500 days of summer was like a really lame present in pretty wrapping. it's a shame that some scenes were so excellent, since it often feels contrived and utterly pedestrian. gave me terrible flashbacks to chapters from the game where it described all these sadsack gynophobic dudes trying to figure out why women didn't flock to them. the movie has some pretty smart commentaries at times, but again, those moments are smothered somewhat by all the hackneyed gimmickry and totally unconvincing support cast. technical aspects were consistently top of the line, thrilling even, at times. if i watched it without the sound, i'd probably have liked it more. summer isn't exactly a fair portrayal, but she isn't as villainous as she could have been. i still think that the movie could have played more evenly with her, making her less irrational and manipulative, especially since tom's a pretty believable stand-in for male obliviousness. the happy (and predictable, right down to the final pun) ending rings false as a result of its refusal to make summer anything else than an emotionally abusive/elusive female. basically, i bought the misery but the happiness just didn't sell.

whatever. i don't regret watching it. i enjoyed it. i just didn't like it.

I sort of agree with that last sentence. It was never "boring," I guess, and I laughed out loud at the Smiths line in the elevator.

But in the end I still sat through a pile of shit. And that's not what I go to the movies for.

Agreed,I watched this like a week ago and I also felt that it was missing something. The emotions portrayed by both main character's seemed way too flat and the desire of the film makers to make this an art film(With several gimmicks. Including what looked like a Seventh Seal reference and a musical scene.) seemed very insincere. The soundtrack was good though.

I guess I just have a problem with a story attempting to serve as this blow to the idealistic fantasies of young men while the shallowness of how all the characters are portrayed (and pretty much everything else about the film) is still obliviously consumed by it.

Disgusting fact: my now ex-girlfriend thought this film was more poignant and convincing than Adventureland. Now there's an excellent motion picture.

A downright lie! Adventureland was way better. The character's were well defined with room for interesting flaws and development. Also,none of them seemed like blatant stereotypes. Also,Adventureland was actually funny.

haha. the entire time i was thinking about how this wasn't even remotely as honest and real feeling as adventureland. that movie pulled its punches at the end, but at least made it that far. 500 days of summer was facile from the start.

I saw "Armored"(2009) the other night. What an awful piece of garbage. It's one of those movies where I just wished the "hero" would have been killed. I can describe this movie for you in one sentence:

Guys pound on the hinge of an armored truck, "good guy" ends up getting more people killed than the bad guys do.

I can't believe how far Nimrod Antol has dropped.

Egads, is there a worse animated Disney film than The Princess and the Frog? Just finished watching it. How terrible. Some of the most unimaginative character designs I've ever seen! And in New Orleans. Plenty of opportunity for invention, but nothing. The cajun firefly is the most entertaining part. Poorly animated overall, awful songs that feel shoehorned in, completely run-of-the-mill story and execution. Sub-Saturday morning cartoon slapstick. No atmosphere. Ugh. I hated this movie. Is there anyone here that will defend it?


Pretty much how I felt.

"Dr. Goldfoot & the Girl Bombs" starring Vincent Price on the late late movie on THIS. Cinematic trash nirvana.

Sin Nombre. [2009]

Wow. I'm not sure what to write about this film because it has affected me pretty deeply. First off, the visuals are stunning. Beautiful photography. But what's really affecting me is the story. An escape story at heart, the portrayal of boarder crossing, gang activity, violence, and poverty are spot on and extremely moving. But beware, its tough to stomach in spots mainly because of how realistic it is.

Sdage, is there a better animated Disney film this decade (besides Lilo and Stitch) than The Princess and the Frog ? Watched it a few weeks ago. How charming. Some of the most imaginative character designs I've seen from them in awhile! And in New Orleans. Plenty of opportunity for invention, and some of it was kind of creative. The cajun firefly is the most grating part. Safe simple animation overall, other than the voodoo man and his tarot cards which were visually wonderful, some decent Randy Newman songs that he should have had a chance to sing, completely run-of-the-mill story and execution. A charming sweet movie without any glaring flaws, but it didn't excite me. Seemed a step back toward the right direction for the 2D animation department at Disney.

Chicken Little. I can't speak for all of their direct-to-video sequel cashins, which are usually mediocre but not horrible (positive exceptions: Return Of Jafar and Lion King 1 1/2).

