Like: FUNNY PEOPLE

July 31, 2009

I liked this movie both more and less than I thought I would. Rather than go into a big analysis I’m just going to list stuff I liked and Stuff I didn’t like. What a novel idea!

Like:

-Eric Bana. I knew he had a comic background in australia but he absolutely fucking nails the role. It’s a thankless role for one, but he manages to make it both hilarious and realistic. We’ve known plenty of alpha male figures who have good mix of ambition, friendliness, combativeness, and basic stupidity; who can be awfully smart in some ways and completely pathetic in others. He’s just great and goes all out. Good stuff.

-Jonah Hill. Absolutely shines with minimum screen time. Pound for pound funniest. Plus he has a real grounded character to boot.

-“Raaaaaaaaaaaaandy.” Most of this is outside the actual movie but you either get me or look it up. You won’t be disappointed.

-nails the world of stand up (don’t make the mistake of analyzing comedy. That’s why punchline failed. Don’t try to explain the joke).

-nails the world of fame. People love pictures.

-nails the dynamic of joke writing. When you’re pitching jokes people don’t react and laugh really they just can say “that’s good” and use it.

-Seth Rogen plays probably the closest thing to Seth Rogen. Or at least what I imagine him to be like. Which is a super sweet guy. Overtly sensitive. And really funny too.

-Leslie Mann. Very strong in this one. Much less of a performance than her other roles (which she was going for outright comedy or effect, and nailed it). Some people are griping about how judd apatow is in love with is wife and just showing her off or some shit, but that reeks of BS to me. It’s fully functional.

-The two Apatow kids. Is it me or are these kids developing great timing and screen presence?

-Adam Sandler. Some people have an idea that comedians are actually pretty sad, angry, lonely people. Most people don’t. But really that’s how they fuel a lot of comedy. And Sandler is utterly willing to go there and get pretty dark (his insanely dark song on the piano about his hating the audience, all while the audience is laughing, is a particalarly great trick he and apataow play on the other movie audience and a complete encapsulation of the dynamic of both fame/the character). His whole mess is on the table and there isn’t any neat journey or arc to it. He’s a guy dealing with some shit and has many moments of misplaced anger and misplaced benevolence.  I also loved sandler’s ability to both make fun of and relish his own movies. He’s fully aware he’s making movies for  12 year olds and likes it. It’s his natural inclination. And yes he has that other side too, but for him, that’s for real life and standup. It was a nice meta-self-exam. And I liked it a great deal.

-The relationship between rogen and sandler. Just a great balancing act that defines the blurred lines of being paid to essentially be someone’s friend. Theire relationship is totally the backbone of the film and makes it all work. (There’s some speculation that this is really about Apatow’s relationship with Garry Shandling. Which might be very well accurate).

-The insane amount of funny cameos. And they were all (pretty much) functional.

Don’t Like:

-It’s not really a movie. I mean there’s no real plot or anything.Which isn’t that big a deal, really. Cause films can be fully functional as a multi-character piece. And this one is functional; every character is distinct and interesting and, yes, funny. But it’s not really a character piece either. I don’t know. There needs to be something more… focused for that. I don’t know. It’s big and it rambles and while it all is fine, it’s just noticably lacking the solidarity that something like Knocked Up even had. And that’s maybe the biggest problem… Knocked Up was inescapably better. So in taking many steps forward in terms of going towards something more dark and human, he takes a step back in the sense that it just isn’t as good a movie.

-Why is this so relevant? Because of the James L. Brooks corallary.

Apatow admits himself, the goal of any real comedian is to make a James L. Brooks movie. Why? Because they’re real and sad and hilarious and perfect. They’re the funniest movies about insanely upsetting things. And he knows the perfect amount of sweetness to use without making people barf.

