Mixed Feelings: Loving and Hating Romantic Comedies, Part Two

Warning: The following "spoils" the ending of Leap Year, 27 Dresses and The Holiday. I'm sorry if it shocks you.

At the end of the last romantic comedy-related post I wrote, I suggested that I should skip out on the romantic comedies that I know will be completely predictable and practically devoid of any reality whatsoever. I didn't follow my own advice, and I recently found myself watching Leap Year. My curiosity was piqued by the setting in Ireland, the presence of Matthew Goode (who actually gives good performances in non-romantic comedies A Single Man and Brideshead Revisited) and the use of a newer song by Snow Patrol (one of my favorite bands), "Just Say Yes," in the trailer. It is also directed by Anand Tucker, who I thought did a good job with Shopgirl. But now I'm thinking that might've just been due to the involvement of Steve Martin.

Leap Year is pretty much your standard modern Hollywood romantic comedy: a neurotic, control-freak female lead finds herself in the company of a pessimistic male lead who is really romantic but is insanely heartbroken. He senses this caricature of a woman could help him overcome said heartbreak, especially after she has a scene or two where she "lets her hair down." She is not interested in him, at least at the beginning. By the end of the movie, they are inseparable. If you take the title and replace it with any major romantic comedy released in the last few years, you can see how ridiculous and recycled these plot lines are. (The best examples I can think of are 27 Dresses and the Cameron Diaz-Jude Law storyline in The Holiday.) The only major difference is that Leap Year is set in Ireland.

I might start to refer to this as When Harry Met Sally syndrome. I love that movie. It is truly an original story about love, and is probably the romantic comedy that originated that general storyline I mentioned above. To me, it seems like writers, directors and studios are repeatedly trying to recreate the film, and they fail pretty much every time - if not financially, most certainly critically.

I think that the most common problem is that these modern stories are just boiling it down to sweeping romantic moments and are not doing a very good job of filling in the gaps. Romantic relationships need romance and passion, but the two characters also need to have some sort of deeper connection to bond them. The Casablanca phone call scene in When Harry Met Sally is a perfect example of that. There might be a tinge of romance to the scene, but it's about these two people connecting through the movie and other bits of information that circle around their conversation about and viewing of Casablanca. The inclusion of the line, "I think this is going to be the beginning of a beautiful friendship," into the narrative of When Harry Met Sally is essential and it comes off without being incredibly cheesy and obvious (see the story Matthew Goode's character tells Amy Adams' character in the castle in Leap Year).

To end on a high note, I'll leave you with the sequence I described, which only constitutes the first three and a half minutes of the following clip.

Ratings

Leap Year: 1.5 (out of 5)

When Harry Met Sally: 4.5

27 Dresses: 2

The Holiday: 3.5 (rating elevated due to Kate Winslet-Jack Black-Eli Wallach storyline; Cameron Diaz-Jude Law alone would likely receive a 2)

Mixed Feelings: Loving and Hating Romantic Comedies

Disclaimer: I know I'm not the first person to complain about realism in mainstream romantic comedies and I know I won't be the last. I just wanted to get another voice out there. Also, as a spoiler alert, you shouldn't read this if you haven't seen (and want to see) 500 Days of Summer and When Harry Met Sally, as I write about their endings.

I recently acquired both 500 Days of Summer and When Harry Met Sally, two of my favorite films, or romantic comedies to be specific, on DVD. I watched them back to back, and two days later, I found myself seeing Valentine's Day, the latest generic Hollywood romantic comedy to hit the big screen. I chose it because I wanted to watch something new, but I wanted it to be a "lighter" film, as opposed to the "heavier" foreign films (The White Ribbon, A Prophet, etc.) I'm eager to see before the Oscars. I definitely got what I was looking for, but I think I would have felt better about myself if I had gone with one of the aforementioned foreign films. It was pretty much as light as they come, with no real nuance or realism akin to that which I found myself engulfed in only two nights earlier with my own double feature.

500 Days of Summer doesn't have a stereotypically happy ending (it's not exactly depressing though either), and When Harry Met Sally, while the story leading up to the ending is fairly original (especially for 1989), does manage to slide in to the happy ending pile. Although, as I discovered by watching some of the bonus features on the Collector's Edition DVD, the original script didn't see Harry and Sally becoming romantically involved at the end of the film. I personally would have rather seen that ending; while the whole New Year's climax is romantic, I do think it would be nice to see a "friend-mance" on the big screen between a straight male and a straight female that doesn't end up turning sexual or romantic. When I was a little girl, and even as I've grown up (a little), I've always fantasized about having great friends over great romance. I know that might be considered ridiculous or blasphemous to some, but it's the truth. So I would just like to see that reflected on the big screen.

