(500) Days of Suck

Nique · 02-23-2010, 05:58 AM

I was originally going to post this on my Facebook page but my wife said it was too cynical to bother my RL friends with it. So here goes;

My Review of: (500) Days of Summer *Spoiler Warning*

Seriously hollywood writers, who cares about 20-something hipsters with posh-mean-nothing-pretend-movie-jobs that they can apparently quit at will with no consequences, living in lavish downtown L.A. apartments? I mean come on the guy could afford that apartment if he was an architect from the begginning, maybe? And he quit's what must be an AMAZINGLY easy and fun job writing greeting cards (note: I have doubts that this job actually exists as it is portrayed in the film anymore) becuase it's too fake and he is just angsting over life and the meaninglessness and inadequcy of words? And they watch french films?! UGH! So pretentious! I'm wondering how I even got through it now. BAH.

At first I thought it was going to be a quirky, unique movie, and THEN I thought it was just another typical lame romantic comedy that tried to market itself as a unique movie. And then it TURNED OUT to be a movie that tried to be unique and quirky and failed because what it was REALLY trying to do was be "hip" instead of original.

Zooey Deschanel is always adorable and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is really funny and extremely likeable, so I was ALMOST tricked into liking this movie. But when he quit his amazing job because he 'couldn't stand how phoney it was' I felt like I was reading 'Catcher in the Rye' all over again - and I hated that book.

And I really disliked that these young and notably white people didn't appear to be struggling financially at all. Because even though that wasn't what the movie was about, there was an opportunity for a richer backstory that was missed, and there is a certain subtext it implies about white people, privilege, and entitlement. I mean, we can assume that both of the main characters have debt from college that needs to be paid (Or do they? Do you know anyone who recently graduated with a degree that doesn't?) but that's never addressed at all. Instead we see them working easy jobs that they somehow did not require a relevant degree for, with what looks like LOADS of time off, living in awesome apartments and plenty of money to spend on leisure activities. I mean, that's pure fantasy. Which would be fine if the message of the film didn't seem to center around having REALISTIC expectations about life & romance.

It's ridiculous to watch these characters try to be convincing when the world we live in simply does not work this way, except for people who are extremely privileged. And honestly even that would have been ok if there was adequate context provided for it.

BloodyMage · 02-23-2010, 11:58 AM

I liked the movie. I mean there is some wilful suspension of disbelief when it comes to the apartments and I mean, as you're aware, this isn't the first time that something like that has been used. It's something that has to be done though. Sure you could do it realistically and show him living in a really small apartment and having to bust his ass to get rent in on time, and if this show was a commentary on the difficulties of the working man in America then that'd be fine but to do that in this film would not only distract from the plot but it'd also make it extremely difficult to film because one of the main reasons for using large apartments is ease of movement of cameras and angles.

I'm pretty sure however that you do not need a relevant degree to write in the business card industry. I suppose some sort of English degree would be preferred but it's certainly not what every English student goes to university/ college to study in order to do when their finished. I pretty sure that the debt isn't addressed because it's never addressed in real life either. My sister, who spent four years as a pharmacist still has that debt but it's taken out of her account automatically. It involves absolutely no interaction from her, so sometimes she completely forgets about it. Not to mention that, as far as the UK is concerned (I don't know about America), you don't even start paying back the debt until you're making a certain amount of money, which very few people do by doing straight from college to work, and it's probably unlikely that this job pays well enough that he makes enough to pay of this debt. None of this even matters though. It's not relevant to the film. The film says at the start, this isn't a love story, it's a story about love. The aim here is to be realistic about romance, even if it has to sacrifice a few realities of life in order to show that. I realise the contradiction in that sentence, but this is still a film, and it's meant to be watched and enjoyed, and it's meant to say something about romance. The problem is, romance isn't all that consumes our lives, as you rightly pointed out, because work and financial troubles should also be an important part of their lives, but to show all that means taking away from the main romantic plot and saying 'ok, here's a realistic film about the real world,' and to show something like that you'd probably need a whole other hour or maybe two and at the end of it what would you really come away with? I came away thinking that this character had grown in that he knew what he wanted, and he didn't have to wait for it. He could be the kind of architect that he wanted to be, and he didn't have to wait for fate to drop the girl of his dreams in his lap; he could ask her out himself.

I get the pretentious and angsty thing too because he did come across like that sometimes. I sort of figured that was the point though because he is pretentious and he is over dramatic and while sometimes you're sympathetic, he's also a figure to be mocked because we, the audience, know that he's being an idiot. So even if he get a sense of satisfaction from watching him succeed in the end, on the journey to that point he's meant to be laughed at and pitied. His kid sister even calls him a 'pussy'.

