Topic: (500) Days of Summer (Read 24448 times)

Lise · « **on:** 27 Jul 2009, 23:18 »

I can't believe there hasn't been a thread started for 500 Days of Summer! It's a way refreshing take on the "Boy Meets Girl" story, and if you haven't seen it, you should. It may be indie, but it isn't pretentious at all; it's a very honest and bittersweet portrayal of how a relationship can deteriorate over time. To quote the writer, "it doesn't take two people to fall in love."

Both Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel do fantastic jobs acting, and the supporting cast brings much needed humor into the movie. For dealing with a rough subject like love, 500 Days of Summer is pretty lighthearted. Plus, it had an awesome soundtrack (yayyy, they included The Doves!)

For those of you who've seen it, what do you think? Can you relate more to the Summer character, or Tom? How realistic was the movie at depicting relationships?

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #1 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 20:52 »

A review in the New Yorker called it "a plastic void". That's all I know about it.

scarred · « **Reply #2 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 21:47 »

Haven't seen it, but from what I've heard this review was pretty spot on...

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/500-days-of-summer-killing-with-quirkiness/Content?oid=1851354

Then again, I live in a town of hipsters.

LittleKey · « **Reply #3 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 22:20 »

I just saw it today. It was incredible.

knives · « **Reply #4 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 22:49 »

It's a bird, it's a plane, no! It's a shitty hipster Annie Hall ripoff. Run for your lives!

Lise · « **Reply #5 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 22:52 »

Thanks, LittleKey, FINALLY someone who's actually seen the movie before bashing it. Like what I said in the topic, the film is considered "indie" and has an indie-feel to it, but it is not pretentious or trite crap like that review accuses it of being because it was based on the real-life experiences of the writer. You might interpret the story then as similar to "every single boring relationship you and I ever had," but I call that realism, and that's fresh air when it comes to the genre. If you've been in a one-sided relationship, chances are you can relate to the story in 500 days of Summer. The movie was hardly boring, and the audience shared plenty of laughs when I watched it. FYI, the audience wasn't full of hipsters either, the moviegoers were a diverse bunch.

I will admit that prior to watching the film, I thought it'd be just another hipster movie like Zooey Deschanel's previous "Gigantic" that tried too hard to be overly quirky, but it is much, much better.

This comment sums up my feelings about The Stranger's review: "You've completely missed the point of this film by railing against its indie quirkiness. Playing the 'Garden State' card? Fucking yawn. This film was a smart, artful gem that deserves better treatment than this."

PS: I don't like the Smiths, either.

knives · « **Reply #6 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 23:05 »

I saw it and didn't like it. Waste of money. I will agree it is no where near as bad as Gigantic, or really a bad movie. Just terribly bland in that hipster, it is hipster, way. It may be inspired by real life events, can't be completely true to them I would have to believe, but it just comes off as someone trying really hard to make a modern Annie Hall, but lacking charm or more importantly sincerity. It's too wink wink to be enjoyable, and what else does this film have to offer beyond enjoyability?

scarred · « **Reply #7 on:** 29 Jul 2009, 00:08 »

I think I'm gonna rent it. Bollocks to Seattle!

Yunior · « **Reply #8 on:** 29 Jul 2009, 03:15 »

This film pulled out every cinema-gimmick imaginable, and I'm really torn as to whether any of it really paid off. The most obvious is the discontinuity of the film: on one hand, entirely disorientating for the viewer; on the other, recreates that feeling of pouring over memories after a break-up, letting Tom edit out and distort Summer's good and bad moments. Or the reality/expectations split screen, which was so spot-on in terms of intent, but not anywhere near the mark in terms of execution. A few gimmicks that absolutely flunked in my book -- kid-sister love guru? documentary-style interviews with the characters about their thoughts on love? interpolative French short? -- and then just the one gimmick, the dance sequence, which charms me to no end. But even for all the student-filmy-ness of this movie, I still really found it enjoyable -- funny, thoughtful, and certainly willing to take risks.

