(500) Days of Summer - let's discuss

[Digifruitella]

Just watched it today, and have to say that this is up there with the best of the year.

That out of the way, I'd like to discuss the film.

First and foremost, I think that this is a film EVERY guy NEEDS to see. There are a lot of great truths in it, to put it simply. It can be compared easily with Swingers on that deeper level, not the skin-deep stuff.

I'm glad there's finally a film that captures a lot of the reality of how thing ARE most of the time for guys. Thank God for the...

Spoiler:

"Expectations vs Reality" scene... that should set most guys straight about how WE tend to fantasize and what it usually happens to be.

I would like to have an intelligent discussion about this film. If you only have to say that it was a great film, please refrain, and click the "Back" button.

[APzombie]

i wanted to like it when i left the theater. Then after thinking it over and seeing a few more scenes, i found it to not be that great of a film.

You are right, there are great truths in the picture. If there was a drinking game where I had to down a shot every time something identical to my life happened on screen i''d be drunk within the first ten minutes. It does have honesty, but honesty isn't enough for a great narrative, even though it is possibly the most essential aspect to this type of story.

What the film primarily lacks is an organic flow, characters i'm interested in and simply anything remotely compelling beyond the individual slices of truths told.

It also is spited with one of the most horrendous endings i've ever seen.

Let me explain...

Concerning the characters... I don't particularly find them interesting.
Throughout the film i was wondering why i wasn't more interested in Summer as a character since she is identical in almost every way to Zoe Destchenel's character in All the Real Girls. I loved her in that film and just found her to be luke warm in this. Then I realized that Summer was too filtered through male eyes. She did inexplicable things, like girls do, but, as the opening title card suggests, narratively, she is judged by them. You may say that is the point of the story, but it's not enough. They just had their cake concerning Tom, when they could have had their cake and eaten too by fleshing out her character more, or at least given Zoe room to breath some life into it (which was the great success for both leads in All the Real Girls). She was simply too barren of a character, and that in of itself holds negatively toward Tom, who spends the film enamored with how wonderful she is.

Joseph's Tom is drawn to be too much of an empty canvas, too easily made to identify with, but only regarding the girl. Beyond that there is very little going on with the character. Sure he likes the Smiths and wants to be an architect, but i don't even think Joseph, the director or the writer know who he is beyond what he represents- young love and a broken heart. You compare him to great characters of the same ilk this past decade, say Rob Gordon in High Fidelity and Joel Barish in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The latter two were believably apart of the world, flesh and blood with a past and a future. Sure both of their worlds consisted of wallowing in self pity and living a life focused solely around a girl (or just girls), they felt real to me. Tom represents nothing more than anecdotes in relatable situations.

The other characters are throw away, the trivial mature little sister who serves as life support and nothing else, the roommates and co-workers are there to deliver their serviceable lines to the needy depressed broken hearted present nothing more than a quirky joke or two. They are characters we all recognize but they simply don't belong in the world. Why?

The pacing. There is no flow in this movie. I'm not simply pointing out the obvious non-linear collage in the days of this relationship, it simply does not weave organically. Every title card chime of a day becomes a predictable pause that interrupts any arcs. Without them you realize that there simply aren't any, there are just anecdotal situations we've all been in, stitched together with characters the filmmakers don't care about in a frame of simple photography, predictable hipster music and quirky-wants-to-be-ironic-but-ain't-all-that-original voice over narration.

And the kicker is the ending...

What a shit ending. You give me a forced purging of the soul at a greeting card company board meeting where our Romeo professes life, love and loss can't be explained on a greeting card and what do we end with? A fucking quirky little joke of a last line that fits perfectly on a greeting card.

And don't tell me the last line is supposed to hold some sort of irony in what Tom expressed at the meeting, because i don't believe it, and if it were the case- then i didn't buy it as that.

i think it's one of the years most overrated films.

[bigred760]

The character of Tom Hanson is very relateable, as far as from a guy's point of view. It's more his story than Summer's. (As was mentioned) The expections, the heartbreak, the unrequited love . . . it sucks when you've experienced anything like that. I wouldn't say I've experienced anything as deep as this character did, but watching it happen to the guy didn't made me sympathize with him.

I also like the way the movie was presented in the non-chronological fashion, showing the good days and bad days - literally, the reality vs. expectations, and other things made the movie different than other love stories. It makes the movie stand out among others in its genre, a lot like When Harry Met Sally did. That movie threw in interviews with couples saying how they met, that movie took a while to get the love story going, among other things. Differences like that make the movie stand out to me. One of the reasons I liked it so much.

[Monotreme]

YES. I fell in love with this film when I first saw it about a month ago in the Haifa Film Festival, and I STILL can't stop thinking about it ever since. I totally agree with you that it's up there with the best of the year - in fact, it is currently my favourite film of the year, so far at least - yes, it made that much of a lasting impression on me.