And what Funny People means is that Apatow took his step into the James L. Brooks direction and it really wasn’t even close to the same thing. It was something else entirely, something good even, but it wasn’t Brooksesque. And that was the great hope for Apatow. After Freaks and Geeks (which IS brooksesque) that’s what people wanted from him. But I didn’t much of that here and I really am beginning to think that Freaks and Geeks just might have been more Paul Feig (who SERIOUSLY needs to kick start some real directing/writing gigs) and less Apatow (whose style comes across more clearly in Undeclared?).

Anycrap it’s minutae and more about my hopes for the man rather than actual quality, but still I feel it’s a valid reaction.

The only thing I’m on the fence about is where to go from here? Should he try to make the tight James L. Brooks movie the world so desperately needs? Or should he just go off and try to do his own messy but infectious thing with more courage? Either way he’ll probably build on Funny People.

Which is a very funny movie.


Like: Midnight Movies

July 30, 2009

I see a LOT of midnight movies. It’s a little much probably for someone my age. Yes I’m still relatively young, but I work and it’s hard as shit to see a midnight movie and go to work the the next day. But I still do all the time. Any time there’s a movie I like coming out? Midnight thursday. I’m there. And I see a lot of movies. Sometimes once or twice a week. And I always prefer the midnight movie.

A few reasons why:

1. The best audiences. People who want to see/enjoy the movie as much as you and

2. You get to enjoy doing other things on the weekend. Like going outside… or seeing another movie.

3. It’s easy to find parking.

4. You don’t have to listen to someone say how much they liked/hated the movie and slant your opinion. Instead, you get to be that person! Hooray. (This of course assumes non-critical influence. Though I’m at the point where I know where/who to go to for critical influence and just how much to read of a given review to know if I’m going to see something. I’m pretty much at the point where I won’t watch the trailer of anything I really want to see. As trailers usually ruin the movie).

5. You get to drink lots of soda.

6. You’re effectively turning a movie into an “event.”

7. The Arclight (the best theater of all time) ALWAYS has midnight movies of pretty  much anything being released. Awesome.

8. I can’t think of other reasons.

… But it’s mostly the great audiences.

NOTE: there’s also apparently a pretty good band called “Midnight Movies” who a  bunch of people like. I’ve never listened to them but I like the name.


Don’t Like: The New York Post’s Decision To Post Erin Andrews Spy Video Pictures and Including A Distasteful Cartoon As Well

July 23, 2009

(note: this is not page with the picture… I’m not going to do that)

Ragging on a rag like The New York Post (eh, get it?) seems like a waste of time. It’s a nonsense paper, with a nonsense agenda, designed to make money, and it does. Fine.

I’m also not here to get political. That would be pointless. Dismissing a sensationalist paper for it’s politics completely misses the point as they are inherently designed to piss people off or go the extra step out of bounds on a given angle (politically speaking of course). Does it potentially have a negative effect? Sure. Do I like that so many people read it? No. It’s just doesn’t make sense to rail against this because it’s an inherent reality of the mud slinging business. And most of their gossip rag stuff is completely trashy, but appropriately trashy in the larger sense. In other words it’s exactly the kind of nonsense you’d expect to find in any magazine like that.

So then The Post went along the other day and ran a story on page 1 referencing the now unfolding and infamous Erin Andrews story. If you have not heard, the ESPN sideline reporter was recently filmed with a peephole camera as she was changing in her hotel room. It is a significant offense. Highly illegal. And rotten to the core. Honestly, I did not find that it happened that surprising. Erin Andrews has a vehement, vocal, and often juvenile fan base, stemming from the fact that she is an attractive, capable woman and is a member of the sports world, particularly college sports. That lends itself to a certain kind of attention. She is also a decent sideline reporter (my qualms are more with actually sideline reporting and not her performance itself). The problem with having this kind of celebrity-like admiration is that she also a sideline reporter and NOT a giant celebrity with security and protection and all the like. Honestly, I’ve worried for her safety in a variety of situations.  Sure, she seems tough and no nonsense and all that good stuff; she’s probably perfectly capable of taking care of her self… but still. I worried about, I dunno, something like this.

