More in-depth film festival coverage than any other website!
Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 

Overall Rating

Worth A Look: 23.76%
Average: 15.84%
Pretty Bad: 15.84%
Total Crap: 3.96%

8 reviews, 53 user ratings

Latest Reviews

Toy Story 4 by Peter Sobczynski

Canary (2018) by Jay Seaver

Assassinaut by Jay Seaver

Dead Don't Die, The by alejandroariera

Dead Don't Die, The by Peter Sobczynski

Shaft (2019) by Peter Sobczynski

Men in Black: International by Peter Sobczynski

Chasing the Dragon 2: Wild Wild Bunch by Jay Seaver

Hole in the Ground, The by Jay Seaver

Knife+Heart by Jay Seaver

subscribe to this feed

Down with Love
[] Buy posters from this movie
by Alexandre Paquin

"What Paul Masson is to Champagne"
2 stars

One minute or so after the opening credits of Down with Love, Renée Zellweger, modern cinema's ingénue de service, arrives in New York City in the wonderful year 1962, and goes to her publisher's office. As she does, one brief frame shows a row of flags in the background, including a nice modern Canadian flag, three years before it was officially adopted to replace the old Red Ensign. This anachronism, so conspicuously displayed, effectively shattered any attempt on my behalf to suspend my disbelief, and just confirmed my old golden rule that you can't really do a 1962 film at any other time than in 1962 -- even as a parody.

Because that's what Down with Love is supposed to be, I guess -- a parody of all those Rock-and-Doris movies that graced the screen in a bygone era. Unfortunately, as a parody, it's mild, so mild in fact that it would hardly qualify as a feeble pastiche. And as a romantic comedy, it's as routine as it can get, and its genre has not really gone out of fashion since 1962.

Barbara Novak (Renée Zellweger) is the author of a book on women's emancipation called Down with Love, conveniently named after a Harold Arlen-E.Y. Harburg song, but her publisher is hardly interested in promoting the book. Through her agent, played by Sarah Paulson, Novak intends to promote the book in the male magazine Know, but the magazine's star reporter and womanizer Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor), upon hearing from his effeminate boss Peter McMannus (David Hyde Pierce) that Novak is a "spinster," avoids showing up at his supposed interview with her. Later in the film, upon realizing that Barbara Novak is, well, Renée Zellweger, he decides to hit on her as the basis for an exposé.

It might be said that Down with Love sparkles with wit and sophistication, but the film is less reminiscent of Champagne than of cheap grocery-store wine, the last thing you would put next to the latest issue of The New Yorker when those important guests arrive. The bubbles are there all right, and the taste is tolerable if you haven't known better, but it tastes awful in comparison if you've been accustomed to Veuve Clicquot. Down with Love is mostly that -- a cheap wine reminiscent of How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days and all that ilk, but served in a Champagne bottle, a first-rate attempt to deceive the audience into thinking that the film has some sort of significance or undisputable charm because it looks different and is obviously not targeted at the usual teenage crowd.

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, considering its aims and limitations, wasn't all that bad (although I have very little patience with Kate Hudson), and it above all never pretended to be more than it is, a crime of which Down with Love is guilty. Down with Love, in spite of the stunning production design and a deliberately fake-looking matte background of New York skyscrapers, which nicely and effectively parodies studio-bound films of the period, is a pretty and colourful shell with nothing inside.

What made Todd Haynes's Far from Heaven fascinating was its use of the late 1950's to turn the zeitgeist of the era on its head, and because it was both reverential to director Douglas Sirk and cynical in such a way that you could not watch another film from the period without noticing the political correctness of the period. It did not need to drop subtle (and not-so-subtle) historical references; Sputnik, launched within the time span of Far from Heaven, is not mentioned. In comparison, Down with Love sporadically includes historical refences such as the Cuban missile crisis and the publication of President Kennedy's Profiles in Courage; it even begins with a clear mention of the year, thinly disguised as satire, in the opening aerial shot of New York City. Once the year is so obviously stated, the other references become obsolete -- that is, unless the film believes the audience needs constant reminders that the film is still in the sixties instead of back to 2003, but those "reminders" have precisely the opposite effect.