What got to me most weren't the unique cinematic quirks that made it so fresh and enjoyable - from the non-linear chronology to the great jokes and one-liners to the really fresh and unique scenes such as Tom breaking out into song and a synchronized dance number, or the "Expectations vs Reality" split-screen sequence which just had me grinning from the sheer ingenuity of it throughout its entire duration. No, what really got me in the film were its characters, and specifically, just how realistic and charming and totally identifiable they were.

Almost every guy - at least, passionate but dare I say socially challenged guys like us have probably encountered unrequited love at least once in his life. It's a universal feeling that many movies and songs try to deal with and portray but very few actually succeed to truly capture the genuine emotions involved, especially for people who have actually experienced it. The Moody Blues' "Nights in White Satin" and Police's "Every Little Thing She Does is Magic" were songs that I practically heard on a constant loop a few years back.

But (500) Days of Summer, beyond being simply irresistably charming and wonderful and funny and quirky and enjoyable, manages to capture that feeling of unrequited love and fatalistic romanticism pretty much better and certainly more realistically than any other movie I've seen. There were scenes in the movie that were just straight out of life, and totally captured the real and genuine emotions involved - this is coming from someone who knows EXACTLY how Tom feels when he's standing with Summer outside of the pub, after they've totally hit it off and had the time of their lives, and there's this moment, this beautiful moment captured in time... and then he just walks off, too afraid/nervous/timid to go ahead and do anything about it.

In short, I guess it's just a matter of personal experience, but aside from being totally charmed and entertained by this wonderful film - which is an experience I hope people DON'T miss out on - I also just totally connected to it on an emotional level, more than I have with most any other movie in the past couple of years. I agree with Digi - ANY guy who has had any sort of imperfect relationship, be it a crush, love at first sight, unrequited feelings or just a relationship in which one side just doesn't love the other one as much as he loves her (or vice versa for that matter), absolutely MUST watch this film.

[Digifruitella]

Originally Posted by APzombie

And the kicker is the ending...

What a shit ending. You give me a forced purging of the soul at a greeting card company board meeting where our Romeo professes life, love and loss can't be explained on a greeting card and what do we end with? A fucking quirky little joke of a last line that fits perfectly on a greeting card.

And don't tell me the last line is supposed to hold some sort of irony in what Tom expressed at the meeting, because i don't believe it, and if it were the case- then i didn't buy it as that.

i think it's one of the years most overrated films.

You've made some points about the film I'm in agreeance with NOW that I've seen the film - but wasn't aware of nor could care about WHILE watching the film.

BUT, I have to disagree with you about the ending and most of all the...

Spoiler:

greeting card meeting scene.

I personally do not think it was "forced" at all. I saw it as Tom's final straw, his final breaking point when he lets it all out. Because throughout the film you see him always being afraid of speaking out, or being the first to make a move. Taking those things into consideration, that scene made a lot of sense - at least to me. I don't know how the rest of the folks (other than you, AP - feel about it)

And I'm unable to check out the last line you mentioned, but when I do have a chance I'll get back to you on that - as right now, it completely escaped me what was it that he said that got you so riled up. I thought it was a perfect ending, and if you care to know I'll elaborate...

[APzombie]

Originally Posted by Digifruitella

And I'm unable to check out the last line you mentioned, but when I do have a chance I'll get back to you on that - as right now, it completely escaped me what was it that he said that got you so riled up. I thought it was a perfect ending, and if you care to know I'll elaborate...

Spoiler:

The line i'm referring to said by the new girl giving him her name; Autumn. Cut to his surprised face. It's the same quirky kind of punchline you'd find on a greeting card. What pissed me off was that in the scene prior, he professes how life, love and loss can't fit in a cute phrase on a greeting card (but apparently this film can). The films ending crumbles under it's own thesis of relationships and love.

[CosmicPuppet]

Originally Posted by APzombie

i wanted to like it when i left the theater. Then after thinking it over and seeing a few more scenes, i found it to not be that great of a film.

You are right, there are great truths in the picture. If there was a drinking game where I had to down a shot every time something identical to my life happened on screen i''d be drunk within the first ten minutes. It does have honesty, but honesty isn't enough for a great narrative, even though it is possibly the most essential aspect to this type of story.

What the film primarily lacks is an organic flow, characters i'm interested in and simply anything remotely compelling beyond the individual slices of truths told.

It also is spited with one of the most horrendous endings i've ever seen.

Let me explain...

Concerning the characters... I don't particularly find them interesting.
Throughout the film i was wondering why i wasn't more interested in Summer as a character since she is identical in almost every way to Zoe Destchenel's character in All the Real Girls. I loved her in that film and just found her to be luke warm in this. Then I realized that Summer was too filtered through male eyes. She did inexplicable things, like girls do, but, as the opening title card suggests, narratively, she is judged by them. You may say that is the point of the story, but it's not enough. They just had their cake concerning Tom, when they could have had their cake and eaten too by fleshing out her character more, or at least given Zoe room to breath some life into it (which was the great success for both leads in All the Real Girls). She was simply too barren of a character, and that in of itself holds negatively toward Tom, who spends the film enamored with how wonderful she is.