The Princess and the Frog looked like it was direct-to-video.

Oh, the films I would enjoy if I could see them through your eyes.

I'm just happy that they are getting back to the 2D work again.

Ogawa - Have you seen Treasure Planet, Home on the Range or Atlantis? I wasn't a huge fan of Princess (currently 21st of 47 films on my '09 list), but my response was similar to Ag's, I was glad to see them back doing 2D, and I was glad it was at least better than those 3 atrocious films.

Treasure Planet is an underrated gem (the Five For Fighting song notwithstanding).

I confess I haven't seen those films, so they very well may be worse. I have seen Lilo & Stitch, which I enjoyed. I'm not impressed with 2D simply because it's 2D, though. I would be so much happier that Disney was getting back to basics if the film had shown any creativity whatsoever, but it was just so plain. The Triplets of Belleville had more invention in one minute than Princess has in its entire runtime. The prince looked like any other Disney prince, the princess looked like any other Disney princess (except her skin was darker and her nose was wider), and the frogs didn't even look as good as the dancing one on WB. The film just had no character, or adventure! Where was the adventure? Or the drama? It's extra painful because it took place in New Orleans which has such an incredible atmosphere and history, and the best they can do is have a voodoo Jafar summoning shadow beasts to chase a couple frogs in a swamp.

The firefly was the most entertaining because they actually took a risk with his depiction and invented a persona. They didn't just consult the Disney How-To manual like they did with the rest of the film. Look at the alligators. So much opportunity to create something interesting and what did they do? Made a typical Disney alligator that's at least 50 years old at this point, maybe older. Look at what Pixar did with sharks in Finding Nemo. Those are new and memorable characters. Pixar does that with every character because their films are labors of love. The Princess and the Frog is assembly line product.

this.

Rewatched part of the opening of this one last week and I'm still a pretty big fan of it. I agree about the photography and was a big fan of the realism. I had previously seen some of a documentary about the trains like the one in the film, so I wasn't let down that there wasn't more about the people who ride the trains, also the gangster was more interesting anyways.

Big Fan. [2009]

Written by Robert Siegel, this film (like Siegel's other film The Wrestler) highlights those in the faceless shadows of the sports world. And also like the Wrestler, this film cast the perfect leading role. Patton Oswalt is spot on throughout the film, and he really shines as the lead in this character study of a football fanatic.

Patton has way too many "liberal" lines from Coppola's script. Like when Patton laments the death of his aide, and the "all glory is fleeting" line. Not to mention the fact that Omar Bradley (the film's advisor) is proabably the real hero, what with constantly pointing out the human cost of war, and not wanting to risk lives unnecessarily, like his friend, Patton does.

Man, flick my bic!

Blue Collar: Wow, this was terrific. Richard Pryor (in a rare dramatic turn), Harvey Keitel and Yaphet Koto play auto-plant workers who decide to knock over their union shop in order to pay the bills. A seethingly angry film. Much more long-winded write-up here

Wow, The Book of Eli was a pile of shit. After some cool scenery (Fallout 3: The Movie is quite impressive visually), and an initial bit of badassery from Denzel, the thing falls on its face. I'd say there are 45 solid minutes here. Mila Kunis is absolutely awful and ruins the movie in every way - although it wouldn't matter who played her character, its just that bad. Avoid at all costs. Plus, this is another movie with a pointless and stupid twist.

Paper Heart. [2009]

Eh. That's about all I have to say about this film. Not horrible, and I was drawn in at times, but overall: eh.

Another great movie that for some reason, only shows up around 3 AM on cable stations.

I don't think I could take 90 minutes worth of Yi's head-in-the-clouds persona...reminds me of Victoria Jackson when she was on the Tonight Show/SNL.

Yeah, I want to like her and enjoy this film, but I just couldn't do it. 'Head-in-the-clouds persona' is a perfect way to describe her and I want it to be funny and cool, but its just not.

If she was a blond white girl, you'd just say she was "ditzy".

