Thursdays Without Zada

“Suckerpunch”

Written by Zack Snyder and Steve Shibuya; Directed by Zack Snyder; Stars: Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung, Carla Gugino, Oscar Issac and Scott Glenn. Story: A young girl is institutionalized by her abusive stepfather. Retreating to an alternative reality as a coping strategy, she envisions a plan which will help her escape from the mental facility.

Seen by Adam and Lars, March 27, 2011

LARS:

Some movies are easy targets for critics. “Sucker Punch” is definitely one of those. It is very easy to accuse it of being shallow, all about form and fetishizing young, scantily clad girls. I can’t even say that I’d disagree with either of those accusations. I went into “Sucker Punch” having heard/read little, but just enough to expect that I’d probably hate it. As readers of this blog will know, I am all about the story, and my consternation with most movies is that the scripts are terrible. But, to my surprise, I realized about half-ways through “Sucker Punch” that I was really digging it.

To explain why I liked it, I have to confess to enjoying musicals. Yes, I’m the one straight guy in the world that actually likes musicals. I love “My Fair Lady”, “Rocky Horror Picture Show”, “Grease” and “Moulin Rouge” to mention a few (I do, however, struggle with “The Sound of Music”, feeling a strange urge to commit grievous bodily harm whenever Julie Andrews sings). What “Sucker Punch” is, for my money, is a musical that substitutes spectacular action set pieces for song and dance numbers. It may be the first musical for the gaming generation. As in most musicals, the characters are slight, not all that deep and they only really come to life, when they can express themselves through song, or, in this case, insane and ever escalating fight scenes.

No one can accuse the director Zack Snyder of being subtle. All his movies (and he unashamedly makes movies, not films) use slow motion excessively and green screen to the point where reality takes Elvis’ hand and leaves the building. Both “300” and “Watchmen” were based on the works of comic book royalty (Frank Miller and Alan Moore, respectively) and had fan boys ready to pounce, if he got a frame wrong. He didn’t. That “Watchmen” doesn’t completely work as a film is not all Snyder’s fault. Terry Gilliam had it right, when he said that the graphic novel was unfilmable. With “Sucker Punch”, Snyder is working from his own material for the first time, so even if the movie feels like it’s based on a comic book, it isn’t. Rather it’s the work of a big, playful boy, who finally can make the sand castle he wanted to make all along.

“Sucker Punch” reminds me a lot of “Moulin Rouge”. It has some of the same frenetic editing, the color overload and the extreme characters that are obviously archetypes and not real people. “Moulin Rouge” also divides people; you either hate it or love it. There is little middle ground. The two movies also share the characteristic that the story is mainly an excuse to stage set pieces that the director has dreamt about for years. You shouldn’t think too much about it. Just enjoy the ride.

The girls of “Sucker Punch” really only have to do two things well: look great in very little and fight like a crew of Shaolin monks. Emily Browning, who plays the main character, Babydoll, in a sailor uniform as imagined by the most lecherous tailor of all time, gets to carry most of the film. She’s perfectly cast; about 5 feet tall and with huge innocent eyes, she looks like a fly could beat the crap out of her. But give the girl a sword, and she’ll show you that’s not the case.  At least in her imagination. After a brief mood-setting opening, the rest of movie takes place inside of her mind. At least I think so. Not that it really matters.

The “Sucker Punch” soundtrack is the perfect companion. It consists of reinterpretations of modern classics such as Pixies’ “Where is my Mind”, “Sweet Dreams (are made of this)” and The Smiths’ “Asleep” to mention a few. 

I think I’ll get the Blu-Ray when it comes out and every now and then, when I need a complete break from reality, I’ll put on “Sucker Punch” on the biggest screen I can find, crank up the volume and enjoy the hell out of the mayhem.

ADAM:

Where to begin…This is a tough one.  How do I explain a movie that is so “out there,” so different in its execution, storyline and look than most things I’ve seen before?  I can say it’s original. That’s safe. And more accurate than “groundbreaking,” which is too kind.  But “different” isn’t kind enough.  The reality is that “Suckerpunch” is at its core a story we’ve heard and seen before; it’s a story about a helpless girl thrown into a world she doesn’t at first understand.  She must navigate difficult waters, decide who to trust and eventually gain the strength to defeat those who oppress her.  It’s a revenge piece, no doubt.  So deciding how the journey will unfold from victimization (point A) to revenge (point Z) is where “Suckerpunch” makes it’s departure from most things you’ve ever seen before.

Babydoll, a young girl, who recently lost her mother is victimized by her stepfather and is forced to fend for herself and her little sister.  Framed for her sister’s murder (carried out by said stepfather), Babydoll is sent to a creepy old compound for the mentally insane, filled with unsavory characters and rife with its own brand of corruption.  As Babydoll is considered for a lobotomy, we pull away from reality, and into a world filled with the same actors, though the troubled girl patients are now exotic show dancers, held captive at a social club against their will, and those in charge at the asylum manifest as the club owner, the security, the local mayor, etc. who wield power.  And within this fantasy world, there’s an additional split — and another level of fantasy that manifests whenever Babydoll dances.  As she begins to move, we’re transported to an ever-developing battlefield where enemies range from dragons to Nazis to robots.  And these battles, as well as searches for treasures or elixirs in these fantasy worlds mirror things in the real life asylum and function to help Babydoll and her friends escape.

There’s no question you have to check a bit of cynicism at the door on this one, but if you do, you might have fun with Suckerpunch, like I did.  The soundtrack absolutely helps; some high grade drugs would only make it better, I imagine.  My biggest note is that I would like to have known what the people in the social club were experiencing by way of dance while Babydoll was deep in trance, fighting the good fight.  I also think having seen “Inception” last year may have helped me comprehend and enjoy this film, as there seemed to be an analogous feel:  the asylum is real, conscious world, the social club is a dream and the battle fantasies are a dream within the dream.

In any event, I feel that little Lars or I say here will push anyone over the top to spend $12.50 to see this film.  If the trailer didn’t get you moderately interested, it’s a pass for you, I’m sure.  But maybe this review will make you throw it in your Netflix queue. Lars mentioned he thought this will have a healthy life on rental, and I agree completely.  And though we’re in the minority, I enjoyed this one and how it stepped away from the typical, formulaic and ultimately forgettable pictures that dot most of our movie-going schedule.

“Battle: Los Angeles”

Written by Christopher Bertolini; Directed by Jonathan Liebesman; Stars:Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez and Bridget Moynahan. Story: Aliens attack the Earth; story focuses on the attack of Los Angeles and a Marines Unit as it struggles through a part of the city struggling to stay alive and protect each other as well as a few civilians they discover.