Most of the major papers have and simply abstained from referencing the story all together… but The Post? They ran an article about her outrage… including a screenshot from the video (a barely censored one).

This is absolutely deplorable.

More than than that it is actually illegal. They are posting a pic which was from an illegally shot video. Admittedly, I do not know the finer points of the law concerning this issue, but I know that that kind of act is illegal and grounds for legal action. The Post have since taken it down on the website version of their paper. But probably more because people are pissed (even within their regular readers). This sentiment is also not to imply that I, or some of the people who complained, are some kind of prude or believe that sexuality has no place in modern media. Who can’t understand why a lot of people would want to see a naked video of someone famous? Particularly an attractive famous person.  It’s just that I recognize the inherent difference of a video obtained through such incredibly dishonest and violating means. Not helping matters is that some people are confusing the release of this video with the “release” of some other famous celebrity videos; they don’t understand what the big deal or difference is and why this video can’t legally be posted.

There isn’t even a comparison. Those videos were released with pre-made deals and financial compensation. It was planned. This video was not.

Which leads to something else The Post happened to do in that edition of the paper. They printed this cartoon.

07222009

There are three possible meanings you can take from this cartoon. The first is that modern corporate/celebrity culture uses sex and personal stuff to sell sell sell. Which would be valid. But that would be giving a lot of credit. See the problem is those 5 blatant ESPN signs, which means the second possible meaning and perhaps most obvious is that ESPN planned or wanted this video to come out. Or is somehow glad. Which is malicious and implies they are a morally bankrupt organization… which I find to be anything but the case for the company. It also completely discounts the fact they’ve been running around like crazy suing websites and LEGITIMATELY trying to shut it down. If anything ESPN has been the one major sports coverage unit that has really, and truly tried to abstain from sexualizing sports. They consider themselves a family network. They really do and seperates themselves from Fox Sports, which has no qualms about doing so (the great irony of this being that Fox sports is 1000 times more likely to have the kind of behavior/viewpoint shown in this cartoon). The third meaning, and most offensive, is that Erin Andrews was in on it. Which if that is the intent, is probably the most heinous, sexist, cynical, violating tone I can think of for a situation like this.

Once again… this is absolutely deplorable.

Yes the cartoon probably falls under free speech and probably has the legal standards to run… but then I have the right under free speech to say this probably should never have seen publication and if I ran a paper it wouldn’t… ever.

This sounds like I’m getting all high and mighty and holier than thou… I know… I’m sorry. True, should I expect anything less from society? Is this really THAT big a deal? I’m not sure. But sometimes I get tired of being cynical. I get tired of just ignoring shitty behavior just because humans are inclined to be shitty sometimes. But every once and awhile it’s okay to call a duck a duck. Their actions are egregious. It deserves to be called out.

In response to the whole affair, ESPN has blacklisted any Post reporters from their coverage and removed their access to any ESPN broadcast. This will have an immediate effect on their coverage and will hopefully hurt them financially.

But for Erin Andrews, in a perfect world, she would sue for posting the picture and defamation of character for the cartoon. She has a legit claim with the picture, but the cartoon claim would be thrown out under free speech. And since the post is part of the News Corp empire the history of two mega corporations suing each other tells us that it would be so bogged down in various stalls and litigation as to be a complete waste of time.

So in the end, ESPN made the right call.

For me, the whole thing has no effect, really.

I will continue to never read The Post.


Like: Arrested Devlopment, Revisited (Part 1)

July 22, 2009

So me and the stuff-I-like gal have been going back and revisiting Arrested Development.

This is a good thing.

The show holds up absurdly well, not only terms of repeat viewings, but not feeling stale (yeah it’s only been like 5-6 years, but you’d be amazed how sensitive to that a lot of people can be).

And there’s nothing really to say about the show that hasn’t already been said, but who cares? I love it.