As far as this whole 'indie' thing goes (good God when did being a hipster become such a crime, I mean Jeez), I sort of found it refreshing that all the hipster qualities it's accused of having serve the purpose of addressing the bizarre-and-redonkulous mating ritual that is The Comparing of Stuff We Like. Kid-sister points out, I think, relatively early on in the film, just 'cause Summer likes all the same hipster bullshit Tom likes means next to nothing in terms of long-term compatibility. Tom is, at this stage, already shaking with infatuation, and his love for Summer manifests itself out of dumb hipster bullshit they have in common, as opposed to anything meaningful (life experiences, goals, erwhatever). Summer, as a character (portrayed within the confines of Tom's memories), is reduced from a person to a collection of things she likes -- Tom, so steeped in his desire of finding the One (and also probably very set in his expectations of what his One is like), elevates her to this status of 'perfection' based on perfunctory common interests and, in that same vein, denies her the complexity of being a girl who, in the long-run, may not be able to make Tom happy.

Honestly, I was initially really irritated with this film's portrayal of Summer, which is so bare-bones in comparison to Tom's. But with a few hours distance I started to see that Summer is two-dimensional and superficial because that is how Tom sees her, too.

I forgot what else I had to say about this movie! This is gonna have to do for now, 'cause I am sleepy.

KvP · « **Reply #9 on:** 29 Jul 2009, 11:30 »

Well by the sound of it whoever was supposed to have marketed this film really dropped the ball, but that might have been on purpose. Who would rather see a deconstruction of indie romance than a romcom (besides us, I mean)? I'd heard a lot that the "romance" in this film is actually kind of realistic and that it kind of takes shots at the sorts of characters that Zooey Deschanel always plays. Besides, I like JG Levitt. Maybe I'll go see it.

Yayniall · « **Reply #10 on:** 30 Jul 2009, 13:04 »

It's a remake of 120 Days of Sodom.
But with way more coprophagia.

Avec · « **Reply #11 on:** 30 Jul 2009, 18:41 »

I went to see this movie with my girlfriend in a pretty optimistic mood. She ended up falling asleep halfway through the movie but I lasted through its enterity of cliché dialogue, obscure ordering, and what felt like every other romantic comedy I've been forced to scrutinize.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #12 on:** 31 Jul 2009, 07:18 »

Quote from: Yayniall on 30 Jul 2009, 13:04

It's a remake of 120 Days of Sodom.
But with way more coprophagia.

And still it's not original

Lise · « **Reply #13 on:** 31 Jul 2009, 10:02 »

I have so many things I want to say in this thread, but I won't because my head will explode.

That said... here's the condensed version:

1) Yunior, your review was spot-on and really insightful. The movie uses gimmicks, but for the most part, it uses them well (the major problem I have gimmick-wise would be the Autumn character at the end of the movie. That was too coincidental to be believable). As for the "kid-sister love guru," apparently she is modeled off the writer's actual younger sister who gave him similar love advice at that age.

2) TheFuriousWombat/Knives, it was not the director/writer's intentions to make an "original movie that sets new precedents" for anything. In interviews, they clearly state that they're heavily influenced by movies like Annie Hall and Cameron Crowe romances, but 500 Days of Summer is by no means a remake of Annie Hall.

3) Avec, I don't see how you relate 500 Days with "every other romantic comedy" because unlike the typical romantic comedy... it's brutally honest. There is no happy ending. Someone gets crushed. I've seen The Proposal and The Ugly Truth at the behest of my friends, and I wanted to literally SHOOT myself throughout. I didn't have that reaction while watching 500 Days, and if you did... perhaps romantic movies in general aren't your thing.

4) Coprophagia is sexy.

Blyss · « **Reply #14 on:** 31 Jul 2009, 11:20 »

I admit to being intrigued by the trailer. I may see it.

Allybee · « **Reply #15 on:** 31 Jul 2009, 16:19 »

hm, a lot of what I would say has already been said. I didn't like this movie. I think a lot of what I didn't like about this movie had to do with personal preference, not the actual movie. it just seemed so corny and sickly sweet that it gave me a headache. also the audience kept laughing, so I couldn't tell if I actually thought something was funny or if it was just that everyone else did.

in terms of gimmicks, what I did like was the "what tom imagined would happen" vs. "what actually did," I thought that was clever and absorbing to watch. the others did not do it for me. I don't like dancing in my movies (moulin rouge is my least favorite movie of all time). I like some romantic movies - I'm a sucker for eternal sunshine - but this just wasn't one of them. did not feel fresh to me.

my favorite thing about this movie, though, was the colors (and maybe also the decor in summer's apartment). I found it aesthetically pleasing. the part where tom is on the train going to the wedding, and it cuts to his friend, was really beautiful to me - half the screen is really cool light blues and white, the other half is red and brown. that really appealed to me.

also lise, there is kind of a happy ending, isn't there? he meets another girl who is going to give him a chance? that's happier than most films, anyways.

