Saw 'Like Crazy' yesterday. It's hard not to like: the characters are sweet and believable; the actors seem to be relishing the improv nature of the film; the story feels true (which it is, apparently, kinda); the photography, direction and editing are all executed brilliantly; and, most importantly, it's engaging, fun and emotionally affecting. My only issue with it is that it's the plot of 'Going The Distance' filmed in exactly the same way as 'Blue Valentine' - photographically and stylistically, with a view to creating the same 'real' and raw emotion. And it's the latter film comparison that grates. I was so struck by the similarity that I did a little research on the director, Drake Doremus, and it turns out that he shot this film after submitting his last film ('Douchebag') to Sundance in 2010 and deciding he wanted to do something more 'from the heart'. 'Blue Valentine' was also at that festival. Derek Cianfrance took 15 years to bring his film to completion and it was an original and exciting concept that was raw and honest. Doremus knocked his teen-copy out in a year for a fraction of the budget. Good for him. But bad for art? '500 Days Of Summer' was a good movie. But I guess you could argue that it was 'Eternal Sunshine' for teens. And adult stories, such as Dangerous Liasons -remade as Cruel Intentions- have been repackaged and rejuvenated for teenagers, so I s'pose it's nothing new. It's just a shame that when something is popular, interesting, original or even unique, the bandwagon starts up and is, usually -and ultimately- driven by studios and corporations. For every Amy Winehouse, there's 5 Duffys (Duffies?), 2 Paloma Faiths and a dozen one-hit-wonders who I can no longer remember. 'Like Crazy' is more of a Paloma Faith - meaning it's good in its own right. Really good. But I can't help feeling that, not only is it Blue Valentine for teens, but it's Blue Valentine-lite ... which is a far more damning criticism.
Review of Like Crazy
