Editing Down with Love (section)

==Reception==
===Box office===
''Down with Love'' was chosen as "the perfect film" to open the second [[Tribeca Film Festival]], where it made its premiere.<ref>{{cite web |last=Hernandez |first=Eugene |url=http://www.indiewire.com/2003/03/down-with-love-to-kick-off-second-tribeca-fest-79870/ |title=''Down with Love'' to Kick-Off Second Tribeca Fest |date=March 17, 2003 |website=[[IndieWire]] |access-date=July 18, 2017 |archive-date=May 15, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180515044305/http://www.indiewire.com/2003/03/down-with-love-to-kick-off-second-tribeca-fest-79870/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The film opened first in New York, and was released countrywide a week later on May 16, 2003. The film was released as counter programming against ''[[The Matrix Reloaded]]''.<ref name="nyt-summer"/> Though the film was highly anticipated,<ref>{{cite news |title=Why we can't wait to see ''Down With Love'' |url=https://ew.com/article/2003/01/24/why-we-cant-wait-see-down-love/ |access-date=11 May 2023 |work=EW.com |date=January 24, 2003 |archive-date=May 11, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230511045333/https://ew.com/article/2003/01/24/why-we-cant-wait-see-down-love/ |url-status=live }}</ref> it performed far below box office expectations in comparison with other rom-coms released in the same year, such as ''[[How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days]]'' and ''[[Something's Gotta Give (film)|Something's Gotta Give]]'', both of which grossed over $100 million.<ref name="Loayza" /><ref name="BombReport">{{cite web |title=Down with Love |url=https://bombreport.com/yearly-breakdowns/2003-2/down-with-love/ |website=Bomb Report |access-date=11 May 2023 |archive-date=May 11, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230511045339/https://bombreport.com/yearly-breakdowns/2003-2/down-with-love/ |url-status=live }}</ref> ''Down with Love'' ultimately made just $39.5 million worldwide on a $35 million budget.<ref name="Mojo"/>

===Critical response===
At the time of its release, ''Down With Love'' received extremely varying reviews. ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' critic [[Roger Ebert]] spoke of the film fairly positively, saying parts were "fun" and describing Zellweger's speech at the end as "a torrent of words [pouring] out from her character's innermost soul".<ref name=Ebert>{{cite web |url=http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/down-with-love-2003 |title=Down with Love |last=Ebert |first=Roger |author-link=Roger Ebert |date=May 16, 2003 |website=RogerEbert.com |access-date=July 3, 2017 |archive-date=May 4, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170504121103/http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/down-with-love-2003 |url-status=live }}</ref> [[A. O. Scott]] in ''[[The New York Times]]'' praised director "Reed's buoyant homage", Zellweger's Doris Day-like ability to "swivel engagingly between goofiness and sex appeal", McGregor's Sinatra-like "wiry, wolfish energy" and screenwriters Ahlert's and Drake's "canny cocktail of period vernacular and deliberately labored double entendres", finding the movie "intelligent and amusing" with "a glorious, hectic artificiality". But he questioned "the point of the exercise" compared with [[Todd Haynes]]' ''[[Far from Heaven]]'', which "plunged into the subtext of those old movies", whereas ''Down with Love'', being an "updating and a critique", "snips that subtext away", making it "less sophisticated than what it imitates".<ref name="NYTimes"/>

Conversely, ''[[The San Francisco Chronicle]]''{{'s}} [[Mick LaSalle]] wrote, "''Down With Love'' is superior to ''Far From Heaven''", which "seems naive in comparison" because "''Down with Love'' is a very smart, very shrewd movie, and the smartest, shrewdest thing about it is the way it masquerades as just a fluffy comedy, a diversion, a trifle. Hardly a trifle, ''Down With Love'' distills 40 years of sexual politics into 100 minutes, using the romantic-comedy conventions of an earlier time to comment on the governing social assumptions of yesterday—and today, as well... The brilliance of ''Down With Love'' is that it slyly reminds us that our modern perspective, like every 'modern perspective' that preceded it, is doomed to obsolescence and isn't some final stage of enlightened social thought."<ref>{{cite news |last=LaSalle |first=Mick |title=Up with 'Down' / Behind retro-fluff look is a smart view of sex, American style |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |date=May 16, 2003 |url=http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Up-with-Down-Behind-retro-fluff-look-is-a-2647963.php |authorlink=Mick LaSalle |access-date=October 29, 2017 |archive-date=December 9, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171209104749/http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Up-with-Down-Behind-retro-fluff-look-is-a-2647963.php |url-status=live }}</ref>

Opposing opinions occurred even at the same newspaper, as with ''[[The New York Observer]]'', where [[Rex Reed]]'s review was headlined "Down With Down With Love!"<ref>{{cite news |last=Reed |first=Rex |author-link=Rex Reed |title=Down With Down With Love! |url=https://observer.com/2003/05/down-with-down-with-love/ |work=[[The New York Observer]] |date=May 19, 2003 |access-date=May 11, 2023 |archive-date=May 11, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230511045338/https://observer.com/2003/05/down-with-down-with-love/ |url-status=live }}</ref> but [[Andrew Sarris]]'s headline countered with "It's Affectionate and Smart, And I'm Down With Love".<ref>{{cite news |last=Sarris |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Sarris |title=It's Affectionate and Smart, And I'm Down With Love |work=The New York Observer |date=May 26, 2003 |url=http://observer.com/2003/05/its-affectionate-and-smart-and-im-down-with-love/ |access-date=May 20, 2017 |archive-date=August 3, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170803213221/http://observer.com/2003/05/its-affectionate-and-smart-and-im-down-with-love/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[Richard Corliss]] of ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' admired Orlandi's costumes and Laws' design for their "giddily precise exaggeration" and wrote that the script "has a gentle heart to humanize its sharp sitcom wit," advising his readers to "stay for the movie's denouement: a two-minute speech that wraps up the plot like Christmas ribbons around a time bomb". But he found the film to be "miscast at the top" and "conflicted about its subject—it both derides and adores what it means to parody" and that director "Reed often uses a gong where chimes would do." Corliss concludes: "As you see, we too are conflicted about this film. We want to love it, but like a Rock Hudson rake, we keep finding fault in its allure. We want to hate it, but like Doris Day, we finally can't say no".<ref name="TimeMay11"/>

