User Reviews

Ruby Sparks is a narcissistic narrative from the fingertips of a lonely writer, blossoming into a Pinocchio-like tale that binds fiction, fable and phenomenon.

How hard is it to find the girl of your dreams? If you found her, would she really live up to your expectations?

As a writer, journalist, blogger, and someone who knows the struggles associated with putting pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard, this movie hits home. Not in the sense where I've created imaginary friends, or girls to associate with, but the difficulty, and anguish that comes with writing. It's often said that writers hate to write, but eventually say they are happy that they have written, no film will hold that truth more than Ruby Sparks.

Paul Dano stars as Calvin, a young writing prodigy who experienced fame around the age of 19 after writing a New York Times Best Selling Novel. Since then he has traveled with expectations of another great literary work. Like every writer on the face of this planet (myself included as I write this) his writers block triumphs over all, and he even goes to therapy about it.

One night, while asleep, he dreams of his "dream" girl, instantly he awakes and springs to his typewriter, because well…it's 2012 and why would he have a laptop. Calvin writes about his dream girl, an entire story, and then POOF, like magic, she appears in his house like she was there the whole time.

I love the idea. I adore the premise of this film; simply because it's such a bizarre fantasy, one that every guy would kill for, and it was translated onto film in such an endearing and powerful way.

The story unfolds in three parts, you get the set up of who Calvin is, you see his struggle with writing something new, and then we meet Ruby, then the realities of the situation begin to take shape. Ruby Sparks is a romantic fantasy that exudes passion, charm, laugher, and pain. It balances the realities of life with the mythical substance created inside of Calvin's forthcoming pages.

Zoe Kazan plays Ruby, the red-haired, spunky counterpart of Calvin's imagination. Appearing out of thin air, and into Calvin's life; from the discovery of her actual existence to basking in the fermenting love connection, Calvin and Ruby are two peas in a pod. It's pure bliss, like two perfect people found each other, it's nothing short of a hocus pocus spell in the eyes of Calvin.

Kazan deserves bonus kudos for also writing the film, along with starring in it.

Now as Calvin comes to terms with the fact that he has created his dream girl, he finds out he can also make her do whatever he wants, as long as he types it into the story. Sure, far fetched, his brother, Harry, played by Chris Messina doesn't believe this farce of a story either, so proof must be provided. Calvin can make her speak fluent French, be an amazing cook, snap while she talks, extremely happy and bouncy, or even really sad.

He is a puppeteer.

So now the question presents itself, if you had this ability, how far would you go? You control another human being, they are your robot, you are their master, that's what this film and Calvin is/are at it's core. And how interesting is that, as writers we can manipulate characters and stories any way we want with the help of the keys, Calvin is the sculptor of Ruby not only on paper, but in real life.

The film unfolds as Calvin tells his brother, "I'll never write about her again" meaning he wasn't going to finish the story that created Ruby, so that she, nor the relationship would be ruined. The young author soon realizes that once you let go of the creative control of another person, they begin to develop personalities and traits of their own, also known as character, Ruby, being fresh in Calvin's life starts gaining independence and self awareness.

This is where the struggle, and emotional anguish of the film begins. Here is what bridges the gap of Ruby Sparks from imaginary tale, pure doses of reality.

Paul Dano continues to grow, and shine as an actor, his latest work in Being Flynn, and here in Ruby Sparks, have shown the amount of versatility, and depth he can covey in roles. The lanky frame, cardigan wearing, mop hair style makes him the quintessential writer-type, while real life girl friend Zoe Kazan and her bright hair and blue eyes play Ruby to be the girl men would certainly desire.

The chemistry is felt throughout the film, from the happy scenes, to the climax, gut wrenching fight scenes, you must wonder what kind of a toll this took on the actual relationship during production? I have a slight beef with the ending as it was a tad predictable, not from the start of the film, but as the film is coming to a close you can sort of tell how it will end, in a romantic and sweet way.

Supporting roles from Annette Bening as Calvin's hippy mother, Antonio Banderes as her carpenter boyfriend, Steve Coogan, and therapist Elliot Gould, all add great depth and feel to the film.