I dunno. I just felt like... well, I have really strong thoughts about what is played at sundance these days, but I guess I should save that for another thread.

imapiratearg · « **Reply #16 on:** 31 Jul 2009, 17:44 »

Quote from: Blyss on 31 Jul 2009, 11:20

I admit to being intrigued by the trailer. I may see it.

It looks cute!

knives · « **Reply #17 on:** 01 Aug 2009, 23:28 »

Quote from: Yayniall on 30 Jul 2009, 13:04

It's a remake of 120 Days of Sodom.
But with way more coprophagia.

I wish.

Quote from: Lise on 31 Jul 2009, 10:02

3) Avec, I don't see how you relate 500 Days with "every other romantic comedy" because unlike the typical romantic comedy... it's brutally honest. There is no happy ending. Someone gets crushed. I've seen The Proposal and The Ugly Truth at the behest of my friends, and I wanted to literally SHOOT myself throughout. I didn't have that reaction while watching 500 Days, and if you did... perhaps romantic movies in general aren't your thing.

How is it 'brutally honest'? I'll leave out the metaphorical things, like I said elsewhere I actually enjoyed the dance bit, but even the 'real world' stuff isn't what I would call brutal or honest. The whole thing is hipster twee that relies on silly wish fulfillment. If anyone did half the BS stupid name did I very much hope they get run over.Just because a movie plays sad music and doesn't have the main couple get together doesn't make the movie brutal It just means the creators are genre savvy. I might let you pass on honest, if only considering the movie as a memory unreality.

Lise · « **Reply #18 on:** 02 Aug 2009, 13:47 »

Here comes a big giant spoiler for anyone of you who hasn't seen the movie yet, so be forewarned:

SPOILER: Why is it brutally honest? Summer gets married in a very short period of time after she breaks up with Tom. I don't know how well you'd deal in a situation like that, Knives, but relatively speaking, that is a pretty sharp blow. If your ex bluntly tells you that they didn't believe in the concept of love and long-term relationships only because they weren't "sure about it with you," that's rather brutal.

And IMO, hipster twee would be more of the "Away We Go" movie that's also out in theaters now. Ugh.

The only part of the movie I'd consider "wish fulfillment" would be concerning Autumn.

PS: I thought this argument was interesting: "The new hipster trend is to hate indie hipster movies with folk music and quirky characters. Therefore, if you hate movies simply for the presence of these elements (and not as the singular entities they are), then you are yourself a hipster. You need to refine your hating skills."

scarred · « **Reply #19 on:** 02 Aug 2009, 16:02 »

Quote from: Lise on 02 Aug 2009, 13:47

And IMO, hipster twee would be more of the "Away We Go" movie that's also out in theaters now. Ugh.

EN GARDE

knives · « **Reply #20 on:** 02 Aug 2009, 20:04 »

Quote from: Lise on 02 Aug 2009, 13:47

PS: I thought this argument was interesting: "The new hipster trend is to hate indie hipster movies with folk music and quirky characters. Therefore, if you hate movies simply for the presence of these elements (and not as the singular entities they are), then you are yourself a hipster. You need to refine your hating skills."

God, there must be a lot of hipsters out there then. Can't really talk about Away We Go because the trailer made it look like Searchlight crap and it really isn't my flavor.
As far as the bulk of your argument goes, that is a horrible thing, the marriage bit, and gave me the closest to an emotional reaction of the movie. (shitty sentence structure, but I hope you get the gist) But it merly cemented e not liking the character. I don't think it was emotionally or intellectually brutal in any sense. The LA dinner scene in Annie Hall, sorry for coming back to this, is a more brutal, if still not brutal, go about for the same thing. Just for clarifaction I want to point out I do believe there is honesty for the movie and not a real point of contention for me about it. My problems with the film is bad comedic timing (the closest I came to laughing was six chuckles), a tired and now generic twee hipster format that has never been interesting or good, and no real introspection on JGL (In many respects the Summer character is fuller because we get the good and the bad of her, outside that wonderful date scene JGL isn't given that same three dimensionality), and the film simply reminded me of films that I find better and more enjoyable.