Joseph's Tom is drawn to be too much of an empty canvas, too easily made to identify with, but only regarding the girl. Beyond that there is very little going on with the character. Sure he likes the Smiths and wants to be an architect, but i don't even think Joseph, the director or the writer know who he is beyond what he represents- young love and a broken heart. You compare him to great characters of the same ilk this past decade, say Rob Gordon in High Fidelity and Joel Barish in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The latter two were believably apart of the world, flesh and blood with a past and a future. Sure both of their worlds consisted of wallowing in self pity and living a life focused solely around a girl (or just girls), they felt real to me. Tom represents nothing more than anecdotes in relatable situations.

The other characters are throw away, the trivial mature little sister who serves as life support and nothing else, the roommates and co-workers are there to deliver their serviceable lines to the needy depressed broken hearted present nothing more than a quirky joke or two. They are characters we all recognize but they simply don't belong in the world. Why?

The pacing. There is no flow in this movie. I'm not simply pointing out the obvious non-linear collage in the days of this relationship, it simply does not weave organically. Every title card chime of a day becomes a predictable pause that interrupts any arcs. Without them you realize that there simply aren't any, there are just anecdotal situations we've all been in, stitched together with characters the filmmakers don't care about in a frame of simple photography, predictable hipster music and quirky-wants-to-be-ironic-but-ain't-all-that-original voice over narration.

And the kicker is the ending...

What a shit ending. You give me a forced purging of the soul at a greeting card company board meeting where our Romeo professes life, love and loss can't be explained on a greeting card and what do we end with? A fucking quirky little joke of a last line that fits perfectly on a greeting card.

And don't tell me the last line is supposed to hold some sort of irony in what Tom expressed at the meeting, because i don't believe it, and if it were the case- then i didn't buy it as that.

i think it's one of the years most overrated films.

Very nice post. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. It relied on its gimmicks to tell the story and not enough on the characters. The movie was more interested in expressing the characters' likes than who they really were. Zoey Deschanel was pretty bland doing the same kind of role that she's been doing only a bit more vapid. Levitt is good but his character wasn't interesting.

[Mr.HyDe807]

I loved the movie on it's "close to home" aspect on relationships and such. Yet, I'm with Cosmic and APzombie with the ending, that definitely was a bit much.

[hassanbigboss]

Originally Posted by APzombie

Spoiler:

The line i'm referring to said by the new girl giving him her name; Autumn. Cut to his surprised face. It's the same quirky kind of punchline you'd find on a greeting card. What pissed me off was that in the scene prior, he professes how life, love and loss can't fit in a cute phrase on a greeting card (but apparently this film can). The films ending crumbles under it's own thesis of relationships and love.

You know something, perhaps its a cultural thing or its because I am looking at it from a different POV but I thought that the girls name being Autumn had to do more with the fact that guys need to have a mindset of abundant mentality. What I mean by that is this: There are plenty of girls that a guy can "connect" with. Its either our lack of experience or this romantic idea of relationships in general that lets us to believe that only a handful of girls will be the kind we can associate with. As for the reference of the name Autumn after Summer was something I took as a reference which pointed to the idea that girls come and go like seasons and enjoy em while they last and don't have any expectations that will put you into a hurtful situation. I have been in the mindset of Tom's. I use to the the issue of oneitis: which means that there is only one girl out there for you, WRONG!. Most girls can be the kind with whom you can associate with without much problem. However, if you are the kind of guy looking for a girl who likes the same music as you do, the same movies, and think that that is how you know you are made for each other, well I will tell you that this kind of thinking is just plain wrong. This idea of these relationships, portrayed in Hollywood, music, novels, etc, where guys and girls are connecting on a deep level is nothing more than romanticized BS. And from what I noticed this movie sent that message clearly, at least for me.

[Digifruitella]

Originally Posted by hassanbigboss

You know something, perhaps its a cultural thing or its because I am looking at it from a different POV but I thought that the girls name being Autumn had to do more with the fact that guys need to have a mindset of abundant mentality. What I mean by that is this: There are plenty of girls that a guy can "connect" with. Its either our lack of experience or this romantic idea of relationships in general that lets us to believe that only a handful of girls will be the kind we can associate with. As for the reference of the name Autumn after Summer was something I took as a reference which pointed to the idea that girls come and go like seasons and enjoy em while they last and don't have any expectations that will put you into a hurtful situation. I have been in the mindset of Tom's. I use to the the issue of oneitis: which means that there is only one girl out there for you, WRONG!. Most girls can be the kind with whom you can associate with without much problem. However, if you are the kind of guy looking for a girl who likes the same music as you do, the same movies, and think that that is how you know you are made for each other, well I will tell you that this kind of thinking is just plain wrong. This idea of these relationships, portrayed in Hollywood, music, novels, etc, where guys and girls are connecting on a deep level is nothing more than romanticized BS. And from what I noticed this movie sent that message clearly, at least for me.

Bingo. That is what I think some of you guys didn't "get" about the film, and instead are paying much more attention to the development of characters. Yes, indeed, I like my characters to be more fleshed out...but in the case of the film it was enough for me.

