Is the Rom-Com Officially Dead?

Why should it die, though?  People still like to laugh, and the search for love is timeless, so why exactly is this genre sinking in popularity?
 
Well, for starters, there’s too much competition in the entertainment space. Over the years, movie-goers have been exposed to so much more nuanced characters; spoiled by hi-tech special effects; and many socially relevant, unpredictable plotlines, that we’ve become much more demanding of entertainment quality as a tradeoff for our time.  Which is not a bad thing, as it not only elevates discourse in certain areas but compels moviemakers to up their game every time.

Which makes the degradation in quality of the romantic comedy genre much more stark in contrast.
They just don’t make rom-coms the way they used to.  Granted, it’s not an Oscar-worthy genre. It’s not known for its depth, the films are just cute, sweet, light entertainment.

When entertainment was more of a brick-and-mortar industry, you rented movies like you borrowed books from the library, for a fee. Our family frequently rented videos from the local video store. We were able to watch animated features, action films, comedies, you name it, without having to dress up and drag three noisy kids (me and my siblings) to the movie theater. The '90s seemed like a completely different era.

An era, in my humble opinion, that was the Golden Age of the Rom-com.

Reading through the cringe-y but unfortunately accurate reviews of the Reese Witherspoon-Ashton Kutcher starrer “Your Place or Mine,” (a shame because I like both actors), just solidified my opinion that the rom-com of this age is probably dead.

The pair’s characterizations were polar opposites: the token carefree single bachelor and the token practical single mom. But shouldn’t being polar opposites generate more tension? Even nature says that opposites attract. For people and for magnets.

Did the movie suffer from the leads having very little screen time together? Maybe. They interacted heavily via calls, which is, in this day of technological advancement, quite realistic – and should be refreshing in a romantic movie. But even the dialogue in their calls weren’t convincing of their special closeness that the movie was trying to sell.

Was the plot too simple?

Romantic comedies aren’t really known for their depth, and sometimes the plots are even silly. For a time, what dominated the box office were “friends with benefits” type plots like, well, “Friends with Benefits” and “No Strings Attached.” There was even a Filipino version in “Unofficially Yours,” which I didn’t get to see, but you get the picture. While I was mildly entertained by “What’s Your Number?,” whose plot was basically Anna Faris’ character looking for all her ex-boyfriends in an attempt to find “The One,” on the advice of a magazine article... they still weren’t memorable.

I guess the main problem with a lot of the current romantic comedies is when the actors are just going through the motions. The audience can sense when an onscreen couple goes through the motions, leading to a forgettable movie experience.

So many of the romantic comedies (on TV and film) in the past decade reflect the “jaded-ness”of the times, prioritizing physical chemistry and glossing over emotions and hurrying to the end game.If there is one.

I am of the strong personal opinion that 90s romantic comedies were decidedly superior. 90s rom-coms either dominated the box office or have a cult following now: “Pretty Woman,” “My Best Friend’s Wedding,” “Sleepless in Seattle,” “The Wedding Singer,” “Clueless,” “Only You,” “10 Things I Hate About You,” the list goes on.

Is the premise of each of these films less silly?  Not really, the premise usually remains simple, and sometimes even absurd. But the story itself and the script, is well-written and well-executed by not just the leads but the supporting cast, and you don’t feel that the producers and the characters are rushing to the end without allowing the viewer to actually feel their feelings.  Are there cliché or corny lines?  Well, yeah, but the fact that “you had me at hello” is still popular now means it resonated with a lot of people.

The lines endure and so do the popularity of 90s rom-coms.

Plus, the leads actually looked like they liked each other.

“While You Were Sleeping” is one of my all-time favorites, and made Sandra Bullock one of my all-time favorite actresses.  She could do action, suspense, drama, comedy and romance.
Yes, I could only long for the days of the earnest '90s rom-com.  

But 2022's “The Lost City,” coincidentally a Sandra Bullock-starrer, was a pleasant surprise… and proof that Bullock can charm at whatever age.

I was going to skip it from the HBO Go list, mentally writing it off as another action adventure film set in a mysterious island but the blurb piqued my interest.
 
Sandra Bullock’s Loretta, was a successful romance novelist, kidnapped and stranded on an exotic island with her cover model, Channing Tatum’s Alan, played by Channing Tatum. Loretta declares at the start of the film that she’s a sapiosexual (someone attracted to intelligence) and later casually categorizes her own hit book series as schlock. Alan is much younger and not the action film stud (that Tatum typically plays): he’s klutzy, inexperienced at hand-to-hand combat and weaponry, but driven by an earnest desire to rescue Loretta when she gets kidnapped by an eccentric British businessman played by Daniel Radcliffe.

Besides the personalities being completely opposite, there is a clear age gap made even more interesting by the female being the older of the two.  Alan seems to have a bit of a crush on his employer from the start.

Alan: I’ve never said the right thing one time around her. I get nervous because she opens her mouth, and just an encyclopedia of beautifulness comes out, and I just never say… You know she’s trying to kill me?
For context, he’s talking about his character in Loretta’s book, not the prospect of an author several years his senior killing him with her bare hands.

As a comedy, it was average, but it had its laugh-out-loud moments.
My favorite was before Loretta and Alan decided that their only way of escape was to scale the side of a steep mountain.

Loretta: I should not be doing this. I’m getting too old for this.
Alan: No, you’re not (reassuringly). You’re beautiful.
Loretta: I didn’t say I’m not beautiful. I said I’m getting too old to be doing this.
Yeah, you tell him, girl!  (Old and beautiful aren't antonyms, guys.)

Yes it’s a rom-com, but more: throw in clichés about the romance novel genre (and their loyal fanbase), male models, eccentric billionaires, and social media; exciting action sequences with actors who looked like they were having fun; and all in all it was a decidedly deliberately entertaining story.

So, maybe rom-coms of this age could still work.  They just need some occasional tweaks in the formula.  They could still work, but the non-negotiables would still bet there: sufficient chemistry and interesting dialogue.

Maybe there’s hope for this genre yet.