Cartilage Head · « **Reply #21 on:** 03 Aug 2009, 21:51 »

I'm kind of tired of this faux-indie bullshit.

Lise · « **Reply #22 on:** 04 Aug 2009, 13:05 »

Wtf is "faux-indie?" Please explain, because I've heard this tossed around a lot, and it is senseless.

Indie films are supposed to denote independent films that are produced outside of a major studio. As far as I'm concerned, a film's production determines whether or not it's "indie," not its content.

500 Days was produced by Watermark and distributed by Fox Searchlight Pictures, two independent companies, with a mere $7.5 million budget therefore... it is an "iindependent movie." You really can't argue with that.

Unless I mistook your meaning of "faux-indie bullshit," in which, disregard my post.

Lise · « **Reply #23 on:** 04 Aug 2009, 13:17 »

Quote from: knives on 02 Aug 2009, 20:04

the film simply reminded me of films that I find better and more enjoyable.

Touche, Knives, touche. It all boils down to personal taste. Annie Hall did win Best Picture for a reason.

Cartilage Head · « **Reply #24 on:** 04 Aug 2009, 17:47 »

I would not consider something from Fox Searchlight independent, being a division of Fox. I was only referring to its production, not its content. "Faux-indie" applies to things that are made to seem indie, that include maybe over-saturated visuals, lots of dialogue, a "hip" soundtrack, and people talking about bands and stuff when in reality this is a marketing ploy by a larger company based on what "indie" can currently mean.

Examples: Superbad, Juno, Adventureland, Nick and Nora, Zack and Miri, Pineapple Express, etc.

7.5 Million is a lot for an "independent" film, which I can say this really is not. I consider an independent film self-written, directed, and produced, possibly sold to a larger company after it is completed. This was given the greenlight by Fox, and obviously not made independently.

KvP · « **Reply #25 on:** 04 Aug 2009, 19:05 »

The easiest way to determine if you're seeing a faux-indie film is to track its life on the film festival circuit. Sundance and the like are old and prominent enough by now that specialized wings of the major studios (Fox Searchlight, Sony Pictures Classic, etc.) troll them and snatch up the rights to anything that's even slightly buzzed about or looks like a gamble (for every Borat there are 25 Pootie Tangs). Indie film is now as much a business as anything, and investors looking to make a big sell will siphon large sums of money into films in hopes that Fox Searchlight or whoever will buy the distribution rights and net them a return. There's been a glut of films being made and distributed with remarkably similar vibes because when a relatively modestly made comedy gets plucked from Sundance and makes huge sums of money, the studios will test out whether lightning strikes twice for a good while.

Another easy way to determine faux-indieness is to look at posters.

If the title of your movie looks like it was drawn in a spunky pre-teen girl's sketchbook (see also the tele ads for Away We Go and the opening credits of Juno), you're making a focus-grouped indie film. Bonus if your poster contains cartoon or collage elements. This only became a thing after Juno hit big - marketing of previous major indies like Little Miss Sunshine didn't exhibit the twee aesthetic made popular by Juno.

Lise · « **Reply #26 on:** 04 Aug 2009, 22:03 »

This thread has completely derailed from my initial purpose in starting it, so eff it:

Zooey and JGL in Drag

scarred · « **Reply #27 on:** 04 Aug 2009, 22:12 »

oman I saw that when Pfork featured it, good stuff

knives · « **Reply #28 on:** 04 Aug 2009, 23:15 »

Quote from: Lise on 04 Aug 2009, 13:17

Quote from: knives on 02 Aug 2009, 20:04
the film simply reminded me of films that I find better and more enjoyable.

Touche, Knives, touche. It all boils down to personal taste. Annie Hall did win Best Picture for a reason.

I'll agree to an extant. As long as you refer to emotion (I.E. I loved that movie, it was my favorite of the week) I' willing to agree. Tastes are varied and strange. There is nothing people will agree 100% on. I'm sure there is a movie, book, song ect. that I love but you dislike. When talking quality though there are quantifiable measures and 500 Days doesn't really stand up to the great scale, it does stand to the good scale though.
Also things produced by any studio, rather then simply bought up afterward are not independent, even if they have a 1k budget.