Seen by Adam and Lars, March 20, 2011

LARS:

It is a tough time to be a science-fiction fan. While there seems to be more and more content created to satisfy the sci-fi community, the sad fact is that most of it is downright awful and an insult to our intelligence. And trust me when I say this: The sci-fi community may be geeky, but they are SMART. That’s why it remains so surprising to me that Hollywood seems to think sci-fi movies need to be dumb. Look at some of the last couple of year’s best sci-fi movies and TV shows: Was “Inception” dumb? Was “Battlestar Galactica” dumb? Granted, “Avatar” was pretty dumb, but that was mostly an exercise in world-creation, so it has to be judged slightly differently. For some reason that I don’t fully understand, Hollywood has decided that smart is downright anti-American. What they apparently don’t understand is that sci-fi geeks have money to spend. And not only will we go see the movie in theaters, we will also buy the DVD. Hell, we’ll even buy the box set of the whole season on Blu-Ray. There is money to be made catering to this community with good content. I can’t help blaming “Star Wars” a little bit, especially the last trilogy, which was so dumb and made so much money that it may have influenced filmmakers and studios a little too much. But look at “Alien(s)”, “Lost” (yes, “Lost” was sci-fi, kids), “Minority Report” and even “The Fifth Element”. You can make damn good sci-fi that’s also great entertainment. Instead we get shit like “The Event” and “Skyline”. And don’t even get me started on the superhero movie sub-genre of sci-fi… Does anyone think “Thor” will be any good? Meanwhile even David Fincher can’t get Arthur C. Clarke’s “Rendezvous with Rama” off the ground, and Universal recently chickened out of doing H.P. Lovecraft’s “At the Mountain of Madness” even with Guillermo Del Toro as the director and James Cameron as the producer. Sigh.

One of the biggest issues here is that it’s gotten a lot cheaper to do special effects. This has led to the misunderstanding that that’s the sole reason we go to sci-fi movies. And, sure, that’s part of it. There’s something satisfying about seeing other worlds and their inhabitants come to life. And about large-scale destruction that doesn’t really work well in movies like, say, “The King’s Speech”. Although I’d have paid good money to see Jar Jar Binks teach English to King George, and then blow up Buckingham Palace, when the King failed to pronounce a vowel correctly. But, honestly, it’s like eating McDonald’s food. It satisfies a craving for a minute, then shortly after, you’re disgusted with yourself and you wow never to go back. Until you do.

Anyway, the reason for this rant is the affront to any creature of even a modicum of intelligence that is “Battle: LA”. First off, I would argue that it’s barely even a movie. It could probably have been shot inside the game engine of “Gears of War”. It’s basically a 3rd person shooter game. With dialogue worthy of a game. Although I’d argue that at this point that even games know that if you can get your players emotionally involved with a character’s plight, then you have a stronger story with more engagement. “Battle: LA” truly leaves no cliché unturned. Aaron Eckhart (who must REALLY have needed the money) is slumming as the sergeant with a history of bad judgment who must redeem himself. Michelle Rodriguez plays the usual hard-ass chick (she must be SO tired of playing the same character in every movie) who is mostly there to give women someone to identify with, as they’ve mostly been forced into the theater by their boyfriends. Everyone else is basically cannon fodder.

The aliens? They are from generic alien shelf no 17. There’s nothing new or revolutionary about them. They are not even particularly interesting. They apparently want the Earth for our water. Ho-hum. At least make the invaders intimidating and scary as hell, if you want me to root for the humans. I frankly hoped they would get Eckhart, so he would stop spouting nonsense all the time.

Finally, the ending is about as clever as a bag of hammers. It makes the gloriously stupid Macbook virus solution from “Independence Day” look like a fucking Einstein move.

Let’s hope that “Battle: LA” and “Skyline” means that we’ve hit rock bottom. The only way is up: Head for the second star to the right, and straight on till morning.

ADAM:

War is hell. With smog.  ”Battle of Los Angeles” was a war movie I was looking forward to, but I had many reservations; far too often the promise of a great Sci-fi action movie is never delivered upon and what we’re left with is either hokey dialogue, an implausible and unsatisfying resolution, characters we don’t care about and more questions than answers — and not the good ones, like “what happens after Richard Dreyfuss takes off in the spaceship at the end of Close Encounters?” Nothing wrong with dangling that little carrot in front of the audience as the credits roll. But in Battle of Los Angeles, we have all three; hokey dialogue, an unsatisfying conclusion and characters we don’t care about. They combine to deliver a less than satisfying experience for the brain and heart; the visuals, which are a pretty decent feast for the eyes, can’t carry this movie and thus “Battle” becomes pretty forgettable by the time you get home.

Now, I’m not saying it’s all bad; it’s not. The action and look are pretty damn nice, in fact I’d liken the visual experience to that of watching a pretty adept player working his or her way through a sortie battle of a very refined and realistic PS3 or XBOX 360 video game. And I actually enjoyed the fact that the “war” model was used, rather than the “disaster” model as far as story is concerned; this isn’t another introduction to a plethora of characters from all walks of life and subsequently an intercutting of how they all deal with the madness. This is about the members of one unit, and how they make their way through the battlefield during the invasion. I think this strategy in storytelling was a good choice. And probably where the good choices ended. Aaron Eckhart is saddled with some of the worst dialogue I’ve heard in a while, particularly when he’s forced to keep up morale of his subordinates, who challenge his caring about his men and ability to lead after a previous battle where he lost an entire platoon. Eckhart’s response to justify how much he cares and the guilt he carries with him: every lost soldier’s name and ID number from memory. Now, color me practical, but maybe if this guy spent more time on the firing range and less time memorizing inconsequential numbers from the past, this crew might find a way to turn the proverbial tide rather than finding several alien caps in their asses. And there’s yet another moment of dramatic mastery when Eckhart tries to raise the spirits of a ten year old boy who just watched his father die, by making him an honorary Marine and reminding him he must be tough and not give up now (presumedly like the kid’s decomposing dad in the next room did, giving up on life with his last breath.) How charming.

And though some of the alien ships are cool, we never see them up close. The aliens are very reminiscent of the “Independence Day” variety, but again we only see so much — enough for the Marines to figure out where they must be shot in order to kill them. And then the movie really gets weak. It’s by the numbers, you know who will win, even if some lives are lost.  My last random comment? The film features the ever gorgeous Bridget Moynahan, and ever annoying, but still fairly hot Michelle Rodriguez, and manages to make them both as dumpy looking as possible. I know there are casualties in war. But a sense of sexuality shouldn’t be a casualty of the war movie genre. All in all, Battle of Los Angeles lived up to my expectations by underwhelming me. I’m tempted to make a bad, pun-laden, Marine joke… We’ll let’s just sat I thought it was [Hoo - Ra] - ble.

Day of Double Disappointment: “Rango” + “The Adjustment Bureau”

“Rango”

Written by John Logan; Directed by Gore Verbinski; Stars: Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin and Ned Beatty. Story: A happy go lucky, but somewhat socially inept lizard who lives a life of make believe where he cannot fail is thrust into a real life drama where he must live up to the daydream image he’s created for himself if he is going to save himself and a victimized dusty western town in the process.

