500 Days of Summer (2009)

Roger Allen3 said: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?

Hmm... I suppose it depends on whether we are talking about the initial "marketing appeal" used to sell the movie, or how the film actually holds up once you've sat through both of them.

It's like saying an iPhone 4 looks better than an HTC Desire, even though the Desire absolutely crushes it when it comes to actual performance.

In my humble opinion, Zooey Deschanel is a thousand times better looking than Mila Kunis.

Not that I see how that relates to "Days of Summer," though. 🙏

Back to the movie itself. I had high expectations, I got most of what I wanted, and I can't bring myself to agree with Michael Ortiz68 that the film lacks originality... because it doesn't. It actually moves the needle.

Oh, come on, you picked such a mediocre photo of her. Regardless, I see them as two entirely different vibes of beauty. To me, Mila is sexy in that way, whereas Zooey is just sweeter.
And did you guys actually know that Zooey and Bones from that show are sisters? Seriously, they're sisters.

Also, I have to disagree with the claim that the movie lacks originality. On the contrary, if you ask me...

Zooey is absolutely adorable, and I can never get enough of watching movies starring her. Mila Kunis has her own kind of charm too, though it hits differently.
This movie is top-tier

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.

Do you honestly believe there's a 13-year-old girl hiding behind my username who needs the actors to be "cute" for a movie to be good? 😕

And where are you getting the idea that most people care about whether the actors are attractive? On this forum, on IMDb boards, or in real life, I have never heard anyone cite physical attractiveness as a primary reason for watching or enjoying a film.

That said, I agree with Roger Allen3 and Joshua Smith5—Zooey is more attractive than Mila. 😛

@Roger Allen3: I preferred FSM because it managed to push through a convincing story about falling in love via a solid comedy. I actually felt a connection to the characters. 🤷
With u 500 dos, everything felt forced; there was such an obvious struggle to make the movie "sweet," but I just couldn't connect with anyone on screen.
I don't like the film for the reasons I've already laid out in two previous posts, and I have no desire to repeat myself. To be clear, I'm not some cynic who hates romance movies. Quite the opposite—I love them. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one of my all-time favorites. I really wanted to like u 500 dos, but it just didn't happen. I even watched it with my girlfriend, complete with popcorn and a Tomislav beer. 😁

Joshua Smith5 said:In my humble opinion, Zooey Deschanel is a thousand times better looking than Mila Kunis.

Not that I see how that relates to "Days of Summer," though. 🙏

Back to the movie itself. I had high expectations, I got most of what I wanted, and I can't bring myself to agree with Michael Ortiz68 that the film lacks originality... because it doesn't. It actually moves the needle.

All 5s here. Just out of curiosity—what specifically did you find original about the film (aside from perhaps the split screen mentioned by goldenhound32)?

I'm right there with goldenhound32. I’d argue the movie is original only in its perspective, though I mean that in a different sense—it actively tries to dismantle the pop culture myths we've all been fed, much like the protagonist,
. This works perfectly because it's mirrored by the narrator's role. Quote : soundtrack is flawless; the music is just as vital a component as anything else here, as sound serves as a crucial dimension that shapes the entire cinematic experience.
Just as the film suggests that loneliness is underrated, I will go as far as to say that originality is overrated. Honestly, just knowing those words doesn't prove a thing.
The same goes for "innovation." Just because something is new or groundbreaking doesn't automatically make it good. I think we all realize that being "original" isn't actually a metric for quality. Personally, I have very little respect for those who
use that label too loosely just to signal their own creativity. It feels cheap, and using such shallow criteria is frankly pointless.

On another note, I think Zooey is more attractive than Mila, though that certainly doesn't mean I don't recognize Mila's beauty. I often see people bring up the "beauty argument" as if it's some insignificant factor, but I don't see how you can arrive at such a conclusion
under any logical framework. At the end of the day, film is an art form with aesthetic values that aren't achieved by accident or without effort. Beauty is a rare talent, and we shouldn't dismiss or downplay it.
That said, we shouldn't trivialize beauty or try to box it into rigid categories, because that's exactly how true beauty fades away.

Cheers, 😁

Ronald Morales51;30309075 said:... because he’s essentially trying to dismantle the entire pop culture mythos we've all been fed, much like the protagonist does.

What specific pop culture myth is this movie trying to deconstruct?