Scarychips · « **Reply #29 on:** 08 Aug 2009, 21:16 »

You know what? I didn't care if people thought it was bad and hipsterish or anyting. I honestly enjoyesd that movie and felt like I could relate. I felt like Tom so many times. I really enjoyed that movie, thought it was cute and clever. I didn't think it was pretentious nor boring. It was just a good heartfelt movie. After getting out of the theatre, I wanted to get in again and watch it again. That's how much I liked it.

KvP · « **Reply #30 on:** 29 Aug 2009, 17:29 »

The writer wants his ex-girlfriend to know that he's hot shit now so fuck her for dumping his ass.

LTK · « **Reply #31 on:** 29 Aug 2009, 18:02 »

But... he's actually hot shit now because of her dumping his ass, right?

Sox · « **Reply #32 on:** 29 Aug 2009, 21:50 »

I tried to read this thread and I got all this white noise, with a few sound opinions coming through from people like Lise, Clara and Ally, John. I don't feel strongly enough about the movie to talk about it, but there's another side to this thread that I would like to comment on.

'Hipsterism'. 'Hipsterism' is something we made up years and years ago to poke fun at ourselves for our tendency to gravitate towards subversive art. That's it. The entire thing was a joke.
Art can not be 'hipster'. I have no idea what people even think the word means anymore. But it definitely does not refer to the existence of trends in music and graphic design. Just because something is popular or following a trend does not make it 'hipster' or 'indie'. I can't tell, but I think people might be looking for the word 'insincere'. As near as I can tell, that's all this is. 'Hipster' is just a deplorable word for 'insincere'. 'Dishonest'. 'Devoid of charm'. 'Hipster' is a woeful wretched word now and the second I hear it being used with any degree of seriousness I instantly lose interest in whatever that person has to say.

That's not the vibe that I get from these films. I see phrases like 'false charm' or 'faux sincerity' being paraded around in relation to these things and I think that's incredibly unfair to the people involved in making these movies. Over the past decade a cultural shift has been occuring, a large part of that due to the internet, I think, and art like this has been gathering more interest. These 'trends' have existed for an incredibly long time, they're just now picking up speed. Particular styles and themes gathering interest doesn't make them 'hipster'. It just means that cultural interests are rotating and it's time for something else to be popular for a while. I'm glad that we're getting subtle movies like this in the place of trash like 'Dude, Where's My Car?' now anyway.

Calling a movie like this 'hipster' or 'faux-indie' implies that it's cashing in on a trend. While that can be true to a certain extent, I don't doubt the sincerity of the people involved in creating it. The people cashing in on trends are the people who finance them and publish them. These movies are popular because there's now an audience for it, and studios are catering to that audience. While you could argue it's about money and success, it's incredibly difficult to make a profit from a movie without studio backing. Making a movie is a long and involved process that requires a great deal of personal investment, especially with a script as personal as the one being talked about. Sure, you could finance your creative excursions by yourself and be broke, but if a big studio approaches somebody with an offer and they take them up on it, I'm not going to begrudge them for that.
I honestly will not believe that somebody sat down and wrote this screenplay for anything besides catharsis and a desire to create.

To put a long story short: Stop saying 'hipster'. Everybody who was allowed to use that term died with the 90s. Start using real criticisms instead of this cheap fallback because you don't know how to talk about film.
500 Days of Summer is not 'hipster'. It's movie containing culturally relevant music and a poster that follows current graphic design trends. These things combined do not make something 'faux indie'.

For the record, I absolutely loved Pineapple Express and was not aware it was considered a 'faux-indie' movie until this thread. Honestly, I thought it had more in common with the 40 Year Old Virgin than Nick and Norah.

Lise · « **Reply #33 on:** 29 Aug 2009, 23:49 »

Quote from: Sox on 29 Aug 2009, 21:50

To put a long story short: Stop saying 'hipster'. Start using real criticisms instead of this cheap fallback because you don't know how to talk about film. 500 Days of Summer is not 'hipster'. It's movie containing culturally relevant music and a poster that follows current graphic design trends. These things combined do not make something 'faux indie'.

Sox, thank you so, so much for deftly writing in one post what I've been trying to say in this entire thread.

