So I watched 500 days of summer with my girlfriend last night. It was a horrible film in my opinion, especially the part where they're talking about The Smiths (RE: Garden State and The Shins scene). And it got me thinking.. why do all movies with architects as protagonists have to suck so bad? I remember when people were telling me to the The Lake House, another crap movie. The list goes on.
Yeah that dude in 500 days was so whiny, it got annoying. I wanted to learn more about zoey dechanel's character but all we got was his annoying moodiness. Plus I felt like he was a teenager borrowing his dads clothes to seem like an adult. Boo.
im really glad to see im not the only one who thought 500 days of summer was really really bad... i could barely finish the thing it was so repulsive... yet the critics loved it! it got award nominations... i was blown away...
I actually thought it was a pretty accurate representation of today's architect - recently graduated and still optimistic about architecture but unable to put skills to use in an office so becomes somewhat bitter and moody because he works at a job that he is clearly overqualified for and has little to no interest in. I think it's understandable that he is somewhat jaded, whiny and dejected.
It would have been better if he didn't go for the girl at the end of the movie and gave up on dating altogether to pursue architecture. That would then be an accurate representation of architects.
nice card...i think there's an opening at a downtown la greeting card company that will remain unnamed.
i have mixed-emotions about this film...didn't like the portrayal of architect-as-schmuck (hits too close to home?) but did like the idea of moving on after getting run through the meat grinder of love. seriously, how good-looking was the actress who plays "Autumn"?
-the blended time period, it was hard to tell when it actually took place until they went to a scene of the skyline
-the song and dance sequence
-the split-screen showing "how I imagine this evening happening" vs. "how this evening actually happened"
-the loving pans of the Bradbury Building in the final scene
-that he did NOT get the girl - it wasn't that pat
-Zoey Deschanel's singing voice, can't over get enough of it
-I'd fantasize about tying Joseph Gordon Levitt to my T-square if I weren't old enough to be his mom
I loved 500 Days of Summer!! That poor guy and I have so much in common I totally related to him.It was THE story of my recent life 90%..I'm hoping I'll meet my Autumn sometime soon and maybe get an architecture job..
So Tom, what is it that you do?
Tom: I uh, I write greeting cards.
Summer: Tom could be a really great architect if he wanted to be.
Partygoer: That's unusual, I mean, what made you go from one to the other?
Tom: I guess I just figured, why make something disposable like a building when you can make something that last forever, like a greeting card.
Gresham, nice link. Although I don't think it is the first time I've seen the link, its actually the first time I looked through all of it. Its interesting though why it isn't the first time people thought Ashton Kutcher played an architecture student. I thought he played a psychology student in all his parallel lives; wasn't it his friend that played an architecture (naval?) student in one of the parallel lives?
Click did suck though. And The Lake House was pretty corny (See the original Il Mare which is better). Personally I liked Kal Penn (Kalpen Suresh Modi)'s more natural depiction of an architect. For those that watch movies besides mainstream American, there are plenty of foreign/independent films not on that list with architects being protagonists.
I didn't think 500 Days of Summer was that bad. He wasn't whiny throughout the whole movie. Its kind of refreshing to have a non-heroic protagonist who DOESN'T get the girl that we get to know throughout the movie (Although Autumn makes up the fact we don't really get to know her with her being drop dead gorgeous.)
what I loved about 500 days of summer has nothing to do with the protagonist being an article (although I did think, honestly, that it was one of the most truthful and balanced portrayals of an architect that I've seen -- and his being an architect also was portrayed as just one aspect of him, it's not like it was the single over-arching purpose of his entire being, which I appreciated) ANYWAY, what I liked was its excellent, uplifting-yet-downlifting, totally realistic portrayal of a relationship.
I think it's one of the most honest movies I think I've ever seen, actually. Even in Summer's character -- I know lots of 'self-absorbed, fun to be around until you realize the depth of her self-absorbedness' people -- hell, I used to BE one of those people. And having been both of the characters in this movie I thought it was superbly balanced in its portrayal.
Another movie that did this really well, I thought, was "The Break-up" -- an underrated gem, in my opinion.
no, I don't mean to be harsh. It really has made my flight enjoyable (I hate travel), but I wouldn't go see it in a theater, and probably won't get the dvd either.
It just seemed so contrived and cutesy.
Gordon Levitt seems like such a nice guy, though. And he sings and dances!
"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" well, I wouldn't go that far...