The writing is just so tight and focused. I can’t tell you enough how uncommon that is in a comedy. I’ve been racking my brain trying to think of something AD was similar to; sure The Simpsons works only because that show was infinitely witty and can be compared favorably to just about anything. But the best direct comparison I can think of is old Preston Sturges movies. There’s the same cyclical focus, repetition, and interests in absurdist, selfish human behavior. Sometimes they even have the same run-on joke style. I’ve been really happy since I thought of this and am suddenly interested in digging out my old Sturges movies too.

More conclusions and stuff to come in a part 2.

But I just think everybody should keep revisiting Arrested Development if they have a chance. It may seem redundant, or not exactly cutting edge proclamation or anything. But it’s one of those truly great things. Maybe I feel bad cause I was letting it slip out of my consciousness a bit.

I mean COME ON.


Like: Miranda July

July 21, 2009

I know I’ve been on a huge “like” streak, but who cares? Life’s better if it’s a love train.

I’ve just started reading “‘No One Belongs Here More Than You.’ stories by Miranda July” And I’m loving it.

Truthfully, I feel a bit of a novice when it comes to July’s work. I saw ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW back when it came out and had a very strange experience. I had no idea what I was walking into and it was one of those films that grows with you, especially in the days after you see it and have time to digest. This is mostly due to the fact that it is just so vividly different. Sure, the film is technically linear nor is it really abstract or anything. But it’s a kind of floating, ambivalent narrative. You could use filmy type descriptions and fall back on phrases like ” it’s starkly beautiful” or something like that, but that’s not what makes it relevant or even good.  This film is emotionally adventurous. Characters just have moments where they’re floating through each others lives. And it goes into unexpected places. The sexuality can be sudden, abrupt, juvenile. Emotional reactions can be completely disarming. Every character is just a bit off. They have these moments and we feel like we fall into their brain, and we follow their logic or desire just a few steps past the well reasoned response and into a territory just a step beyond. It’s fascinating. The film seems like a grouping of short stories, but it’s also not; it’s a cohesive movie that just happens to be about brief moments with these people.

It makes sense that Miranda July is first and foremost, a performance artist. The main stake of performance art is cause and effect (AKA reactions). Thus all her art, writing, and even her film operate on a kind of momentary appropriation. Scenes and inclinations follow the will of the moment. It’s like all her characters possess varying kinds of monomania that rear their ugly, or perhaps beautiful head. Tonally, it’s absorbing.

The other neat realization is that this behavior of “following a momentary logic to it’s end” is one of the central definitions of being crazy. And thus I feel like much of her work is a series of explorations of what happens when someone desires and thoughts cross an accepted social norm.

Miranda even appears to be the perfect vehicle for this entire world she explores: there’s a slightness to her, a plain and natural beauty, but also a child-like cuteness displayed by her stark, wide eyes. They contain the perfect mix of innocence and an intrinsic sadness; she seems like the perennial adolescent.

I can’t wait to read some more.


Like: Infinite Jest (Part I)

July 20, 2009

So the problem with reading Infinite Jest, a 1000+ page stab at the great American novel by David Foster Wallace, is that when you finish reading it you feel like you’re finally ready to actually read it… and thus want to start over.

It is a wickedly cruel joke on the part of DFW, and on par for a book that features many of these kinds cyclical meta truths both within the reality/plot of the characters and also for you, the reader. There’s a logical reason for this desire, mostly being that the beginning of the book is rather cryptic and features some of the characters at the end of their journeys and the end of the book is where you get much of the no-nonsense factual realities that much of the book is just HINTING at… so yeah… you want to go back.