I agree with you 100% that the words "hipster" or "faux-indie" have no place in film criticism and really don't make a substantial argument for anything. I only used those words in my posts because that is the standard language that people seem to use nowadays to attack indie movies. You're right, it's absolutely puzzling that "hipster" has somehow become synonymous with "insincere" because that was definitely not its origin.

And to anyone who rags on Fox Searchlight for "faux-indie bullshit," what about the great films that they've produced that have nothing in common with Juno, such as 28 Days Later, Waking Life, Sunshine, Water, The Wrestler, Once, or Thank You For Smoking? (Those are some of my personal favs). The fact is, they work with a variety of film genres, and none of the films I listed have posters that resemble a "spunky pre-teen girl's sketchbook". And if I recall correctly, Juno was praised by a majority of viewers until it became wide release. That in itself is a really fucked up concept for me to understand, since good films should not have to remain exclusive or have "cult-status" to qualify as good film.

Anyway.. that is an entirely different issue! As the OP, I apologize for going off on a tangent, but if anyone who's seen (500) Days of Summer and would like to have an actual discussion about the movie, your opinions are welcome. For example, I asked this question in my first post ("For those of you who've seen it, what do you think? Can you relate more to the Summer character, or Tom? How realistic was the movie at depicting relationships?"), and no one has really answered it!

PS: To Cartilage Head, IMO, Adventureland was a fucking awesome portrayal of what life as a teen/young adult would've been like in the 80s, and it doesn't deserve the bad rap you're associating it with.

Jaclyn · « **Reply #34 on:** 30 Aug 2009, 00:02 »

Quote from: Lise on 29 Aug 2009, 23:49

Sox, thank you so, so much for deftly writing in one post what I've been trying to say in this entire thread.

I agree with you 100% that the words "hipster" or "faux-indie" have no place in film criticism and really don't make a substantial argument for anything. I only used those words in my posts because that is the standard language that people seem to use nowadays to attack indie movies. You're right, it's absolutely puzzling that "hipster" has somehow become synonymous with "insincere" because that was definitely not its origin.

I wouldn't exactly call it "hipster" or "faux indie", but I do think it was a blatant attempt to tap into it's young hip audience. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself, but at certain points it relies more on the cultural references and Zooey Deschanel's quirkiness than just being a good movie. I didn't walk out of the theater completely disappointed, because I'm not a pretentious asshole. I just thought that the constant references and attempted quirkiness made it feel less genuine than it really could have been.

Good night, everybody!

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #35 on:** 30 Aug 2009, 04:13 »

Quote from: Lise on 29 Aug 2009, 23:49

And if I recall correctly, Juno was praised by a majority of viewers until it became wide release. That in itself is a really fucked up concept for me to understand, since good films should not have to remain exclusive or have "cult-status" to qualify as good film.

Juno was still praised after it got a wide release, it was commercially successful and received good reviews. What you've got to remember is that when something has a very limited release the people who end up seeing it are more likely to be people who are excited about what they've heard/seen about the film. I watched Juno because I was interested in seeing a film a lot of people had talked about not because I thought I'd like it, and it was pretty much as bad as I thought it'd be. But if it hadn't had a wide release and therefore far fewer people discussing it I doubt I would have bothered, so when something becomes bigger you'll inevitably have more people criticising it even if it remains generally well-received and this doesn't have anything to do with the film's loss of cult status.

Cartilage Head · « **Reply #36 on:** 30 Aug 2009, 16:57 »

I saw it, and it was pretty good! I still think there were attempts to market it with an indie vibe. The mentioning of Morrissey was especially annoying, since Joseph Gordon Levett's character thought that a late 20-something woman liking Morrissey was OMG DESTINY SINCE HE IS SO OBSCURE. Seriously? Almost every angsty teen during the '80s and '90s listened to Morrissey, with and without the Smiths.

Yayniall · « **Reply #37 on:** 31 Aug 2009, 16:18 »

HANG THE DJ HANG THE DJ HANG THE DJ

WriterofAllWrongs · « **Reply #38 on:** 31 Aug 2009, 17:15 »

Quote from: Cartilage Head on 30 Aug 2009, 16:57

I saw it, and it was pretty good! I still think there were attempts to market it with an indie vibe. The mentioning of Morrissey was especially annoying, since Joseph Gordon Levett's character thought that a late 20-something woman liking Morrissey was OMG DESTINY SINCE HE IS SO OBSCURE. Seriously? Almost every angsty teen during the '80s and '90s listened to Morrissey, with and without the Smiths.

