On that note, I wish to circle back to discussing what the film is about and why it is strong before turning to why it is perceived as worse than it actually is.

"The Switch" is about two people who are perfect for each other but don't yet realize it. Wally (Jason Bateman) is smart, kind and brutally honest. He also possesses a neurotic temperament that produces a few behavioral quirks (i.e. humming while chewing) and a few obstacles to intimacy (i.e. passive and fearful of rejection). More to the point he is stuck in the friend zone with Kassie (Jennifer Aniston). He is her best friend and, one day, she tells him that despite her single status she is ready to be a mother. In fact, she is going to use artificial insemination to achieve her new goal as the traditional plan has not panned out. A few weeks later a party is thrown to celebrate Kassie's decision, at which a drunk and emotionally conflicted Wally "unintentionally" replaces the donor sperm with his own. Wally remains unaware of this "pregnancy-hijacking" action, so he doesn't think twice when Kassie eventually moves away to start her new life as a single mom. Seven years later, Kassie and Sebastian (a.k.a. Little Wally) return. Most of the film involves Wally slowly realizing the obvious, grappling with confessing this secret to Kassie, predictably and effectively bonding with Sebastian, clarifying his romantic feelings toward Kassie and responding with exasperation to Kassie's half-hearted romance with a rival mate (the seemingly perfect donor guy).

There is much to like about "The Switch." Jason Bateman makes Wally likable and relatable while also embuing the character with unique, odd-ball qualities. Wally and Sebastian experience a genuine and emotionally gripping relationship that evolves from like-minded friends to a picture-perfect father-son combination that effectively buffers their collective neurotocism. Further, the characters interact with each in witty and energetic ways (helped by good chemistry between the secondary characters - Jennifer Aniston and Jeff Goldblum) while grappling with complicated issues inherent in modern life (artificial insemination-related issues). Again, this is a strong film.

And yet something is troubling. There is a vague and pervasive "watering-down" effect that can be sensed. Like an omnious undertow this "effect" seems to have the characters, at times, inexplicably biting their tongues, and during other key moments behaving inconsistently, if not idiotically. In short, the movie should have been better than it was and the explanation can be traced back to something that is even more annoying then a single bad film - a systemic problem with 21st century filmmaking and entertainment.

Let's flush this out. Concrete, key words that have already become associated to the film and patterned across critic and customer reviews are "manipulative," "predictable," and "boring." "The Switch" is perhaps being bombarded with such off-putting labels because of an often-cited but abstract problem. That is, the film is widely perceived to be a work that mindlessly conforms to the generic "romantic comedy formula." What is this formula and why is it so bad?

The formula is, in a nutshell, a core underlying philosophy that guides artistic choices and, in turn, shapes the trajectory of the plot and performances. What this really means is that filmmakers and actors are pressured by studios to stop considering artistic ambitions and start making changes in the service of making money. And, what "making money" has come to mean is whatever it is that uninspired, non-creative studio executives think will predict making money. There is now a "formula" for that, which involves doing things to appease an adolescent-level audience perceived to be so stupid and inattentive that a troubling and skewed translation process takes place pre-production. The studio confuses "thought-provoking script" with "overly complex;" "gutsy emotional performances" are de-emphasized for a set number of "funny one-liners." Consequently, characters become simple, silly figures that lose appeal, plot lines follow familiar, limited arcs, jokes and gags are needlessly crammed into scripts, twists are telegraphed, and themes are recycled.

Essentially, this forced and artificial confrontation between bottom-line infatuated studio executives and creative artists engender lower quality finished products, which produce films that not only fail to be as entertaining, insightful and inspiring as they could be but cues the audience into the dysfunctional business process operating behind the scenes. The result is an irony-laden backfire in which films like "The Switch" that have the money-making handprint on it are perceived with more frustration and disappointment then the film actually warrants, and less money and acclaim is earned. Stayed tuned for Part II in which the specific fingerprints of the Hollywood "formula" on "The Switch" are noted and discussed.