But I thought the "contrived and cutesy" parts were intentional. They knew exactly what they were doing when they all of a sudden went into musical mode and put those cartoon birds in. I thought that was kind of the point. Kinda like when people do lame jokes with the intent in being lame; its not the same as someone doing a joke they think is hilarious but is in fact lame. Difference between a knowing glint and douchebaggery.
There is depth there if you look for it, and I agree it does portray relationships more realistic than most movies. Angst, awkwardness, how you can see the same characteristics differently at times, desperation, disappointment, overzealousness, etc; all stages of relationships most people forget or choose to forget.
I meant it's similar to Eternal Sunshine in the sense that it shows both the good and the ugly side of relationships and that in the end both characters are ill-fated to repeat their past, unable to realize the continuous tragedy that relationships inevitably are.
I like eternal sunshine though, more than this movie. Maybe I just don't like the actor...his character and the actor still seems like a teenager. Eternal was more mature and I loved the concept on that one. so yea for eternal, nea for 500.
There is no comparison between Eternal Sunshine and 500 days.. And talk about a one-sided story; zoey dechanel's character is way under developed. She remains the ever so cute mystery girl who hardly says or does anything to give her role any depth. Pretty, yes, but interesting? And I suppose that is sort of realistic when you consider all the cute girls that you've met that get by with minimal effort, because they really don't have to try too hard; perhaps she embodies this type of person. The film has a very realistic take on not getting ther girl, yes. I just wish it could have been put in the hands of another director or cast because I think it really falls short of what it set out to achieve. And you're not going to win me over with this semi-nerdy hipster culture that we all love deep down, with the quirky sense of humor and tasteful soundrack. But that shouldn't be a substitute for good film making.
You cannot tell me that the dance scene when he looks at his reflection and see's a picture of Hans Solo smile at him is not funny. Regardless of the rest of the movie that scene is brilliant.
zoey dechanel's character is way under developed. She remains the ever so cute mystery girl who hardly says or does anything to give her role any depth.
To me, that was the whole point. The movie is not about her; it's not about their love story; we don't need to know anything about her, in fact, it's better if we DON'T -- the better to see her only through his eyes, which is the point of the movie. The movie is not about her, it's about his reponse to her; it's about what he thinks of her only. It is a one-sided portrayal of a relationship precisely because that is how we all experience them. That is part of the reason it ends up being so realistic. If we see more of her on her own, then we get a sense of who she is apart from him -- which is not how any of us actually experience our lives & our romances.
That's precisely what makes this movie interesting.
what is really interesting to me is that zoey's character is really kind of a bitch... yes there are all the cutesy bits and such, but she really has no regards for the feelings of who she's 'dating'. maybe what is also interesting is how it shows how one person in a relationship falls for the other and the other doesn't. and we've all been there i'm sure. yes she says she doesn't want anything serious, but there are better ways and times and places to say these things.
it def. presented modern relationships in their true from as i've seen them recently. which is a bit depressing. is there such a thing as a romantic tragedy?
lol I think that's precisely why I didn't find it interesting. The character was annoying, self indulgent and spoiled. and everything revolved around him which seemed fitting for the character, but nauseating to watch for me.
I thought the movie itself was okay - the portrayal of the architect as the loser hipster was a bit stereotypical though. It does cut a bit close to home for people who've studied architecture but are not practicing it per se, like yours truly...
I loved this movie, and I'm surprised to see so many people didn't like it! I agree with liberty bell's points above, but also I kind of love how the end of the movie made me feel... that is, wretched. It was, as it proclaimed, a story about love but not a love story, and that feeling that it left me with at the end was so unexpected that I was somehow relieved and refreshed.
This is probably not making sense but I suppose I am enamored with its originality. And the dance scene, LOL.
does anyone know what building he was in during the films final scene? ...or it's been awhile since i've seen it, but the location where he had his interview?
Mantaray, I like your take on it. But don't you think you're giving the movie a little too much credit? That's the way we all experience relationships? Do you mean to say that we don't get a sense of who our partners are ever? I'm asking for a little bit more character development.
i really liked this movie - manta your explanation of why it's so good is spot on. i was also getting kind of an office space vibe with that dead-end boring job and his wacky co-workers/friends. good stuff
wow... i have to say im a bit suprised by how seriously some took 500 days. The levels of irony we're accrediting to the creators of the movie are epic in proportion... To me, this was a modern day 'say anything' but way more dishonest and sly about its motivation.
The whole hip culture that this movie is based on...
...is one big pathetic show of indie credibility. Each character trying more desperately than the last to prove they are something really interesting and really special.