But the scene is pretty easy to relate to, for me at least. I have on more than one occasion looked at a girl and been amazed by the fact she even knows who Animal Collective are, or gave In Rainbows a cursory listen. I mean, where I live most girls my age listen to stuff like All Time Low and won't shut up about Owl City, but maybe I am alone in this.

Yayniall · « **Reply #39 on:** 01 Sep 2009, 15:40 »

My friends mum was singing along to In Rainbows when she was dropping us off once, it's much better than that hail to the thief drivel she said.

Caroline999 · « **Reply #40 on:** 09 Sep 2009, 23:56 »

Quote from: Yayniall on 01 Sep 2009, 15:40

My friends mum was singing along to In Rainbows when she was dropping us off once, it's much better than that hail to the thief drivel she said.

Glad to read such a nice piece of information.
This is exciting news.
what a great info, thanks.
property asset project | document internet management software [/color]Utilizing your internet resources effectively through internet management software. property asset project | document internet management software [/color]

De_El · « **Reply #41 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 14:31 »

Did you really register just to say that in a dying thread, or were you planning on posting anyway?

Eris · « **Reply #42 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 16:13 »

it's a fucking spambot that stuffed up. surely that much is obvious?

Aimless · « **Reply #43 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 02:19 »

You know, I really want to see this movie. It looks like the kind of movie I'd like. Ebert loved it and I tend to agree with his likes and dislikes when it comes to romance and the like.

But it looks like it won't be coming to Sweden

I shall start a campaign.

I don't get all the hating. I have enjoyed the Searchlight-produced films I've seen so far. This is gonna be sweet.

Cartilage Head · « **Reply #44 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 08:20 »

By the way, I liked Adventureland a lot. I just didn't like the marketing.

knives · « **Reply #45 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 23:28 »

Who didn't like Adventureland?

JD · « **Reply #46 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 23:47 »

I didn't

Barmymoo · « **Reply #47 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 11:22 »

I saw this a few days ago and I really liked it, although I actually remember thinking while I was watching it "Man, I bet there'll be a bunch of people on the forums complaining about it trying too hard to be indie".

I loved the soundtrack and I thought it was a far more realistic picture of a relationship than one where everything is wonderful and they just swan around doing exciting stuff all the time. It was cute and funny and sweet and thought-provoking.

Plus, all films are marketed at their audience. Why would a film not include references to things that are current and popular in the target audience? If your beef is that you don't like the Smiths and you hate IKEA and you don't find Summer attractive or just you don't like romance films, that's fine. But if you're saying "it clearly had a target audience" then that's stupid. I don't say I don't like The Matrix because it's obviously made to appeal to people who like action and guns.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #48 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 13:36 »

I liked Adventureland, it wasn't as in your face as Superbad.

AanAllein · « **Reply #49 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 16:41 »

This was not a bad film, but it certainly wasn't a good film (finally saw it yesterday).

Some thoughts:

JGL's character was more juvenile than he really needed to be. Like, I understand the whole "manchild-who-is-scared-around-women" character, but I felt it was a bit forced and didn't naturally fit his character. I dunno, it would be nice to see male characters that act a little less like they're 16 in these movies. A minor complaint.

Where was the fucking dialogue? Compare this to an amazing movie like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which, okay, this was never going to be), where the movie opens with almost half an hour of just dialogue between the two leads. Two scenes in particular had Zooey and Joseph talking with music/voiceover over the top of them. For movies like this need to be effective, you want believable conversations between the leads that help you understand their relationship and chemistry - missing out on that opportunity compromised how good the movie could've been (or maybe the screenwriters just couldn't come up with good enough dialogue).

It was a bit too derivative in parts. In particular the little aside where Summer was identified to be "special" with the Belle & Sebastian bit, ice cream shop - I felt like I was watching a Wes Anderson film. Like, the concept was fine, but don't execute in that way, please.

The Ikea product placement was a little on the nose. And the ending...yeah.

All that aside, it had its enjoyable moments, both the lead actors did good work, and had a good soundtrack. So, while I did enjoy watching it, I was aware of the missed opportunities to make a good film throughout.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: (500) Days of Summer (Read 24448 times)

Caroline999