Why? Well, because the film's broken up chronology and the emphasis on good and bad days I took as something that was a lot more important for people to see - guys especially. It's not showing you the life of each character the way The Notebook shows, it's concentrating on the reality aspect from the guy's perspective. As the film itself begins, it warns the viewer that it is not a love story. It makes it abundantly clear. For that, you have The Notebook. For the reality aspect you have Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Swingers, and now (500) Days of Summer. All played out a bit different, but maintaining that same reality aspect.

I think that with this film... a guy can watch it and totally 'get it' - or he can totally dislike it if he starts overanalyzing things - just like Tom overanalyzing "it was gooooood".

[CosmicPuppet]

There is nothing that we didn't get. We just didn't like it.

I found most of the jokes in the film to be worth only a smirk and not really a laugh.

Having good characters has nothing to do with it not being a love story. You could say the same thing about a horror movie but it's still an excuse to me. I don't think it's that hard to develop interesting characters. The movie relied mostly on the narration or people saying exactly what's on their mind.

[Cosimo]

i admit i only watched two minutes of this film just now but it was enough to make me realise that it aint for me. buffalo 66 and lars and the real girl are about as lovey dovey as i can stand

[hassanbigboss]

Originally Posted by Cosimo

i admit i only watched two minutes of this film just now but it was enough to make me realise that it aint for me. buffalo 66 and lars and the real girl are about as lovey dovey as i can stand

lol, not for you I see. I use to be into this kinda stuff( I did watch this movie though) but "love stories" don't move me anymore. Reality is much different..pick a girl...let her know that you are down to fuck...fuck her...move on.

[The Heart Collector]

I liked the movie. There is nothing wrong with the ending, obviously, seeing as he finds her name only after having already asked her out and whatnot. It should be fairly obvious, too, that the film doesn't subscribe to extremes, either Tom's original extremes or his 180 extremes during the quitting scene. So I'm not sure why anyone would be upset that the ending "fits in a greeting card" or whatever. I think that's just you reading things into it that aren't there, since it's fairly open-ended.

[hassanbigboss]

Originally Posted by The Heart Collector

I liked the movie. There is nothing wrong with the ending, obviously, seeing as he finds her name only after having already asked her out and whatnot. It should be fairly obvious, too, that the film doesn't subscribe to extremes, either Tom's original extremes or his 180 extremes during the quitting scene. So I'm not sure why anyone would be upset that the ending "fits in a greeting card" or whatever. I think that's just you reading things into it that aren't there, since it's fairly open-ended.

+1 for you bro

[Digifruitella]

Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet

There is nothing that we didn't get. We just didn't like it.

I found most of the jokes in the film to be worth only a smirk and not really a laugh.

Having good characters has nothing to do with it not being a love story. You could say the same thing about a horror movie but it's still an excuse to me. I don't think it's that hard to develop interesting characters. The movie relied mostly on the narration or people saying exactly what's on their mind.

That's fine that you didn't like it, but please elaborate a little more on WHY you didn't like it. Because I see you're emphasizing humor here more than the deeper level content that this film has. If I was going into seeing this film with an expectation of crying with laughter, this film would definitely fail - because honestly that happened very few times and in between.. and I knew what I was getting myself into. I wasn't watching it for the laughs.

If you have a problem with the 'gimmickry' of the film, then that's kinda low, brother. "people saying exactly what's on their mind" ? How do I understand this - how else do you want people to express themselves? through greeting cards?

[CosmicPuppet]

Originally Posted by Digifruitella

That's fine that you didn't like it, but please elaborate a little more on WHY you didn't like it. Because I see you're emphasizing humor here more than the deeper level content that this film has. If I was going into seeing this film with an expectation of crying with laughter, this film would definitely fail - because honestly that happened very few times and in between.. and I knew what I was getting myself into. I wasn't watching it for the laughs.

I'll elaborate. The film was something I sort of enjoyed but the more I thought about it, the less I liked it.

This is a film that relies heavily on style to make up for its shortcomings in story and characters. It misses the mark as to why Tom really fell for Summer. He believes he is in love, but you never see what could reel him in with Summer for over a year. Again, she's just cute. How could you be with somebody for over a year and be in love just because they look cute? She likes the Smiths. Ok, but what else? If I fell in love with every girl that happened to like the Pixies, I'd have my heart broken constantly.

Levitt's character is supposed to come off like he's more than a superficial guy but the only thing interesting about Summer is that she's pretty. She was a vapid, boring person. I kept thinking that maybe Levitt was just a superficial moron in the movie.

And I wasn't watching the films for laughs but it didn't help that it tried be comedic with Tom's friends or the wise-beyond-her-years cliched sister. Everybody besides Tom is pretty much an archetype without anything to add to the movie but filler. I would've liked some more genuine personalities to fill this movie up. Take High Fidelity for example, which gives you a wealth of great characters to hang out with as you follow Rob through his breakup journey. Everybody is fleshed out, even Tim Robbin's minor character. It was much better conceived than this film on every level, including its structure. It uses them to present interesting, real people. Not mouth pieces for the writer.

