Ruby Sparks

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.

I liked the movie a lot. I felt very moved and intrigued both by the premise and the complications to move the story along.

Big but: The lead character, Calvin, is not believable as a "genius novelist" nor even as a pretty good one. Why? He has no idea how to make Ruby, whom he completely controls, subtle and complex the way any good novelist would his characters.

He paints her happy and sad, joyful and childishly clinging with such broad brush strokes he is an incompetent "inventor" of a character/person, let alone his dream girl. If you or I created an automaton, WE might swing back and forth to the extremes while trying to adjust his/her behavior. Calvin should be an expert not a tyro at subtle shades of behavior. Granted, if he got her just right, we would have no crisis to force the story to a resolution.

And the resolution is Hollywood sugar. In Europe or Israel, the hero would be left with the sad results of his failure. (He stares out to sea on a deserted beach to ponder what happened and his bleak future?) Here, the filmmakers insist we leave the theater feeling good about Calvin and Ruby.

The unique Zoe Kazan wrote and stars in this quirky, fascinating, and original film about a writer with writer's block (Paul Dano, Kazan's real-life main squeeze) who invents the girl of his dreams, writes about her, and watches her become real.

While this film has been billed by reviewers and marketed by publicists as a "romantic comedy," in many ways it's not. It's both more and less. Less predictable, certainly, as the endings of modern romantic comedies are notoriously pat. More ... what? Strange? Edgy? Depressing even (at times)? Maybe all of the above. But ultimately upbeat.

The gifted Paul Dano has created a character - a young woman - who is exactly who he wants, or at least so he thinks. It's not until he meets his ex at a party 2/3 of the way through the movie that the audience really begins to understand what's going on. And it's not just hearts and flowers. But no spoilers here.

That Kazan pulled off both this original idea AND the ability to end it in a way that made sense yet left unanswered questions that should be unanswered is testimony to her screen-writing talents. Her roots here are strong: both of her screen writing parents and her famed grandfather Elia. But Zoe is also extremely appealing as the film's title character, showing a range of acting skills that could make her a star.

And for fun, we get Bening, Banderas, and Gould, all enlivening the proceedings.

Original movies are hard to find, and when you find them, often hard to watch. This film is both original and very watchable.

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.

What do you do if you're a struggling actress searching for the right part that will help separate you from the hungry pack of millions of other starving wannabes? Well…you write one for yourself of course. Zoe Kazan, who has made a living with smaller supporting roles in a variety of films, (Revolutionary Road, Happythankyoumoreplease, It's Complicated) writes and stars as the title character in Ruby Sparks, a role that is bound to officially put her on the map. She doesn't allow you to take your eyes off her, and has loads of fun playing with the mass amount of emotions that come from being the figment of a possible crazy person's imagination.

Ruby Sparks is creative, original, highly entertaining and one of the best films of the year. Directors, Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris, team up for the first time since 2006's breakout film, Little Miss Sunshine, and provide the same zeal and love that made it a huge success.

The rest of the cast is nothing short of phenomenal. Paul Dano (Cowboys & Aliens, There Will Be Blood) continues to build on his reputation as one of the strongest actors of his generation. Great actors make great choices with their role selection, and Paul once again shows he has fantastic taste. Chris Messina, who seems to appear everywhere (Film…Julie & Julia, Greenberg, Away We Go, Devil, Like Crazy, TV…The Newsroom, Damages) is strong as the side man once again, and is more than ready to be major star. Acting legends Annette Bening, Antonio Banderas and Elliot Gould jump in for short periods of time making huge waves and leaving long lasting impressions.

Unlike most romantic type movies, Ruby Sparks doesn't feel like a retread Kate Hudson…Sandra Bullock…Katherine Heigl cheese fest, and is filled with a fun, creative energy that is too often missed in rom-com's. Ruby Sparks is superb on all fronts, and as a movie of the year candidate shouldn't be missed.

For more quick reviews check out www.FilmStallion.com