Great (young) romantic films are impossible to come by, especially ones that also feel authentic. I can only think of two in the last handful of years, 500 Days of Summer, and Like Crazy. I'm confident to proclaim Ruby Sparks is being thrown on that mantel (of mine), and young folks from 18-30 should really love this film.

After reading several reviews about Ruby Sparks, my observation that many think that an indie film somehow must be bitter, jaded or even downright mean to its characters to be good was reinforced. Well, I suspect it's those reviewers who are jaded.

Ruby Sparks is romance. It's funny in places, it's quirky (and has its flaws, sure, but they're easily forgiven). So don't watch it under a microscope. Watch it for what it is: a mildly oddball romantic comedy with a nice, superbly-refreshing twist.

Don't watch it if you simply can't stand sweetness in an "independent film." It's not sappy, it's not laid on thick. To me, it was just the right amount. And left me feeling warm and good inside.

Performances are excellent. The story line may border on formulaic...or APPEAR to. Give it a chance to break away. Sweetness is NOT a bad thing. Enjoy.

No offense meant but Paul Dano makes the move unwatchable. His character is trite and cliché, perhaps offensively so. But even worse is the actor himself. I mean... could they have picked more of a dolt? At least get a bloody haircut. And the fact that he types on a typewriter... seriously, how contrived. All the Catcher in the Rye/Sallinger references, spare me.

It's actually one of the worst movies I could imagine. All the characters are cardboard, nothing is thought-out or original or inspiring. His brother is almost as clichéd as the protagonist. I mean really, the more I think about the more I hate it.

But Paul Dano may still be the worst thing about the movie. I mean couldn't they afford Michael Cera? Don't watch this, please don't. If you're looking for something to watch, just keep rewatching the scenes in Prisoners where Hugh Jackman tortures Paul Dano. Please don't watch this.

In the Indie film "Ruby Sparks," Paul Dano plays a former wunderkind novelist who has hit the wall and run into permanent writer's block. His social life is non-existent and he decides to consult a psychiatrist (Elliot Gould) for some answers to his dilemma. Since all else has failed, his shrink suggests that for inspiration he begin writing about what occurs in his dreams. Dano takes the advice to heart and starts to write about the perfect girl of his dreams (beautiful, smart, sexy, totally endearing). Through the magic of Hollywood and an off-beat screenplay, "Ruby Sparks" (played by Zoe Kazan) suddenly turns up "in the flesh." In fact, she's already living in Dano's house and has been there for quite a while. At first Dano thinks he's losing his mind, or at the least, seeing things. But everyone else sees Ruby too, so she has to be real...or is she? Dano soon finds out that as he continues to write about her, he can actually control her personality and emotions, good or bad. But having this type of power is not healthy for any relationship, real or imagined. Without giving away the ending, you might say that Dano has to "write her off." Call this a warped "My Fair Lady" tale, but the actors (particularly Dano and Kazan who are lovers in real life) pull it off with aplomb. In fact, Ms. Kazan, the grand-daughter of the great film director Elia Kazan, wrote the screenplay. The directors of "Ruby Sparks," Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, are the same duo who brought us "Little Miss Sunshine," and their sensibilities for character development are of the same high standard as that film. Others in the cast include Antonio Banderas and Annette Bening who give excellent support as Dano's high-energy stepfather and free-spirited mother. I won't give the movie and "A" for originality since this territory has been mined before, but the rest of its ideas and the execution of it are all first-rate.

The new film from Little Miss Sunshine directors, Jonathan Layton and Valerie Faris, titled Ruby Sparks, is a film that features an imaginative premise that never quite fulfills its promise. In the film, Paul Dano plays a wunderkind writer, a one hit wonder who wrote one novel ten years ago, but hasn't written another novel since, that is until he starts writing again at the behest of his psychiatrist and creates his dream girl, named Ruby Sparks, who just happens to literally come from his imagination into reality. The idea is fresh and invigorating, but it falls into the traps of too many other Indie romance films from the past decade that were all more lively and more realized, such as (500) Days of Summer. This isn't to say that the film isn't funny at times, because it is, Ruby Sparks is a well made film that has its moments and tells a good story, but I can't help but feel more could have been done with this concept rather than falling into the traditional pratfalls of Indie romance films. It's these pratfalls that you can see coming from a mile away that keep Ruby Sparks from being truly spectacular.

