Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars in "500 Days of Summer."

“500 Days of Summer” is getting excellent reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and looks like it will dominate the box office once the Harry Potter hype dies down.

Marc Webb, the director of “500 Days of Summer” says the premise of the movie is that it’s “a guy’s point of view on this mess called love or relationships.” So will a “chick flick” type of movie geared toward men pull in the big bucks? I think it will. Critics are raving. To find “500 Days of Summer” showtimes, just head to boxofficemojo.com a type in your zip code.

It’s showtime for “500 Days of Summer”

Marc Webb and his cohorts are about to get rich, if audiences respond as well to “500 Days of Summer” as critics have. Of course, they also must have the $9 or more for a movie ticket. However, according to Rotten Tomatoes, this flick is well worth it. It’s gotten 89 percent good reviews. Just don’t go getting a cash advance to pay for a movie ticket.

Joe Neumaier from New York Daily News says “500 Days of Summer” is “a romantic comedy that feels like real life.”

Yes, first-time director Marc Webb includes a few clichéd conceits, like a tongue-in-cheek dance sequence, a wise younger sister and the usual array of goofball buddies. But there’s something else going on here, something emotionally honest, and the movie alerts viewers to that by stating immediately that its couple won’t wind up together.

Claudia Puig, USA Today:

Cultural resonance aside, it’s hard to imagine a more delightful, witty, well-acted and inventive comedy hitting screens this year.

What sets (500) Days of Summer apart from its derivative rom-com brethren is its subtle mocking of convention and its charmingly heartfelt story presented in a way that’s both breezy and innovative. With singular creative touches, first-time director Marc Webb invigorates what is essentially a boy-meets-girl story.

Christy Lemire, Associated Press:

Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy tries to win girl back: It’s a tale you’ve heard a million times before. But it’s told in such a relatable, inventive way in “500 Days of Summer,” it almost feels like the first time.

It is the first time for director Marc Webb, who puts his music video and commercial background to good use with stylish tactics that are lively – a cheeky dance sequence, perfect song choices, a clever use of split screen – but never feel gratuitous.

And the script from Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber keeps things moving by jumping back and forth in time between Day 500, Day 1 and everywhere in between; the structure also creates a feeling of curiosity throughout, because we know this relationship is doomed, we just don’t know how it falls apart.

Desson Thomson, Washington Post

Finally, a romance that understands we mark our lives by our scrapes with love, and our defeats, rather than simply white-wedding-cake success. A movie that sidesteps the Pollyanna pornography of Happily Ever After. That dives headlong into the “Any Given Sunday” sport of normal heartbreak.

The quality of a movie is, of course, an entirely subjective thing. Nevertheless, I wanted to check out the numbers on the worst movies ever.

RottenTomatoes.com collects movie reviews from a vast base of critics that includes professionals, amateurs and anyone who knows how to pick a username and password. Thanks to this collective approach of rating the quality of a movie, I decided to go with their ruling on worst movies ever.

Without further ado, here are the 10 worst movies ever, according to Rotten Tomatoes.

10. “Half Past Dead”

Directed by Don Michael Paul, “Half Past Dead” came out in 2002. This film got a score of 2 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, which means only 2 percent of the people who weighed in on “Half Past Dead” gave it a positive review.

Despite the 98 percent consensus that this Steven Seagal movie was “rotten,” the film still managed to make some money. The movie cost $13 million to make, and it pulled in $15.4 million worldwide at the box office.

Unfortunately, a $2 million profit is still going to leave the filmmakers running for a faxless payday loan before they can make another movie.

9. “The Master of Disguise”

Dana Carvey’s previous success on “Wayne’s World” and “Saturday Night Live” wasn’t enough to save “The Master of Disguise.” The film also appears to be a career-ender for Carvey, who hasn’t made a movie since “The Master” was released in 2002.

