(500) Days Of Summer

(500) Days Of Summer

As summer is coming to a winding halt as we're now in August, perhaps it's time to talk about one of the best movies of not only this summer season, but of the year. (500) Days of Summer.

Perhaps I should come out and say that I'm on the company buck most times, but even though I'm a company man and this film is being released by Fox Searchlight, I have nothing to gain by promoting it and my interest to write this is simply because it's a great movie. But on a side note, Fox Searchlight has yet to give me a bad movie. They've got a great record and are the new Miramax. Check out the trailer by pressing play:



This film struck a chord with me. I mean, who won't it strike a chord with. Rest assured that if you've ever been "in love", you'll relate to one or both characters in this film. I suppose in my case it doesn't help that a lot of the places in the film are actual spots where I've taken the person I care for, the idea of the futility of the relationship really does come across.

The park bench that Tom sits at is right above Angel's Flight near the grand central market in Downtown. I love that location and the idea that I've passed it by to go up and play scrabble right above it to check out the same view of the city mixed in with the those oh so lovely parking structures just really had me relating to the character even more.



The Karaoke takes place at Red Wood. It's a Pirate themed bar. This is a bar where I've taken my Gal on one of our first dates. I still recall that night. Got a little token of that always in my mind. So yeah, this film, a film that makes L.A. one of it's major focuses, while it may strike those chords to everyone who had some emotional attachment to someone who may not have given them the same in return, the fact that it goes beyond that and relates on a specific note like that for me, maybe this film a bit more personal.

The film isn't a Romantic comedy. I'll be hesitant to call it that. It's an anti-romantic reality. Yes, it has some laughs here and there. While the film centers around Gordon-Levitt and his hopelessly in love emotions with a woman who doesn't believe in love, there's nothing in here that can be labeled a romantic comedy. It's quirky, funny and realistically portraying love from a guy's point of view that isn't often viewed from.



But guy or girl, the idea is that the film takes the viewpoint from the person who got side swiped by the news of a break up. It's the one who didn't see the writing on the wall till it was too late. The film has the same feeling that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind had. I would say that the film feels like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind tripped over Garden State and rolled down a hill. Don't worry, only the best parts of both films are showing by the time it got to the bottom of the hill.

Eternal Sunshine worked because it was about the futility of that type of relationship. You better enjoy the good times while they last. Eventually you'll be going through the cycles that the couple went through where you're repeating the same mistakes... which in reality aren't mistakes. They're just the two of you growing apart.



In both films you have the futility of expecting it to last forever and learning to enjoy the good times while they do last, then let go when it's time to move on. These messages will come out depending on how cynical you are, I suppose. But in either case you should take away the fact that the two of you have changed over time because of each other. Lessons learned about yourself because of this relationship.

That's the glass half full outlook on this. The relationship may be over, and unlike a typical romantic comedy, it's not going to be a stereotypical happy ending, you can still enjoy the time spent together. Remembering the good times as well as the bad. The film plays like a 20-something Annie Hall. The degeneration of a relationship and how we grow as a result of it. So there you go. Annie Hall and Eternal Sunshine with a slight twist of Garden State. Yup, it truly is an indie film.



The film had a lot of moments that showed both the sweet side and the sour side of a relationship. Yet ordered it so that it all seemed real without ever losing the humor. You get to see, in jumping cuts, how somethings that were once cute end up being annoying and on someone's nerve.

I like how the reasons for the break up aren't ever really explored. Nor are the initial reasons or explanation on how they got together/Tom won her heart. It just leaves it at Summer gets tired of Tom... or just tired of the relationship with Tom. It's not that there's any one reason. No one cheats on the other and there isn't some magical force preventing this love that is meant to be. In actuality, the feelings between the two are just that, feelings. And in life feelings are very often fleeting.



While she was into him and liked him, she was never on the same page as him in terms of what they wanted out of the relationship. Through the relationship she did change in her own way and did learn that there was actually love out there. In the beginning of the time line, the year and a half earlier, she didn't believe in anything remotely in love. And while it didn't work out between Tom and Summer, she did open herself up to the possibility of feeling it when it approached.

