Vicky Cristina Barcelona is Woody Allen's best film in over a decade.  Perhaps the greatest testament I can give the film is the 90-minute debate I had surrounding the film the day after I saw it with a date.  Any story that has 100% of the viewing audience interested enough that they can sustain such a long discussion about its meaning is, I believe, a success.

Allen uses the film to present four fundamentally different perspectives on love:  on the definition of "romance," on the shape and placement of sex, and on the duties of commitment. 

First of the archetypes, played believably by Scarlet Johansen (Cristina), is the seeker.  She knows only what she doesn't want, and finds that her experiences with love consistently end in the same way - with the sour realization that this form isn't quite right, either. 

Next, the prude (Vicky), who has dismissed romance as a fancy and seeks only stability.  Rebecca Hall does a fabulous job in this portrayal, as she doesn't play the prude.  Instead, she plays an intelligent and experienced woman who has based her values upon sound reasoning.  This dimensional portrayal make Vicky likeable in a way that a lesser performer would not have been capable.

Third, the romantic (Juan Antonio), played in Javier Bardem's usual stroke of genius.  Bardem is firming up his place in the canon as one of today's greatest actors.  Juan Antonio is a man of earnest passion; he finds beauty in everything.  Again, this is played with sincerity rather than as an easily-simplified archetype.  Juan cannot cease to love those he loved before, and loves all he comes into contact with.

Penelope Cruz's Maria Elena rounds out the contrast as the artist.  She's got a screw or two loose, loves like a rageful storm - bringing brilliant light to those that love her (followed by spells of dark night).

Allen mixes these four perspectives up and creates some chaos with a tight script just absurd enough in its more disturbing moments that it doesn't actually disturb.  His direction is tight, unobtrusive, to-the-point.  Really, how can one go wrong when anything by Gaudi is within sight of the lens?

What interested me most, and was the topic of my long debate, was the character of Doug (Chris Messina).  Unlike the other four characters, whom Allen presents with both sympathy and understanding, Doug is more...judged.  It felt as if Allen didn't respect his point of view as much as the others, scoffed at it a bit and presented him with the one-dimensionality that he managed to avoid in the rest of the cast. 

During my conversation the day after the movie, I realized that I was in error - that the character had been given as many positive attributes as negative ones - only I had been blinded by my own judgment to recognize those attributes as “positive.”  That is, I realized that I had brought my own archetype into the film, and my own perspective was a character.  Most fascinating, and an astounding testament to Allen’s film, which is also great fun to watch. 

I'm curious - when you see it, whose point of view (if any) will you dismiss as folly?