Logo

(500) Days of Summer is a film with probably the catchiest title around. Say it out loud, but ignore the parentheses. Five-Hundred-Days-of-Summer. It rolls of the tongue quite nicely. There is something incredibly comforting about a good title. I have no doubt that the film’s success is in some part to do with its title.

But that is not all that the film has going for it. Though it is a romance, albeit a failed one, and a comedy, the film thankfully rejects the generic conventions of the Hollywood Romantic Comedy. And that is refreshing. (500) Days of Summer is proof that a love story does not have to be mindless, merely ticking the required boxes. Even more refreshing is that the whole point of the film is to recognise that sometimes (well, most of the time) romance does not end with the happily ever after Hollywood would have us believe. Actually, the film enjoys playing with precisely the dichotomy between the reality of love and the fantasy of film making. (As we will see, this is the films greatest strength and its greatest weakness).

Yet the film is incredibly engaging, thanks mostly to a wonderfully warm performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. There is an underdog quality about him that has the audience rooting for him right from the start.

The film revels in its ‘indie-ness,’ sometimes perhaps a little too much. However, the scene where Tom strolls down the street only to be joined by a fully fledged dancing ensemble, marching band and an animated bird ala Disney’s Snow White, is a heck of a lot of fun.

I had all but given up on the Hollywood Romantic Comedy. I resented the portrayal of neurotic/ crazy/ psychotic women who could only find happiness/ completeness/ direction by having a boyfriend/ fiancé/ husband.

But (500) Days of Summer manages to avoid this with a nice gender role reversal. It is Tom who is the believer in True Love, endlessly searching for ‘the one.’ Summer needs to be convinced.

As enjoyable as this role reversal is, it is not without its problems. Summer, in particular, is a victim of the aforementioned fantasy/ reality dynamic that characterises the film. Summer exists in Tom’s world only as a fantasy. Look no further than her plaid fifties style dresses and the ribbons in her hair for evidence of this.

The film is unable to reconcile the projection of this fantasy with the dramatic shift in her character in the final act of the film. Her shift from sceptic to romantic is underdeveloped and sits awkwardly with the rest of the film. Her explanation of this shift to Tom seems somehow unsatisfactory. Instead of understanding Summer, the audience still thinks of her as a bit of a cow who broke Tom’s heart, Part of the problem, of course is Zooey Deschanel. I never could understand the appeal of either of the Deschanel sisters. Both have beautiful blue eyes that somehow always manage to seem vacant, and a nasally voice that never exudes anything beyond monotone.

(500) Days of Summer is light without being unintelligent. Funny without being silly. Rewarding without it being served to you on a platter.

Should I See It?

Sure. Perfect Date Movie.

Poor Ben Barnes. He really can’t catch a break. His first big film The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian was considered a box office disappointment, despite making over $400 million. Less than stellar reviews for his work in Easy Virtue (except this reviewer of course) and low budget British flick Bigga Than Ben followed. And now the train wreck that is Dorian Gray.

I blame director Oliver Parker, who really has no clue how to handle the material. What should have been a dark, gripping portrait (pardon the pun) of a man’s demise turns out to be tawdry and with about as much depth as Dorian’s painting.

There are many times where the film is unintentionally camp. The film plays at being ’sexy’ and ‘dangerous’, yet the scenes (or rather montages) demonstrating Dorian’s acts of corruption come off as ridiculous. Dorian’s seduction of countless women is utterly unbelievable. Actually, it’s laughable.

The mise-en-scene doesn’t do the film any favours either. The costumes and set design of the repressed Victorian England are too bright and over the top in their use of colour to be a successful contrast with Dorian’s life of excess. The film also feels like it was shot entirely on a soundstage (I don’t know if this is so, but that’s what it feels like). There is no air, no life to the film. And in a film that is essentially about the value of life that is distracting.

The final act of the film is the only time Dorian Gray shows potential. By that point Parker has disposed of the ridiculous montages, and actually focused on the crux of the story: the repercussions of Dorian selling his soul. However, it’s all in vain because you can’t forget the horrendous mess that was the rest of the movie that it doesn’t even matter.

Not that the actors don’t try their best. But even they can’t break though the bad direction and a clunky script.

Colin Firth looks almost embarrassed to be there. Barnes tries really hard to make it work, but I could never quite grasp why young, innocent Dorian would sell his soul in the first place. I have never seen anyone drown before but I image it would be something similar to watching Rachel Hurd-Wood’s performance in this film. She is out of her depth, and basically has absolutely no idea what to do with herself except stand there all wide-eyed and pouty. Rebecca Hall’s character Emily Wotton (who was invented for the film) is nothing more than a cliché of a late Victorian/ Early Edwardian suffragette, who, despite her intelligence, still manages to fall for the charmless Dorian.

Of course, Oscar Wilde’s mediation on the value of art and the soul was always going to be difficult to translate to screen. In more artistic (again, no pun intended) hands this film could have been thrilling.

But this film is an embarrassment that I am sure Mr Barnes would like to permanently remove from his resume.

Should I See It?

Don’t bother, unless of course you are one of those types that enjoys inflicting pain on yourself.

Let me preface this review by saying I don’t watch horror films. If I wanted to be scared by what I saw on the screen I would watch the news. Let me now say I have never seen a zombie movie in my life. Finally, I have to admit that I hate blood and gore. Not even gore. Mainly blood. I have trouble sitting through medical dramas without flinching.

Now let me say that I enjoyed Zombieland. A LOT.

This funny zombie movie isn’t really about zombies. It’s actually a Road Movie using a zombie-fied apocalyptic America as its backdrop.

While I spent the first two minutes of the film wondering what on earth I had got myself into, I then realised that the squirting of the blood was intentionally excessive, and is part of the film's shtick.

Any way enough about the zombies. This is, after all, a road movie.

So, the basic premise of the film is that college student Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) teams up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) on his way to Ohio to find his parents. They run into sisters-turned-con artists Wichita (Emma Booth) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) and join forces.

Laughs abound, zombies die, hilarity ensues, but there is a quiet character study underpinning the film that makes it so likeable.

We first laugh at Columbus’ lifelong goal of wanting to tuck a girl’s hair behind her ear, yet we feel for him when we realise the difficulty of achieving such a simple expression of human interaction in a world of the un-dead. In fact, all of the characters are in search of humanity - Tallahassee is driven by his search for a Twinkie( for us Aussies, this is a Twinkie); Wichita wants to take Little Rock to a theme park in Los Angeles so her sister can experience a childhood away from Zombieland.

The film is a not so subtle reminder of the importance of family, however unconventional that family might be. The zombies might as well stand for a society that has become addicted to excess and cover commercialisation at the expense of humanity. It is perhaps fitting, then, that the final show down takes place at an amusement park, which are, by definition full of artifice.

I should perhaps mention the performances. Jesse Eisenberg is great; a very endearing, likable loser. the perfect narrator for this film. Woody Harrelson is too cool. Booth is unexpectedly good, and Breslin is, well, Breslin.

The film enjoys throwing out clichés and then destroying them a moment later. Every hero moment, every mushy moment, is undercut by a humour that keeps the film bouncing along.

Just make sure you ignore the “where do they get their endless supply of bullets from?” question that will nag you throughout.

Don't let the title put you off. This film is incredibly enjoyable, but probably not for those with weak stomachs (or an irrational fear of clowns).

Should I See It?

Absolutely!