I am so sick of critics and wannabe-critics maligning romantic comedies for being formulaic and predictable. If you buy into all the hooplah about how there are only like 7 stories that can ever be told then, clearly, romantic comedy is not the only genre that makes use of them. See anything made by Michael Bay and a large portion of things made by Steven Spielberg (both of whose films I readily enjoy) – Watch the news, for crying out loud, the predictable formulas are all around us.

Seriously, I read way too many reviews of romantic comedies that have clearly been written by people who don’t like romantic comedies or – more accurately – who don’t like the people who DO like romantic comedies. I want to get really close to these people and whisper, “If you don’t do an honest critical appraisal of this individual film on its merits I will get my romantic comedy loving cooties all over you.”

Romantic Comedies are not usually gonna’ have a whole lot of geo-political gravitas. You know why? Because they are ROMANTIC COMEDIES. So to constantly read reviews of romantic comedies that use the word “superficial” is irritating in the extreme because more often than not, you can just tell that the reviewer is judging a boy-meets-girl flick against a background that includes The Constant Gardner and, I dunno’, An Inconvenient Truth. But more importantly, these sorts of comparisons and criticisms are pernicious in two fundamental ways:

ONE, they denigrate that which is under the purview of romantic comedies, namely sexual politics, family, love and desire; and

TWO, they are usually a thinly veiled stab at women because romantic comedies are invariably called “Chick-Flicks”.

As if women are the only sex who have been heart-broken.
As if women are the only sex who think about sex.
As if women are the only sex to have mothers, fathers, sisters, friends…
As if women are the only sex who think about love.

I mean, holy hell – read a book once in a while. Men have been writing funny stories about love for an awfully long time.

In any case – romantic comedies are also not typically going to include a whole lotta’ shooting and tightly crafted action sequences. You know why? Because they are ROMANTIC COMEDIES. So, why is the other most common criticism I read about romantic comedy that they are slow and full of too many well-coiffed “talking heads”? You know what happens when people who like to make romantic comedies try to placate this crew who crave “more action”? Scenes in movies like How To Lose a Guy in 10 Days where Matt McConaughey winds up “chasing” Kate Hudson on a motorcycle when she decides to move away as a response to their romantic hiccups.

Seriously?

I feel sometimes, that everyone is actually “chasing” the awesome Act III maneuver in When Harry Met Sally when Billy Crystal winds up running through New York on New Year’s Eve to reach Meg Ryan. It’s just that everyone of the producing teams and directors and even writers who are trying to ride these coattails always seem to miss that he’s not chasing a person who is running away or leaving town. He knows exactly where she is because they were there together the year before. This isn’t an action sequence. It’s exciting because he’s chasing a dream. He’s chasing a beautiful certainty and hoping beyond hope that it isn’t too late.

Romantic Comedies do not need action sequences. They need romance. They need comedy. And, if they can manage it, they can usually do with a little revelation and epiphany and growth and change…

I mean, having said that, one of the best romantic comedies made – since filmmakers and pundits alike all seemed to decide that “real” movies shouldn’t be about talking – is Out Of Sight. Yeah, that’s right. I’m calling Out Of Sight a Romantic Comedy. And, maybe if we didn’t live in a world that so denigrates films where the primary motivational force is love, sexual attraction and a desire to feel connected to another human being – Out Of Sight would have made more money than it did. They spent so much time trying to sell it as an Action Movie or Crime Caper so as not to alienate the sort of people who “Don’t See Romantic Comedies” that barely anyone ended up seeing it at all. Except critics, incidentally, who tended to love it while avoiding at all costs calling it what it is: A ROMANTIC COMEDY.

Like I said, romantic comedies are supposed to be romantic and they are supposed to be funny. Those are the two most basic criteria on which they should be judged. Every once in a while they transcend and become something greater and more exquisite than they even set out to be. They tap into the zeitgeist or into a collective unconscious and rise above.

I think, sometimes, that the reason so many critics are hard on romantic comedies is because they actually expect more from them, not less. They expect to see themselves in some way, to vicariously experience magic in its most essential form: love. I mean, let’s face it – when we get one of those average calls from a friend (male or female) who’s “going through something” and just “needs to talk” it’s more often because they’ve had some sort of social/emotional crisis and not that whacks of ghoulish tacky aliens with 12 eyes apiece have invaded their apartment, drunk all the good wine and set about their plans for world domination.

And while reviewers can often forgive a few campy moments in an action movie that might detract from the action, they cannot stand to be let down by love because that makes going to the movies just a bit too much like real life doesn’t it? And, wouldn’t it just be easier just to write off the whole genre as a waste of time then keep getting hurt again and again by the failure of romantic comedy filmmakers to get it right?

Well, whatever. I say suck it up. I say grow up. Nothing is perfect.

There might be a romantic comedy made just for you and if you don’t stop being such closed-minded wooses, you might miss it altogether.