MovieChat Forums > Paper Heart (2009) Discussion > What is your real problem with this film...

What is your real problem with this film?

posted 15 years ago by j2los2
24 replies | jump to latest

I've noticed the people throwing around terms like "faux-indie" mostly post on the boards for, what I'm sure are outstanding pieces of cinema, such as "GI Joe" and "Transformers"

Last I checked it wasn't marketed as an indie film, so what gave you that impression? Or are you just quick to group it into something you personally find distasteful? Do you have a problem with non-slapstick comedies? The music they used? The way the actors dress? Lump it into (faux-)indie?

What were you even doing watching this movie? Or do you just write reviews from trailers? I know I would dislike the new Transformers and GI Joe, so I came up with the ingenious plan of not watching them.

It was a mediocre comedy (personally, I thought it was a little better than that but not fantastic), based on awkward dialogue. Yeah, there's a lot of them. There's always trends in cinema. I've been biding my time, waiting for saturation of Baysplosion comic book movies to dry out, personally. Just don't participate in them if you don't want to. What are you all so upset about though?

[–] Mr_Phelps 15 years ago

"indie" films suck and no one is really saying transformers and gi joe are good. gi joe is downright awful but so are the "indies".

[–] j2los2 15 years ago

There are fantastic indie films and that is an extremely close minded attitude to adopt

[–] Mr_Phelps 15 years ago

to quote you: "from what I am sure are outstanding pieces of cinema." how's that for a closed minded attitude?

[–] j2los2 15 years ago

I saw the first Transformers and it was horrendous. Why would I want to see the second and similar movies?

Not to mention an "indie movie" can't be pigeonholed to one type of cinematic experience like an overproduced comic book movie can. Indie isn't a genre of movie. Thus why I'm trying to get to the bottom of what people really didn't like, because faux-indie doesn't mean much.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dlup63 10 years ago

Yes, Indie Films are where real storytelling is told instead of *beep* CGI, explosions and garbage, lazy as all hell screenplays.

[–] AlwaysVanilla 15 years ago

The only problem I have with this movie is people watch them and complain about it. You see the trailers. If you don't think you're going to like it, then save yourself 10 bucks and leave all of the people that enjoyed it alone.

----------
Last seen: Orphan (****/*****)

[–] jamasian_man 15 years ago

My biggest problem is that the plotline is very vague and doesn't look too interesting. Some girl plays herself, and dates Michael Cera. And in real life: They ARE dating. OMG gotta see this one!

I would rather see: Thirst, Ponyo, Julie & julia, Gi Joe, time traveller's wife and District 9.

[–] j2los2 15 years ago

gi joe? really?

[–] jamasian_man 15 years ago

Seeing GI Joe is really no different than seeing Transformers 2 or Wolverine. A brainless action movie with tons of action and babes. Plus I work at a theatre so my theatre movie tastes have devolved since I get em for free.

[–] pushingdaigoroo 15 years ago

the best thing about this film was the stop motion animation cut scenes. it had it's moments but not worth a second viewing. 5/10.

[–] ColinInLa 15 years ago

Those scenes were not done with stop-motion.

--------------------
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."

[–] pushingdaigoroo 15 years ago

colininla: exactly

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ShroudOfFrost 15 years ago

Why do you keep calling this "faux-indie" and always put "indie" in quotations? This one was a true indie film. They made it without a studio. Overture Studios picked it up and distributed it after it was made. Very few people on this board knows what an indie film is. I even read people referring to Apatow as starting an faux-indie trend. Apatow for crying out loud! Knocked Up, Superbad, Funny People are not trying to be indie films. They are films that are trying to have a different style that Apatow happens to feel closest with. The Coen Brothers are more indie than Apatow, but the only reason why Apatow is listed is because he usually does quirky films, which I guess people think only indie films can do. Get a clue people!

hitrecord.org

[–] Chaz_Singh 15 years ago

I really just didn't find it interesting, or particularly funny. It seemed to try too hard.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dir_by_ade 14 years ago

Lines were forced and much of the free flowing dialogue or interaction seemed to be staged and pre-written. The little lone white kid in the see of black kids in Atlanta, with such profound knowledge, seemed to be the smartest in the film, and looks exactly like the director (real Nick, not Jake playing Nick).

The paper people element was kind of cute and made it better.

But the dolly push in on couples or folks talking of love just made it feel less like a docu.

It felt obvious that this was not a documentary. I heard of it, saw trailer and wanted to see it. But it just was such a let down. It was a film that was sub par. A 5 or a 6, and thats being generous.

BEST PART: on dvd the comics giving little quick comments. Other than that skip it.

[–] Lord_X 14 years ago

The staged love story is the problem. All the scenes where Charlyne interviews couples about their stories, the Vegas chapels, the kids in the playground, and even the animated reenactments were quite good. But then they shoved in a fake love story that simply isn't believable and what could have been a good documentary turned out to be a horrible movie.

I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!

[–] georgie923 14 years ago

The interviews were good, a couple were great. But as for the relationship story, when Cera walked out of the restaurant I wanted him to keep walking. There's someone for everyone, but this girl's sullen, deadpan personality and hygiene issues left me wondering what was attracting a guy. I tried really hard to like her, but she didn't give me much to work with.

[–] kewljken 14 years ago

My problem.... it was boring. I watched the last half on fast forward with the subtitles up, and wish I hadn't spent even THAT much time on it.

[–] scissorhands__emily 14 years ago

I don't understand why people are coming here and bashing it about being too hipster and such. Honestly all I can think from that statement is are we watching the same movie? This board is flooded with posts like that and I don't really see what makes this film so hipster. Michael Cera? The girl? Their clothes?! I really don't see what is hipster about their clothes either; they looked like normal clothes to me. A green zipup hoodie, oh gosh, that's so hipster! Not really but okay. Also, they aren't going on about their great taste in music or anything, so I mean, what else could constitute them as hipster? I think some people may think their personalities are hipster but I also fail to see that. The girl is just meant to be a normal, awkward girl (and they exist, trust me, I'm as awkward as they come, but also not a hipster). Maybe Michael Cera's personality is a tad hipster? Idk but this whole complaint of the movie being too hipster is ridiculous to me. Like the OP I'd rather see complaints for actual things in the movie that weren't liked, as opposed to this asinine idea that the movie is a pretentious, hipster, indie film.

Anyway, I liked the film but also had a problem with the "fake" romance plotline. That was just odd since I knew it wasn't real, but it was being advertised as an actual development of their relationship. I mean it wasn't horrible, but near the end I was not liking how this was done as much (esp since it became more obvious that it was just them pretending to date and not real). That was the main detractor from the film for me, but I still liked the movie a good bit.