I feel the point of some scenes were simply the way they were done than what they were about, for example, the scene where they play house in the Ikea on a first date. It just felt like such a cute scene but it didn't feel genuine. Who just goes to Ikea randomly for fun and pretend to play house? It was asinine to me. And the French movie montage. It felt like the director cared more about impressing me with his directing than he did his story or characters. It's like the filmmaker was constantly going, "Isn't this so cute?!" several times and failed for me more than it worked.

Another misfire, Tom just breaking dishes in his apartment. That's what I was referring to about the "comedic" aspect about the movie. It was cutesy schlock to me.

If you have a problem with the 'gimmickry' of the film, then that's kinda low, brother. "people saying exactly what's on their mind" ? How do I understand this - how else do you want people to express themselves? through greeting cards?

How is it low? You can either like the style of a film or you don't. I felt that this film relied too much on its style and not enough on its content. Some films can work with that but I didn't think this one did.

As for the dialogue issue, it's not good to have every character say what's on their mind. Real people are not like this. You lie, you try to hide things, your body can say more than your words, you don't say everything that's on your mind. This film had scenes of people pledging their beliefs of lack of beliefs in love. The scenes between Summer and Tom were especially dull to me.

I liked the idea behind the movie. I just didn't think the execution was precise enough. It felt like the script needed another go around before it could reach its potential. Again, a lot of the material felt like a first time writer's wet dream.

And please don't say I didn't get it. The movie wears its heart on its sleeve. I don't think there's anybody who didn't "get it." It's a fairly simple movie. It's not like this is Inland Empire we're talking about.

[sbunn10]

Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet

And please don't say I didn't get it. The movie wears its heart on its sleeve. I don't think there's anybody who didn't "get it." It's a fairly simple movie. It's not like this is Inland Empire we're talking about.

That's fair. I loved the film, but it's mostly because I related to it and many of the reasons schmoes have cited above. You're certainly entitled to dislike it.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet

This is a film that relies heavily on style to make up for its shortcomings in story and characters. It misses the mark as to why Tom really fell for Summer. He believes he is in love, but you never see what could reel him in with Summer for over a year. Again, she's just cute. How could you be with somebody for over a year and be in love just because they look cute? She likes the Smiths. Ok, but what else? If I fell in love with every girl that happened to like the Pixies, I'd have my heart broken constantly. Levitt's character is supposed to come off like he's more than a superficial guy but the only thing interesting about Summer is that she's pretty. She was a vapid, boring person. I kept thinking that maybe Levitt was just a superficial moron in the movie.

He had fun with her. She made him feel right. Isn't that enough of a reason? They liked going out together, he thought she was attractive, funny, was more impulsive and unpredictable than him,etc. There were a bunch of scenes like that, like the park scene, or the running-in-Ikea scene, or even the post-breakup marriage scene. I mean what exactly are you expecting, you don't have to fall in love with or be infatuated with the most original people on the planet or anything.

I feel the point of some scenes were simply the way they were done than what they were about, for example, the scene where they play house in the Ikea on a first date. It just felt like such a cute scene but it didn't feel genuine. Who just goes to Ikea randomly for fun and pretend to play house? It was asinine to me.

Summer. Summer does that. In the movie. That's the kind of thing that Tom finds cute. It's one of those reasons he likes her for which you apparently can't see.

The reason why you disliked this movie isn't because the script is bad, it's because you personally can't sympathize with the idea of liking someone like the character in the film. That's pretty much what it seems like to me. That's fine, but that doesn't really mean the movie is bad.

[Monotreme]

Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet

Levitt's character is supposed to come off like he's more than a superficial guy but the only thing interesting about Summer is that she's pretty. She was a vapid, boring person. I kept thinking that maybe Levitt was just a superficial moron in the movie.

I won't say that you don't "get" the movie but, like The Heart Collector, I think that there is a certain appeal to Summer's character that you are missing out on. You say that the only interesting thing about her is that she's pretty. But I think you missed the point about why Tom fell for her, and the point of his feelings which are constantly at extremes as well. In fact, Tom explains in pretty lengthy detail what he loves about Summer:

I love her smile. I love her hair. I love her knees. I love how she licks her lips before she talks. I love her heart-shaped birthmark on her neck. I love it when she sleeps.

In relationships, at least in the ones I've had, I've always found that it's always those little things that REALLY mean you've fallen in love with someone. When she has some little quirk that just makes you smile every time. And of course, because that Tom's feelings are over-romanticized and extreme, he ends up detesting the little quirks in his post-break-up rant, in which he HATES her crooked teeth, HATES her hair, etc. I don't know, but this aspect of their relationship - falling in love with the little things - as well as so many other nuances in the dynamic between them, just rang so true with me, and reminded me of many a-feeling I myself have felt during my life.

[CosmicPuppet]

THC - My view that I can't be with somebody like Summer isn't why I thought this film was mediocre. The crime of the movie for me was that the characters were boring. I can dislike a character but if they're at least interesting, I'll still enjoy the movie. I enjoyed the hell out of the Rules of Attraction but I found nobody in that movie appealing. Everyone was at least interesting despite being self-centered assholes.