I got to talk to the first time film director/long time music video director and he admitted that every scene in this film minus two of them actually happened to him. And on a side note, he sent the script to the real life Summer to read, and the first thing she said was that she found herself relating so much to Tom while reading it.Go figure.



On to Tom, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is possibly one of the best young actors out there. After seeing his powerhouse performances in Mysterious Skin and Lookout, I'll watch anything he chooses to do. Wait a second, he's going to be Cobra Commander in the upcoming G.I. Joe flick. Can I take that statement back? He's got to have some balls to go from what has to be one of the best films of the year to what will be a fucking mess of a two hour toy commercial.

Then you have Zooey Deschanel who has an age-appropriate love interest?! Now I've seen it all. Though as cute as she is and as beautiful her eyes are, though from what I learned from THE HAPPENING is that even those beautiful eyes and quirky acting can save a bad movie. But what she makes up in the ability to save a bad movie, a skill that is not needed here, she does a wonderful job in bringing her voice. You see, Zooey has one hell of an amazing voice box as one half of the band SHE & HIM.



Then we get to the final character of the film. Los Angeles. You might not recognize it at first. I know it's easy to mistake for New York. This is why I've worked a lot on film productions in Downtown that were suppose to be set in New York. Downtown can fool you that way. I didn't realize that this film was going to be a film so in love with downtown Los Angeles. So that was a very nice surprise.

Like I said before, the Bench is a spot I've been to plenty of times before. I've walked down that pathway at the courthouse like he does. Though I don't recall ever dancing to Hall and Oates. Usually it's during Jury Duty. I have stood and admired a lot of the architecture, such as the Bradbury Building or the Dorothy Chandler. The love for LA was really the biggest thing that sealed the movie for me. It was nice to see downtown in a film that wasn't an action or cop movie.



My recommendation is to go see this film... Now. Even if it's not in wide release when you read this. Go find the local art house near you and watch this film. It's as good as Eternal Sunshine as well as realistic that it will touch on a nerve that you'll relate to the character. One of, if not THE best film of the year.

2012 - Just Another Day

2012 - Just Another Day

The time honored tragedy event film goes back a long way to the days of Earth Quake: The Movie and the Towering Infernal, we all love seeing shit blow up. It's why we still have Michael Bay films. So it's with honor that I bring you the latest Hollywood popcorn flick. Though I have to ask why these movies are called "Popcorn" movies? Don't you ever eat popcorn at other times? Do they only sell Gummy Bears during stuff like There Will Be Blood? Here's the latest poster for the turd



The Mayans, the oldest civilization in the world (except they're not), believed that the world will explode or time will stop or something in December 2012 (except they didn't). Based on this wonderful misinterpretation of history, we get another one of ol' Rollie's explodapaloozas, just in time for Thanksgiving.

So what's the story here? Have you never seen a Roland Emmerich movie? There will be three plot arcs. One will be the US President, valiantly trying to save the world. One will be the scientist who saw it all coming trying to get to him. And the third will involve a father searching for his kids or some shit. Let's break this down:

A divorced couple (John Cusack and Amanda Peet) reunites over the end of the world. (See: Jeff Goldblum, Independence Day.) It's the end of the world, and the President (Danny Glover) is played by an older black actor. (See: Morgan Freeman, Deep Impact.) Flaming asteroids are falling from the sky, and famous monuments are being destroyed. (See: New York, Paris, Armageddon.) Terrible science falls way to loads of CGI. (See: Roland Emmerich, The Day After Tomorrow.) Let's see the teaser:



But, released today, the full trailer for Roland Emmerich's next "masterpiece," 2012 is out, and boy does it look... fun?



Other than some impressive Special Effects (though a good portion of the SFX in the trailer looked pretty shitty) there's nothing here. I'm betting that it will be shit like every Emmerich movie that isn't Universal Soldier

Really? Waterships that the governments have been building for years? Shit Blows Up: The Movie is a much better title for this movie. You have to love the subtle symbolism in that Sistine Chapel scene of the trailer. It's just brilliant. It's just missing someone saying "Oh my God!".