At this point the genre is over used and transparent. Yes... we get it... the modern world makes us all feel like isolated, marginalized, underachievers
The song and dance portion was one weird and surreal mobius strip of hipsterdom...that movie jumped the shark 100 times... it did so ironically yes, but thats only a very thin veil...
awfullly abnoxious movie, my date liked it and I had to stop seeing her it was so bad. The whole constructing your own destiny theme was nice, and I guess its appropriate to use an architect as the main character, but it wasn't played out well.
The reason that architecture protagonists suck is that we don't typically have good skills at any of the following (as a generalization, although some individuals may be the exception to this rule): extemporaneous use of explosives, sword fighting, combat automobile driving tactics, gun play, swindling/robbery, or hand to hand combat.
If your profession is not one where those skills are a requirement, its pretty much a shoe-in that you are going to suck as a character in a movie. For example - name one forensic accountant that was a movie badass....
Our only real hope for movie stardom is porn. At least there everyone has the same odds of being born with a big one.
personally i found the characters to be annoying, and it seemed to me that the director was trying a little too hard to be quirky, where in fact it was all very predictable.
not trying to be too much of a hater, but i think it's one of those movies that got more buzz than it deserved, like american beauty.
well we just have to [big fat cliche] agree to disagree [/cliche] on this one. i thought the jumping around kept it kind of fresh and in general i liked the characters 'cept for summer but we're not really supposed to like her anyway ..
i laughed, i cried, it was much better than cats. i'm going to see it again and again.
and i like seeing people actually sketch and sure it was all staged but for an architect guy i thought he wasn't too architect-y as hollywood likes to do.
Mar 18, 10 6:50 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
500 days of summer
So I watched 500 days of summer with my girlfriend last night. It was a horrible film in my opinion, especially the part where they're talking about The Smiths (RE: Garden State and The Shins scene). And it got me thinking.. why do all movies with architects as protagonists have to suck so bad? I remember when people were telling me to the The Lake House, another crap movie. The list goes on.
Add "Breaking and entering" to this list, mate
Yeah that dude in 500 days was so whiny, it got annoying. I wanted to learn more about zoey dechanel's character but all we got was his annoying moodiness. Plus I felt like he was a teenager borrowing his dads clothes to seem like an adult. Boo.
The Towering Inferno was bad ass.
Sounds like they are all fairly accurate representations of architects.
i liked the graphics
yeah, 500 Days of Summer was ass bad.
im really glad to see im not the only one who thought 500 days of summer was really really bad... i could barely finish the thing it was so repulsive... yet the critics loved it! it got award nominations... i was blown away...
the lake house also sucked... agreed....
I actually thought it was a pretty accurate representation of today's architect - recently graduated and still optimistic about architecture but unable to put skills to use in an office so becomes somewhat bitter and moody because he works at a job that he is clearly overqualified for and has little to no interest in. I think it's understandable that he is somewhat jaded, whiny and dejected.
It would have been better if he didn't go for the girl at the end of the movie and gave up on dating altogether to pursue architecture. That would then be an accurate representation of architects.
nice card...i think there's an opening at a downtown la greeting card company that will remain unnamed.
i have mixed-emotions about this film...didn't like the portrayal of architect-as-schmuck (hits too close to home?) but did like the idea of moving on after getting run through the meat grinder of love. seriously, how good-looking was the actress who plays "Autumn"?
woody harrelson in indecent proposal wasn't horrible
wesley snipes in jungle fever..same
What I loved about 500 Days (spoilers):
-the blended time period, it was hard to tell when it actually took place until they went to a scene of the skyline
-the song and dance sequence
-the split-screen showing "how I imagine this evening happening" vs. "how this evening actually happened"
-the loving pans of the Bradbury Building in the final scene
-that he did NOT get the girl - it wasn't that pat
-Zoey Deschanel's singing voice, can't over get enough of it
-I'd fantasize about tying Joseph Gordon Levitt to my T-square if I weren't old enough to be his mom
I loved 500 Days of Summer!! That poor guy and I have so much in common I totally related to him.It was THE story of my recent life 90%..I'm hoping I'll meet my Autumn sometime soon and maybe get an architecture job..
So Tom, what is it that you do?
Tom: I uh, I write greeting cards.
Summer: Tom could be a really great architect if he wanted to be.
Partygoer: That's unusual, I mean, what made you go from one to the other?
Tom: I guess I just figured, why make something disposable like a building when you can make something that last forever, like a greeting card.