With this movie, I found mostly everyone boring. I found the dialogue trite, like in the break up scene ("No, I'm Sid, your Nancy."). I disliked most of the characters, not just Summer. I liked Tom more because it was Levitt playing him than I actually cared about Tom's dilemma. Most of the side characters were useless.

I'm not saying the movie is terrible but I can't say that it was really good.

Monotreme - You pointed out what I didn't like about the movie. A good chunk of it is Tom literally telling you, "Hey, I love this girl. Here's why!" I don't want to be told what's great about somebody or what makes somebody special. Let the scenes show it and display it without a narrator telling me what they are.

I think you're focusing too much on the fact that I didn't find Summer interesting and not seeing that I pointed out other things I didn't think worked well in the movie.

[Digifruitella]

Summer. Summer does that. In the movie. That's the kind of thing that Tom finds cute. It's one of those reasons he likes her for which you apparently can't see.

This

In relationships, at least in the ones I've had, I've always found that it's always those little things that REALLY mean you've fallen in love with someone. When she has some little quirk that just makes you smile every time. And of course, because that Tom's feelings are over-romanticized and extreme, he ends up detesting the little quirks in his post-break-up rant, in which he HATES her crooked teeth, HATES her hair, etc. I don't know, but this aspect of their relationship - falling in love with the little things - as well as so many other nuances in the dynamic between them, just rang so true with me, and reminded me of many a-feeling I myself have felt during my life.

and THIS.

I'm in agreeance with both THC and Monotreme about this. I've experienced things like that, and have met a girl who was kinda-sorta like Summer.

and I want to quote THC again for emphasis because I share this viewpoint greatly...

I mean what exactly are you expecting, you don't have to fall in love with or be infatuated with the most original people on the planet or anything.

Also another important point to remember is that Tom represents the typical socially conditioned guy. And that is what the film was trying to show. There was enough in his behavior and actions to see that. That was the development. It may not have been as deep as you wanted it to be, but anyone with two eyes could spot that.

[Digifruitella]

Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet

The crime of the movie for me was that the characters were boring.

So you don't like the movie because the characters were boring. Fair. Well, most people are.

I found the dialogue trite, like in the break up scene ("No, I'm Sid, your Nancy."). I disliked most of the characters, not just Summer. I liked Tom more because it was Levitt playing him than I actually cared about Tom's dilemma. Most of the side characters were useless.

I think you're nitpicking here.

A good chunk of it is Tom literally telling you, "Hey, I love this girl. Here's why!" I don't want to be told what's great about somebody or what makes somebody special. Let the scenes show it and display it without a narrator telling me what they are.

Well what's wrong with somebody speaking their mind? Isn't that one of the main points this film was making in the greeting card meeting scene? You're focusing on that one scene and nitpicking. I found nothing wrong with the scene where Tom narrates what he likes about Summer - I even thought that was a great example of a window into the thought process of an infatuated guy with a girl. Then on the bad day, like most people have, we see him saying completely opposite things. Hey, like THAT doesn't happen in real life.

[CosmicPuppet]

You're taking this too personal. I didn't think the movie was special, but you did. That's cool. This isn't a matter where somebody is "right" or "wrong." It's a movie, not a math equation.

I could see why somebody would like it, but the reasons I didn't like it added up for me. I took my girlfriend to see this and I wanted to enjoy it but the magic didn't happen for either of us.

I like that you're saying I'm nitpicking by showing two different scenes I mentioned. I've mentioned others including all the scenes with Tom and his sister or his friends. Why am I doing this? To show why I didn't think the movie was great. A great film to me doesn't have many scenes where you say, "Eh, the movie could have done without that scene."

Clumsy dialogue is not nitpicking. Neither is failing to execute a scene. Those are debatable and it depends on the person who is watching.

[Digifruitella]

No, I'm not taking it too personal at all. I'm very well aware you don't like it.

And believe me, I'm aware of the other scenes you've mentioned. Breaking plates was a stab at humor that failed for me as well, along with that whole opening where the sister rushes in. But this is where we differ, when you find that the characters are useless and serve no purpose - I do. The film may try too hard from a perspective who's overly analytical, but I didn't even let it bother me, nor have I thought that all those things you've mentioned took something away from the film - OR - took me OUT of it completely.

The little girl sister, while maybe comes off comical - is an example of how she just "gets it" and who doesn't allow herself to be socially conditioned at a young age - hence provides the support and suggestions to Tom who's pretty much lost due to outside conditioning in his life.

The friends. While I didn't find them to blow me away as "characters" - I saw them as good friends, who tried to help or support - while themselves being led to believe there's a "dream girl" just like Tom.

But you see, those are just what I took out of the film.

Of course feel free to disagree and I'm not trying to change your mind. But I stand corrected that this film is much deeper, even if a bit - than you may think it is.