“The Adjustment Bureau”

Written and Directed by George Nolfi, based on the short story by Philip K. Dick; Stars: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, John Slattery and Terrence Stamp. Story: The affair between a politician and a ballerina is affected by mysterious forces keeping the lovers apart.  The forces, we learn, are run by what seems to be a higher power keen to keep everyone on Earth on the path which has be previously designed for him or her. 

Seen by Adam and Lars, March 5th, 2011

LARS:

It was Saturday, it was sunny and there was a bounce in my step, even though I’d had maybe a couple of drinks more than I strictly needed the night before. It was going to be a day of fun, good movies: an animated movie by Gore Verbinski and a sci-fi movie based on a Philip K. Dick short story. With a BBQ intermission. Oh, yeah, this day was looking just fine. Oh, hope, you’re such a fickle mistress…

“Rango” began wonderfully. Johnny Depp was giving an excellent voice to the eponymous befuddled lizard with an over-active imagination who suddenly finds himself in the middle of a classic horse opera in the old West. The animation is outstanding, the characters sharply drawn and then about 30 minutes into the flick, it all began to fall apart. Kids in the theatre got bored and restless, and parents had to leave with them. Both Adam and I were struggling not to take a quick catnap to free up mental space for the BBQ to follow.

What happened? “Rango” started out with a wonderfully imaginative idea and a great opening, but then descended into every Western cliché imaginable. It lifted to plot almost wholesale from “Chinatown” (which isn’t the worst source to pillage, if you must) and sprinkled it with leftovers from any Western you’ve ever seen. In the hands of a Tarantino, this could have been amazing fun, but here it just got predictable and dull. Which is a real shame, as everything except the script was firing on all cylinders. This movie demonstrated why Pixar is such an amazing company, and why it’s so hard to do what they do. They never begin a movie before the script has been through the wringer and they are magnificent at appealing to kids and adults alike. “Rango” is definitely not a kid’s movie – not unless they’re at least 10 years old.

INTERMISSION – the BBQ from Wildwood BBQ on Park Avenue was excellent. I had the Three Little Piggies platter. My arteries were screaming in protest.

Philip K. Dick has not been treated well by the movies. For every “Blade Runner” and “Minority Report” there’s a “Paycheck” and “A Scanner Darkly”. So it’s a crapshoot every time you try to do one of Dick’s stories which category you’ll end up in. It’s easy to see, why Hollywood can’t stay away from the material. Dick’s stories usually revolve around a big idea or a high concept, as they like to call it in LaLa Land. Nail that and you have yourself an interesting flick. At least that seems to be the fallacy that the writers of “The Adjustment Bureau” bought into.

The film has a super-solid bone: there’s a group of people who control that everything happens in your life as they’ve planned it. There is no such thing as free will, a classic Dick paranoia scenario. Both Matt Damon and Emily Blunt do fine jobs being charming people with interesting lives that we can root for, but it feels like there isn’t much there other than the high concept. Where’s the important story set in this world total pre-destination and no free will? The people working in the adjustment bureau never come across as anything but bureaucrats with nice suits. They aren’t particularly threatening and, hell, they’re up against Jason Bourne. You know they never stood a chance. If Matt Damon wants to hook up with Emily Blunt, then it’ll take more than Roger Sterling from “Mad Men” to stop him.

First time director George Nolfi does an OK job. While he doesn’t distinguish himself with any directorial flourishes to write home about, he also doesn’t get in the way of the story. So let’s put this movie in the middle ground of Dick’s oeuvre on film. Not as bad as some, but not a great one either. It’s worth a watch on DVD, but not a trip to the theatre.

And there you have it; two movies that both Adam and I were looking forward to seeing. Neither worked. Can I just say it again, for the umpteenth time: it’s the script, dummies.

ADAM:

Have you seen those stories on the news about medical researchers who study how certain areas of the brain become more active when people are exposed to certain stimulation? The sight, sound or smell of something interesting to the subject resulted in increased the activity in the brain. What the hell am I talking about?

Well, I was thinking about how my brain probably responds well to a great trailer and must spike in activity with anticipation leading up to seeing the actual film. I’d also like to see a study of how my brain responds when the actual film is a let down. Sure, being underwhelmed by a movie (even one that had a decent trailer) isn’t uncommon, but the experience is somehow more painful, more offensive when a film has so much potential to be very good and mistakes were made, or even worse when everything was done in a cursory way. The audience pays for it, figuratively and literally.

And that was the case with both halves of this double feature. We started early with the animated Johnny Depp starrer “Rango.” This movie looked pretty good at the trailer phase and I was genuinely excited for it by the time we sat down. The first thirty minutes of the movie are fantastic and Depp is as good and funny as he’s ever been. And the animation is as good as I’ve seen in quite a while. But pretty CGI only goes so far, and at minute thirty one, the wheels fall off and what was once a cool fish out of water story set in “old western town, USA,” becomes an intolerably slow plodding story set in Predictable City, population: us. Stealing the criminal storyline almost beat for beat from Chinatown - even dressing the heavy identically to John Houston from the detective classic - meant I knew where this was headed far too early on. But I had no idea I’d be nodding off halfway through the second act and fighting to stay awake as that seemingly endless act carried on…and on…and on. Nods to other classic films, like Felix Unger’s hilarious and annoying exercise to clear his sinuses from The Odd Couple were welcome and a funny cameo by Tim Olyphant as Clint Eastwood’s man with no name spiked my interest, but not nearly enough to save this one from drifting into the pile of what could’ve been.

And unfortunately, with regard to the second half of the double feature, “The Adjustment Bureau,” the “not living up to its potential” box is checked in dark, black ink. Adapted from a Phillip K Dick short story, “Bureau” feels as if it’s exactly that — a depiction of a short story or small idea. But it’s two hours long. So how do you fill that time? By further developing character and story? Adding complication? Not in this case. Here, repetition and fluff is used like spray insulation and the result is a semi-interesting story that could have been so much better. The story tries to be sci-fi and at the same time a love story, but that’s a tall order and the two masters being served here never achieve a pecking order, and because of that the character development suffers. Result: no one we’re really rooting for, or care about. What amazes me is how so many P.K. Dick stories are adapted that are essentially (at the core) the same story. Even more stories that aren’t Dick’s share the same underlying theme (predictive future as a metaphor for our frustration of lack of control) and somehow find their way to the screen without getting it right. “Bureau” fails in the same way as many before it, and most likely many that will come after it.

“Unknown”

Written by Oliver Butcher and Stephen Cornwell, based on the book by Dider Van Cauwelaert; Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra; Stars: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, Aidan Quinn, Bruno Ganz and January Jones. Story: A man awakens from a coma, only to discover that someone has taken on his identity and that no one, (not even his wife), believes him. With the help of a young woman, he sets out to prove who he is.