I wonder if there will be a professor or scientist with no respect in their field predicts this Armageddon and tries to warn the President. Damn. Will there at least be a stubborn government official who demands no one listen to this science rockstar's tomfoolery, losing perspective as it becomes a matter of personal honor?

The comments in the youtube section are great.

This movie is actually being funded by the US government. They wanted to release a Field Manual for 2012, to help people survive but it was thought that it would cause a panic. So they're releasing it disguised as a movie.

I bet somebody could make a movie about the crazy theories people ramble on about in a comments section.

Was there a shot of a helicopter carrying a Giraffe? Is this retelling of Noah's ark? Actually, the primary sign of the apocalypse is people spontaneously acting out Operation: Dumbo Drop with all sorts of different animals.

I have to say this movie looks hilarious. It's like a final attempt at claiming apocalyptic Hollywood glory by throwing every ridiculous, incomprehensible disaster scenario together with a probably sure to be nonsensical plot. Is there a single creative aspect of this film at all? No. there isn't. Well, I guess you get to see the white house getting smashed by a ship. I don't think they've done that one yet. Otherwise it's the same ol' shit.

You know what made Independence Day good? A massive wall of flame swooping towards a gay man with an incredible raspy voice who says "oh crap." It didn't take itself too seriously. That and just about every Will Smith line is great: "Welcome to Earf" / "Now that's what I call a close encounter." / "I have GOT to get me one of these!"

So the ending of this movie is going to be about how the world doesn't actually end, right? Which de-fangs the whole premise and that's only after the trailer. Or would Emmerich actually have the balls to make a movie where everybody dies?

I can't wait till this movie comes out so for the next two years The History Channel can make comparisons between "real life" history and this movie. "In 2009 Roland Emmerich debuted his hit feature film '2012', but how far from the truth was he?!" What happens to the History channel after 2012 comes and goes, with nothing going wrong?

I love how Roland Emmerich has built a career out of blowing up the Earth. While others are trying to save the world or go green, he's always trying to see new ways to blow up the world and of course, find a new way to destroy the white house. keep on truckin' Roland Emmerich.

Tickets To The Adventure Land

Tickets To The AdventureLand

I have to say, I really didn't have all that much interest in seeing Adventureland when it showed up in theaters. Sure, it's from the writer of Superbad, but the trailers weren't grabbing me or anything like that.

Then on an impromptu movie outing I discovered not only the new and improved west side pavilion theater, which I hadn't been to since I was pretty young. I believe it was Alvin and the Chipmunks that I saw there, but I also saw Adventureland.

First off, I have to say, the theater itself is a great change. What was once a very crappy mall movie theater got changed over to a really amazing multi-level movie complex with great choices of dinning. The seating and theater size is rather small and comfy with couches and bean bag chairs. It's like Arclight but bumped up a few notches making it a very relaxing movie experience.



On this whim of a movie trip I saw Adventureland and was absolutely blown away at how good it was and how much I enjoyed it. Even going so far as thinking it was one of my favorite movies of 2009.

So what made this movie stand out? Well, perhaps it was because Adventureland is a movie about the American class system. It was all about the characters. Consider the main characters and what classes they occupy as the movie progresses:

James: James is an undergrad in a degree program with no real-world application, who plans on living a summer of luxury and discovery in Europe before going off to a prestigious Ivy League school. This is the life of the upper-middle class. His plans are thwarted as his father is demoted, and he loses the capital ability to do this. Instead he's forced to move back to the lower-middle-class suburbs of his youth and take a low respect job doing menial and degrading work so he can pay his own way into a state school.

Eric: James' friend, who gets three (at most) scenes of screen-time, although is pivotal to the plot. Eric plays at being a disaffected artist, and does so on his parents' upper-middle class salaries. He gives James the universal key to acceptance, however, a big bag of marijuana as a token gift when he learns that his friend will be living with reduced means. At the end of the movie Eric decides that, there being no money in being a disaffected artist, to instead go into business school, maintaining his upper-middle class status.



