Riley Webster (gilbertgumphrey)

When Ponyo came out, I stole Roger Ebert's line about Almost Famous and said I wanted to hug the movie. When I finally saw (500) Days of Summer, I wanted to hug, kiss, lick, squeeze, and make gentle, passionate love to the movie. Finally, a 5 star film of 2009. Finally, a truly great movie in a year awash with disappointments and flops. I don't give out 5 stars easily - hell, this is the first time since Synecdoche New York, and only the second since Dark Knight. It's been a long time - but finally, it's arrived, and in the last place I expected. Do you want to see a truly original, completely different and awe-inspiring movie? Don't look here. That's not what this film is about. Instead, it takes all the formulas, all the cliches, all the things we expect in our romantic comedies, and twists it completely on it's head. If you think you know what's going to happen, you may be right, but it's doubtful you'll ever expect just how charming, adorable, thought provoking, emotionally stimulating, and just plain wonderful the journey will be.

The opening of the movie warns us that it is not a love story. This is both true and false - it is absolutely a story about love, just not THIS particular love between THESE particular characters. It's the first awesome step of many that the film takes. A lot of people complain about feeling bummed out after the film, but how could they? The movie is as optimistic about love as any Kate Hudson/Matthew McCoughany film - it's just that it is also realistic and mature enough to know that sometimes that "true love" happens after many breakups, heart aches, and failed relationships where you thought everything was perfect until the awful "I think we should see other people" comes up. Most movies don't think like this. They only want us to see the one great relationship in the character's lives. In a way, that does indeed happen here, but only as a stepping stone to other real life loves. If you don't want to see this on a movie screen, then you must be too naive to realize it happens in real life all the time.

The flick got a lot of attention for it's structure. It flips all over through time, sometimes showing us the happy days where Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zooey Deschanel (my God, has any movie ever loved an actress as much as this sucker?) get to know each other, start their relationship, fall in love. And then in a flash, it'll cut to the days where they've broken up, and Levitt tries to move on, and Deschanel does with much greater ease. And isn't this exactly how we remember all our relationships? As Levitt's little sister even says in the film, we look back on our loves and remember only the best and worst of times, never the in between stuff. That the writers and director of (500) Days understood this shows what a bright bunch of brilliant fuckers they are. Indeed, the movie is written and shot in ways that will impress and surprise you - a hilarious song and dance routine, for instance, or the random third-person voice over that occasionally comments, or Levitt describing all the things he loves about Zooey and then later saying the exact same things and how much he hates them - or what could very well be the most brilliant scene of the year, a split screen showing what Levitt expects romantically from an evening, and what actually happens in reality. Cinematographically, I read that the director decided to change the colour tone of the film to match Zooey Deschanel's eyes, and there are so many close ups featuring her best physical aspect that you sometimes expect her to make out with the camera. She's wonderful in the film, as is Levitt, who does an awkward sort of charming that I didn't know was in him.

Is the movie perfect? Nah. The scenes with Levitt's friends often fall flat, as the actors portraying them tend to overdo the "dude, I soooo love blowjobs!" kind of attitude. And I'm sure there's some pacing problems, or maybe the soundtrack gets a little too "indie" (actually, fuck that - I bloody love the soundtrack). But in all honesty, I don't much care about the flaws. Why should I? I haven't felt this much love for a film in many long, agonizing months. I deserved to see a great movie, dammit! (500) Days of Summer will make you laugh, it will make you nod knowingly, it will make you cry...hell, it might even make you a little unsure of your own relationships, past or present. And that's a good thing. We should be thinking about that stuff. And guess what? We don't when we watch the latest Kate Hudson movie. And for that reason alone, (500) Days of Summer is a landmark film.

Note: My apologies to anyone who reads my reviews that it's taken so long to write a new one. I've been extremely busy with schoolwork, but I also kinda gave up writing them, because I know very few people read these and I've already written 200 pages worth of reviews - seems like kind of a waste. But I'm annoyed watching movies and not being able to write reviews on them, so fuck it, I'm (at least temporarily) back.

A Christmas Carol is probably the creepiest Christmas movie I've ever seen. This is both a positive and a negative attribute. I'll admit that it was one of my most anticipated movies of the year - Polar Express is in my top 15 movies of all time, and I thought (not without merit) that this would be very much like it. It gets the visual wonder, splendor, and trippiness right, but in terms of spreading jolly Christmas cheer, this movie is like a cold lump of coal in your stocking. As I said, it's an absolute treat for the eyes, and you'll probably become more invested, scared, and enthralled than you expect. But you won't feel good. And kids will have the absolute shit freaked out of them.

