500 Days of Summer (2009)

I think I really enjoyed this movie. 😁

The movie is solid, and that ending is absolutely perfect... Honestly, I’d probably cut that bit right after the breakup scene. You know, the part where he’s jogging around, then that dance sequence, and that weird blue bird... what was that even about? 🤦

Also, I actually had to watch it twice just to get into the zone, because I couldn't stop seeing Katy Perry in everything... 🤣

His bedroom setup is top-tier, though. I usually dig that kind of aesthetic in films... 🙄

Bottom line? The movie is great. What I love most is how grounded it feels.

Exactly what he said—this isn't some cheesy romance.

Killer soundtrack, too. Honestly, I have zero complaints about this one.

It strikes me as quite odd how the Academy completely overlooked this movie.

The movie was honestly quite sweet 😍 . There were moments where I truly laughed out loud; it felt original and had a refreshing quality you don't often see in mainstream American cinema. Still, I felt like something was missing... maybe I just went in with too high expectations. The soundtrack is fantastic, though—it really elevates the whole experience.

This movie is actually a solid pick for American rom-com fans; it’s not predictable and uses a pretty original way to show how a relationship develops. Still, it doesn't quite hit the level of those classic British rom-coms... off topic—if you're into slightly unconventional rom-coms, check out 👍. It's got great humor 🙏 especially from all the side characters!

Gary Patel said:It strikes me as quite odd how the Academy completely overlooked this movie.

It had potential as a script, maybe. Nothing else. 🤷

Look, I have massive respect for Gordon-Levitt, and I’m head over heels for Zooey (damn you, Ben Gibbarde), so being objective about this movie is a struggle. But fine, I'll try...

Setting my biases aside, I liked it. The acting was solid, especially Gordon-Levitt. The script is sharp and funny, offering a twist that most romantic dramedies shy away from, all wrapped up in very competent direction.

It touches on certain pockets of alternative culture—specifically indie music, like The Smiths or Pixies—and you can't shake the feeling that both leads are total hipsters, which is easily one of the most annoying subcultures out there today.

You could argue the film tries a little too hard to be cool, but it works. It’s good. Actually, it’s great. Honestly, I’m glad it didn't sweep the major awards; that whole season was a complete mess anyway.

I generally have little patience for sugary-sweet movies or those overly sentimental romantic tropes, and I initially assumed this would be exactly that kind of fluff—but I sat through it specifically because of the cast 🙂. It absolutely blew me away; there is just something special about it 🙂

Zooey and Joseph were truly phenomenal together, and as for the direction—honestly, the editing was nothing short of perfection. While the plot itself is somewhat trivial, the film as a whole serves as such a refreshing change of pace 🙂

While the movie is generally charming, I found myself feeling a bit disappointed.

I’d have to agree with Joshua Smith5—the movie tries way too hard to be cool, but it just doesn't land. It lacks that certain grit, mostly because the script is just fundamentally uninspired.

I mean, think about lines like: "So what happened after all those guys? I finally started living," or that one time he went on that angry rant at the office about how love is basically a scam. 🙄

I won't even get started on that incredibly grating portrayal of his sister, acting like some ultra-cool little girl who’s somehow an expert on relationships. Then there are his "cool" drunk friends, who feel like they were ripped straight out of some mediocre sitcom. And don't get me started on those pathetic, tear-jerker moments—like when she's drawing buildings on her hand. Honestly, I couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters; there just wasn't any chemistry to work with.

Between *In Search of the Midnight Kiss* and *Forgetting Sarah Marshall*, there’s this relentless tendency to butcher the complexities of young romance for the sake of a punchline. The fact that the latter is categorized as a comedy pretty much tells you everything you need to know about how they handle it.

5/10

Look, you might think drawing buildings is a complete waste of time, but I actually find it quite engaging.🤷

It looks like something genuinely real, much like those moments shared by couples in love.

goldenhound32 said:Look, you might think drawing buildings is a complete waste of time, but I actually find it quite engaging.🤷

It looks like something genuinely real, much like those moments shared by couples in love.