I mean I can see your point and where you're coming from, but I just can't agree. It feels like you went to the video store looking for a certain film, couldn't find it and picked this up instead and now you're kinda annoyed that it's not the film you wanted it to be. The film tells you from the outset that it's about romance and love, so all the stuff that puts it in context is just background noise. Even though it is trying to be realistic about love, having two hours to be realistic about love is probably difficult enough without trying to be realistic about every other part of their lives. I mean all of the stuff you said is true, and maybe I'm just being generous by wilfully suspending my disbelief and allowing some artistic license, but it just seems like those are some pretty petty things to dislike a movie for.

Nique · 02-23-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

The aim here is to be realistic about romance, even if it has to sacrifice a few realities of life in order to show that.

Right. That's why I think it's a load of horsefeathers. Those two things are completely intertwined.

Quote:

I mean I can see your point and where you're coming from, but I just can't agree. It feels like you went to the video store looking for a certain film, couldn't find it and picked this up instead and now you're kinda annoyed that it's not the film you wanted it to be. The film tells you from the outset that it's about romance and love, so all the stuff that puts it in context is just background noise. Even though it is trying to be realistic about love, having two hours to be realistic about love is probably difficult enough without trying to be realistic about every other part of their lives. I mean all of the stuff you said is true, and maybe I'm just being generous by wilfully suspending my disbelief and allowing some artistic license, but it just seems like those are some pretty petty things to dislike a movie for.

All I want is context for their situation. Frankly there was more than enough time to do that instead of showing me how 'cool' and hip these people were. If I am supposed to take the films message seriously, give me some internal logic and consistency. Without some acknowledgment of the issue of their wealth, this is a movie that also carries a subtext of white privilege, which totally takes me out of it.

BloodyMage · 02-23-2010, 02:58 PM

The issue of their wealth is a moot though as far as the film is concerned. It distracts from the story about love, so it's omitted. The context is that the dude is waiting around for love and the girl doesn't think true love exists. The film tells you this, and only this, because this is the only context that matters to the message of the film. Everything else detracts from it.

Think about it in terms of the side characters. They aren't particularly fleshed out or built upon, but they do mention their own views on love, for instance the one point where they talk to the camera. We don't know very much else about them aside from their partners or lack of and their ideas about romance and love. The film doesn't care about anything else. It has a story to tell about love and that's all that it's concerned with.

Then again, it is just a film. Maybe we shouldn't take it seriously. I'd rather simply appreciate the fact that it isn't a conventional romcom and that the story is quite nice and leave it back on my dvd pile. I didn't watch it for a life changing epiphany.

Alternative theory: I'm not hip or cool enough to know that the film is trying to be hip and cool.

Azisien · 02-23-2010, 03:13 PM

I liked the post-intercourse scene. Han Solo, bahaha.

Aside from that, it was a little flat, but okay.

P.S. Nique, start gaming and you might have a future Bile columnist potential at Gamepad Dojo.

Nique · 02-23-2010, 03:21 PM

Quote:

I liked the post-intercourse scene. Han Solo, bahaha.

Hey don't get me wrong - There were so many things this movie did right (and that was one of them)... I guess that's why I'm disappointed that it fell into the traps that it did.

And I'm currently playing loads of console games and looking for a RAGE outlet so, uh, call me

Amake · 02-23-2010, 03:43 PM

I'd just like to add that the movie in the movie is not a pretentious artsy movie.It seems to be some kind of remix/parody of Ingmar Bergman movies, in French. Either that or the director has no idea what artsy movies are like but still likes to take the piss out of them.

Professor Smarmiarty · 02-23-2010, 03:46 PM

I watch a lot of French movies and most of them are more mainstreamy than the average hollywood blockbuster. Pretty much the opposite of pretentious.

Nique · 02-23-2010, 06:39 PM

Quote:

I'd just like to add that the movie in the movie is not a pretentious artsy movie.It seems to be some kind of remix/parody of Ingmar Bergman movies, in French. Either that or the director has no idea what artsy movies are like but still likes to take the piss out of them.

Yeah actually I'm gonna retract some of my earlier rage and say I thought the whole 'suffering - suffering - suffering' parody was hilarious.

Mirai Gen · 02-24-2010, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nique

And I'm currently playing loads of console games and looking for a RAGE outlet so, uh, call me

We're taking applications!