Or, at the very least, I would like to see more stories similar to 500 Days of Summer and Annie Hall (another personal favorite movie/romantic comedy), which both go through the ups and downs of relationships, which I find to be a hell of a lot more realistic than a movie where almost every character winds up getting what they want or need, even if it's not the same as what they wanted or needed at the beginning of the movie.

Some people go to the movies for escapism (and I can occasionally be included in that group), but I mostly go to see life reflected or to be inspired by life lived. As far as romantic comedies go, Annie Hall and When Harry Met Sally are the touchstones for the latter, and 500 Days of Summer and Away We Go (my favorite film/romantic comedy of 2009) are the most recent examples. I would rewatch them instead of seeing pretty much any of the mainstream Hollywood romantic comedies released in the last few years, and after watching Valentine's Day, I realize that's what I should've done.

Ratings

Valentine's Day: 1 (out of 5)

500 Days of Summer: 4.5

When Harry Met Sally: 4.5

Annie Hall: 5

Away We Go: 5

Happy Birthday to Joseph Gordon-Levitt (and Me)

Over the last few years, with IMDb's "Born Today" feature on its home page and the rise of Wikipedia and its pages with lists of famous birthdays by date, it has become more common for everyone to discover with what famous people they have birthdays in common. My "group" includes some rather disappointing and embarrassing public figures, including director Michael Bay, "socialite" Paris Hilton and comedian Larry the Cable Guy. Perhaps the most notable famous person (to me) that I share a birthday with is the actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is exactly five years older than me. (Actor Hal Holbrook and singer Billie Joe Armstrong are my runners-up.)

Through my own observations and conversations, I have noted that a lot of people find actors around their own age that they love as kids and, in a way, grow up alongside. For me, Gordon-Levitt also fits that bill. From his early parts as "Student #1" in Beethoven, "Young Norman" in A River Runs Through It and smaller roles on TV shows like "Quantum Leap" and "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman" through his early leading roles as a child actor in Angels in the Outfield and Holy Matrimony to his series regular role as Tommy Solomon on the TV show "3rd Rock from the Sun," he seemed to pop up in quite a few places throughout my childhood. As "3rd Rock" started to wrap up, Gordon-Levitt took on more film roles, including 10 Things I Hate About You and Manic. Going from 10 Things to Manic marked a transition from lighter, more comedic, supporting roles to darker, more dramatic, leading roles. His strong leading performances in Mysterious Skin, Brick, The Lookout and 500 Days of Summer have helped him slowly make a name for himself as one of the best actors of his generation.

In an arena (somewhat) outside of his acting career, Gordon-Levitt has also taken to the internet to start hitRECord.org, which combines social networking and filmmaking to help create multi-layered and intensely original projects, or records, as they are referred to on the site. I first took notice of hitRECord shortly before 2009's 500 Days of Summer was released in theaters, but it's been around for about five years now, and was featured as an exhibition in the New Frontier section of the Sundance Film Festival a few weeks ago.

Gordon-Levitt will next be seen alongside Natalie Portman in the Sundance film Hesher and in director Christopher Nolan's Inception, which I previously noted as the film I'm most looking forward to in 2010. I hope he does a musical next or sometime in the near future, especially after the dance sequence in 500 Days of Summer, the Bank Dance video that accompanied the film and his enthusiastic performance of "Make 'Em Laugh" on a recent episode of "Saturday Night Live." Here's the dance sequence, set to the tune of Hall & Oates' "You Make My Dreams Come True":

Finding Inspiration in Preservation

"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other, and to ourselves." -Martin Scorsese

To most filmgoers, Martin Scorsese is known for two things - his incredible body of work as a filmmaker and his trademark bushy eyebrows. To cinephiles, Scorsese is an icon for those things and his work as a film preservationist. The mass audience got a taste of this during his acceptance speech for the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes in January.