[CosmicPuppet]

I don't doubt that the film has a deeper message. It does. I just thought the execution was full of faults. That's what I criticized it for mainly. The way it executed the ideas it was going for didn't live up to those ideas or themes. I think it concentrated too much on its style and it got in the way.

[APzombie]

agreed. It's heart is in the right place, that's why i had a desire to like i more than it did. It simply had a sloppy execution that doesn't live up to the strengths of it's own convictions in it's ending.

[hassanbigboss]

Originally Posted by CosmicPuppet

I don't doubt that the film has a deeper message. It does. I just thought the execution was full of faults. That's what I criticized it for mainly. The way it executed the ideas it was going for didn't live up to those ideas or themes. I think it concentrated too much on its style and it got in the way.

OK OK calm down children. You know something, I dont really care if there was a deeper message to the movie or not but from my experience and know-how about life and how realtionships work, I think this movie did have a deep albeit subtle message(s). Let me state what I have said earlier: Look at the title of the movie (500 Days of Summer), Summer, the season does not have 500 days. I dont believe that the person who named the movie just picked the same as that of the character (Summer) and not think how the number "500" plays a realtionship between the two. As stated in my previous post, Summer, Autumn; these names were chosen to show that girls are easily disposable, they come and go and Tom's infatuation with one girl was complete stupidity. In addition, Tom's idea to hold on to one girl was nothing but neediness, which by the way is one of the biggest turn offs for any girl. I would figure you would know that since you mentioned earlier that you took your girlfriend to this movie. This movie drove this point home, and showed guys what they do wrong in relationships. Also, when he hits off with Summer at the bar, he does not have the balls to tell her that he likes her when she asks him the question outside. Instead he resorts to saying that he "likes her as a friend." This btw was a test from Summer. Girls do that in case you have not noticed. They test guys, over and over again. Again, this movie brought that point home as well. If someone does not pick that up then I feel that you have missed out completely what the movie is trying to say. I am sure you have experienced these shit tests from your girlfriend havent you? Lastly, I dont mean to undermine your judgement but I dont think that you have been in enough relationships to even scratch the surface of how deep certain things in this movie are presented. If you did not pick up this along with the other folks then you just missed it and thus this movie is not made for you. However, if you have been in many relationships (I dont know how old you are and what you do etc etc so dont take this personally), then you must have had your eyes and ears closed and not learned a thing about how girls work.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Sure, some girls play games. The 4 year old girl next door screws with my son all the time and he eats it up, and I remember chicks in high school, then in early-college who'd fuck around. I'm not sure you have to be learned of the ways of love to understand this sterotype. What might not be so obvious to younger people though, is playing games is a sign of immaturity. We all might be better served not referring to one another as "children" much less act condescending over a movie with a title that sounds like it was coined by a teenager.

I'm excited to check this movie out based on reviews, and I trust in the opinions of the ever stylish Digifruitella, the always intelligent THC, and the good sensibilities of Monotreme, but this "eraserhead" style analysis of the film is a major turnoff if the film purports itself to be "deep" over this type of content.

Digifruitella, THC, and Monotreme - please tell me the movie is more light-hearted and not as heavy-handed and pretentious as it's been made out to seem here by others.

[someguy]

It isn't deep at all. The entire movie is mostly shallow and gets its message across in a very obvious way. That doesn't make it a bad thing though. People here are just looking into things way too much.

The movie was just okay for me. Sometimes Zooey and Levitt's chemistry worked and some of the messages hit home but there were a few boring stretches and most of the comedic bits weren't funny. It's definitely refreshing for a 'romantic comedy' (even though it wasn't very romantic and all about break-ups) but I thought it was a good concept that didn't have too good of an execution.

[Tyler Durden4]

Originally Posted by hassanbigboss

As stated in my previous post, Summer, Autumn; these names were chosen to show that girls are easily disposable, they come and go and Tom's infatuation with one girl was complete stupidity

This is a really good observation. And also, Summer is supposed to be this wonderful time of happiness, bliss, all of this stuff- so there's that.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally Posted by someguy

It isn't deep at all. The entire movie is mostly shallow and gets its message across in a very obvious way. That doesn't make it a bad thing though. People here are just looking into things way too much.

The movie was just okay for me. Sometimes Zooey and Levitt's chemistry worked and some of the messages hit home but there were a few boring stretches and most of the comedic bits weren't funny. It's definitely refreshing for a 'romantic comedy' (even though it wasn't very romantic and all about break-ups) but I thought it was a good concept that didn't have too good of an execution.

Okay, cool - thanks someguy. It looked like a piece of fluff to me, with perhaps a good sense of style and maybe a cool soundtrack, and some basic textbook symbolism; but here it was coming off here like it was some lynchian deep thinker that took itself really seriously and based on the facets being discussed - I'd probably kick my TV in if this movie tried to imply some profound sensibilities with stuff like "500 days of summer - that's really meaningful" --- I mean, having not seen the movie, or knowing anything about it other than it's genre and stars (still haven't even seen a trailer) --- I can pretty much guess at the titles meaning since obviously they don't mean Summer as a season since the movie doesn't seem to be set on the planet Jupiter where the years are longer. I'm sure the movie has some symbolism, but pretty much most movies do one way or another - even Happy Feet does, so yeah... Just glad to hear it's being a bit overstated in the analysis department, because I'm a sucker for a good romance.