That is what is so infuriating about Down with Love, a film which believes so much in its own cleverness that it needs to tell the audience how clever it is while it refuses to deal with its own shortcomings. Any film made today will never pass as fifties or sixties vintage, and there is no salvation in imitation for its own sake or simple-minded parody. In comparison, Far from Heaven understood this very clearly. Steven Spielberg's Catch Me if You Can, set in the mid-sixties, never attempted to replicate, say, North by Northwest or The Prize in style and dialogue, and, although it treated its subject with Spielberg's characteristically light touch, it never made fun of its own premise. At first, Down with Love seemed to take itself very lightly, too lightly perhaps, but it worked to some extent. It was light-hearted fluff, no doubt, but there was some charm in it, thanks in part to some fairly imaginative sexual innuendoes -- nothing to rival Mae West's, though. But something almost inconceivable happens halfway through the film: it starts to take its love story seriously while continuing to make fun of what surrounds it (setting and supporting characters), without realizing for a minute that one cannot work without the other, and that the dichotomy could only destroy whatever effect the film had been striving for. Ewan McGregor's very straight performance (no pun intended) does not help -- he is after all no Cary Grant --, and only Renée Zellweger seems to display just the right tone for the film.

There were opportunities to make Down with Love more significant, but most were ignored. For instance, aside from the occasional scene, the film eschews a great opportunity to discuss the dark side of the publishing industry of the sixties, but also of today. Blame it on "convergence," I guess -- no matter how much 1962 you want your film to look, you simply can't ignore today's business returns. Ironically, there is, at first, little hope for the film to find an audience because, apart from old-fashioned "star power," there is nothing to draw patrons into the theatre. Teenagers will miss the references to older films and shake their heads in disapproval at the historical setting, and those looking for an important film with something to say about cultural representation, or for a strong narrative with a good amount of sophistication, will be disappointed by its hackneyed and routine core story.

Too bad, it could have been a lot better.

link directly to this review at
originally posted: 05/29/03 00:17:19
[printer] printer-friendly format  
OFFICIAL SELECTION: 2003 Tribeca Film Festival. For more in the 2003 Tribeca Film Festival series, click here.