I’m also not really sure where to even begin with this monster. So this will only be PART I of my take on the book. PART II will come when I’ve had more time to ruminate.  So let’s go stream of consciousness counting:

I loved it for one. Two, it’s dense. Three, the language is beyond anyone but my mom, who knows the meaning of pretty much every word. So I was looking up lots of words, and sometimes too lazy to do so. Four, there’s a lot of Pynchon influence, particularly Gravity’s Rainbow. Five, it’s at times deeply funny. Six, it takes place in Boston, so that’s neat. Seven, it’s odd that for a novel written between 93-95, he accurately predicts the entire future of television, movies, and video gaming that is going on today, including HDTV and digital equipment (the only mistake he makes in these “predictions” is format, saying that digital media would be on cartridges instead of the discs). Seven, it is often profoundly sad. Eight, not to get into literary semantics, but it’s interesting to see him try to break out of the malaise of late modern conceits of both overtly-fractured form and irony. He doesn’t REALLY do it. Part of him can’t do it maybe, but you get the sense he wants to transcend it.  Nine, it is important to transcend it because it is slightly bullshitty after all. Nine, but he understands the problems with culture wanting this kind of bullshitty detachment because they feel anything with real values is in itself, bullshit.

Okay, time out. I have to explain that shit better.

DFW once wrote in an article about television and modern culture where he explained, to paraphrase [We have gone from a culture that upheld the sanctity of good values to a culture that instead appreciates the rejection of bogus values] Which in my mind, is highly problematic. Sure the reasons, were perhaps valid. It was meant to undermine legitimately corrupt authority. To stem the tide of conformity. To make those outside of conventionality, acceptable. Heck, even Ayn Rand’s philosophy started off as a principled opposition to the dangers of communism. Point being, there was a point to the rejection of the bogus values.

But the problem is our society eventually came to uphold this behavior/pathology as THE great truth.  Believing in anything traditional is considered passe. Hell, I’d go one more and say our society considers believing in things as not only naive, but harmful. They’re idiots who have flocked up to join the masses. And lo and behold, this creates a negative society (well duh). As a result, we can’t really do anything. It amounts to great minds, or even mediocre minds sitting around being self-assured in their own superiority rather than actually doing anything. Sure any system has its deep, inherent flaws, but the absence of a system IS NOT a system. And yet we have a whole part of society, often our best and brightest minds, who abstain from systemic input because that means they would be going against “the rejection of bogus values.” DFW saw this as a big problem and wanted to do something about it.

Then again, Infinite Jest isn’t really about this subject. If you had to be literal, it’s about addictions, film, family, and tennis. But it is also certainly about the modern emotional numbness we can develop in a world that values negativity. A culture who has lived in this cherishing of bogus values for far too long, and renders the big things in life: love, joy, delirium, hate, anger, lust, and desire, all the more difficult to attain… or honor properly… or even just deal with.  And the characters of the novel don’t really have an answer. There’s some stuff there one supposes (perhaps with what happens to Gately and Joelle). DFW talked at length about how he wanted to find an answer to the deadly malaise. To deconstruct and reconstruct the big truths, love, etc. To somehow take love, and build it logically so that those who adore the rejection of the bogus can actually take heed. And be happy. I dunno.

Guess we have to wait until The Pale King to see if he had an idea of what to do… But knowing what happened during the writing of that piece… one imagines not.


Like: 500 Days of Summer / Don’t Like: The Guy Who Co-Wrote 500 Days of Summer

July 17, 2009

So every once and awhile I’m privy to one of those neat screening/Q+A things with the makers of a movie. They can be pretty fun. I don’t like going to them for big-fun-type movies as the audience for these things are usually pretty jaded. But I just recently got a chance to see 500 DAYS OF SUMMER in this aforementioned manner.