/Film excerpted part of his speech: "As far as I’m concerned, making films and preserving them are the same thing. In this room, none of us who make films and watch them would be here without the people who came here before us. Whether it’s DeMille, Hitchcock, the Senegalese filmmaker [Ousmane] Sembène, Kurosawa or John Ford, de Sica, Bergman, Satiajit Ray, we’re all walking in their footsteps every day, all of us… [DeMille] made these pictures for us, the audience, so we could live in their wonders. He was there from the beginning, when films were born. He helped create the narrative style and language that we use today, shaped film as an art form, as a business, and as a mythical landscape. He led the way for all of us. When we look at his films, or Hitchcock or Kubrick, we all remember that motion pictures are part of a continuum, a living, ongoing history. And for me to be a part of all that, well… I thank you, and I thank you so much." The full video of his speech can be found here.

Scorsese's sheer knowledge of the history of film is quite outstanding and if you can get your hands on a copy of A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies, it's a good way to spend (nearly) four hours.

That Scorsese's immense passion for cinema has lent himself to become a leading force in the drive to preserve film should be no surprise. In 1990, he founded The Film Foundation, which has assisted with the preservation and restoration of over 500 films that might've otherwise deteriorated and disappeared from the pantheon of cinema. They've worked with organizations such as the Academy Film Archive and the National Film Preservation Foundation, and recent films they've worked to preserve include Paths of Glory and The Red Shoes. The impressive list of filmmakers that make-up the foundation's board of directors include, along with Scorsese, Woody Allen, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Clint Eastwood, Peter Jackson, Robert Redford and Steven Spielberg.

With an ensemble like that under the leadership of Scorsese, the flickering light at the end of the cinematic tunnel can only get brighter.

This post is part of "For the Love of Film: The Film Preservation Blogathon," which is running Feb. 14-21 on various film blogs. More information about the blogathon can be found here, and you can donate to the National Film Preservation Foundation here.

Considering a Break-Up with Oscar

I can, on occasion, be fairly elitist about films (although I also have appreciation for a good silly romantic comedy or action film now and then), and this awards season, I've found that this elitist side is emerging full force.

The Avatar-mania is one thing, as is the over-zealous Streepfest, and honoring Sandra Bullock for her best performance. (I'm doing my best not to get emotional and write the next sentence in all caps or with a million question and/or exclamation marks.) The Academy went and nominated The Blind Side for Best Picture?! It is a good film, but not a great one. Which also brings me to this - I wasn't exactly sure how the re-expansion of the Best Picture category to 10 nominees would go until this morning when I heard Anne Hathaway read the names of all 10 films. As I was writing them all out, I realized something - I've seen all of them already. Most years, I've only seen two or three (out of five) by the time the nominations are announced - this year, 10 for 10. While I'm happy about that for the sheer movie nerd that I am, I'm also rather disappointed by it. I'm disappointed that, out of 10 films, there were no really "unseen" or lesser-known films, or any (good) surprises to any degree. There aren't any films like last year's Frost/Nixon or The Wrestler for me to go see and be reassured that all of the films nominated for the Oscars deserve to be there. As the years have gone by, the Best Picture nominees have strayed further from my personal favorites each year, but I still found at least some merit in most (if not all) of the nominees. I would say that at least a third of the Best Picture nominees this year honestly do not deserve to be so honored. They are about spectacle and/or box office over storytelling. As one of the biggest fans of the Academy Awards that you ever might come across - and a writer - that is really quite disheartening for me to realize. I just want to go back to bed and pretend that this morning's nominations were all a dream. This all started really sinking in when I got to the last category on my list of nominees, Best Song - two songs from Randy Newman and The Princess and the Frog? Really? It isn't even close to being one of Disney's classics, and while it got two noms, Karen O's amazing tracks from Where the Wild Things Are were completely shut out (and so was Paul McCartney). I suppose I should be happy that the song from Avatar didn't get nominated though, and I know that a deserving song ("The Weary Kind" from Crazy Heart) will probably win.

In tracking all of the awards this year, I know that Bullock will probably win Best Actress, and I'm gradually coping with that. However, if Avatar or The Blind Side wins Best Picture, the Oscars and I might be done, or at least on a break for a little while.