Em: James' love interest. She comes from a strong middle-class background. She's dissatisfied with her new mother (literally a fake person because of the wig that she wears) who she sees as gold-digging and status-grabbing. Her father, a lawyer, is able to maintain a very comfortable standard of living for them, enough for a private pool, a nice house, entertaining guests at a cocktail party, and for his daughter to live and go to school in New York. Em rebels against this, choosing the low-class job at Adventureland, seemingly to spite her step-mother.

Joel: Joel, by his own admission, is 'poor and ugly', and the audience never has reason to doubt either. Joel's life is one of dissatisfaction ameliorated by his love for the written word. He is able to climb in social status, if not in reality, then at least in his own mind.

Mike: Mike, Em's married love interest, is lower-middle class. He maintains a skilled job as a mechanic, but it's not a position that commands respect or much beyond a living wage. Mike lives in fantasy - he imagines that he's a great musician, a tortured artist, who will one day make it big. He fools impressionable girls with this line (although maybe not) and abuses their naivety for sexual release.



If you go through the characters you can see where the script and the direction has given us subtle clues to their own economic and social means. Lisa P's father is a miner who is on disability. Frigo is the same age as James, lives with his mother, and drives their barely-running car.

One common theme with all of the characters listed above is their desperate desire to break free of their class. Either through rebellion, and flirting with the lower classes (Em and Eric), or through meaningless fantasy (Mike and Joel).



What is a story of a workplace if not a story of advancement or demotion? These are the logical conclusions to a story about a job - you excell at it or you leave it. But there is no upwards or downwards movement in any of these characters. The 'townies' at Adventureland are where they were before the action of the story started, and for all the audience can tell that's where they'll remain. Em and James, the two characters with the most ability to move, seem to have adapted to this bohemian, outside-the-system lifestyle, but the director makes us doubt how valid this conclusion is. And Eric, the man on top, remains there, and goes to business school to make sure that's where he stays.

At the end of the movie there isn't really any release for any of the characters. We part with James and Em coupling in a squalid apartment in NYC, James vowing to get a shitty job and do whatever it takes to be with Em. But at the end of the day, despite these bohemian pretensions, Em can move back in with her father and James can move back in with his parents. Both can get middle class jobs, and keep on with life as their parents had lived it.



James and Em's love is suspect throughout the script, and the ending leaves no reassurance that their relationship will be a happy one.

There is one important constant through all of these characters, regardless of their social standing: drugs.

James, a cringing and awkward person, is able to buy acceptance with his big bag of pot. James' father copes with his demotion through a beautifully subtle drinking problem. Every class in the movie is shown drinking or smoking at some point - their way of dealing with the nauseating class system that none of them seem to want, but all are forced to accept.



This stuff is what I enjoyed about the flick. All of the chracters are mostly constructed from stereotypes. They are stereotypes that we know well and all these subtle clues are used to fill us in on the backgrounds of the characters without hitting us over the head with their life stories. We don't need to be told that Mike is mostly full of shit, becuase we have probably all met a Mike in our life. What we do want is something to nail down which version of "that guy" Mike is supposed to be.

So yeah, in a nutshell, that's Adventureland. A fun flick and while I hated Twilight, I didn think that Kristen Stewart did a decent job at acting in this film. So hey, that's a plus one to it. But I must say that Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader seriously needed to be in more of this film.

The "GI Joe" Movie Is Everything Wrong With American Foreign Policy

The "G.I. Joe" Movie Is Everything Wrong With American Foreign Policy


Hell yeah, America! Back to where it belongs -- deploying military units accountable to no one and contemptuous towards any attempt at oversight. So far we have:

1. toppling of a major French monument (naturally we have to save France again, weaklings)
2. a covert military unit that doesn't have to answer to anyone
we answer to no one *slides on sunglasses*


Fuck you geneva conventions, you pansy faggots

I know. It would be pretty boring and anti-summer blockbuster rules if G.I. Joe needed to go and solve the issue with soft power, the whole movie would be them getting approvals from different government agency's to ok the use in language that goes into the letter they send Cobra. Then at the end the pace really picks up when they only have 24 hours to come up with a presentation to give the UN.

