500 Days of Summer. You should know up front, this is not a negative review.

The Romantic Comedy. What fresh perspective can be placed upon this tired genre. What can I possibly say that brings new life to a cinematic movement that is as stale as the writing in most of the films themselves. How can a cinephile such as myself defend a trope of movies (all released this year) who's titles include: The Proposal, The Ugly Truth, New in Town, He's Just not That into You, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, and Confessions of a Shopaholic? Fortunately for me there are Rom-Coms being made like, first time director, Marc Webb's 500 Days of Summer that transcends the stereotypes and provide their own perspectives on love and dating in the 00's.

The Podcast. A wonderful invention. Audio/video recordings, generally brief, that anyone can record and place online for the world to consume. It's like talk radio chopped into tiny pieces then injected with steroids. Unfortunately the podcast movement hasn't really taken off like the juggernaut it appeared it was going to be. There are however a number of successes. I am a subscriber to several. My most beloved is Filmspotting. A weekly film review podcast of a Chicago Public Radio show. Its hosts are Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson. The Filmspotting format is to review 1-2 movies currently in theaters. There is then a contest called Massacre Theater in which the hosts recite lines from films and listeners email in to win a DVD. Then there is a recap of what DVD's came out that week, then a quick announcement of monetary contributors to the show. At this point they usually review a film that is part of a marathon they are having that listeners are encouraged to follow. Marathon topics have included the works of classic directors, silent movies, foreign films, etc. Then the show is closed out with a weekly Top 5. The Top 5 generally ties in with a topic that has been discussed on the show.

Top 5 lists. Filmspotting has them, so did High Fidelity. Another great romantic comedy, and a major influence on 500 Days of Summer. Generally I agree with the Filmspotting guys takes on movies, even when they don't agree with each other. That is to say that I know what they are saying, but sometimes they can be completely wrong. Sadly, that is the case with their review of this great film. 500 Days is a story about a boy that meets girl of his dreams. There is only one problem, she doesn't believe in love and doesn't want to be any one's "girlfriend". They do spark a relationship, but after some time she ends it. He becomes depressed. But wait! They have a chance meeting on a train. Right as he was starting to get over her and now it looks like there might be the possibility they can make it work. That is before she shatters his life in a twist that I didn't see coming at all. He is reduced to ashes. Scratch that. He is reduced to ashes, then the ashes are soaked in urine. He is reduced to a gray gelatinous urine soaked blob. But as things go he begins to pull himself out of yet another funk and maybe this time things might go his way.

I normally don't provide a synopsis of movies, but to explain the comments made on Filmspotting, I thought a basic understand of the plot would be helpful. Adam, sometimes referred to as "Art House Adam", his negative comments centered around the movie being cliche.

Overly cute in its self reflectivity....It's really everything and the kitchen sink. ~ Adam Kempenarr

Matty, or "Mainstream Matty Ballgame", complaints were about the film being unoriginal and having too many unnecessary moments.

Too much filler and fluff....This is Benson humor. ~ Matty Robinson

It should be said that both Adam and Matty thought the film was good, just not great. What I like about Filmspotting is that no matter weather they are providing positive or negative reviews, it is the thought and manner they put into their critiques that set them apart. They rarely come out and say a film is "good or not good". Generally they will provide explanations of what they thought did or didn't work and why. With 500 Days they go on to make brilliant insights like...

It all pays off in a scene later where you get some insight to the true nature of their relationship, and you realize the the entire relationship has been built on a charade of cinema... Tom has been projecting all his fantasizes from movies onto her. ~ Adam Kempenarr

This is a sharp observation and possibly the reason I was sucked into this movie like it was a jet engine. The first time I saw it I almost had a panic attack in the theater. The emotions that Tom, played pitch perfect by Joseph Gordon Levitt, were emitting were so familiar. I thought I had exhausted and repressed all of those memories from a very similar relationship with my own "manic-pixie-dream girl". I decided to wait a few weeks and see it again to make sure my opinion wasn't based on familiarity. I was rewarded upon a second viewing. I begin to see deeper into the film and realize the careful construction Marc Webb used in order to pull those emotions from his audience without manipulating them. Perhaps it is more honest to say that the entire relationship is a manipulation. One where the hints and clues of what to come are displayed right in front of the viewers face. Webb disperses this info like a romantic-comedy version of The Usual Suspects.

Zooey Deschanel manages her finest performance to date. A sharply crafted anti-hero. A woman strong and vulnerable, sharp, witty, fiercely independent and tender. She was tasked with delivering the line "What I was never sure of with you". Her vocalizing this line pushed her just slightly ahead of the Wicked Witch of the West on my Top 5 All Time Villains List. But if her character, Summer, called tonight I would drop what I'm doing and run to her. Being a movie nerd I see the world at 24 frames per second. I quote movie lines all day long, most of my references come from films to the point that I drive most of my friends crazy. I am Tom.

500 Days of Summer is a nonlinear movie about the 500 days of a relationship. It is a movie about wanting something so bad that you try to make it into something it's not. It is a movie about how movies, music, and pop culture can skew our take reality. Am I miserable because I listen to Filmspotting, or do I listen to Filmspotting because I am miserable?