In the years after its release, [[Nathan Rabin]], [[Jonathan Rosenbaum]],<ref>{{cite web |last=Rosenbaum |first=Jonathan |date=January 22, 2022 |title=Down With Love (2003) |url=https://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/2009/10/down-with-love-2003/ |access-date=August 3, 2017 |archive-date=August 3, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170803213223/https://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/2009/10/down-with-love-2003/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and [[Richard Brody]] have been among the critics and film theorists that have continued to write in praise of the film.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Brody |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Brody |date=December 29, 2009 |title=Down With Love |url=http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/down-with-love |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |access-date=August 3, 2017 |archive-date=August 3, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170803220336/http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/down-with-love |url-status=live }}</ref> Rabin wrote that Chicago critics by and large embraced ''Down With Love'', noting: "It got two thumbs up from [[Ebert & Roeper]] and was No. 2 on Rosenbaum’s Top 10 list in the [[Chicago Reader]]."<ref>{{cite web |last=Rabin |first=Nathan |author-link=Nathan Rabin |title=Ribald Retro Case File #146: 'Down With Love' My Year Of Flops |website=[[The A.V. Club]] |date=September 16, 2009 |url=http://www.avclub.com/article/ribald-retro-case-file-146-idown-with-lovei-32944 |access-date=August 3, 2017 |archive-date=August 3, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170803212203/http://www.avclub.com/article/ribald-retro-case-file-146-idown-with-lovei-32944 |url-status=live }}</ref> Rosenbaum called it a "masterpiece" and wrote, "If a more interesting and entertaining Hollywood movie than ''Down with Love'' has come along this year, I've missed it".<ref>{{cite news |last=Rosenbaum |first=Jonathan |author-link=Jonathan Rosenbaum |title=What's Past Is More Than Prologue |work=[[Chicago Reader]] |date=July 10, 2003 |url=https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/whats-past-is-more-than-prologue/Content?oid=912581 |access-date=October 29, 2017 |archive-date=August 12, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170812095742/https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/whats-past-is-more-than-prologue/Content?oid=912581 |url-status=live }}</ref>

''Down with Love'' holds a 60% approval rating at [[review aggregator]] website [[Rotten Tomatoes]], based on reviews from 179 critics, with an average rating of 6.10/10. The site's consensus states: "Looks great, but Zellweger and McGregor have no chemistry together, and the self-satisfied, knowing tone grates".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/down_with_love/ |title=Down with Love (2003) |publisher=[[Fandango Media]] |website=Rotten Tomatoes |access-date=March 29, 2021 |archive-date=March 8, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308041824/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/down_with_love |url-status=live }}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a score of 52 out of 100 based on 39 critics' reviews, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.metacritic.com/movie/down-with-love|title=Down with Love Reviews|website=[[Metacritic]]|publisher=[[CBS Interactive]]|access-date=March 29, 2021|archive-date=September 24, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924231357/https://www.metacritic.com/movie/down-with-love|url-status=live}}</ref>

In August 2018, [[Vanity Fair (magazine)|''Vanity Fair'']] put ''Down With Love'' at Number 13 on their list of the top "25 Best Romantic Comedies of All Time".<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/08/best-romantic-comedies-list|title=The 25 Best Romantic Comedies of All Time|magazine=[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]]|access-date=2018-12-01|language=en|archive-date=August 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810181910/https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/08/best-romantic-comedies-list|url-status=live}}</ref> In June 2017, Jonathan Rosenbaum named ''Down With Love'' one of his "25 Favorite Films of the 21st Century (so far)".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/2017/06/my-25-favorite-films-of-this-millennium-so-far/|title=My 25 Favorite Films of the 21st Century (so far)|website=www.jonathanrosenbaum.net|date=2021-11-09|language=en-US|access-date=2018-12-01|archive-date=December 1, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181201093132/http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/2017/06/my-25-favorite-films-of-this-millennium-so-far/|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2023, Beatrice Loayza of ''[[The New York Times]]'' wrote of the film’s cult following, saying "its meta-referential charms" have been embraced by a "younger generation…that better understands the role-playing nature of gender and romantic courtship…The film mocks, but it also transports with its eye-candy visuals and coy performances, reminding us that a suspension of reason is required to perform gender, to be sucked into a rom-com and, even, to fall in love."<ref name="Loayza">{{cite news |first1=Beatrice |last1=Loayza |title='Down With Love' 20 Years Later: Celebrating the Phoniness of Rom-Coms |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/09/movies/down-with-love-rom-coms.html |access-date=11 May 2023 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=May 9, 2023 |archive-date=May 11, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230511045336/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/09/movies/down-with-love-rom-coms.html |url-status=live }}</ref>