Then the trailer says that it's from the director of The Mummy like that's something to be proud of. G.I. Jane is a better movie and I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that it was a lot more awesome than The Mummy. But hey, we do get a Brandon Fraiser cameo as shipwreck. Everyone's favorite G.I. Joe village people character. Stephen Sommers should be castrated for Van Helsing. That seriously was one piece of shit film.

Besides, We already had a GREAT G.I. Joe movie with an awesome intro


I'm not even complaining because of nostalgic reasons. I'm sure if I saw that in anything these days I would spew out my liberal nonsense. I guess I just don't think there's a reason to bring G.I. Joe into the real world. Who wants to see G.I. Joe strap a car battery to an iraqi taxi driver's balls. This will be another one of those movies the manchildren will heap scorn on while it goes on to earn hundreds of millions of dollars and they go hunting for all the action figures at Target and Wal-Mart anyway, right?

Though opening weekend they will pay money for the midnight showing and mash "10" with their cheetos-encrusted fingers on IMDB before heading off to GameFAQs to express how "OMG EPIC" the movie was. Then a year later it'll be back to whining, crying and complaining about how nobody takes children's IPs seriously like they do in between sips of their Mountain Dew.



Kind of like Transformers all over again. And kind of like Transformers, we wont know what the fuck is happening on the screen. I mean, what the hell is going on in that street scene. Jesus christ I can't make heads or tales of what is flipping around. I assume it's snake eyes and storm shadow but still... can't they make it look at least understandable.

Both franchises were pretty much half hour commercials to buy toys. Oh yeah, they also provided helpful life lessons in every episode.



The coolest thing to do with GI Joe action figures was to break them into pieces and then use their parts to create or repair other GI Joes. I would both love and hate my G.I. Joe action figures. Maybe it was because I paid my Dad a couple of weeks of allowances to mail away for some special Cobra Commander and Joe helicopters and THEY.NEVER.CAME! Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure he never actually sent it away and used the money to buy some pot.

I guess I'm going to have to see this movie the same way I would approach having angry sex with a conservative. Just go full on it with bitter hate and hope there's some enjoyment out of it. Otherwise I wont have anything to see during the summer. It's all either Old TV made to film or sequels. Even the shitty summer movies this year are especially terrible.


Dennis Quad's agent is only allowed to read bad scripts

The Superbowl sure did show off a lot of crappy movies that will make millions waste a lot of money. At least The Dark Knight's political message was fighting terror with terrorism only creates more terrorism. G.I. Joe on the other hand, decided to extend their reach into a fully international unit, not an American/NATO one anymore.

I give Cobra credit. Taking out the Eiffel tower? Well played. Sure, Team America already did it, and some would say BETTER. It's no acid burn, but the Eiffel tower seriously needs to be replaced with something better looking. It's like a precursor to the terrible architecture of the mid to late 20th century. Fuck Brutalism and bring back art deco.


Ray Park.. because going to convention to convention selling Star Wars autographs is far worse terrorism.

Seeing it fall on screen should be a reminder that the eiffel tower was just a giant dick built up to make up for the french getting destroyed by the Germans. Oh, also a way for eiffel to rob the government.

I always liked how G. I. Joe was a self-depreciating nickname American soldiers gave themselves because their commanding officers considered them interchangeable and expendable, and the WWII propaganda machine turned it into a cutesy "our good ol' boys" thing.


Hell. To. The. YES!

So on one hand it's thinly veiled propaganda, and a crass attempt to cash in on the public's nostalgia for 80's saturday morning cartoons. and on the other hand, sienna miller in pvc psuedo-dominatrix gear. I can tell you one thing. Sienna Miller is way more attractive than Osama Bin Laden could ever hope to be. So on that aspect alone, I think the terrorist have won at being extremely sexy.

One thing is for certain, Redheads are never something wrong with American foreign policy or anything... ever.