What makes a narrator’s role truly perfect?

I’m glad you brought that up. Honestly, that amelie-wannaba narrator might just be the most grating and utterly pointless part of the entire movie.

Quote : soundtrack is flawless. Music is just as vital a characteristic of cinema as the visuals themselves; sound is a critical dimension that fundamentally shapes the entire cinematic experience.

Make no mistake, the soundtrack is flawless. 😳

So, we have something "new" on our hands. Let's get one thing straight: just because something is original or groundbreaking doesn't mean it's actually any good. Novelty isn't a metric for quality.

I agree with that sentiment—a movie doesn't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel to be good. However, my take is that this one was clearly aiming for innovation, and in my eyes, it just didn't quite land.

Cheers.😁

Cheers to you too, Ronald Morales51. Try not to freeze to death up there in Norway. 👋

When I talk about myths, I’m thinking along the lines of endless love, soulmates, and that whole concept of "true love."

I actually really liked the narrator. Personally, I don't mind when movies use a narrator, and I especially appreciate that they didn't feel forced or overly stylized.

I have to agree with you regarding the film's effort. In my experience, trying too hard to be an "indie alternative" or striving for a certain uniqueness often ends up feeling pretentious—which is how I read the movie you mentioned. However, I wouldn't call that a flaw.
Instead, I see it as just a staple of that kind of culture and the way they express themselves.

Norway, my love—something everyone seems to know about.😬
Sending my best to you in the most beautiful city in the world, hmm.😁

Michael Ortiz68 said:Do you honestly believe there's a 13-year-old girl hiding behind my username who needs the actors to be "cute" for a movie to be good? 😕

And where are you getting the idea that most people care about whether the actors are attractive? On this forum, on IMDb boards, or in real life, I have never heard anyone cite physical attractiveness as a primary reason for watching or enjoying a film.

That said, I agree with Roger Allen3 and Joshua Smith5—Zooey is more attractive than Mila. 😛

@Roger Allen3: I preferred FSM because it managed to push through a convincing story about falling in love via a solid comedy. I actually felt a connection to the characters. 🤷
With u 500 dos, everything felt forced; there was such an obvious struggle to make the movie "sweet," but I just couldn't connect with anyone on screen.
I don't like the film for the reasons I've already laid out in two previous posts, and I have no desire to repeat myself. To be clear, I'm not some cynic who hates romance movies. Quite the opposite—I love them. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one of my all-time favorites. I really wanted to like u 500 dos, but it just didn't happen. I even watched it with my girlfriend, complete with popcorn and a Tomislav beer. 😁

All 5s here. Just out of curiosity—what specifically did you find original about the film (aside from perhaps the split screen mentioned by goldenhound32)?

Well, what is actually original these days? Even the split screen concept has definitely been used before (though perhaps not in this specific expectations vs. reality format).

But when Hollywood delivers a rom-com that is anything but a rom-com—when it tells you in the first minute that this isn't a love story, that it's just "boy meets girl, boy falls in love, girl doesn't"—I’d say that takes some guts. It’s an authorial choice to reject the average Joe audience right out of the gate, people who spend the whole film hoping it's just a writer's trick and that they'll end up together... only to find out they don't.

Regarding the split screen and the gap between expectation and reality, I'd argue that the 500 Days of Summer is also, in my opinion, just 500 days of Tom's version of events—the perspective of a man so head over heels he only sees what he wants to see...

Tom is the focal point. Summer doesn't have friends she talks to about him; she's just a force of nature that drifts in and out of his life. I don't think that was an accidental choice by the writers or the director....

The more I think about "(500) Days of Summer," the more I actually like it.

Ronald Morales51 said:When I talk about myths, I’m thinking along the lines of endless love, soulmates, and that whole concept of "true love."

I actually really liked the narrator. Personally, I don't mind when movies use a narrator, and I especially appreciate that they didn't feel forced or overly stylized.

I have to agree with you regarding the film's effort. In my experience, trying too hard to be an "indie alternative" or striving for a certain uniqueness often ends up feeling pretentious—which is how I read the movie you mentioned. However, I wouldn't call that a flaw.
Instead, I see it as just a staple of that kind of culture and the way they express themselves.