I give Ruby Sparks a 6 out of 10!

This movie is like Poetry . you can look for deeper meaning from it or take it as it is and either way you wont be disappointed.

I saw this movie in a different light and it touched me deep down to my very core.

When we fall in love..we initially take the person in as they are and we do not try to change any bit of them. This is so evident at the start when Ruby can do no wrong and Calvin thinks shes perfection..he loves her mess and when his brother says he has created a "girl" not a person he is trying to point out to him that no body is that perfect and Ruby is a human being and she will disappoint him and make mistakes every now and then.

Calvin is selfish in his love for Ruby ..he just wants to fill all the holes in his life that he had before she came regardless of what this will do to her. I think that this is very common in every day romantic relationships. We struggle with whether we really love someone or if we are just using them to fill the gaps in our own lives. If you love someone you realise that they are their own person and are entitled to mistakes and you just have to love them no matter what.

This is a beautiful movie and a breath of fresh air in the era where romance is depicted in the most unrealistic ways on screen.

There are several problems with this film. The premise is far-fetched, but fine, I'll accept it. But Calvin's behavior is nonsensical. When he thought that Ruby was a figment of his imagination, he did not do anything to disprove it - record it, ask your neighbors if they see her, lift her so that she can change a light bulb, I don't know, think of something. Going out on a date and running into her by accident is so contrived.

Then comes the most annoying part. We have a protagonist with a god-like power and he does not know what he wants. That's the worst part of the story, it's difficult to watch and it's completely annoying. He is that indecisive, dissatisfied - he's just a problem-seeker. This is a guy who goes to restaurants, doesn't pick an item from the menu but makes up a random dish with his own ingredients and instructions, has it delivered to perfection and yet he still complains. Such person does not deserve love nor attention.

In short - this is a story of a guy so picky that his ideal woman is not good enough for him. He says he likes her the way she is, but he lies, he lies to himself and to others. People get bored, fine, but he gets bored with his own ideal partner and gets bored so quickly, yet he does this Ted Mosby "I'm just a lonely guy looking for true love" crap.

We're supposed to feel for him.

The ending is in poor taste. A forced happy ending. How does he plan on explaining to his family and friends that this is someone else? It's not the same girl, she just looks exactly like his ex-girlfriend. What he tell this new girl?

The writers/director of this film didn't give a hoot, so why should we?

My best way of judging how interesting a movie is is by how often I look at the timer on the BD player. With 'Ruby Sparks' i hardly looked at all. I found it totally interesting all the way.

Novelty is also added by the fact that the two leads are a couple in real life, and she wrote the script. It is a story that expands on the concept that a writer creates characters out of his imagination and figuratively brings them to life. In this story the character literally comes to life.

Paul Dano is writer Calvin Weir-Fields who published his best-seller when he was only 19. Now, about 10 years later he is seeing a shrink because he can't write. The shrink gives him an assignment, to write something for him.

Calvin finally exercises his imagination and creates the character 'Ruby Sparks', and imagines her as everything he desired in a woman. He goes to his typewriter, yes the mechanical kind, and writes. One day he awakes and she is actually there, Ruby in his apartment. He thinks he is going crazy, but when he finds that other people also can see her and hear her, he accepts that she is real.

Zoe Kazan (granddaughter of Elia Kazan) wrote the script and is Ruby Sparks.

As the story develops Calvin finds that if he wants to change Ruby's behavior all he has to do is go to the typewriter and write it, then Ruby becomes it. Speaking in French, for one example. Then when he writes that Ruby cannot leave, and she bumps into an invisible wall as she tries to exit, Calvin has come to his most sinister point.

But there is a phrase, " If You Love Something Set It Free. If It Comes Back, It Was And Always Will Be Yours. If It Never Returns, It Was Never Yours To Begin With." So Calvin types that Ruby will be free to go, and she will have no recollection of the events. That in essence is the point of the story, for Calvin to allow himself to lose control.

As the movie is concluding, Calvin is walking in the park with his dog, and the dog runs ahead. He finds the dog with Ruby, but Ruby has lost any memory of the dog or Calvin. And the rest of the story is to see if Calvin and Ruby can establish something real.

Good movie.