The film is actually pretty charming. It’s emotionally simplistic to a degree, but it wears it’s heart on it’s sleeve and while many of the creative devices have been done (or even done to death), it does them earnestly so, completely refraining from diving into an irony induced coma; which is admirable. The film has a particularly wonderful first 30 minutes or so, filled with all that good stuff one likes: humor, cleverness, bluntness, creativity, and perfectly paced cinematic devices (not to mention and excellent use of title cards). And then it’s not as if these qualities disappear from the film completely, but just that the sharpness and clarity of the intentions haze into a kind of murky area. It just falls into a pattern of redundant scenes where, I dunno, stuff happens. That sounds like a lazy statement on my part but I assure it’s not. Since we know where the whole relationship is going (it is declared so at the beginning) we just get a run on in juxtapositions, which again are very fun at first, but the transition game eventually wears out its welcome. Luckily the film ends aptly, and without any resolution-y hiccups. All in all, it’s good stuff.

Sure I had minor quibbles. The kind of stuff you overlook when being sufficiently charmed by a movie (which I was): The very admirable and talented Joseph Gordon Levitt plays the all too familiar lead of the blank slate generic sad sack of a man who gets wooed by the manic, tempestuous girl who doesn’t want anything serious or permanent in life. It’s a tale as old as time, yes, and Zooey Deschanel’s Summer is appropriately enchanting. But I didn’t sense there was a real understanding of her character, and what she wanted in life. Of course the film makes no bones about conveying that JGL’s character does not understand her either and that is much of the source of conflict. But shouldn’t the writer have some idea? The world of the movie itself? I dunno. If one thinks like that than in retrospect you kind of have a hollow feeling about 500 Days. True, JGL comes out understanding the most basic of lessons, but just barely so. It’s a very juvenile point in the love development path, but once again, the film was charming so I was ready to go to war of the sort of obviousness and juvenility that wasn’t apparent to the main character.

We almost left before the Q+A… In retrospect I wish I did.

(First off, in order to discuss this I must get spoilery. If you you want to see the movie and plan on enjoying it. Stop reading. Cause I’m about to be dispariging.)

The film has a great opening in which the author makes it clear he has some anger with the real-life surrogate of the titular female. It was a great thing on the screen and got big laughs. But I thought it was a comic exaggeration… you know… something for effect.

Boy was I wrong.

500 Days of summer is about a sad sack who falls in love with a girl who doesn’t love him the same way and can’t commit to him. Why does he? Cause we like the same music! She’s not a vapid whore! She actually talks to me! She validates my existence with her acknowledgment! It’s sad sack story for a reason; while most guys have been there at some point in their life, no doubting it, there’s still something very juvenile about it. There are so many real-life girl and people issues to get into without resorting back to the “girls just don’t like me” issue. It’s just a juvenile issue. I’m sorry it is. That doesn’t mean it’s not valid. But it’s, like, a high school thing… That’s not a love story for 30 year olds. And this is a film about 30 year olds.

So when I was there watching the co-writer speak… ugh… He was clearly very nervous and that’s fine, and he had some funny anecdotes and really seemed to mean well… but then things just kept becoming very apparent… I really hate speaking like this, but these are kind of inescapable conclusions the audience seemed to be coming to… and not to be crass, or judgmental, but… I have never seen or listened to someone who seemed like a nice, well-intentioned guy who was really so secretly angry, resentful, neurotic, self-pitying, self-centered, insecure, juvenile, and all in all kind of a general pre-occupied dick about his own state of life. It was as if the whole world was mean to him and that’s not fair! True, none of this was that overt, but it was practically oozing out of every word he said. The Stuff-I-Like-Gal came to the same exact conclusion and we made virtually no conversation or gesture or eye roll during the entire Q+A. And yet we came to the exact same conclusion. Terribly unfair of us? Possibly. But possibly obvious too: The guy angry little man.

And look, it’s not as if one can’t be an angry, resentful, neurotic writer and have angry, resentful, neurotic protagonists. But you have to display some clue about your own self-identity. Woody Allen was the master of this because he UNDERSTOOD that all the problems/conflicts in his oeuvre were ultimately of his own doing. And for decades, it was fascinating to watch. Lots of others writers did it before and lots have done it since to pretty entertaining results.