On the 500th page of this thread it's fitting to honor this gem:



A much better written film than the GG winner for screenplay, Up In The Air.

lmnopt, what was so preciously gem-like about it exactly? the boorish sidekicks? the wise beyond her years little girl? the misogynist bullshit way it deals with summer? the oh-so clever final line? i can't think of a more loathsome example of sundance style moviemaking, honestly. it felt like annie hall got gangbanged by every major studio head. the more time that passes since when i saw it, the more resolute i am in my hatred of this film.

Any movie that plays as a pointed response to the sorry state of romantic comedy in Hollywood, which runs the gamut from gauzily implausible fantasy to blatant and fatuous dishonesty, is already on my radar as "gem" worthy.....though, admittedly, that "Sundace" style to which you refer while often annoying as in a movie like "Garden State", in 500 finds just the right scale and tone, neither trivializing nor melodramatically overstating the delicate feelings it explores.

...do love the Annie Hall comment.

What are we talking about? The image doesn't show up on this computer.

500 days of summer (and misogynist bullshit hackwork).

tone and style were what i liked about the film. webb is a heck of a young director, my own qualms with him come down to that faux-bergman montage sequence. and the acting, leads at least, was really strong. but the content of the film, the script specifically, was rancid garbage. i mean, how was this film not "gauzily implausible fantasy" and "blatant and fatuous dishonesty"? i object on multiple terms, from the completely unrealistic standard of living of these young naifs, to the plot and character manipulations (the wedding and onward, up until that way too pat and clever and obvious ending).

it felt indie in the same way that urban outfitters feels indie. i'll stick with the duplass brothers.

Is it mainly that the leads had more money than they would have had in "real life" that you found implausible, or is it hard to stomach a scenario where there is never any clear explanation why the girl just doesn't love the boy....one that's far more true to real life than the standard explanations in most plots, which are typically based on some trust-broken grievance. As Roger Ebert wrote in his 4 star review, 500 is "a rare movie that begins by telling us how it will end and is about how the hero has no idea why."
And hope you're not including the "Hall and Oates" sequence in your "montage" criticism....that scene was classic.

FWIW, I dig the Duplass Bros...especially Baghead.

I actually didn't care for the acting as much in this one and I was mainly indifferent to the plot, it didn't make moves that forced me to hate it. My wife thought it was cute. That's about all the energy I have towards this one.


STE, be careful about throwing 'hack' around, I got flagged for the context of my use of the 'H' word a week or two ago.

Considering the 500 Days director just signed on for the Spider-Man reboot, "hack" might actually be appropriate in this case.

About the film itself, I'm with you. I didn't hate it, but I didn't much like it and I was more annoyed by the film than delighted. I thought it was cute at times, and I like Levitt. I've mostly forgotten it by now.

I really liked the movie but, other than a few sequences as he's falling for her, I certainly didn't find it delightful. Just as I didn't find Where the Wild Things delightful and even found myself annoyed at times that there wasn't some more standard Hollywood scenario such as where the kid comes right out over the campfire and teaches the creatures to forgive and to love...I wanted that to happen, but it would have been a lesser film had it been so. Tangent, I know- but I see parallels in what I like about movies in the two and WTWTA was my favorite movie of the year.

44 Inch Chest, 2010
directed by Malcolm Venville.

Well, this should've been good, I expected it to be good, I was actually pretty excited about the prospect of this being good, but no. It's awful. Just awful. Unpleasant people doing and saying unpleasant things for unpleasant reasons in a film that feels more like a crappy stageplay written by someone who wants to impress the audience with his insults and foul language. It's written by the guys who wrote Sexy Beast, but there's nothing of that film's greatness here. They clearly misunderstood what made that film so good, and so they've stuffed this film to the gills with Don Logans. Every single character here pretty much talks like Ben Kingsley in that film. They're hateful and simplistic and misogynist and I wanted them all to die. There's no character to side with here. We're stuck in a room of these assholes as they try to convince Winstone's character to kill his wife's lover and... that's it. That's the entire film. At no point do you care one way or the other whether Winstone kills the guy or not. You just want the film to end because it's so fucking boring. At one point a character says, "My ass fell asleep." Yeah, pretty much.

