Wellenstock Awful! However I have to admit that I only watched about 10 minutes of it and it's possible it got better. Maybe it's for children or they figure our society is so ignorant they might just enjoy it. There was something about the scripted-ness of the opening scene that was so tedious I was blushing with embarrassment for the film-makers. I really tried to watch but I was hurting myself by slapping my forehead and cheeks so hard while wincing with disgust. Fortunately I had other films to watch. My girlfriend didn't want to watch it either (thank you)! If you know the story of the Emperor's New Clothes it seems to apply here. Maybe there were too many enthusiastic relatives used as a test audience. I consider it damaging to other mock-umentary films. This brings the whole genre down a notch.

Rob-O-Cop This film is not what it appears to be. Its a lot more and by reading the end credits you get an insight into what you just watched. On the surface it's a look into what love is, consisting of interviews with various loves and a love as experienced by interviewer Charlyne Yi and Celeb Friend Mike Cera caught by pure luck it would seem. Director Nick Jasenovec also plays a key roll in the film as he discusses on camera what they're doing and where he wants the film to go. There's lots of insight and entertainment in the journey but in the end credits you see That Nick was played by an actor and so all the material with him in it is scripted, which means that the documentary we just saw was actually fiction. This was quite ground breaking in that it's not a mockumentary cos they weren't making fun of a genre, they were conveying a message and the message is no less because the film tricked us into believing we were witnessing actual events as they happened. Would it have been any less powerful if we had suspended disbelief like we do when a fictional movie absorbs us? For the duration of the film until the end credits roll the movie cut deeper and affected us more because we believed we were witnessing reality and so its message worked better.A few people have had issues with the trick though, although I didn't, and this has lessened or damaged the impact for them. Its uncharted territory and I guess there are pitfalls to navigate as people get used to this type of film but I for one give full credit to this crew for sculpting an intelligent and interesting story with a new way of telling it.Excellent work people!

Colin George "Paper Heart" is everything you'd expect from a post "Juno" Sundance darling, which is probably enough information in itself to color your opinion of the film. First-time feature director Nicholas Jasenovec's pseudo-documentary examines the fictional relationship between comedienne Charlyne Yi ("Knocked Up," "Semi-Pro"), whose thesis is that she is incapable of love, and her real-life boyfriend, Michael Cera, who's fast becoming the festival's crowned prince. The footage is spliced together with decidedly ho-hum celebrity interviews (Seth Rogen, Demitri Martin are featured) nonchalantly credited as "Charlyne's Friends," experts in the psychology of love, and real couples recounting the foundation of their relationships, aided by ultra low-fi reenactments by Yi featuring rag dolls and paper sets.The film is wholly indie, hitting the familiar beats and consulting that worn checklist (awkward quirky character's self-written guitar sequence--check). It's too cute and well meaning to dismiss outright, but for a film about love, it has nothing particularly profound to say on the subject. So "Paper Heart" seems then a fitting (if self-deprecating) title for the piece in that the real elements are supporting a merely average fiction, rather than the scripted segments bolstering a real love story: the heart of the film is flimsy, two- dimensional."Paper Heart" is in large part not compelling because we know it's fake. The audience second-guesses any potentially genuine moment between Yi and Cera, reducing the documentary elements to supplemental gimmickry and each awkward giggle to a calculation. The structure of the film is fairly formated (narrative/interview/reenactment/narrative), assumedly with the intention of keeping any one of the film's components from growing stale, but it almost has the opposite effect. The grating sequence of scene types ends up highlighting how little the filmmakers really have on their plate. The ending then scrapes the bottom of the barrel, taking a page from Herzog's "Grizzly Man" in its snooty refusal to share a piece of audio (here a post break-up conversation between Yi and Cera), but if the restricted information is fictional, who do they imagine cares?Jasenovec and Yi, who's credited as co-writer, developed some intriguing concepts to be sure, and the premise sounds enlightening, but the utterly average romance between she and her co-star diffuses any potential... well, potential. What have we learned about love by the end of the hour and a half? Certainly nothing we couldn't have gleaned from a hundred other PG-13 romantic comedies."Paper Heart" does have a clear audience in mind, and it's fair to note I'm not it. The film will satisfy most and delight probably a few less traveled moviegoers. Approach it as a fictional film, and you may be less let down. The characters are mostly charming (save for the faux director played by a smarmy Jake M. Johnson), and there are a handful of legitimate laughs to be had.Just don't listen to the Sundance hype that would have you believe every two-bit indie film coming off the assembly line is a revelation compared to Hollywood's weekly drivel. The truth is that independent films, particularly comedies, are becoming increasingly generic and exponentially more mainstream."Paper Heart" is likable enough, but is still a long shot from innovation.

BasSmurf As you may have noticed with all the comments, this movie might be mediocre, terrible, great, or some weird combo. I'm one of those who think this was a great movie, but I hope to explain the discrepancies.First, let's get my biases out of the way, so that you can judge my comment accordingly. I am a Michael Cera fan. I am an indie movie fan, but not an aficionado. I wanted to see this movie. I'm a young guy who likes some romantic movies, but they have to be rather good. I didn't know anything about this movie aside from what the trailer tells me. I think that does it.A lot of the comments on IMDb about this movie center around the format. I agree that the style is important to talk about, but not the only thing. The style is documentary, but with certain deviating aspects. It isn't Blair Witch Project; it has decent editing and lighting. The angle is natural, all from a guy or three carrying cameras. Certain scenes are done in paper cutouts in paper scenery and wires for movement. These are usually the scenes that they didn't catch on camera and are important to the plot. These scenes are really charming because of their scale and their construction.The "acting" is also good. The most controversial aspect of this movie is the content, or the plot. Some think that this movie is either simply an observation of life or a movie about an observation of life. Either real or reel, some might say. I tend towards some middle ground. I think that this movie is a documentary about real life including a documentary about real life. There are staged things and things that look really genuine, so I think that it's more of an embellished real story. The cynic in me thinks that a lot of it is fake, but they did a really convincing job so I hope its all real.If you are an optimist, this story will be really cute and lovable. If you believe it to be faked, it's a bad movie. That is why I think it is mostly genuine, if not completely. If this was produced in any really directed way, it would not have included some things in it that it did. But then again, they could have included it to make you think that. Whether you're paranoid about that sort of thing is beside the point. This movie feels very real. I know some of my dates were almost exactly like some in this movie. Charlyne is believable and so is Michael Cera.Michael Cera plays a really cool guy with a cute awkward disposition. If you're a fan of Michael Cera, you'll recognize his characteristic style, but now I believe that style to be more of just how he is instead of an acting style. Regardless, he's endearing. Charlyne is also really lovable because she's funny and easily embarrassed. The two are quite genuine and work really well together because of their similar personalities.Overall, a cute and lovable movie. The ending is unsatisfactory, but that's because there is no end that would fit the story and remain truthful to real life.