And this poor screenwriter… He didn’t get that it was all him. He really didn’t. You see 500 DAYS OF SUMMER was based on his real life. Almost to a T. And as he talked you realize, he didn’t get that it’s about the kinds of girls he was attracted to. In the film, JGL never acknowledges any of his own shortcomings. In fact his character has none. He’s the perfect nice guy. The world is too tough on him and he’s lonely and all he needs is a girl to reflect the love he shows her everything is perfect. But of  course the girls can’t do that. They’re flighty creatures. They break up with him so, Summer is the encapsulation heinous evil bitch who broke up with him. Really, even though they weren’t in those blunt words, he was outright saying this!

And watching this co-writer, coming to that realization… it sort of ruins 500 DAYS OF SUMMER. The film just wasn’t what I hoped it was when the credits rolled. I had hoped it was just a clever movie where a couple of writers crafted a great story with humor and drew on life experiences…

… Instead, it was the story of this asshat’s life with the lines he wished he said.

There is nothing worse in the writing world. Granted, it’s probably the best version of that kind of thing I’ve ever seen (funny, charming, whatnot). And I understand the inclination to write the story of your life. It’s something every writer sort of goes through when they first start writing. But eventually they realize just because “that’s the way it happened” doesn’t mean it has any sort of validity whatsoever with the realm of the screen, or page or whatever the medium of the writing (Todd Solandz’s first half of storytelling is about this very subject, and it’s an extraordinary film)… But this guy didn’t get it. Or who knows, maybe he did and couldn’t get over those hangups so he just barged ahead anyway. I’m not really sure. I just know the kinds of things he was saying:

He said the entire movie was based on two girlfriends who did the exact same thing to fuck him over.

He acknowledged that neither of these relationships lasted longer than 6 months (wow, what life changing time frames!).

He actually said the entire movie happened to him with the exception of a dance number and one other scene. He was bragging about this. He wanted us to feel bad for him. Like he got a raw deal. Again, screwed over by these bitches.

He bragged about being on set as an “authenticity” expert and being sure they got the details of how it really happened.

He talked about how the entire script was nothing but a way of dealing with the break up.

He talked about how insipid and self-involved the two girls who inspired Summer were. And that when they read the script they had no idea it was exactly about them and said they identified with JDL’s character. Then turned to us screaming about how “THAT’S SO YOU!” in shocking anger.

He admitted that the Summer character exists as an object.

He admitted that the two girls were not unlike all his other relationships too.

He admitted that the two girls were still the equivalent of clueless harpies who went on to find love after not wanting to commit to him.

He admitted that he doesn’t understand why the girls did any of what they did, but that’s “how it happened.”

He admitted that he doesn’t understand why girls keep “doing this to him.”

He admitted that the girls perspective doesn’t get any representation in this film.

He admitted that the hopeful ending isn’t real, that the new girl relationship ends just as badly, just something to convey a kind of hope to the audience.

And then it becomes obvious. The resonance of 500 DAYS OF SUMMER is in its detailed perceptions. Moments in which the audience perceives true moments because of the authentic voice. E.g. a real life anecdote being interesting, but not corresponding to a great context beyond the truth of the anecdote itself. Which means there is no real over-arching truth. No validity to the co-writer’s perspective. Which renders the entire scope aimless, unfeasible, and lacking credibility.

It is a story written by a guy who has no idea that he is the joke.

It’s a cruel statement. I’m aware. But in the end 500 DAYS is simply a tale of vengeance. A recreation of events to make them singularly sided. A self-edited history whose charm and guile may be the most upsetting things as all, because under that facade lies a film about women being basically evil. And not really getting that it’s about weak-willed men whose own insecurities betray their noble intentions. And it’s skewed to make a conclusions of the world where this kind of perspective is okay for men to have… where it is the truth… where it is good.

I’m sorry, I appreciate the will for stories to be honest as much as anyone… but no one wants to watch someone work out their psychosis at every one else’s 10 bucks.

… It’s a good thing it was a screening then.