A Big(elow) Year for Female Filmmakers

In the entire history of the Academy Awards, only three women had been nominated for the Best Director Oscar - Lina Wertmüller (Seven Beauties - 1976), Jane Campion (The Piano - 1993) and Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation - 2003) - and none of them won. For 2009, Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) has been a front-runner in the Best Director race throughout awards season, culminating in her DGA Best Feature Film Director Award win on Jan. 30, her nomination for the Best Director Oscar this morning (Feb. 2) and her likely win at the Oscars on March 7. Not only is she getting all of this attention, I actually feel she deserves it, as opposed to some of the other directors who wind up getting nominated as a pseudo-lifetime achievement award or because they're James Cameron (or some other Hollywood heavyweight). The Hurt Locker is a great film, and I would think that even if I found out it was directed by a man.

2009 was a banner year for female filmmakers - along with Bigelow, Campion has been getting a lot of positive attention for Bright Star, and so has Lone Scherfig for An Education. At one point, there was buzz that all three could have found themselves with Oscar nominations. Agnes Varda, the female filmmaking face of the French New Wave, has also been getting quite a bit of praise for her autobiographical documentary The Beaches of Agnes. French director Claire Denis' 35 Shots of Rum has also been well-received. While writer-director Anne Fontaine hasn't been getting quite as much buzz as the others, her film Coco Before Chanel is getting a few notices. Romantic comedy pros Nora Ephron (Julie & Julia) and Nancy Meyers (It's Complicated) have also been managing to hear their names and films mentioned here and there.

What disheartens me about this is that I have now listed the majority of the films directed by women that were released in 2009. Ephron and Meyers are the only two whose films were studio pictures, therefore getting opening weekend wide releases. (The Hurt Locker is an independent film, and the rest come from outside of the United States.) They were both also romantic comedies, which I feel have become the stereotypical go-to for (Hollywood) studios and producers when they feel pressured to employ more female directors.

I would like to briefly add in Drew Barrymore and her directorial debut, Whip It. It did not perform very well at the box office, but according to Metacritic, it got "Generally favorable reviews." (To me, the latter part of that is more important than the former, but that's another topic for another post.) While she isn't necessarily deserving of the awards buzz that Bigelow and the other ladies have been receiving, I feel Barrymore deserves to be recognized for making a female-driven film that is one of the better (American) coming-of-age stories to come along in a while. I hope she returns to the director's chair.

Actually, that brings me to my concluding point. I think it is fantastic that female directors are gradually getting more positive attention come awards season, and I hope that this means that studios and producers will be more open to putting the women I've mentioned and other female directors behind the camera, especially for films that are not romantic comedies.

This Essay Is Rated PG for Thematic Material

Art is subjective. One person can look at a painting, go to a play, listen to a song or watch a movie and have a completely different interpretation or reaction than anyone else. This allows for passionate discussions and debates, which can expose people to different perspectives. I believe that censoring someone's artistic vision, and therefore robbing the people who appreciate art of the chance to take it in and think about it, is wrong - criminal even.

Enter in the Motion Picture Association of America, which classifies films with G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17 ratings in the United States. I have to admit that I do think that it's important for some kind of ratings system to be in place. However, I think the current system is deeply flawed. Personally, the ratings board has always appeared to me to be a glorified censorship board. NC-17 means that no one under 17 is allowed to see the film, and due to that, most theaters will not carry films with NC-17 ratings. If a film is given that rating, the filmmakers can: a) take it and receive a very limited release; b) reject it and go "unrated," which also grants a very limited release; c) edit the film blindly (the MPAA doesn't share their specific reasons for ratings) and resubmit it, hoping to get a R rating. I should also note that the people at the MPAA are a little more talkative when it comes to films being released by the larger studios, not so much when it comes to smaller films.

In terms of transparency, I really think that the MPAA could be doing a lot better, with both filmmakers and moviegoers. Seeing that a film is rated PG-13 for "Some Language and Violence" really does not tell me much. Including the reasons why, such as "the word 'ass' was used 79 times" or "included a scene depicting a character falling off of a building," can only be helpful for parents. While one kid's parents might find something perfectly suitable for viewing, another kid's parents might find the same thing unsuitable. I think it should ultimately be up to the parents or guardians to make the decisions about what their kids watch. To a certain extent, they determine what their kids eat, what they wear and what other art their kids are exposed to, so why should movies be so different? I can't even remember the first PG-13 or R rated movie my parents let me see, and I turned out fairly okay. (Even if I didn't, I wouldn't say that the movies are to blame.)