“The Master of Disguise” makes No. 9 on the worst movies ever list with a 2 percent score. Nonetheless, the film actually pulled in a pretty big chunk of change. The movie cost $16 million to make and pulled in more than $40 million at the box office. Not bad for being one of the worst movies ever.

8. “Twisted”

Who would have thought a movie starring Samuel L. Jackson would end up a No. 8 on the worst movies ever list? “Twisted” also scored 2 percent.

The 2004 release bombed big time at the box office. Crime drama “Twisted” cost $50 million to make and only made $25 million. Ouch. In addition to the audience, the producers of this film probably consider it one of the worst movies ever.

7. “National Lampoon’s Gold Diggers”

You had to know you’d see one of the National Lampoon’s series movies on here. Rotten Tomatoes says “National Lampoon’s Gold Diggers” was “tame, toothless and dull.” I guess the shock factor was easier to achieve when National Lampoon’s movies started coming out in ‘89.

“National Lampoon’s Gold Diggers” was released under the name “Lady Killers” outside the U.S. IMDB doesn’t list the movie’s budget — maybe to avoid embarrassment. The film’s box office earnings barely broke the half-million-dollar mark. Oh, and 0 percent of Rotten Tomatoes critics gave it a good review.

6. “Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2″

Needless to say, the rest of the movies on this list got 0 percent scores at Rotten Tomatoes. “Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2″ proved that “bad jokes still aren’t funny when coming out of a toddler’s mouth,” according to Rotten Tomatoes.

The film managed to attract a few people to the box office, and it pulled in about $9 million. However, I couldn’t find the budget for this film either, so I am willing to bet they lost a truckload. The box office earnings probably barely covered Jon Voight’s salary. Scott Baio probably had to go without a paycheck.

5. “King’s Ransom”

“King’s Ransom” seems to be one of those movies that was so bad it actually piqued people’s curiosity. You know what I’m talking about; you’ve rented a movie just to see if it really qualified as one of the worst movies ever.

“King’s Ransom” made almost four times as much from video rentals as it did at the box office. It fell just shy of making $4 million in movie ticket sales, but curious film watchers spent $15 million on renting it. Luckily, that $15 million covered the cost of making the movie, so that $4 million at the box office was all profit.

4. “Pinocchio”

Wait, wait! Before you write a strongly worded letter demanding how people could dig on a classic Disney film, you should know: We’re talking about the 2002, live-action film.

Don’t remember that? Consider yourself lucky. Rotten Tomatoes says: “Torturous. Avoid it like the plague.”

Well, people did avoid 2002’s “Pinocchio.” It barely broke $1 million on its opening weekend, and only sold $3.7 million at the box office overall. Um, the really bad news? Live-action “Pinocchio” cost $54.4 million.

Maybe the filmmakers could borrow some money from the makers of the cartoon version of “Pinocchio.” In 1940, “Pinocchio” cost $2.6 million to make and pulled in $39 million at the box office. Re-releases made $26 million in 1984 and $19 million in 1992. It has made more than $40 million in rentals.

3.”Crossover”

“Crossover,” directed by Preston A. Whitmore II and starring a bunch of people I’ve never heard of, came out in 2006. Wayne Brady did have a part in the movie, and that might account for the $7 million it made at the box office.

Luckily, the film only cost $5.6 million, which shows that you get what you pay for, I suppose.

2. “Alone in the Dark”

Despite the star power of Christian Slater and Tara Reid, critics gave “Alone in the Dark” a resounding thumbs-down. Moviegoers agreed it was one of the worst movies ever.

The 2005 flick cost $20 million to make and made a bit more than $5 million at the box office. Can I get a “whoops”?

1. “Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever”

What? Yeah, that’s what I thought, too. Here’s what critics on Rotten Tomatoes thought of “Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever”: “Wall-to-wall action without a hint of wit or plot.”

Still, a few people managed to utter the title well enough to get a ticket. The film made about $14 million at the box office. Unfortunately, it had a budget of $70 million, making it a costly nail in the coffin on the list of worst movies ever.