Seen by Adam and Lars, February 20, 2011

LARS:

Let’s get one thing straight: “Unknown” is a load of hokum. Enjoyable hokum, but hokum nonetheless. The plot revolves around a twist more twisty than a Rubik’s Cube and it is, of course, utter nonsense in every way. But then I felt the same way about e.g. “Wanted”, and I enjoy that movie every time I stumble upon it.

It’s wonderful to see Liam Neeson reinvent himself as an action hero. He was great in “Taken” and he’s wonderful here too. I think the trick with movies as silly as these is to get great actors involved. Actors who can make you suspend enough of your disbelief that you get on board for the ride. Even though Liam Neeson was “Darkman” in the classic Sam Raimi flick, he’s mostly been portraying worthy folks like Schindler, Michael Collins and Kinsey. Now it seems like he’s just here to have a bit of a laugh, even though he’s rumored to be putting on the stovepipe hat and play Abraham Lincoln for Spielberg soon. No, the real Abraham Lincoln, not the fictional bad ass from the recently published gem of a book with the spectacular title “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter” (http://www.amazon.com/Abraham-Lincoln-Vampire-Seth-Grahame-Smith/dp/0446563080/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298323375&sr=8-1).

“Unknown” reminded me a lot of some other movies, but I couldn’t initially put my finger on it. Sure, there are shades of the “Bourne” movies in there, but the one that it really brought to mind was Wolfgang Peterson’s “Shattered” starring Tom Berenger (what the hell happened to him, by the way?). The premises are nearly identical. As I remember, “Shattered” was a loveable bunch of hokum too. Anyway, “Shattered” is from all the way back in 1991, so of course there isn’t a single executive in Hollywood, who would remember that. It’s so last millennium.

Going back to my earlier thesis that it takes great actors to sell nonsense, the cast of “Unknown” is uniformly excellent. There’s Diane Kruger, who is a no-brainer to cast as someone living in Berlin, where the movie is set, given that she is in fact German. Except in this flick, where she plays an illegal immigrant, obviously. See how cleverly they did the casting? And they have Hitler playing an ex-Stasi agent. My God, the casting agent must have had so much fun! Of course, the Hitler I’m talking abut is Bruno Ganz, who was so magnificent in his portrayal of Hitler in ‘Downfall” that he’ll never quite be able to not elicit the reaction ‘Look, there’s Hitler!’ Which is obviously rather unfortunate for any actor. Add Frank Langella, January Jones and Aidan Quinn to the mix, and you have a cast that could make any movie work.

The Spanish director Jaume Collet-Serra isn’t exactly a shoo-in to direct something as clever as this. With the two brain-dead horror flicks “House of Wax” and “Orphan” on his resume, you’d expect little from him. But he’s smart enough to just let the actors do their thing and let the script propel the story forward without getting in the way.

So if you’re looking for a fun way to waste a couple of hours, you could do a lot worse than “Unknown”. I mean, you could go see Justin Bieber’s concert movie or any of the idiotic romantic comedies playing at the moment. Thankfully, it looks like March is bringing some good stuff after the drought that was January and February. It’s not a moment too soon.

ADAM:

Sixty percent “Frantic,” twenty five percent “Shattered,” and the rest “The Bourne Identity,” “Unknown” was exactly what I expected and hoped it would be; an action and adrenaline-filled mystery with just the right amount of European seediness and flawed characters.  You see this trailer and to a degree you know where it’s going; This is Liam Neesan doing “Taken” again, but this time it’s his identity that’s been taken.  What I actually prefer about “Unknown” to “Taken” is the twists, turns and  occasional siestas to the action that work their way into the film. “Taken” felt very American to me: hero gets wronged, goes from A to B to C, kills bad guy, roll credits.  “Unknown,” feels European in every way; it takes it time to develop fully and somehow it manages to explore tangent and develop interesting characters without getting muddled down. These characters seem tangential from the story, but ultimately work their way right into the meat of what’s happening.

The action, from hand to hand to car chases are first rate and not shot too close, a pet peeve of mine.  The performances are all acceptable or better, and the story keeps on chugging along.  True, there may be one too far fetched a twist, but it’s never too implausible for our minds to handle, especially considering the films most of us endure the rest of the year.

More than anything else, the film’s seedy personality is what I liked the best.  It really did remind me of “Frantic,” the Polanski take on the Hitchcockian formula with Harrison Ford at his near best.  I missed the mood Polanski created in that film and “Unknown” felt like an old friend I hadn’t seen in a while.

“The King’s Speech”

Written by David Seidler; Directed by Tom Hooper; Stars: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter. Story: King George IV, seeks out help from a speech therapist to aid his horrible stutter as the king prepares multiple radio speeches when assuming the throne and as England goes to war.

Seen by Adam and Lars, November 30, 2010

LARS:

Let me be completely honest here: reading the synopsis of this movie, I was pretty sure I was going to pull a few catnaps during the screening. A stammering royal meets an unusual speech therapist? It sounds like one of those movies you get dragged to by your better half, kicking and screaming, and you sit there wishing that you were in the theater next door watching that awesome action flick. Well, color me surprised then that I found “The King’s Speech” to be one of the more enjoyable films I’ve seen this year.

There is no doubt that a major reason for this is the cast. Colin Firth is a shoo-in for a nomination for his portrayal of King George VI, or Bertie as he was known amongst friends. After last year’s quietly convincing portrayal of sorrow in “A Single Man”, Colin Firth is finally hitting his stride with parts that he’s probably always been capable of pulling off, but only now that he’s a little long in the tooth to always be cast as the handsome chap, are they finally coming his way. He’s becoming one of my favorite actors.

Geoffrey Rush is no stranger to playing eccentrics. And that can sometimes be his downfall. But here he finds his character perfectly. His portrayal of the speech therapist, Lionel Logue, strikes a great balance between self-confidence and utter fear of being in over his head. Logue has a secret that it would be unfair to mention in this review, and it colors his behavior and his every move, once he realizes who he is dealing with. To see these two great actors spar with each other and make each other’s performances shine is one of the great pleasures of this movie.

But the real genius of the film is how they somehow manage to make it play as a thriller. Because of the fantastic acting, I was genuinely on needles and pins every time Bertie had to give a public speech. Would he manage to get through it without embarrassing himself? Would his temper get the better of him or would he manage to control it? Would his dear wife, the lovely Helena Bonham-Carter for once not in gothic mode, have to send yet another of her supporting smiles his way? On paper it sounds about as exciting as a nice cup of tea (many of which are poured in this film), but somehow it works perfectly.

“The King’s Speech” was directed by Tom Hooper who did the excellent “The Damned United” last year that even a non-football fan could enjoy (soccer to you American heathens). That movie was an acting tour de force for Michael Sheen, so there is good evidence that Hooper really brings out the best in his actors. Definitely a director to watch.