Gresham, nice link. Although I don't think it is the first time I've seen the link, its actually the first time I looked through all of it. Its interesting though why it isn't the first time people thought Ashton Kutcher played an architecture student. I thought he played a psychology student in all his parallel lives; wasn't it his friend that played an architecture (naval?) student in one of the parallel lives?
Click did suck though. And The Lake House was pretty corny (See the original Il Mare which is better). Personally I liked Kal Penn (Kalpen Suresh Modi)'s more natural depiction of an architect. For those that watch movies besides mainstream American, there are plenty of foreign/independent films not on that list with architects being protagonists.
I didn't think 500 Days of Summer was that bad. He wasn't whiny throughout the whole movie. Its kind of refreshing to have a non-heroic protagonist who DOESN'T get the girl that we get to know throughout the movie (Although Autumn makes up the fact we don't really get to know her with her being drop dead gorgeous.)
transatlantic flight entertainment grade.
ckl that's pretty harsh. The Hall and Oates dance scene should at least win it some points.
what I loved about 500 days of summer has nothing to do with the protagonist being an article (although I did think, honestly, that it was one of the most truthful and balanced portrayals of an architect that I've seen -- and his being an architect also was portrayed as just one aspect of him, it's not like it was the single over-arching purpose of his entire being, which I appreciated) ANYWAY, what I liked was its excellent, uplifting-yet-downlifting, totally realistic portrayal of a relationship.
I think it's one of the most honest movies I think I've ever seen, actually. Even in Summer's character -- I know lots of 'self-absorbed, fun to be around until you realize the depth of her self-absorbedness' people -- hell, I used to BE one of those people. And having been both of the characters in this movie I thought it was superbly balanced in its portrayal.
Another movie that did this really well, I thought, was "The Break-up" -- an underrated gem, in my opinion.
no, I don't mean to be harsh. It really has made my flight enjoyable (I hate travel), but I wouldn't go see it in a theater, and probably won't get the dvd either.
It just seemed so contrived and cutesy.
Gordon Levitt seems like such a nice guy, though. And he sings and dances!
It's not really too dissimilar from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind which was pretty fantastic in my opinion.
"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" well, I wouldn't go that far...
But I thought the "contrived and cutesy" parts were intentional. They knew exactly what they were doing when they all of a sudden went into musical mode and put those cartoon birds in. I thought that was kind of the point. Kinda like when people do lame jokes with the intent in being lame; its not the same as someone doing a joke they think is hilarious but is in fact lame. Difference between a knowing glint and douchebaggery.
There is depth there if you look for it, and I agree it does portray relationships more realistic than most movies. Angst, awkwardness, how you can see the same characteristics differently at times, desperation, disappointment, overzealousness, etc; all stages of relationships most people forget or choose to forget.
I meant it's similar to Eternal Sunshine in the sense that it shows both the good and the ugly side of relationships and that in the end both characters are ill-fated to repeat their past, unable to realize the continuous tragedy that relationships inevitably are.
Charles Bronson in “Death Wish”
I want to work in that firm. My guess is that firm would have a basement not so much unlike the basement of Lou's Bar in Fight Club.
I like eternal sunshine though, more than this movie. Maybe I just don't like the actor...his character and the actor still seems like a teenager. Eternal was more mature and I loved the concept on that one. so yea for eternal, nea for 500.
There is no comparison between Eternal Sunshine and 500 days.. And talk about a one-sided story; zoey dechanel's character is way under developed. She remains the ever so cute mystery girl who hardly says or does anything to give her role any depth. Pretty, yes, but interesting? And I suppose that is sort of realistic when you consider all the cute girls that you've met that get by with minimal effort, because they really don't have to try too hard; perhaps she embodies this type of person. The film has a very realistic take on not getting ther girl, yes. I just wish it could have been put in the hands of another director or cast because I think it really falls short of what it set out to achieve. And you're not going to win me over with this semi-nerdy hipster culture that we all love deep down, with the quirky sense of humor and tasteful soundrack. But that shouldn't be a substitute for good film making.
I actually love the movie very much. I love Eternal Sunshine and 500 days equally.
You cannot tell me that the dance scene when he looks at his reflection and see's a picture of Hans Solo smile at him is not funny. Regardless of the rest of the movie that scene is brilliant.
To me, that was the whole point. The movie is not about her; it's not about their love story; we don't need to know anything about her, in fact, it's better if we DON'T -- the better to see her only through his eyes, which is the point of the movie. The movie is not about her, it's about his reponse to her; it's about what he thinks of her only. It is a one-sided portrayal of a relationship precisely because that is how we all experience them. That is part of the reason it ends up being so realistic. If we see more of her on her own, then we get a sense of who she is apart from him -- which is not how any of us actually experience our lives & our romances.