Norway, my love—something everyone seems to know about.😬
Sending my best to you in the most beautiful city in the world, hmm.😁

It doesn't even bother me that much in this specific movie. Pixies and The Smiths became mainstream pop culture staples ages ago. It would actually feel way more pretentious and forced if they had used a shared love for some hip Pitchfork band that nobody has ever heard of and that they supposedly listened to before going mainstream.

I wasn't a fan of 500 Days of Summer either. The first thirty or forty minutes were alright, but as it dragged on, I just got more and more frustrated—honestly, I wanted to yell at everyone involved in making it. I remember starting to roll my eyes the second she began acting out in that dive bar while some idiot was drunkenly singing Pixies songs... something about love or commitment, I can't quite recall.

And seriously, enough with the split-screen talk and how "innovative" it is. You’d think someone might actually walk away thinking they invented the concept... 😂

Also, I don't really follow goldenhound32's logic regarding how we're all just used to looking at pretty faces... 🤷

Mark Wood79 said:I wasn't a fan of 500 Days of Summer either. The first thirty or forty minutes were alright, but as it dragged on, I just got more and more frustrated—honestly, I wanted to yell at everyone involved in making it. I remember starting to roll my eyes the second she began acting out in that dive bar while some idiot was drunkenly singing Pixies songs... something about love or commitment, I can't quite recall.

And seriously, enough with the split-screen talk and how "innovative" it is. You’d think someone might actually walk away thinking they invented the concept... 😂

Also, I don't really follow goldenhound32's logic regarding how we're all just used to looking at pretty faces... 🤷

I haven't seen it used taj like that anywhere... if you have, send me a link.
thanks.

I don't get what goldenhound32 means when they say we're used to looking at pretty faces...🤷

Fine, go ahead—list some Hollywood actresses under 40 who aren't attractive. When I say they aren't attractive, I mean the general consensus is that they aren't, not subjective takes like "I personally don't find Angelina Jolie that great." I'm talking people like Kathy Griffin.🙂

When I mention that we've become accustomed to seeing it, my point is that movies are mostly packed with beautiful women (and men, depending on whether we're discussing Hollywood or Europe).

Does anyone disagree?

goldenhound32 said:I haven't seen it used taj like that anywhere... if you have, send me a link.
thanks.

I don't get what goldenhound32 means when they say we're used to looking at pretty faces...🤷

Fine, go ahead—list some Hollywood actresses under 40 who aren't attractive. When I say they aren't attractive, I mean the general consensus is that they aren't, not subjective takes like "I personally don't find Angelina Jolie that great." I'm talking people like Kathy Griffin.🙂

When I mention that we've become accustomed to seeing it, my point is that movies are mostly packed with beautiful women (and men, depending on whether we're discussing Hollywood or Europe).

Does anyone disagree?

In what sense? I don't recall that scene. At least tell me roughly what minute mark it's at.

Mark Wood79 said:In what sense? I don't recall that scene. At least tell me roughly what minute mark it's at.

I'd be happy to, but I don't have the movie handy right now.😢

goldenhound32 said:I haven't seen it used taj like that anywhere... if you have, send me a link.
thanks.

I don't get what goldenhound32 means when they say we're used to looking at pretty faces...🤷

Fine, go ahead—list some Hollywood actresses under 40 who aren't attractive. When I say they aren't attractive, I mean the general consensus is that they aren't, not subjective takes like "I personally don't find Angelina Jolie that great." I'm talking people like Kathy Griffin.🙂

When I mention that we've become accustomed to seeing it, my point is that movies are mostly packed with beautiful women (and men, depending on whether we're discussing Hollywood or Europe).

Does anyone disagree?

I don't have a single favorite actress, but I do have two favorite actors whose films I will rush to watch solely because of their sheer brilliance.

and

Do you honestly think these people are good-looking? And keep in mind, they aren't being cast by some indie studio in Europe; it's Hollywood. 😲

But that's beside the point. You're claiming:

...the actors in FSM are better looking. But again, I think this is the better movie. but anyway, this one is a better film.

As if it were a given that FSM would be superior just because the cast is more attractive. I suppose for you, an actor's looks carry significant weight when evaluating a film. To each their own. 🤷

@Michael Ortiz68
You’re certainly not showing any signs of being an expert here. 😢
If you were actually talking about those two, I could personally vouch for a fleet of stunning Hollywood leading men.