Now go say “he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts” until you have it right, then go see “The King’s Speech”. It deserves a wider audience than just the art film crowd.

ADAM:

Is it really the first week of December?  I ask this not just ‘cause time flies when you’re  a)busy, b)having fun and c)getting old; I ask because we’re near the end of the year; only a few days remain for films to be released and be eligible for Academy Awards.  I always get this feeling as we move into the late fall — it’s almost the end of the year and near everything that’s come out has been an unarguable piece of shit — how can anyone come up with five films to nominate for best picture, much less ten - the ridiculous number of candidates which now vie for the statue.

Well, even though it may be a stretch to say “The King’s Speech” is a shoe in for a best picture nomination, is was one of the more enjoyable films I’ve seen this year.  The story itself, about the turn of events that thrust King George VI (a horrible stutterer) into the public spotlight due to his father’s death, his brother’s decision to renounce the throne, and England declaring war against Germany is a bit repetitive.  However, the performances by Colin Firth (as the King) and Geoffrey Rush, as the King’s speech therapist Lionel Logue elevates the material like only two of the best actors working can.  And the pacing by director Tom Hooper leaves the audience as concerned for the King as his loving family, unsure whether the therapy will take and a speech will be pulled off without incident, or if the King will crash and burn, embarrassing himself and a nation all at once.

With a tight script by David Seidler and nice direction by Hooper, I’d probably like the film regardless of who was in it. The time period interests me, as does the succession of Royal power in England, specifically how one man’s decision to leave the throne for the love of woman can change the future forever (If Edward VIII, played by Guy Pearce, stays King, there’s no King George VI, and thus no Queen Elizabeth, No Charles, Diana, No future King William).  Still it’s the brilliant performances by Firth, Rush, and even Helena Bonham Carter, who’s over the top style (with looks to match) usually scares me who carry the picture.  Pearce and Michael Gambon as George V round out a excellent group that set and keep the bar high.  I expect a nomination for Firth and probably Rush.  Beyond that, we’ll have to see.  There’s still a few weeks of December left, and I have my fingers crossed.

“Skyline”

Written by Joshua Cordes and Liam O’Donnell; Directed by Greg and Colin Strause; Stars: Eric Balfour, Donald Faison and Scottie Thompson. Story: Aliens invade the Earth, in search of human brains and spinal cords, which provide their nourishment to survive.

Seen by Adam and Lars, November 12, 2010

LARS:

No one sets out to do a bad movie. Everyone starts out thinking that the movie they’ll make will be a masterpiece, at least within its genre and budget. So when The Brothers Strause, who own the special effects company Hydraulx, pulled together $10 million to make “Skyline” outside of the studio system, they were probably hoping for a hit that would allow them to keep making movies independently. I salute their spirit and go-get-em attitude, while I lament their utter inability to do anything outside of the special effects even remotely right.

Let’s just be blunt here and get it out of the way: “Skyline” is a piece of shit. It’s easily one of the worst movies of the year. The acting makes “The Expendables” look like Oscar material, and the dialogue makes “Piranhas 3D” sound like James Joyce. The only think that works is the creature design, which is a mix between Geiger’s “Alien”, the brain beast from “Starship Troopers” and the machine creatures from “The Matrix”. They are cool and whenever the movie focuses on the creatures, you almost forget just how crap everything else is. The Brothers Strause can do creature design and special effects, and some scenes could have looked like a movie with 10 times the budget of “Skyline”.

I say could have, because the movie looks awful. I don’t know what cameras first-time Director of Photography Michael Watson used, but the flick looks like he decided to dip the lenses in marinara sauce and wipe them off with Vaseline. Additionally, someone was apparently using a taser on his focus puller, just to ensure that everything would be blurry.

The actors were either asked to be as wooden and unlikable as possible, or The Brothers Strause decided against actually directing them. Their delivery is downright awful and you quickly find yourself squarely on the side of the invading aliens. I mean, it’s not easy to make you wish bad things on a pregnant woman, yet somehow “Skyline” pulls it off.

Of course, it’s not all on the actors and the directors. The first-time writers, Joshua Cordes and Liam O’Donnell, are both special effects guys taking a stab at screenwriting. And when I say stab, I mean stick a giant knife into the chest of screenwriting and twist it viciously. No cliché is left unused, no idiotic one-liner is too dumb and they seem to have not the slightest idea about how to create characters that an audience can root for. Please don’t write any more movies, gents. Seriously. Don’t.

“Skyline” would probably be fun to watch stoned out of your head at 3 AM with a bunch of friends. It is perfect fodder for Mystery Science Theatre. But even for someone like this reviewer, who adores almost any alien invasion movie, it almost beggars belief how bad it is. Avoid at all costs, unless you go into it knowing fully well what awaits.

ADAM:

Here’s a tidbit you may not know: the original Star Wars, now referred to as “Episode IV: A New Hope” was made for 20th Century Fox by George Lucas for 14 million dollars. Now I know those were 1976 dollars and there’s inflation, hiked actor and crew rates, international fees, blah, blah, blah but the reality is that “Skyline,” released by Universal and the uber rich and powerful Relativity Media financiers was made for 10 million. And though at the time of this writing it made over 11 million its opening weekend on the way to a profitable existence, I would have preferred it if the CFO of Relativity had green lit the purchase of ten million lottery tickets.

“Skyline” fails on so many levels and from top to bottom that I’m actually shocked the camera operator didn’t get with the program and intentionally put a hair in the gate or leave the lens cap on the camera. In fact, that might’ve led to a better end product.

Like “Star Wars,” “Skyline” is a science fiction tale, but one not even as well-conceived as the horrible ninety minute movies that air on the SyFy network. And those are terrible. Trust me, I know. I did an uncredited rewrite on one about large bugs in the subways of New York, starring Antonio Sabato Jr. and Angie Everhart. Piece of shit. Still… better than this. “Skyline” features aliens attacking the Earth (our POV, L.A.) in order to steal human brains and spinal cords for fuel or power. I find it ironic, yet right in line with the thinking behind the rest of this dreck that L.A. - not exactly the home of more Rhodes Scholars than anywhere else - would be where the aliens would be brain huntin’.

And after an quick action opening (the best choice made during this entire film process other than not having any press screenings) we spend an inordinate amount of time meeting one-dimensional characters we care less about than the empty box on the floor which once held milk duds. Once the talking heads catch up to the action opening (a flash forward), we see them argue and panic, looking foolish with every next line and situation. It becomes an unintentional comedy of technical and performance errors, with soft focused shots, overacting by the boatload and moments of melodrama that ring about as true as two silverware trucks crashing into each other. An example? I’m so glad you asked… Our female lead finds out early on that she’s pregnant. A few scenes later, when the world outside the penthouse marina apartment is crumbling down at the tentacles of the Quasi Matrix/Alien/Rockmonster visitors, another scared girl lights up a cigarette to ease her stress. The lead girl decides she wants to leave the room because of the cigarette. Because she’s pregnant. Yes, that’s right; three inches of paper-wrapped tobacco road is apparently more threatening than a spaceship the size of Yankee Stadium outside the window vacuuming up people like a Roomba on steroids.