Inglourious Basterds - Incorrectly Spelled on Purpose This Time

This was the weekend I have been waiting for all summer. It's fair to say that this is the weekend that I have been waiting on for the past 10 years. After seeing Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and reading everything I could about this revolutionary director I found out that he was scribing a Dirty Dozen-esque WWII movie. I was intrigued to say the least. Then after seeing how he could warp the blaxploitation genre with Jackie Brown, combine the Kung Fu and Spaghetti Western films with Kill Bill and make an homage to B movie slasher films with Death Proof I was salivating at the thought of his take on the war film.

So right off the bat I had huge expectations for his newest film Inglourious Basterds (IB). If you followed my blog this weekend you might have seen that in order to "beat the crowd" I slept in the cab of my truck in the theaters parking lot. I wanted to be the first one in the theater, and I wanted to get "my seat" (I love to sit in the center of a theater using the X,Y,and Z axis). I know that inflated expectations are a dangerous thing for a critic. After the Coen Brothers released the best film of the 00's, No Country For Old Men, I held the bar sky high for their next film Burn After Reading. I got burnt on that one.

While I was camping in my truck I took some time to read the reviews of IB. The two I want to focus on are Michael Sragow's from the Baltimore Sun, and Richard Corliss's of Time Magazine. Sragow has the film as a 38 on Metacritic. Corliss is a 100.

This is usually the point in the review where I point out the consistencies of the different reviewers and make my snide comments with anything I disagree with. Problem is these 2 critics have virtually nothing to compare. Sragow despised IB and really didn't have much if any positive things to say.

The only hope for "Inglourious Basterds" is that audiences will embrace it the way the Broadway crowd did "Springtime for Hitler": because it's so bad they think it's good. ~ Michael Sragow

I really can't comment too much on Mr. Sragow's review. I disagree with almost everything he has to say about the film. He refers to the movie as being "soporific", "killingly repetitive", "hollow and protracted".

Corliss however was quite gushing with his comments.

Tarantino shows how to achieve drama through whispers and forced smiles...the pot simmers, then the lid blows off it's the artful mix of subtlety and surprise. ~ Michael Corliss

My problem with this review is that I absolutely loved the movie, but I agree with Sragow on SOME of his criticisms, and I disagree with Corliss on some of the elements he enjoyed.

Sragow points out the the weakest element of IB is The Basterds themselves. This is true. Brad Pitt just doesn't have the chops to pull of a Tarantino anti-hero. He never gets beyond a cartoon characterization of Aldo Raine. The biggesst distraction in the movie has to be Eli Roth as a baseball wielding Jewish solider called "The Bear Jew". Roth directed "Pride of the Nation" A Nazi propaganda film that plays within IB, but his acting skills are nonexistent.

Corliss makes it a point that Tarantino fans will be let down by the absence of his cinematic footwork. He then mentions a few cut away scenes like a couple seconds of a German officer and his interpreter having sex, The cut away to explain one of the Basterds back story, and shots where high ranking Nazi's have there name scribbled over their heads with arrows pointing to them. These were some of the most pointless and frustrating elements of the movie to me. They didn't add anything to the story nor did they ever tie into anything. This was movie making masturbation.

Where Corliss got it right was in mentioning the female characters. Nobody writes better for women than Tarantino. The female leads were beautiful, cunning, and deadly. It is worth mentioning that this is a war movie without any battle scenes. There isn't a tank, bomber, or bunker to be seen. Mr Sragow believes this is because, in his opinion, Tarantino "couldn't stage a sweeping war scene". I believe it is because he is subverting the genre. He is using words as weapons. The tension in this movie doesn't come from the brutal acts being performed (don't worry,there are plenty of those to go around), it comes from the delicate delivery of lines sharper than any of the bastards scalping knives. The violence is mearly the payoff.

A few quick notes to finish out. 75% of this movie is n sub-titles, so if you are opposed to reading at the theater I might think twice before you buy your ticket. Also some other acting standouts beyond the female leads (Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger) are the Best Actor winner at Cannes, Christopher Waltz as "The Jew Hunter". My issue with him is that they tried to act some comedic elements to his persona that for me just fell flat. The male character that stood out the most for me was Dennis Menochet as a French dairy farmer that may be hiding Jew in his home. I hope he gets tons of work after his performance.

IB is far from over taking PF as my all-time favorite film, but it is a continuation in the career of America's bravest and boldest filmmaker working today. My only problem now is the IMDB doesn't have any new projects listed for Quentin Tarantino. Oh well, there is always another Coen Brother movie later this year. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Grindhouse was as awesome as I remembered it. The fake trailers provide the perfect pallet cleansing between features. What a weekend. I didn't get home until 6:00am this morning. I'm looking forward to a relaxing evening at home. Watching a Sam Fuller twofer on DVD!

T minus 2 hours till show time. I'm at a bar across the street from the theater enjoying the local hospitality.

Tonight I have made my way 2.5 hours east to catch a special midnight viewing of the original theatrical release of Grindhouse. I saw this movie 3 times on it's first release and can't wait to see it and all it's campy glory again.

I'm getting ready for my 3rd viewing. I thought I would mention the trailers that preview before the movie. Avatar: I hope it has a good story and it isn't just relying on CGI to get by. Halloween actually looks good. And Shutter Island looks fantastic!

I've just exited my 2rd viewing of IB. Having known the story I was able to focus more on the cinematography and camera work. Tarantino uses a camera the way a master seamstress uses a needle. It is a beautifully shot film.