Smoking has recently been a topic of debate in regard to its appearance in movies, as the MPAA has started to give harsher ratings to films that show characters puffing on cigarettes. While smoking might not be the healthiest thing in the world for a person to do, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that the MPAA is doing this. Smoking is not illegal (unless you're under 18, of course), so I think it should be perfectly fine for a film to depict it. I mean, what's next? Are you going to give a romantic comedy a harsher rating because the lead's having a few cocktails with her friends? Are you going to give a film a harsher rating because one character eats unhealthy food in every scene? All of these behaviors, while they might not be the healthiest in the world, are perfectly legal.

Don't even get me started on the violence and sexual content debate, as the MPAA seems to let a lot more brutally violent films skirt the edge with a PG-13 or R rating, while films that contain certain amounts of certain sexual behavior are almost automatically slapped with a NC-17. Sex (in most cases) is perfectly legal. Violence (outside of war) is illegal.

The New York Times recently reported that current MPAA president and chief executive Dan Glickman will be leaving his post in April. I hope they find a new leader that will take more films and more people into account. I think this could be achieved by abolishing the NC-17 rating and a more transparent system of providing the reasons for a film's rating. If a parent knows why a film is rated R and still thinks it's okay for their kid to see it, then it should be fine. It might even promote more of those passionate discussions and debates. I'm not going to get my hopes up though, because after MPAA founder Jack Valenti left, I hoped for the same thing. Then we got the smoking ban.

If you would like an entertaining tutorial on the MPAA, I recommend director Kirby Dick's 2006 documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, in which he interviews people in the film industry who have gone toe-to-toe with the ratings board and takes it upon himself to start investigating their practices. (Probably about half of the information I shared in this article subconsciously came from details in this film - the other half being stuff that's probably in the movie that I knew about before I saw it.) Here's a taste:

Avatar, Sandra Bullock, Meryl Streep and Awards Season So Far

I know a lot of these opinions might put me in the minority, but I'm okay with that. I'm sure at least a few people agree with me.

I should start by saying that most years, especially as I've gotten more into cinema, the films that have been recognized come awards season have gradually fallen further down on my list of personal favorites each year. In 2008, my favorite fictional film was Synecdoche, New York, which didn't even register a blip on the awards radar. For 2009, my top two films are Away We Go and Bright Star, both of which are only getting occasional mentions. As someone who is a huge fan of the awards season, especially the Oscars, this is somewhat disheartening.

I could tell from the trailer that I would not enjoy Avatar - I am typically not a fan of writer-director James Cameron's films, and the sci-fi/fantasy genre isn't my favorite either; I even put off seeing it until the day before the Golden Globes. To me, the best films in any genre are the ones that transcend genre lines. If one sci-fi/fantasy film from 2009 were to define that for me, it would be either Moon or Star Trek, not Avatar. Avatar is visually amazing, but that doesn't make up for horrible dialogue, recycled/stereotypical storylines and a soundtrack that sounds exactly like the one from Titanic. I don't see how a movie that isn't even being considered for writing or acting awards could be getting this much praise. It has also been gaining attention for cinematography and art direction, which I think is ridiculous. If awards voters and committees think the camerawork and set design is that good, it should be awarded for its animation and/or visual effects, as those were the processes through which the majority of the cinematography and art direction were created for Avatar. I could probably list about 20 movies from 2009 that deserve all of this praise more than Avatar does, but I won't get into that here.

As if the overwhelming Avatar praise wasn't enough, I knew I was in for disappointment when Sandra Bullock tied with Meryl Streep for Best Actress at the Critics' Choice Awards. Bullock, at her best, which she very well may be in The Blind Side, is a very entertaining actress. Whether it's her comedic timing in films like The Proposal or her overdramatic moments in films like The Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood, she knows how to perform. As far as invoking any other emotional response than laughter (which comes and goes), she still has not entirely proven that she can do that (to me). She does a good job in The Blind Side, but her performance does not outweigh those of Carey Mulligan in An Education, Gabourey Sidibe in Precious, Emily Blunt in The Young Victoria and a few others from 2009.

"T Bone" Streep's Golden Globes Best Actress (Comedy or Musical) acceptance speech said it all - she's worried that she's being recognized as a great woman because of all the great women she's played throughout her career. I would definitely say that Streep is a great actress, but over the last few years, it's seemed like the people who decide all the awards nominations and winners have gone a bit overboard. Julie & Julia would not even begin to make my top 10 list for 2009, and I don't think it even made that many overall. Outside of Streep's performance and Best Actress nominations, the film isn't getting much overwhelming praise. This year, the Streep-mania has also extended to It's Complicated, which is entertaining, but not much more. Writer-director Nancy Meyers is capable of making well-crafted romantic comedies, and this isn't even her best work (Something's Gotta Give, The Holiday).