And that’s the real problem here. Or the biggest problem: the script. It was written by first timers who normally do effects and thought they could tell a story. Unfortunately there is a difference between having an idea (relatively easy) and telling a story (way harder). The other parts of the puzzle (dialogue, action, oh…plausibility) get sacrificed and we suffer. A lot. In fact, the dialogue is so bad and predictable, the screenwriters should have their laptops taken away. The only joy is found in acknowledging the badness and going the other way. In this case that’s laughing at the bad dialogue and actually rooting for the aliens to kill the actors. I did both things and it made the experience a little better. The best part about seeing a movie like this is when Lars and I walk out of the theater, I know I’ll enjoy writing about it. I did when we saw “Splice,” a completely laughable misfire not worth the film it was printed on. And a week does not go by without someone mentioning our reviews of that film and how enjoyable they were. Well, “Skyline” makes “Splice” look like “Schindler’s list,” so maybe Lars and I can catch lightning in a bottle twice. And if not, Nic Cage’s next film looks like it wants to do everything to make “Skyline” look like “Chariots of Fire.”

“127 Hours”

Written by Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy based on the novel “Between A Rock And A Hard Place” by Aron Ralston; Directed by Danny Boyle; Stars: James Franco, Amber Tamblyn and Kate Mara. Story: Aron Ralston, adventure seeker, gets caught under a boulder in the middle of the Utah desert, alone. He grow introspective as he waits to die.

Seen by Adam and Lars, November 7, 2010

LARS:

If you were trapped in the wilderness with no real chance of being discovered, how long would it take for you, before you realized that your only chance of survival would be to cut off your own arm with the equivalent of a sharp stick and a dull knife? For Aron Ralston it took 127 hours. He did it and somehow managed to survive and write the aptly named book “Between A Rock and A Hard Place” about his experience. That’s the story, and much like when you’re doing movies like “Titanic” or any of Shakespeare’s plays where everyone knows the ending, the challenge for the filmmaker is how to keep the viewers engaged on the journey.

Apparently it took Danny Boyle a long time to convince Aron Ralston that they should tell his story as a feature film and not as a documentary. Ralston was doing the speaking circuit, talking abut his experience, and it’s easy to imagine that putting something so traumatic and life-changing into the hands of another person would take some convincing. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker than Boyle (“Slumdog Millionaire”, “Trainspotting”), it could easily have been a movie that felt like it was 127 hours long, as the minutia of increased suffering was listed - one horrifying event after next.

Ralston’s book breaks up the flow of his 127 hours with flashbacks to other parts of his life, a standard construct that Boyle mostly avoids. Instead he introduces Ralston as a bit of a devil-may-care dude, who basically brought this down on himself by making every stupid mistake in the book. Ralston is happy-go-lucky and thinks he’s immortal and that nothing can ever happen to him. So even when it does, he thinks that somehow ingenuity (Ralston is an engineer by trade) or the luck he’s had in life so far will get him out of the bind he is in. It’s only in the latter part of his ordeal that he begins to wonder, if he’s missed some beats in life and realizes that unless a small miracle occurs, this is it. Then the movie becomes a meditation on the fact that no man is an island and no matter how much you think of yourself, you can’t go it alone.

The scene where Ralston is finally cutting off his arm is not for the faint of heart. It’s such a monumental decision and it is not treated lightheartedly. The gunshot-like sounds of bones breaking and the extreme pain of cutting nerves and tendons are all shown and heard in excruciating detail. Reputedly, there have been people fainting in theaters during those scenes.

The movie is gorgeously shot by no less than two DPs. They capture the beauty of the Utah wilderness perfectly and make it clear why it’s such an attractive place to leave civilization behind for a spell. Boyle uses every trick in the book to make you fall in love with the place before it then viciously turns on Ralston, and the beauty is revealed as just a clever disguise for a place that is not friendly to humans at all.

The movie is very much a one-man-show for James Franco. He does a great job of capturing Ralston’s freespiritedness and love of life and then takes his character through hell with no fear of going to ugly and scary places. It’s a performance with no vanity. Franco is probably in line for a nod come Oscar time.

Frankly, “127 Hours” is not a comfortable watch and anyone with a phobia against small, enclosed places or fear of being trapped will have a hard time sitting through the movie. But as another stellar entry in Danny Boyle’s ever more impressive filmography, it is highly recommended.

ADAM:

I’ll start this review with a few disclaimers: First, I’m assuming that most people who might even consider seeing this film already know what they’re in for: a little less than 2 hours of hopefully good drama interrupted by a few minutes of very uncomfortable, realistic looking and sounding improvisational survival surgery. If you have no idea what I’m talking about, and you’re squeamish, this movie might not be the one for you. If you do know, then I probably won’t be ruining anything for you. Second, as much as I can understand the story here and can feel for the main character and those who care for him, I still have a hard time relating to the situation. Mind you, that’s not a bad thing — learning about other people’s point of view can help you grow as a person. For me this is not the case. I think it’s important going into the review that you understand my thinking and philosophy here; In my mind, I have cleverly reduced my chances of dying while skydiving to zero point zero by never skydiving. There is no chance of death from debris of an accidental crash at an air show if I never purchase an air show ticket. No chance. Ditto for spelunking, alligator wrestling, window washing and ice climbing. Color me non-adventurous or boring; I color me breathing.

So with these thoughts in mind, we travel to a crevasse near Moab, Utah where Aron Ralston got caught between a rock and a hard place — the name of the book upon which the film was based, and in this case, trapped between a boulder and the rock wall after the boulder became loose and caught Ralston at the forearm.  And all without having told anyone where he was planning to be.

The film, Directed by Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire) sets up nicely and quickly as we see Ralson, played by James Franco ignore everything around him (phone calls, etc.) to get to what consumes him — physically challenging himself against and becoming one with nature, all alone, him and the plants and the hills and the sky. Ralston does spend some time with a couple of lost girls(Amber Tamblyn and Kate Mara), and entertains them before getting them back on their path, then it’s back to the adventure, the solitude, and the inevitable moments when rack meets arm and when panic sets in. And once confined to that space, Boyle does a tremendous job of pacing the movie incorporating flashbacks, attempts of self rescue, moments of wit and others of regret, hallucinations without ever losing the overriding tension ever present in the situation. Yes, the name of the film (and the countdown that it refers to) convey an obvious ticking clock, but the director’s efforts are what really make for both a physical and emotional claustrophobia that’s ever present.