User Comments

9/05/18 Suzanne This movie aces the sixties. What a delight! 5 stars
2/20/11 Ark Fun! Brilliant colors, plus that monologue of hers at the end ROCKS! 4 stars
7/12/09 the dork knight Hope you like sex-related puns. Only DHP saves it. 3 stars
10/01/07 Mable Cowpie A nice parody of the era - entertaining 4 stars
12/16/06 Ika Brilliant! The Actors, the plot, the movie! Awesome! 5 stars
10/27/06 Rio Was great up until they decided that love was good. 3 stars
6/11/05 Lucy Catcher Block Rocks my Socks! 5 stars
5/28/05 Lacey Very well done, flawless casting, great twist at the end. 5 stars
4/30/05 Alyson I say the best romantic comedy since Grease! 5 stars
9/23/04 Temenouzhka Zaharieva - ID and journalist According to the quality os set design my rating is 5 5 stars
9/15/04 random* fantastic send-up- um, fellow commenters, you missed the joke 5 stars
7/08/04 Denise Duspiva Pathetic all that to get a guy 2 stars
6/04/04 Elizabeth Jewell Everything this woman accomplished was for love of this jerk? Say it ain't so. 2 stars
5/30/04 The More You Know The pepto bismol film formula always makes me nauseous. 1 stars
5/07/04 Amy Wardle It was funny in a way that it was so lame you had to laugh. 2 stars
4/17/04 Michael Greenwaldt A smart, fun, stylish, and underrated film! 4 stars
2/16/04 Jim Michaels Satirizes the 60's uptight, yet zany style without succumbing to derision or delusion. 5 stars
1/25/04 Ryan Think that is was just awesome! Perfect casting... 5 stars
10/08/03 Sarah Attention dumb people, this movie is a remake of Pillow Talk (1959) 4 stars
10/06/03 Ali Ali Oxygen Free Renee Zellweger&Ewan McGregor ain't no Doris Day&Rock Hudson! No way! Nohow! 2 stars
10/05/03 Stephanie Throckmorton Wanders into all territory, none that it doesn't see fit to overkill. 2 stars
10/03/03 Troy Butler 4.5 stars, ... a great fun movie!!! If only more romantic comedies were made this well!!! 5 stars
9/22/03 Ray Loved it! Up with Down With Love! Doris and Rock would have got a chuckle out of it too! 5 stars
9/02/03 chloe I LOVED it and didn't expect to at all, now I'm hunting out the old Doris Day films 5 stars
8/20/03 murphy daniels snif snif sooo bewdiful 5 stars
8/17/03 Nicole Absolutely fantastic 5 stars
8/15/03 Paul Dempsey When a Hollywpod star promotes film in Oz you know it's a dud. 2 stars
8/13/03 Nancy295 Fun but not the real thing. Ewan and Renee should work together again. 4 stars
7/25/03 Kelly Attention dumb people:Ewan & Renee are NOT SUPPOSED to be playing Rock & Doris! 5 stars
7/20/03 Verbal Me Excellent movie, refreshing and hilarious! 5 stars
7/12/03 ali ali oxygen free Renee Zellweger&Ewan McGregor ain't no Doris Day&Rock Hudson! No way! Nohow! 2 stars
7/11/03 Stephanie Throckmorton Wanders into all territory, none that it doesn't see fit to overkill. 2 stars
7/09/03 natasha_theobald witty, well-acted, briskly paced, good when it's naughty fun 5 stars
6/29/03 Titus As a romatic comedy, this is absolutely tops. Great script 5 stars
6/11/03 Brannie Herez Brannie, This movie looks sooo bad that i wont even bother to pay for movie tickets. 1 stars
6/03/03 E. Allen This was a fantastic movie! It kept me smiling long after I left the theater! 5 stars
5/31/03 San Alexandra Great mavie! I loved the whole back in the 60's thing even though i'm only 14. 5 stars
5/29/03 Emily I love Ewan, this was a great movie! 5 stars
5/28/03 Dalian et rae Read the book -- this works more in literary format 3 stars
5/27/03 wintermute A pretty package with nothing inside 2 stars
5/24/03 Full Throtle Ahead Really funny movie! Everything about it was great! 5 stars
5/24/03 Nancy Niedzielski call me a hopelessly Down-with-Love girl, but this was a waste of 94 minutes of my life 2 stars
5/22/03 peter nnnnnnnnnn 1 stars
5/22/03 Todd something you could sit through 3 stars
5/22/03 Jai I never thought this movie would be as good as it was! 5 stars
5/21/03 Emmy Really great and funny! 5 stars
5/21/03 Kim (not Novak) Excellent--a silly movie for smart people. Perfect from start to finish. 5 stars
5/20/03 Dick BAD 1 stars
5/20/03 Rover Brilliant!! Funny! DHP is awesome! 5 stars
5/19/03 Michelle B Loved it. Ewan and Renee are hilarious. 5 stars
5/19/03 v.e.r. rz &emc were both terrific in playing their roles also the film was very amusung. 4 stars
5/19/03 holli I'll never again be satisfied with predictable, lifeless, modern day romantic comedies! 5 stars
5/18/03 George Jung Holy fucking movie of the fucking year so fucking far. Fucking amazing. 5 stars
Note: Duplicate, 'planted,' or other obviously improper comments
will be deleted at our discretion. So don't bother posting 'em. Thanks!
Your Name:
Your Comments:
Your Location: (state/province/country)
Your Rating:

Discuss this movie in our forum

  16-May-2003 (PG-13)



Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About Australia's Largest Movie Review Database.
Privacy Policy | HBS Inc. | |   

All data and site design copyright 1997-2017, HBS Entertainment, Inc.
Search for
reviews features movie title writer/director/cast