I guess what it all boils down to is this: just because people go and see a film in mass doesn't mean it's good. If you saw Avatar and thought it was an overblown spectacle, don't be afraid to say it. If you saw The Blind Side and thought it was just another cliched inspirational-type movie, don't be afraid to say that. If there's a critically-acclaimed actor or actress that you think is undeserving of the loads of praise he or she is receiving, don't be afraid to say that either. Who knows, the actor or actress might even agree with you.

Unconventional Love for an Unconventional Love Story

I saw 500 Days of Summer for the first time the week it was released in theaters in the St. Louis area. I went into it knowing I would like it, having the suspicion that it would hit on all the right notes for me. Add in terrific performances from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel, two actors that I adore, and I swoon. After my first viewing, I was a bit apprehensive about the film, as I was afraid that it just played into the pure emotional reasoning that sometimes goes along with enjoying a film; the cinephile part of me was prepared with cynical comebacks.

Shortly after my first viewing of the film, Gordon-Levitt, Deschanel and director Marc Webb released a bonus musical number completely unrelated to the movie set to the tune of She & Him's "Why Do You Let Me Stay Here?" (Deschanel is the "she" of that group, for those who don't know.) That was the start of me realizing that 500 Days of Summer is more than just a film that draws an emotional response from me as a human being - it is also a film that can be taken seriously by any cinephile. A couple of months later, I saw the film for the second time, and my emotional and film-loving responses matched up. I've probably watched both that music video and the clip of Gordon-Levitt's musical number from the film about 20 times each now - because they just instantly make me happy upon viewing, and because they are both great representations of cinematic moments.

I recently watched the film for the fourth time, on Blu-Ray, and it is quickly climbing up the ranks of my favorite films of 2009 and of all-time. Needless to say, I will be rooting for Gordon-Levitt to win a Golden Globe on Sunday (January 17), and also secretly hoping that he'll pull an upset and somehow get an Oscar nomination on February 2. I've been a fan of his for almost as long as I can remember, from the days of TV's "3rd Rock from the Sun" and 10 Things I Hate About You all the way up to 500 Days of Summer. To a lesser (but still fairly large) extent, I've also been a fan of Deschanel, as an actress and a musician, since I first saw her as William's older sister in Almost Famous. As I said earlier, they both give strong performances, as do supporting players Chloe Moretz, Geoffrey Arend and Matthew Gray Gubler.

The music is also a major factor in my love for the film. From a few great karaoke performances by Gordon-Levitt, Deschanel and Arend through the "You Make My Dreams Come True" musical scene to the placement of two Regina Spektor songs, all of the musical cues are pitch-perfect. I am a huge Regina Spektor fan, and the use of "Us" in the opening credits helps build the smallest sense of hope; "Hero" magnifies the heartbreaking scene it accompanies later in the film.

In one way or another, this movie also managed to break in quite a few pop culture references, from TV's "Knight Rider" to a play on classic foreign films, most notably those of Ingmar Bergman, in one fantasy sequence.

If you take away all bells and whistles - the references and fantasy-type scenes - you are still left with a film that projects realism about modern relationships. Of all the more realistic moments in the film, there isn't a single one in the movie that hasn't brought to mind either something that I've encountered or that someone I know has encountered. None of the dialogue feels forced, which is a dreadfully common occurrence in most romantic comedies being released nowadays.

The blending of fantasy and reality is perfect, from the opening disclaimer to the last look. The credit for that is due to everyone involved in the making of the film, but most notably the screenwriters, Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, and director Webb.

Rating: 4.5 (out of 5)

This awards season, 500 Days of Summer has officially joined Away We Go and Bright Star to become my trifecta of underdogs. (Inglourious Basterds is probably my favorite front-runner.) Those three movies have more going on in singular frames than some movies have going on throughout their entire plots, and not in a showy way, but in a way that makes the most simple things at times the most beautiful and/or the most intense.

Side note: I will have a longer post on Joseph Gordon-Levitt on February 17, his birthday, which also happens to be my birthday. For now, I'll leave you with the aforementioned Bank Dance: