Paper Heart movie poster

This is why Paper Heart, the half-real half-fake movie created by Yi and director Nick Jasenovec, intrigued me. The movie’s premise starts out with Yi traveling across the country, asking people what love is. The interviews are real. Then it segues into Yi meeting Cera at a party, where they show signs of liking each other. This part is presumably fake. Which, in the end, doesn’t really matter. Their love, pretend or not, is just as interesting and charming as the real stories we hear about in the rest of the movie.

This is why: Their relationship doesn’t have the kind of lightning bolts and passionate heavy breathing that we expect from romantic comedies. They’re low-key and quite humdrum. They go out on dates, walk on the beach, share quirky moments, and write silly songs. There’s no real drama (except for the very end, but that’s a bit of a spoiler). Their relationship, whether it’s real or not, is actually very close to reality. Relationships aren’t always exciting and romantic. Relationships can be kind of uneventful and quiet most of the time. But that doesn’t mean love isn’t there. Love doesn’t need lightning bolts and car chases and the running across a meadow. Love can just be.

As Yi and Jasenovec take us through multiple tales of love, including Yi’s own journey from not believing in love to her relationship with Cera, we learn that everyone has a different definition of love. And that they’re all valid, real or not.

Also, Rorschach was pretty much excellent and dead on. He is very clearly the most principled character in the whole movie. Even when he was doing the most violent of acts, he was doing them because he is on the right side of justice. Very well-acted, and very believable. The audience was cheering for him. Nite Owl was dead on, as was Silk Spectre and the Comedian. Sally Jupiter seemed a bit off to me, but I’ll get to that later.

Now to the parts in the movie that I didn’t quite like because they departed too much from the book. I’ll preface this by saying I completely understand why Snyder decided to change things. It’s a much neater movie with the changes, and slightly more palatable to mainstream audiences. And if I wasn’t so emotionally invested in the book, I probably would have appreciated the movie version a lot more. And yet, I cannot help but nitpick, because of what I think the story should be, versus the story told in the movie.

Ozymandias, or Adrian Veidt, is more villainous in the movie than in the book. There was slight ominous music in his scenes, and he seemed foppish, like a very well-manicured trust fund baby. In the book, Adrian was like Adonis. He was human perfection — the smartest person in the world with the perfect human body — with a strength and flexibility that no other human could match. You really believed he was good. Even in the end, you believed he was a good man who wanted peace so badly he was willing to sacrifice lives. Sure you didn’t like his methods, but deep down, you believed he meant well.

The movie version of Adrian was made out to be very smart man, yes. Also very strong and flexible, yes. But I don’t think it was made that clearly that he was supposed to be PERFECTION. I guess it’s hard to really convey that, but that’s what it seemed. And because of that, the movie version of Adrian came off as a cold and calculating villain, rather than a deeply disturbed but well-meaning person. It felt harder to sympathize with Adrian. Which is why I think they changed it — would mainstream audiences want to sympathize with someone who wanted mass genocide?

And this is the part that truly makes Adrian in the movie way more villainous than his comic counterpart. Not only does he dispatch several energy bombs around the world and enacts mass genocide, he also FRAMES HIS FRIEND. Who would sympathize with someone like that? That alone pushed him over from good guy territory to bad guy territory. Yes he ultimately wanted world peace, but even that was difficult to swallow. In the book, I bought into his crazy mad scheme. In the movie, I had to take a leap of faith.

Now, on to the ending. This is where I went from “loving the movie” to “liking the movie.” I completely understand why Snyder changed it — it wraps up the plotline very neatly, it’s a lot more understandable, and it provides an easier out to Dr. Manhattan. But the change is too much for me. You have to understand; Dr. Manhattan is my favorite character. And to see him being framed, to see the whole world turn on him; it hurts me.

Also, there’s a political danger zone here. If he had instead manufactured an alien and deployed the alien to multiple cities (I actually agree with the multiple-city theory; it makes more sense than just targeting one American city), then the world would unite against an external common enemy. Now the enemy is essentially, well, one of us. In fact, he is one of the Americans. Would the Russians truly believe that this was not a calculated act by the U.S. government? Would everyone really believe that Dr. Manhattan had given up on Earth and is not secretly working with the U.S. government? Wouldn’t this act by Dr. Manhattan unite the world AGAINST America instead of WITH America? I do agree that the only way it would make sense is if the U.S. government was successful in convincing everyone they’re not in cahoots with him. How could Ozymandias be so sure they would be able to do that? It seems tricky.

Here are a few more nitpicks: I thought Nixon seemed a bit comical. I had a hard time buying his character. Maybe it was that very obviously fake nose. I also think that the scenes where Dr. Manhattan brings up his previous life felt a little different from the book. In the movie, you had the feeling that he was having flashbacks. In the book, it was very clear that he was actually living all of them simultaneously. I think that’s the sort of thing you can’t really convey in a movie though, so I give that a pass. In the movie, it seemed like Sally Jupiter only loved the Comedian because he gave her Laurie. In the book, Sally Jupiter loved the Comedian, through and through. Also, they didn’t show Hollis Mason’s death in the movie.

I’ll fully admit that this is a nit-picky sort of review. And I’m picking at it because it doesn’t fit with my preconceived notion of how I think the movie should be. But I totally understand why the changes were made — they needed a more obvious villain (Ozy) and they needed a tragic figure that had to be sacrificed (Dr. M). Some side storylines had to be edited for time. So overall, it was very well done, and I’ll give them props for keeping the spirit of the comic book.

If I had to give a score, I guess I’d give it 4-star movie rating and a 3-star Comic Book Guy rating.