I could say the exact same thing about 500 Days of Summer, the Agony Booth perfectly summed up why that film is so lousy, none of the characters in that film were really interesting or likeable: http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/500_Days_of_Summer_2009.aspx

The worst thing you could say about 500 Days of Summer is that it is tame or a little dull (although I don't think it is).

But unlike Friends with Benefits and Easy-A, it isn't positively loathsome.

I think loathsome might be a bit strong. I'd consider them lightweight, forgetable, disposable and pandering to the lowest common denominator. If one appeared on the screen in front of me, I might consider it worth the effort to reach for the remote. They are the lite beer of entertainment; offering reduced flavor and representing a dilution of something that may have been good.

500 reaches above this level into good microbrew territory.

I'm dumbfounded as to how people could find Easy A and "Friends" loathsome. I myself found 500 Days loathsome in some regards, mainly because of the irritating side-characters that added absolutely nothing to the film, especially the cliched ultra-wise-younger-sibling, I despite characters like that that only seem to exist to give advice to the protagonist, for me that's one of the first signs of lazy screenwriting, that type of character was done better inImagine Me And You. Also the main characters were just too thinly written for me to care whether they end up together or not, seems like Marc Webb used the gimmick of showing days out of chronological order to try and disguise that, but if you actually put the days together in chronological order(which Agony Booth did at the end of the recap) the relationship dosen't make sense(not that it did to begin with). At the end of the day, I just don't see how this film is any better then a middling rom-com like "How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days" no matter how much people praise 500 Days, it's just one of those films i'm never going to "get".

I'll have to disagree with you about How to Lose a Man in 10 Days. It's not middling; it's truly terrible. Although Dog Park actually makes it look relatively decent.

You don't know what terrible is until you've seen "All About Steve" Next to that film, almost any other rom-com looks good by comparison.

Are either of the 3 movies in question truly loathsome? Come on, guys. There's nothing about any of those movies that's particularly offensive. If any of these movies actually offend you on any level, you're probably one of the least enjoyable people to be around on Earth.

Friends with Benefits actually started off as a pretty clever commentary on the genre before it devolved into pure formula. It ended up being a standard romcom with a few nice moments, but nothing terribly special or terribly awful.

Easy A isn't really a romantic comedy at all. The romance between Emma Stone and the guy she ends up with isn't really what the film is about. It fits more firmly in the high school comedy genre than the romantic comedy genre. It's one of those updated, modern, loose retellings of classic literature (The Scarlet Letter, obviously). I thought Emma Stone was really good in it, even if the story isn't anything special. I'm actually at a loss as to why someone would have as much venom towards the movie as NotHugh seems to. There's plenty of worse, more offensive movies out there to get your panties in a bunch over.

500 Days of Summer has a nice performance from JGL, an inventive structure, and an atypical ending. It's a solid film, but a little more of a dramedy mixed with a coming of age story than it is a romcom. Again though, I'm not sure what could be considered loathsome about the movie.



1. Why does that matter? The movie makes sense as presented. Who cares if if wouldn't make sense it presented another way? Judge what's there, not what isn't.

2. The structure isn't a gimmick. It's used to show how JGL's character was completely lost and wrapped up in Summer. The problem was that he was trying to attain happiness through another person, not through himself. Telling the story nonlinearly is a clever way to make that point. It isn't the timeline of events or the natural ups and downs of the relationship that matter.

Well I didn't think it was clever and I didn't buy the central relationship for one second, so it mattered little to me whether they ended up together or not, I love Joseph and Zooey, but even they couldn't save the film as they're characters were just too thinly written for me to care about them.

I'm dumfounded at your dumfoundedness.

Easy-A is a horrible film, with the most annoying actor ever as lead in Emma f*cking Stone, a girl who manages to give smug geeks an even worse name. And a so-called story that is so intellectually, and more importantly, morally vacuous it makes my head hurt. Add to this the fact that it isn't funny, and isn't the least bit romantic. And it perverts the great literature that it references.

Friends with Benefits is worse. It's not funny. It's not warm. Its diaologue is just TV comedy fodder akin to Two and a Half Men (which is awful by the way). The plot is just 2 detestable yuppies without an ounce of self-awareness between them using each other for sex before finally hitting the most cliched and telegraphed ending imaginable. It's an unsexy exercise in pure bad taste. The film poster with Timberlake using the finger symbol, and Kunis the hole sums up the whole sordid playground-joke event. That wasn't funny when I was 8 years old. I won't find it funny at 30.

And both these films feature Patricia Clarkson utterly debasing herself as a slutty upper-middle aged Mother. 2 of the worst films I've seen in the past year.


Syd -


Damn straight it is. Awful awful awful!

I looked up how long a generation actually lasts. Google came up with around 20 years
So my generation starts from 1992 and ends in 2012.
So let's say you don't choose from all the films thart came out in the last twenty years.
Look at the midpoint for my generation (2002) and see what the major films that were released that year
it appears that the most popular Rom Com that year was "My Big Fat Greek Wedding".
"About a boy" also did well that year. It's not a bad movie and actually has a commendable performace from Hugh Grant.

I dare say sir, you've been Vexed.

What's morally vacuous about Easy A? The film comes down against all the nastiness and backhandedness it presents.



Would you say the same about someone like Leslie Manville in Another Year? It's funny how when someone plays a trashy person in a drama it's hailed as great acting, but when it's done for comedy it's usually seen as exploitative or debasing yourself.

I'm not sure I understand how Easy A can be considered morally and intellectually vacuous. I know it was not Mensa matterial per say, but a film that has a message (on how fucked up societies double standards on male female sexuality are) cannot be called "morally vacuous".

-Jeremy

I didn't elaborate on my choice (500 Days of Summer) and then I forgot about this thread until it got bumped. Well, the reason for my pick is that although it is not the best reviewed or the most commercially successful (unlike When Harry met Sally which I agree that it's that generation's defining one), I feels it connects to people my age really well (I was 19 when it came out). When this topic came up in casual conversation with friends (both American and Thai), I was very surprised to hear that many of them answered with this movie too. Especially surprised coming from the friends in my country (Thai people in general aren't very movie-savvy; 80% box office hits here are like mainstream big summer action stuff from abroad. And 500 Days of Summer is not even theatrically released here). My friends said it felt true and they sympathized with the male lead, especially with the "Expectation vs Reality" scene, which really resonates with them. It also is a movie with strong words of mouth (although in this case after the theatrical release), because about half of them say that they've watched it by someone recommending/lending it to them.

As for Easy A and Friends with Benefit, I was a little bit disappointed with the former given some of the hype but Emma Stone was really charming and went a long way to elevate the movie, while the latter surprised me with how funny (and not always low-brow funny) and easy-going it feels, although the romance isn't its strongest asset, thus when the last half concentrates on that it drags a little. But loathsome? Nahh.