And James Franco is very strong in this demanding role, one which has him on screen for nearly ever frame. Franco shows quite a bit of range in the movie, from goofy to charming to hallucinogenic to introspective to completely defenseless and ultimate filled with resolve. And it’s this resolve that convinced Ralston of what he had to do.

Though the movie only reignited my passion to never put myself anywhere near a rock, hard place or crevasse, it did increase my respect for Boyle and especially Franco. Boyle translated the confined spaces Ralston dealt with exceptionally and Franco, who spends nearly the entire film acting against the camera shows he’s capable of creating palpable drama on his own. It’s by far the best he’s ever been.

“Let Me In”

Written by Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Linqvist based on the novel “Let the Right One In” by Ajvide Linqvist; Directed by Matt Reeves; Stars: Kodi Smit-McPhee, Chloe Moretz, Richard Jenkins, Elias Koteas and Dylan Minnette. Story: Focuses on a fatherless latch-key 12 year-old boy who’s bullied at school and the friend he makes in the weird girl who moves in next door, who is, in fact a vampire.

Seen by Adam and Lars, October 9, 2010

LARS:

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first: there is no good reason for this movie to exist. The only reason to remake “Let the Right One in” is that the great unwashed either can’t or won’t read subtitles. The Swedish original was a nearly perfectly executed film that struck a fine balance between being a vampire thriller and an unusual love story. So why would a talented filmmaker like Matt Reeves (“Cloverfield”) even attempt to re-shoot the movie with an American cast?

Frankly, that question remains unanswered after seeing “Let Me In”. But the good and surprising news is that the film is nearly as good as the original. Obviously, the source material, the novel written by John Ajvide Lindqvist who also penned the original screenplay, is strong enough that you can pull different versions from it without breaking the central story. The American version is not a scene-for-scene remake of the original. It retains the crucial scenes that move the story forward, but it’s obvious that the movies are not shot from the same screenplay. Which makes the two movies great fodder for film school conversations for years to come.

In Lindqvist’s novel, there’s absolutely nothing romantic about being a vampire. It is a sad affliction, especially if you happen to be a 12-year-old girl, who has been 12 for a very long time. In this version, the girl vampire is called Abby and is played by Chloe Moretz, whom we last saw kick ass as Hit Girl in “Kick Ass”. Moretz reminds me of Dakota Fanning in that she seems wiser and more mature than her years. Yet, thankfully, she doesn’t exude the precociousness that always made me feel that Fanning was slightly annoying. Here, Moretz does a stellar job of conveying the sadness, neediness and steel-will that the girl vampire needs to attract not only her victims but also her ‘keepers’.

Her willing ‘victim’ is the sad-eyed and friendless Owen, who is perfect fodder for the school bully, who in a slightly clichéd turn is just passing on, what he’s receiving himself. Owen is utterly defenseless until Abby tells him he has to fight back so hard that they’d never dare touch him again. The Australian actor Kodi Smit-McPhee, whom I had written off after his turn in “The Road”, plays Owen with exquisite wimpiness. Granted, “The Road” was so boring that I several times wished for the world to actually end during the 3 viewings it took me to get through it, which is certainly not young Kodi’s fault. In fact, here he does a fine job as the passive-aggressive kid that finds an enabler and executioner as well as a ‘girlfriend’ in Abby.

So Reeves does a good job crafting an American version of “Let the Right One In”. I just can’t help feel that all this skill would have been better spent in the service of creating a film that didn’t already exist. If you haven’t seen the Swedish original, then by all means go see “Let Me In”. It’s a fine movie. But did I mention that you can watch “Let the Right One In” on Netflix streaming video right now?

ADAM:

As the guy who never saw the Swedish original “Let The Right One In,” I entered the theater with high, yet reserved expectations based on my friends’ reviews of the original; high, because the source material is considered one of the best foreign thrillers of the past few years. And reserved, because I’ve experienced the result of many a remake, the majority of which fall well short of their forerunners.

Though I don’t have the ability to make a comparison, I can only imagine “Let Me In” is the exception to the rule. A moody, heart wrenching dramatic thriller, it takes the time to give depth to its main characters, and in doing so (along with a tremendous performance by the two young leads), delivers a rich experience.

I can (and won’t) give too much away here, but imagine most know that this film is about vampires. What many don’t realize is that despite its share of scare beats, blood and gore, “Let Me In” focuses much more on the emotional toll the situation has on the vampires themselves and those who care about and for them. It’s these relationships, between Chloe Moretz, who last played Hit Girl in “Kick-Ass” and her caretaker Richard Jenkins and between Moretz and Young Kodi Smit-McPhee, a bullied boy with little backbone and a sad and broken home life that set the tone for the entire movie.

Again, vampires have to eat, and Moretz’ Abby is no exception, but her remorse, her regret about her lot in life, and her desire not to get too emotionally attached to McPhee’s Owen (or let him get too attached) is done in a such a perfect, delicate way that we find ourselves falling for Abby along with Owen. As much as McPhee’s performance is well-delivered, Moretz is absolutely perfect. This is a twelve year-old actress who commands the screen with such incredible presence, regardless of genre, that I imagine there’s little material she cannot handle and I would expect her to be a name we are all familiar with over the next twenty years. She stole “Kick-Ass” with her outrageous gutter mouth lines and her intimidating physicality. She’s arguably the villain of “Let Me In,” yet she steals our hearts and compassion from the first frame she fills on screen. It’s a fair argument that in both cases, she had excellent material from which to work, but I have to think that she elevates it beyond what Matt Reeves or Matthew Vaughn expected.

Reeves does an excellent job setting mood and heightening tension that all adds up to a enjoyable mix of drama and thrill. He’s done great work in casting the right people for the roles and directing them to fine performances. All in all, this is a nice, smaller film, that provides a bit for everyone to enjoy. I’ll certainly see the original to compare, and I’d advise anyone to see the Swedish standard, but if you can’t get yourself to read subtitles[shame on you], “Let Me In” is absolutely worth your time.

“The Social Network”

Written by Aaron Sorkin, based on the novel “The Accidental Billionaires” by Ben Mezrich; Directed by David Fincher; Stars: Jesse Eisenberg, Justin Timberlake, Andrew Garfield, Rooney Mara, Rashida Jones and Max Minghella. Story: The tale of how Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard freshman created Facebook, the 500 million-member strong social network and how those who believe Zuckerberg stole the idea or swindled partners out of their share of the company reacted and litigated against him.

Seen by Adam and Lars, October 2, 2010

LARS:

Like many others, I was skeptical, to say the least, when I heard that they were doing a film about Facebook. How could that be even remotely interesting? Granted, I hadn’t read the book, “The Accidental Billionaires” that the film was going to be based on. Then Aaron Sorkin (of “West Wing” fame) came onboard as the writer and David Fincher (“Se7en”, “Fight Club”) signed on to direct. Now, my interest was definitely peaked, but I still couldn’t really see, where it was all going.