I've never read the book A Christmas Carol (because who the fuck reads anymore?), and I admittedly haven't seen too many versions. I believe The Muppet Christmas Carol is the one I'm most familiar with, and I remember even that one scaring and disturbing me as a little kid. If that one is creepy, than this version is nightmare inducing. Robert Zemekis knows how to not only ratchet up suspense (such as when the ghost of Bob Marley is about to visit Scrooge), but also to show terrifying images popping out at you in 3D when you least expect it. No longer does Scrooge see the face of Bob on his doorknob - now, he sees a ghostly, demonic apparition, green and hair floating, eyes cold and dark and his mouth screaming out at him. No longer is the Ghost of Christmas Present a jolly red haired Santa - now, he has little demon kids under his robes, and when he dies he laughs manically as his skin dissolves away until he's nothing more than a laughing skeleton. And don't even get me started on the Ghost of Christmas bloody Future! This movie will probably appeal to adults and teens much more than kids (especially because of the numerous action scenes), because I can't imagine too many children finding any aspect of this movie "fun". It's dark, it's freaky, and if you watch it in 3D, you'll probably jump out of your seat.

So far, all I seem to have done is talk about the movie's terror aspects. That's because it was the only thing that, strangely, really impressed me. I didn't like it, but I was stunned at the balls Zemekis and Disney had. Visually, the film is absolutely sumptuous. A lot of people complain about the photo-capture animation Zemekis uses, and how it gives everyone cold, "dead eye" expressions. I won't argue that. What I will say is that it's all worth it, because without this animation, Zemekis wouldn't be able to show off his camera like he does. He actually creates a Brian De Palma animated movie here - the camera swoops, flies, zooms, tracks in and around whole rooms while people are talking. The opening scene of the camera soaring through London has been deservedly high praised, and that's the kind of thing he couldn't have done with live action. Every take in this movie is an amazing long take, because he can, and that's what I love most about this animated style.

The screenplay is probably the film's biggest problem. It drags, and quite simply, it can often get boring. The opening 20 minutes are so slow, with Scrooge being visited with not one, not two, but THREE people, all in the same room right after each other, that I almost passed out. And if pacing is a big issue, so is the dialogue - words are taken right out of the early 20th century text, and to be honest I often didn't know what the hell people were talking about. It sounded almost Shakespearean to me, and that didn't help when it came to recognizing and having sympathy for the characters. But all in all, A Christmas Carol is definitely a movie worth seeing, especially on 3D screens (and most especially baked). Emotionally, it will leave you cold, which is why I think word of mouth will not be anywhere near as good as the wonderful and beautiful Polar Express was. But aesthetically, and as an animated adventure, it continues the tradition of 2009 to be only a disappointing year for live action films, and a revolutionary year for animated ones.

My most favourite film. Perfect in every way, shape, and form. Beautiful, powerful, mesmerizing, haunting, exceptional, enjoyable, wonderful, intelligent, uplifting, moving - there aren't enough words in the English language to describe how amazing this film really is. From top to bottom, Frank Darabont, the writer/director, achieved success. The performances are wonderful - has Morgan Freeman ever done a better voice over narration? The cinematography is perfectly suited for the story. The camera work is terrific, but never distracting. The music by Thomas Newman is one of the very best of musical scores. And of course, Darabont himself - debuted with this film, deserved the Oscar he never got, and wrote probably the most literate, thought-provoking, and awe inspiring screenplay film has ever seen. I read an email where 50 priests, pastors, and other religious figures listed their favourite films, and 38 out of those 50 all said Shawshank. It's well deserved. If ever there was a film to change someone's life (as this movie as for me - I attribute 90% of my success with Alycia, my lovely girlfriend, to this movie), than this would be the flick. Perfect, perfect, perfect. Heck, now I wanna go watch it again for the 1000th time.

My second favourite flick of all time. Alongside Raging Bull and above all, Shawshank Redemption, these movies are as perfect and wonderful as film can be. It's Hitchcock's best film; yes, no scene is as iconic or important to film history as Psycho's shower scene, but it's a more mature, focused, and personal film all around. Hitchcock wore it all on his sleeve for this picture - the obsessive, controlling love for a blonde, the unattainable dream that is more important in chasing than achieving, the hypnotic desire for murder and murderous notions...all these themes and more are addressed in the film, and all of them describe Hitch better than any autobiography has. The movie isn't just his normal suspense/thriller, although there are moments that are creepier than anything else he's done, excepting Psycho of course (like the nun's voice in the end, coupled with the scream - gives me terrifying goosebumps just thinking about it). It's also a romance/drama, with intensity not expected of Jimmy Stewart (the controlling madness he exudes in the last act is frightening). There are some scenes that stick with you and never let you go - the suicide, the nightmare, the Scene D' Amour, the climax. It's a haunting, mesmerizing, evocative, disturbing flick, no question. But it's also dramatically powerful, which isn't something I say often about movies before 1960ish. Oh, I almost forgot to mention Bernard Herrmann's wonderful score, that enhances every scene it plays under. Great, great, great film. A true masterpiece.