Look, I did all sorts of ridiculous things back when I was in love, 😉 and maybe "pathetic" isn't quite the right word... But I was just waiting for a specific cinematic moment, and it happened exactly when I thought nothing would happen.

The whole movie felt like a predictable loop to me: okay, the guy is in love, the girl is this quirky, outgoing type who doesn't believe in long-term commitment. He thinks he'll change her because he's "special," then everything falls apart—that inevitable mid-movie "crisis" required for drama—followed by his doubts about love during some speech at the office, and finally the ending with the moral: When one door closes, another one opens.

It's all been done before; there isn't a shred of originality here.

Michael Ortiz68 said:Look, I did all sorts of ridiculous things back when I was in love, 😉 and maybe "pathetic" isn't quite the right word... But I was just waiting for a specific cinematic moment, and it happened exactly when I thought nothing would happen.

The whole movie felt like a predictable loop to me: okay, the guy is in love, the girl is this quirky, outgoing type who doesn't believe in long-term commitment. He thinks he'll change her because he's "special," then everything falls apart—that inevitable mid-movie "crisis" required for drama—followed by his doubts about love during some speech at the office, and finally the ending with the moral: When one door closes, another one opens.

It's all been done before; there isn't a shred of originality here.

Go ahead then—name another romance novel where they start off by insisting, "this isn't a love story."🙂

And while you're at it, where else can you find that tired little gimmick where the screen splits in half to show what he *thought* was going to happen versus the actual reality of the situation?

I’m having a hard time coming up with anything that makes forgetting Sarah Marshall "trash" this movie.

It really depends on what someone is looking for... the actors in those Hollywood blockbusters might be easier on the eyes, I suppose. But even so, I find this film to be the superior piece of work.

Not at all. The cast is simply flawless, and honestly, that’s one of the primary reasons why the film is such a masterpiece. 😍

goldenhound32 said:It really depends on what someone is looking for... the actors in those Hollywood blockbusters might be easier on the eyes, I suppose. But even so, I find this film to be the superior piece of work.

Does the looks of the actors even matter?

Roger Allen3 said:Does the looks of the actors even matter?

It depends on the individual, I suppose. Though, if we're being honest, most people probably care more than they'd like to admit. We've been conditioned to stare at conventionally attractive faces on our screens for our entire lives.

But if you concede that Person A is more aesthetically pleasing than Person B, then it remains an objective fact that a film featuring Person A is "better" in terms of pure visual appeal.

So, take your pick—decide for yourself whether that matters or not.

A - http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1458345728/nm0005109
B - http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3092154368/nm0221046

I actually really enjoyed this movie.

I love how the character played by Joseph G. L. is completely blind to what's right in front of him. He fails to see how sincere she actually is throughout the entire film, constantly twisting her words just to make things easier on himself because he's so head over heels for her. It happens in real life all the time—you might be seeing someone just for fun, never intending for it to become serious, but if they’re in love with you, they start reading hidden meanings into everything you say. They basically gaslight themselves just to cope. That’s what gives this film such a grounded, realistic edge for me; it’s a dynamic we've all either pulled on someone else or had pulled on us.

goldenhound32 said:It depends on the individual, I suppose. Though, if we're being honest, most people probably care more than they'd like to admit. We've been conditioned to stare at conventionally attractive faces on our screens for our entire lives.

But if you concede that Person A is more aesthetically pleasing than Person B, then it remains an objective fact that a film featuring Person A is "better" in terms of pure visual appeal.

So, take your pick—decide for yourself whether that matters or not.

A - http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1458345728/nm0005109
B - http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3092154368/nm0221046

Zooey has that natural girl-next-door vibe that works wonders for roles like this. She might not be the most stunning person physically at first glance, but her characters are way more intriguing, which makes them much more magnetic.

Honestly, though, none of this actually matters. Ugh, how gross would it be if he tried to play a "sexy guy" role? He wouldn't be half as convincing as Russell Brand or some other leading man. Who cares about looks when that's the case?