Aaron Sorkin has balls. Huge brass ones. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t have dared base the structure of “The Social Network” on what is one of the few films that cineastes agree is among the best ever made, “Citizen Kane”. That film was a thinly veiled portrait of the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, called Charles Foster Kane in the film (presumably to fight any slander suits). Hearst was portrayed as a sad man, who conquered the world, but ended up taking no pleasure in his achievements, as he lost his humanity in the process. The film holds up incredibly well and the star/director Orson Welles (who directed the film when he was only 28 years old) never again reached the same dizzying heights of movie magic.

The framing device, or MacGuffin, in “Citizen Kane” is famously the sled called “Rosebud”, a memory from Kane’s childhood, when he knew true happiness. In “The Social Network”, Sorkin attributes many of Mark Zuckerberg’s actions to a girl named Erica, whom Zuckerberg used to date. In the films opening scenes, we see her break up with him, with a series of incredibly well chosen words that must have burned in real life. Many of the following actions that Zuck takes to make Facebook into the world’s foremost social network stem from his resentment towards the one that got away. Allegedly, of course, as the real Mark Zuckerberg has said that the film is purely fictional.

Which I guess he has to say, given that he’s portrayed as a complete dick. In fact, he has so little empathy towards anybody and so little understanding of basic human interaction that I began wondering if maybe he suffers from a touch of Asperger’s Syndrome, a mild variant of autism that makes the sufferers able to focus intently, but also takes away many of their social skills.

The story is told through a series of flashbacks during two different depositions, where Zuckerberg is being questioned about the history of the founding of Facebook, and how he allegedly stole the idea and cheated his best friend at the time out of his share of the company. We follow him from the Harvard days to the party when Facebook hits user no 1 million. Needles to say, between those two events lie a large number of incredibly smart and a few unbelievably dumb decisions. So even if not much happens on the surface, “The Social Network” flies by.

The acting is uniformly stellar, even if I found Andrew Garfield’s Eduardo Saverin to be a little on the whiny side at times. Given how Zuckerberg shafted him, it’s understandable, I guess, but it gets a little grating after a while. Jesse Eisenberg seems to be channeling Mark Zuckerberg, and I wouldn’t be surprised, if his performance gives him an Oscar nod. The real standout, though, is Justin Timberlake, who plays a smarmy asshole better than anybody had any reason to expect. Timberlake is growing and growing as an actor. He was good in a small role in “Alpha Dog” and better in the slightly ridiculous “Black Snake Moan”, but here he knocks it out of the park. Annoyingly, the man seems to be good at anything he tries his hand at. I am actually surprised that the real Sean Parker, whom Timberlake portrays in the film, hasn’t sued for defamation of character. On the other hand, if the portrayal of him were anywhere close to reality, then he’d probably be enough of a douche to just be proud that Timberlake is playing him.

David Fincher makes a very smart decision and decides to stay as invisible as he’s ever been as a director. Sure, the film is beautifully shot, but there are none of his signature visual flourishes or ‘look at me’ camera moves. He understands that the script is a killer and that any directorial decision that serves the script serves the film.

So “The Social Network” is one of the best films of the year so far, and should be nominated in several categories and have a good shot at picking up a whole bunch of Oscars come February.

That makes for two positive reviews in a row, here on Thursdays Without Zada. Thank God summer’s over.

ADAM:

I’m sure I’m repeating myself from the last review, but I’m so happy it’s fall; especially as a resident of New York City.  The leaves are about to change, I’ve stopped sweating (in theory) until next May and the real cream of the crop of the year’s films start to find their way into the theaters.  That was true with our last review, “The Town,” and it’s just as true for “The Social Network.”  The film caters perfectly to all of us eager to know what was going on behind the scenes (both Mark Zuckerberg’s supposed underhandedness and his sheer brilliance) yet allows us to be ahead of the characters, anticipating the train wreck we know is coming.

Top to bottom this is first class filmmaking.  In front of the camera, Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal seems dead on for the early days of the Facebook creator.  Zuckerberg has grown leaps and bounds socially, so if you find Eisenberg’s performance a bit stiff, I recommend that you look back at some footage of Zuck in the early days.  He was a little less socially prepared to be the youngest billionaire in the world, in charge of a 260 billion dollar company.  Would you be ready to be “on” all the time?  Andrew Garfield’s plays the partner/victim of Eduardo Saverin a little over the top, but again, it’s hard for me to imagine being shoved aside and not reacting in a way that seems a bit whiny.  And then there’s Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker.  I recently tweeted that if given six months to learn/train, Timberlake could probably do just about anything well.  He didn’t need six months here.  To act the part of the influential, all eyes on me playa?  That is Justin Timberlake.  So while I wouldn’t necessarily hand him an Oscar, JT kills it and makes it look easy.  And what’s better, JT makes Eisenberg better — when the two are on screen together they completely sell the idea that Parker was exactly what Zuckerberg wishes he could be: a smart, socially confident guy, at ease with the ladies, “owning” every room the second he enters — life of the party and the guy everyone wants to be close to.

Behind the camera, “The Social Network” is executed nearly flawlessly.  I walked into the theater as a huge fan of both Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher, yet was concerned about what their collaboration (read: their combined egos) might produce.  What I experienced was the most restrained I’ve ever seen Fincher, and though it’s not his best work, it plays perfectly.  And Sorkin’s script is what we expect from Sorkin. He’s adapting here, and I’m sure he’s taking creative license in places, but his trademark witty banter is here in spades, from “fade in” to “fade out” and it makes for scene after scene of natural conversation, rich characters and two plus hours that fly by and make you wish the story went deeper and ran longer.

The film makes the argument that Zuckerberg’s social deficiency truly defines him.  From the first frame, we watch him struggle with women.  He frets and shows his envy when he’s not even a consideration for any of the Final Clubs at Harvard.  And it’s this social exclusion that inspires a desire to set up his own club that everyone would want to be a part of — a club where he would be president.  It all makes for a bittersweet story about a genius, able to achieve what few could, but whose insecurities made him at times a bit insufferable even a bit gullible, but ultimately it made him irretrievably introverted, seemingly incapable of realizing that we all have our faults, few of us were the High School Quarterback (or Harvard Crew captain) and that most of us have felt self-conscious and insecure about ourselves at some point in our lives.  And once Facebook’s popularity (and value) exploded, he’d never know who to trust – how the hell can become a social extrovert now, even if he wanted to?

Regardless of the number of potential competitors that studios roll out between now and December 31^st, it’s just a matter of time before the nominations for “The Social Network” are announced.  I expect a best picture nomination, along with nods for Fincher and Sorkin.  This film seems to purport to be a documentary version “Revenge of the Nerds,” and though Zuckerberg does have to pay for his revenge (literally), it’s nice to know he still gets a hell of a lot of glory.  I hope he can enjoy it.