That's precisely what makes this movie interesting.
Nice reply mantaray.
what is really interesting to me is that zoey's character is really kind of a bitch... yes there are all the cutesy bits and such, but she really has no regards for the feelings of who she's 'dating'. maybe what is also interesting is how it shows how one person in a relationship falls for the other and the other doesn't. and we've all been there i'm sure. yes she says she doesn't want anything serious, but there are better ways and times and places to say these things.
it def. presented modern relationships in their true from as i've seen them recently. which is a bit depressing. is there such a thing as a romantic tragedy?
lol I think that's precisely why I didn't find it interesting. The character was annoying, self indulgent and spoiled. and everything revolved around him which seemed fitting for the character, but nauseating to watch for me.
I thought the movie itself was okay - the portrayal of the architect as the loser hipster was a bit stereotypical though. It does cut a bit close to home for people who've studied architecture but are not practicing it per se, like yours truly...
I loved this movie, and I'm surprised to see so many people didn't like it! I agree with liberty bell's points above, but also I kind of love how the end of the movie made me feel... that is, wretched. It was, as it proclaimed, a story about love but not a love story, and that feeling that it left me with at the end was so unexpected that I was somehow relieved and refreshed.
This is probably not making sense but I suppose I am enamored with its originality. And the dance scene, LOL.
does anyone know what building he was in during the films final scene? ...or it's been awhile since i've seen it, but the location where he had his interview?
that would be the Bradbury Building
Mantaray, I like your take on it. But don't you think you're giving the movie a little too much credit? That's the way we all experience relationships? Do you mean to say that we don't get a sense of who our partners are ever? I'm asking for a little bit more character development.
The guy should be a historical preservationist, not an architect.
my name is thom
i really liked this movie - manta your explanation of why it's so good is spot on. i was also getting kind of an office space vibe with that dead-end boring job and his wacky co-workers/friends. good stuff
Do we think Zooey D can even portray a deeper role? Is she mature enough as an actor?
wow... i have to say im a bit suprised by how seriously some took 500 days. The levels of irony we're accrediting to the creators of the movie are epic in proportion... To me, this was a modern day 'say anything' but way more dishonest and sly about its motivation.
The whole hip culture that this movie is based on...
melancholy brooding --check
quirky activities and hobbies -- check
intentionally obtuse references -- check
...is one big pathetic show of indie credibility. Each character trying more desperately than the last to prove they are something really interesting and really special.
At this point the genre is over used and transparent. Yes... we get it... the modern world makes us all feel like isolated, marginalized, underachievers
The song and dance portion was one weird and surreal mobius strip of hipsterdom...that movie jumped the shark 100 times... it did so ironically yes, but thats only a very thin veil...
awfullly abnoxious movie, my date liked it and I had to stop seeing her it was so bad. The whole constructing your own destiny theme was nice, and I guess its appropriate to use an architect as the main character, but it wasn't played out well.
Don't ever watch 'The Architect' starring Anthony LaPaglia. It was such a horrible movie I wanted to cut myself during and after the whole sitting.
The reason that architecture protagonists suck is that we don't typically have good skills at any of the following (as a generalization, although some individuals may be the exception to this rule): extemporaneous use of explosives, sword fighting, combat automobile driving tactics, gun play, swindling/robbery, or hand to hand combat.
If your profession is not one where those skills are a requirement, its pretty much a shoe-in that you are going to suck as a character in a movie. For example - name one forensic accountant that was a movie badass....
Our only real hope for movie stardom is porn. At least there everyone has the same odds of being born with a big one.
Well I for one am a damn good lover. I don't know about the rest of you.
i really don't understand the draw of this movie.
'cause it's a good, entertaining flick?
personally i found the characters to be annoying, and it seemed to me that the director was trying a little too hard to be quirky, where in fact it was all very predictable.
not trying to be too much of a hater, but i think it's one of those movies that got more buzz than it deserved, like american beauty.
well we just have to [big fat cliche] agree to disagree [/cliche] on this one. i thought the jumping around kept it kind of fresh and in general i liked the characters 'cept for summer but we're not really supposed to like her anyway ..
i laughed, i cried, it was much better than cats. i'm going to see it again and again.
and i like seeing people actually sketch and sure it was all staged but for an architect guy i thought he wasn't too architect-y as hollywood likes to do.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.