can sing in "Moulin Rouge!" But also shows he can handle playing American dialects. He's an amazing actor to watch and here he adds to his mystique. Film is utterly charming and it does compliment the films from the early sixties.

This parody of the 60s movies has zero subtlety, but is amusing and full of references. It is somewhat analytic, has some nice jokes and a lot of in-jokes, but is concerned more with commenting and it is not terribly sophisticated. Still, worth a watch, especially if you know the work Rock Hudson and his magnum opus of trivial love. Extra credit for being prescient about the absurdities of the upcoming age of over the top woke hys teria.

DWL didn't do to well at the box office. I guess it must have been due to a poor advertizing campaign. After finally seeing it, I though it was pretty good. It's sort of like a battle of the sexes. Barbara Novak pretends to be a man hating woman who doesn't need love while Catcher Block is a womanizer out to prove he can get the DWL girl(Novak) to fall in love. So along the way, we get funny situations, like Catch pretending to be Zip and many over heard conversations that seem to be about something else, ie... the secretary overhearing the sock discussion. And an unusually scene using split screens with Barbara and Catch talking on the phone. She's below and he's on top doing pushups. At the end they smoke. Cute idea.

The 2 supporting characters, Vikki and Peter, were good. Plus we get a surprise twist toward the end involving Barbara, which I never saw coming.

FINAL VERDICT: Cute and funny. It's different than your average romantic comedy. So if you like romantic comedies, I recommend this one.

Well, 'Down With Love' turned out to be a unexpectedly pleasant surprise. Love many of the late 50s and 60s sex romantic comedies, 'Pillow Talk' being a primary example, and can't get enough of those with Doris Day and Rock Hudson which this film clearly was paying homage to. There was the worry though as to whether 'Down With Love' would be just another heavily predictable film with forced comedy moments, no romantic chemistry and no charm with talented casts wasted.

Luckily, 'Down With Love' on the most part was not one of those films. It is a satire and celebration of the sex romantic comedies from the late 50s and in particular the 60s, being set in 1962, and mostly does a really good job, capturing the fun, kitsch, charm, froth and affectionate nostalgia of the period and the films with incredibly impressive results. Is it as good as the films it's satirising and celebrating? No. Are the two leads and their chemistry on the same level as Day and Hudson or even Day and James Garner? Not in a million years, but this is a tall order with not many actors and actresses today having the same amount of appeal and that special one of a kind chemistry that those stars had.

'Down With Love' is not perfect. It is easy to dismiss the story as being slight and predictable, and it is. One does have to bear in mind though that the story was not exactly the strong suit in the sex romantic comedies of the late 50s and 60s, it was the production values, the stars, the supporting cast, the writing (on the most part) and the chemistry between the stars that elevated those films to a greater level.

Mostly the script is fine, but it is not without its clunkers. Especially that homosexual accusation, that was cringe-worthy, completely out of place and if it was made in either of the decades that are being satirised and celebrated it would have been anachronistic and would have been anachronistic in its 1962 setting. A few of the more twisty moments were too obvious and didn't serve much point and it occasionally affected the pacing. It was nice to see Tony Randall again, but he really deserved much better than a pointless cameo that gave him nothing to do, he might as well have not been in the film at all.

However, 'Down With Love' looks great and replicates the look of the late 50s and 60s perfectly, the glorious Technicolor, the super stylish photography, the colourful sets, the kitschy décor, sumptuous costuming, the CinemaScope logo. The split screen was clever in one scene. There are artificial painted backdrops and cheap back projection, but this was perfect and appropriate considering what the film is doing. The soundtrack is infectious and affectionate and the direction is controlled and super slick.

Apart from the odd clunker, the script is clever and witty while also being endearingly frothy. The characters lack depth but are not too shallow or annoying thanks to the charm of the cast. The story isn't perfect, but is mainly fun, charming and captures the spirit of the period and films it's satirising and celebrating perfectly and with clear affection.

Renee Zellwegger gives a sprightly and likable lead performance and is well matched by a charming, understated and carefree Ewan McGregor in the other lead role. Their chemistry is nicely done, to me it was there but subtle. It may not have been Day and Hudson but that is incredibly daunting for anybody since to replicate. David Hyde Pierce steals the film, looking like he is having the most fun, he certainly has the most energy. Sarah Poulson is amusingly wise-cracking and charming, if occasionally a little too tongue-in-cheek.

Overall, an unexpected pleasant surprise if not perfect. 7/10 Bethany Cox