And honestly, can we please just accept once and for all that how attractive an actor is doesn't matter to me when I sit down for a movie? Good grief... I only spoke up because Roger Allen3 mentioned that Doss is basically FSM in every possible sense. I would have reacted with the exact same level of indifference if someone had claimed Russell Brand kept a skeleton-shaped ashtray at FSM. He doesn't.

Joshua Smith5 said:Well, what is actually original these days? Even the split screen concept has definitely been used before (though perhaps not in this specific expectations vs. reality format).

But when Hollywood delivers a rom-com that is anything but a rom-com—when it tells you in the first minute that this isn't a love story, that it's just "boy meets girl, boy falls in love, girl doesn't"—I’d say that takes some guts. It’s an authorial choice to reject the average Joe audience right out of the gate, people who spend the whole film hoping it's just a writer's trick and that they'll end up together... only to find out they don't.

Regarding the split screen and the gap between expectation and reality, I'd argue that the 500 Days of Summer is also, in my opinion, just 500 days of Tom's version of events—the perspective of a man so head over heels he only sees what he wants to see...

Tom is the focal point. Summer doesn't have friends she talks to about him; she's just a force of nature that drifts in and out of his life. I don't think that was an accidental choice by the writers or the director....

The more I think about "(500) Days of Summer," the more I actually like it.

Exactly...
Honestly, I’d much rather see someone take classic ideas and give them a warm, fun spin like this movie did, instead of people trying way too hard to be original just for the sake of it, only to end up making something totally unwatchable 😬
...

Michael Ortiz68 said:Do you honestly believe there's a 13-year-old girl hiding behind my username who needs the actors to be "cute" for a movie to be good? 😕

And where are you getting the idea that most people care about whether the actors are attractive? On this forum, on IMDb boards, or in real life, I have never heard anyone cite physical attractiveness as a primary reason for watching or enjoying a film.

That said, I agree with Roger Allen3 and Joshua Smith5—Zooey is more attractive than Mila. 😛

@Roger Allen3: I preferred FSM because it managed to push through a convincing story about falling in love via a solid comedy. I actually felt a connection to the characters. 🤷
With u 500 dos, everything felt forced; there was such an obvious struggle to make the movie "sweet," but I just couldn't connect with anyone on screen.
I don't like the film for the reasons I've already laid out in two previous posts, and I have no desire to repeat myself. To be clear, I'm not some cynic who hates romance movies. Quite the opposite—I love them. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one of my all-time favorites. I really wanted to like u 500 dos, but it just didn't happen. I even watched it with my girlfriend, complete with popcorn and a Tomislav beer. 😁

All 5s here. Just out of curiosity—what specifically did you find original about the film (aside from perhaps the split screen mentioned by goldenhound32)?

that is the problem 😁

Roger Allen3 said:that is the problem 😁

Tomislav, beer is king 🙂 😁

Joshua Smith5 said: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.

Can someone—for the love of God—give me a rough definition of what a hipster actually is? I mean, come on, please. 😁
Are hipsters only into The Smiths because they love them? Or maybe it’s just because Summer doesn't look like some overdone, sun-baked mess straight out of a tanning salon—you know what I mean?
I’m actually really curious—what makes you label them as hipsters? And why exactly do you think that's such a bad thing? 🍿

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.

I mean, I thought it was honestly so sweet when he was drawing on her hand like that.
It’s like drawing buildings right inside your own apartment—you know, that feeling where you're just sketching out entire skylines from your living room sofa. 😍

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.

🙄

Isn't that just how things usually go in life? I mean, isn't it always like that?
I think that’s exactly why the movie hits so hard—it’s just so realistic. It captures how we all tend to make these huge mistakes when we convince ourselves someone is "the one," only to have everything flip 180 degrees in the end anyway. It's kind of a gut punch, honestly.
If you head over to the Lonely Hearts subforum, you'll see plenty of threads where people are venting about how they tried to "fix" their partners—or, you know, how their partners were trying to do the exact same thing to them.
This kind of stuff happens every single day—which, I guess, is exactly why I ended up loving the movie even more.
He managed to lay out some pretty real-life situations—and he did it in such a charming way, too. 🙂

goldenhound32 said: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?

That part was honestly brilliant. 😍 Especially those scenes at IKEA and that "penis" scene in the park. 🤣 😍