I'm rambling though... nothing new here... probably not in this movie either. Haha. Just goofing.

[Digifruitella]

Maybe watch it by yourself Bubba, instead of relying on someone else's opinions. You can read everything we've talked about, but if you haven't seen it - it means nothing.

It's not The Seventh Seal, I agree with someguy, but it's wrong to say it doesn't have something in it.

[APzombie]

Originally Posted by someguy

It isn't deep at all. The entire movie is mostly shallow and gets its message across in a very obvious way. That doesn't make it a bad thing though. People here are just looking into things way too much.

Digifruitella opened the thread for an intelligent conversation on the film. I responded with everything i found irritating in the picture, nothings being looked into too much. Besides, for a film many schmoes find to be one of the years best, there's certainly nothing wrong attempting to analyze it as much as we are.

I understand why people enjoy it too. I initially liked it more than i do now simply because it does have relationship set pieces i've been in before handled in a way not too many films handle them. Thats something i appreciate on one level, on a cinematic level, i don't think it works.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally Posted by Digifruitella

Maybe watch it by yourself Bubba, instead of relying on someone else's opinions. You can read everything we've talked about, but if you haven't seen it - it means nothing.

It's not The Seventh Seal, I agree with someguy, but it's wrong to say it doesn't have something in it.

I'm not relying on anyone else's opinion, I'm asking if it's the nice romantic film with perhaps some personal resonance that I'm expecting, or if it's some serious scholarly film that you need special experiences to get. Nothing you, Monotreme or THC have said has led me to believe it's anything other than what I expected. Surely you know what I'm feeling.

I love to analyze films, and you have seen this in many of my posts - I've analyzed things as straight forward as Pee-Wee's Big Adventure to less-so, such as The Holy Mountain, but if I'm planning to see something like a Seventh Seal, I'd like to know. You follow me? There's nothing wrong with analyzing films, but if a film isn't meant for me or is going to potentially be over my head, I'd like to be prepared for that, and nothing about this film has made me think that it won't be anything but enjoyable and something that I'm going to "get" with my heart.

Sometimes it can work both ways, the only recent example I can think of is In Bruges where the few ads I'd seen made me believe it was one thing, but I ended up with something a bit more deep with some room for thought - not that it was mind-bending or anything, just more than I expected. That was great, but movies like that, which actually succeed as whole, really are rare.

Even though I haven't gotten to see this yet, I found this to be an interesting discussion and I was having fun seeing the feedback about the film (something I RARELY do) but in an instant I started to doubt the film was going to be as enjoyable as I'd expected, and like I said, was curious to know exactly what I would be getting into because I was getting conflicting ideas about the mood and intent of the film. I thought it was worth getting some straight forward responses by asking a straight forward and simple question - especially since there's so many schmoe's here whose values and style I respect.

[QUENTIN]

I agree with a lot of Zombie's analysis, which is what kept me from loving it. Summer and all the side characters are underwritten. I didn't really relate to Tom and thought he was kind of a sap, but I know guys like that and think his progression is probably a common one. I disagree about the pacing, wasn't an issue for me, and I get where he's coming from on the ending but while watching it that didn't bother me, I even liked the final line. As a different approach to the genre with some neat stylistic tricks, I enjoyed it overall. It put me in a good mood even if it didn't leave me contemplating love and relationships. Not deep or great or as original as it thinks it is, but solid for a 20-something less conventional rom com.

Bubba, I think it's definitely more like what your impression was, "a nice romantic film with perhaps some personal resonance" than any kind of deep, meaningful piece of serious artistic expression.

[BubbaStrangelove]

And I do want to clarify that I believe there's a big difference between finding and discussing deeper meaning to films, and INSISTING there is. While it might be fun to ask a person who thinks Pee-Wee's Big Adventure is a superfiscial and hollow movie to consider that it's really a parable about the near-loss and recapturing of innocence within the Hollywood film system, it's not particularly as necessary to treat such an idea with the same type of importance and seriousness as you would when telling someone that The Seventh Seal is about more than some guy playing chess with Death.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Bubba -- what's the last new movie you actually watched? Come on, man! Get your act together and stop "living your life" and "spending time with your family".

[Digifruitella]

And I do want to clarify that I believe there's a big difference between finding and discussing deeper meaning to films, and INSISTING there is.

So ya tellin' me ya don't think I'm right ya sunuvaaabitch ya.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally Posted by BakeTheMooCow

Bubba -- what's the last new movie you actually watched? Come on, man! Get your act together and stop "living your life" and "spending time with your family".

I can't remember the title, just that it had this promising young actor named Heath something.

Originally Posted by Digifruitella

So ya tellin' me ya don't think I'm right ya sunuvaaabitch ya.

Am I supposed to read into that?