02-23-2010, 03:43 PM	#7
Amake Keeper of the new Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: A place without judgment Posts: 4,506	I'd just like to add that the movie in the movie is not a pretentious artsy movie.It seems to be some kind of remix/parody of Ingmar Bergman movies, in French. Either that or the director has no idea what artsy movies are like but still likes to take the piss out of them. __________________ Hope insistent, trust implicit, love inherent, life immersed Last edited by Amake; 02-23-2010 at 03:49 PM. Reason: And the guy playing chess with an angel was pretty fun, too

02-23-2010, 11:58 AM	#2
BloodyMage I'm not even in the highscore. Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 667	I liked the movie. I mean there is some wilful suspension of disbelief when it comes to the apartments and I mean, as you're aware, this isn't the first time that something like that has been used. It's something that has to be done though. Sure you could do it realistically and show him living in a really small apartment and having to bust his ass to get rent in on time, and if this show was a commentary on the difficulties of the working man in America then that'd be fine but to do that in this film would not only distract from the plot but it'd also make it extremely difficult to film because one of the main reasons for using large apartments is ease of movement of cameras and angles. I'm pretty sure however that you do not need a relevant degree to write in the business card industry. I suppose some sort of English degree would be preferred but it's certainly not what every English student goes to university/ college to study in order to do when their finished. I pretty sure that the debt isn't addressed because it's never addressed in real life either. My sister, who spent four years as a pharmacist still has that debt but it's taken out of her account automatically. It involves absolutely no interaction from her, so sometimes she completely forgets about it. Not to mention that, as far as the UK is concerned (I don't know about America), you don't even start paying back the debt until you're making a certain amount of money, which very few people do by doing straight from college to work, and it's probably unlikely that this job pays well enough that he makes enough to pay of this debt. None of this even matters though. It's not relevant to the film. The film says at the start, this isn't a love story, it's a story about love. The aim here is to be realistic about romance, even if it has to sacrifice a few realities of life in order to show that. I realise the contradiction in that sentence, but this is still a film, and it's meant to be watched and enjoyed, and it's meant to say something about romance. The problem is, romance isn't all that consumes our lives, as you rightly pointed out, because work and financial troubles should also be an important part of their lives, but to show all that means taking away from the main romantic plot and saying 'ok, here's a realistic film about the real world,' and to show something like that you'd probably need a whole other hour or maybe two and at the end of it what would you really come away with? I came away thinking that this character had grown in that he knew what he wanted, and he didn't have to wait for it. He could be the kind of architect that he wanted to be, and he didn't have to wait for fate to drop the girl of his dreams in his lap; he could ask her out himself. I get the pretentious and angsty thing too because he did come across like that sometimes. I sort of figured that was the point though because he is pretentious and he is over dramatic and while sometimes you're sympathetic, he's also a figure to be mocked because we, the audience, know that he's being an idiot. So even if he get a sense of satisfaction from watching him succeed in the end, on the journey to that point he's meant to be laughed at and pitied. His kid sister even calls him a 'pussy'. I mean I can see your point and where you're coming from, but I just can't agree. It feels like you went to the video store looking for a certain film, couldn't find it and picked this up instead and now you're kinda annoyed that it's not the film you wanted it to be. The film tells you from the outset that it's about romance and love, so all the stuff that puts it in context is just background noise. Even though it is trying to be realistic about love, having two hours to be realistic about love is probably difficult enough without trying to be realistic about every other part of their lives. I mean all of the stuff you said is true, and maybe I'm just being generous by wilfully suspending my disbelief and allowing some artistic license, but it just seems like those are some pretty petty things to dislike a movie for.

02-23-2010, 02:58 PM	#4
BloodyMage I'm not even in the highscore. Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 667	The issue of their wealth is a moot though as far as the film is concerned. It distracts from the story about love, so it's omitted. The context is that the dude is waiting around for love and the girl doesn't think true love exists. The film tells you this, and only this, because this is the only context that matters to the message of the film. Everything else detracts from it. Think about it in terms of the side characters. They aren't particularly fleshed out or built upon, but they do mention their own views on love, for instance the one point where they talk to the camera. We don't know very much else about them aside from their partners or lack of and their ideas about romance and love. The film doesn't care about anything else. It has a story to tell about love and that's all that it's concerned with. Then again, it is just a film. Maybe we shouldn't take it seriously. I'd rather simply appreciate the fact that it isn't a conventional romcom and that the story is quite nice and leave it back on my dvd pile. I didn't watch it for a life changing epiphany. Alternative theory: I'm not hip or cool enough to know that the film is trying to be hip and cool.

02-23-2010, 03:13 PM	#5
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	I liked the post-intercourse scene. Han Solo, bahaha. Aside from that, it was a little flat, but okay. P.S. Nique, start gaming and you might have a future Bile columnist potential at Gamepad Dojo.

02-23-2010, 03:46 PM	#8
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	I watch a lot of French movies and most of them are more mainstreamy than the average hollywood blockbuster. Pretty much the opposite of pretentious.