the montage criticism was aimed solely at the scene where levitt goes to the movies. the dance sequence was totally fine within the context of the film. while the money thing is a minor annoyance, it still irks me when a movie tries to be unconventional or biting, yet still falls into the hollywood fantasy life trap. which is why i like mumblecore aesthetic, because it really avoids glamorizing in circumstances which are better left to pseudo-verisimilitude. no movie is every going to be realistic, and they define their own worlds, but in this film there are just too many little details that felt off and inauthentic. for example, summer's wedding: how many friends does she have? how much time did she have to plan that perfect looking wedding? two months? did she get engaged to the dude immediately? is he a wedding planner maybe? didn't any of her friends, especially ones shared with levitt, speak up about her being totally polar and impulsive? i know plenty of people who do shit like this, so it isn't outside the realm of plausibility. those people, however, have clear chemical imbalances.

i appreciated the way it portrayed levitt as the delusional party, didn't attempt to account for deschanel's motivations, other than her explanation in the park at the end. but again, that scene totally left me disgusted. the movie has multiple chances to even her character out, make her less manipulative, but they don't. the whole hand holding thing, maybe it was meant to imply a gesture of friendship, but in real life, that's a definite dick move. so, it's not a love story but a story about love. spare me. it's the same hollywood bullshit, but aimed at a fresh demographic, namely frustrated white men between the ages of 15-35. i understand that this same criticism could be leveled at other, better films, like eternal sunshine, but those films likely avoided caricature while summer embraced it.

the hack in this case is not webb, but screenwriters weber and neustadter, of pink panther 2 renown. the direction was strong, lively, if a little too show-offy. if it weren't for webb, i'd have long given up on the film. and again, there were good scenes, good ideas. i particularly liked the in order run through at the end, emphasizing the idea that we often hold on to the good moments, which are long in the past and far outnumbered by the bad ones. that was clever, in a positive way. but the movie itself felt like a lie told with conviction, something we can recognize within ourselves, or believe we recognize within our past experience, but only in the same way that romantic comedies (for women) often appeal to a socially constructed idea of self.

we just refer to 44 inch chest as "the cunt movie".

I'm in the middle here. I liked, but didn't love it.

First off, I am a huge sucker for these kinds of movies. And I'm not going to apologize for it. I like Garden State and I don't care what anyone thinks of me because of it. Secondly, as Ebert notes (and I said in my quick review of this in this very thread) I love that they told you what was going to happen in the beginning and that actually happens. I kept waiting for the big twist that would keep them together but (thankfully) that never came. Its not a perfect movie, and STE I think you have some valid complaints (namely the hand holding at the end being a totally lame move) but there are some really good moments too (like Levitt's retrospective, as you pointed out).

i'm a sucker for those kinds of movies too. and just because i hated the movie, doesn't mean i didn't enjoy it. typically, i'd consider a film of mixed merit to be flawed, but 500's flaws are fatal, its virtues superficial. it's like a sexy-ass person with terminal cancer.

FACT: that/this movie sucks balls.

Two stars for effort.

I liked 500 days of summer until toward the end when Summer delivers the most devastating line to a past lover ever, then I loved it.

It crushed me. The truth is any woman who ever breaks up with you thinks the same thing as they say bullshit like "let's stay friends"

Terminal Cancer: Totally not sexy.

Right on.
STE- your points had me rethinking aspects of the film...particularly the wedding...and while I agree that it's a bit crazy that her transition to marriage would happen so quickly, it's actually the exclamation point on what we knew from the first words of the film...that this was unrequited love...a universal concept that I suspect spoils the movie for some people. It is the very process of Levitts delusion that made the film somewhat unique. I was also swept up in the style as well as the great soundtrack.

i don't buy that. i've been on both sides of unrequited love enough times to know how much this movie fakes those feelings. in real life, he wouldn't get over her even that quickly. that kind of toxic attraction lasts and pollutes, it clouds the mind and poisons other relationships. that the movie tries to show you how hard it is to deal with irrationalities like love, only to provide false uplift in the final minutes is what kills it for me. i could forgive the cloying supporting cast, the moments that are off, tonally. but that the movie basically undermines its own attitude for the sake of pleasing the audience makes it no better than the ugly truth and other hollywood rom-com bullshit. in fact, i'd probably rate the ugly truth higher than summer. at least i could make fun of that one while watching it. summer is too self-conscious, too montage-y to mock satisfyingly.

The "wise" little sister alone ruined any chances at 500 Days of Summer being great.