The Social Network



This Film is about the creation of Facebook and the following controversy.  The real story is trust and betrayal.  The story is told as a series of flashbacks during several court proceedings. 

The film is beautifully performed.  All the actors portray their characters in a brilliant and subtle way.  I liked the way the story moved as far as being reflections on events that have already happened.  I have, however, never liked films about real people who are still living.  First of all, you never know what more that person's story has to tell, but the biggest reason is because when people watch a movie about a person if the events are true doesn't really matter to the viewer.  The person seen on screen, which is a monster born of the writer, director and actor's collaboration, is the person that the viewer takes as the real thing if they haven't met the real person.  I just feel uncomfortable about this.  If it is a person that is long gone, that's fine, but there is a living person that already posses that identity and it's almost like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

There is nothing really wrong with this film and that might be part of my problem with it.  There is no doubt that it is well-made, but overall I found this film forgettable.

Entertainment- 5-  This film definitely fills a couple hours better than staring at the wall and if you are interested in computers and programming, you might find it more exciting.

Award-Worthy- 6-  This is definitely well made and and very well performed, but I just don't feel it contributes anything new to the history of American film.

The Kids Are All Right

The Kids Are All Right is about a lesbian couple, played by Julianne Moore and Annette Bening, and their two children Joni and Laser.  Each woman carried one child with the assistance of the same sperm donor.  At the beginning of this film Joni, the older of the two, has turned 18 and Laser wants her to get in touch with the donor for him because he is not old enough according to the rules of the clinic.  The donor, played by Mark Ruffalo, enters the family's life and everyone forms a different relationship with the self-confident yet unassuming man.

I feel that this is the best comedy of the year, as the outcome of the Golden Globes confirms, so I am very glad that it is included in the Oscar race this year.  Despite the "alternative" nature of this family's dynamic, this film is incredibly relatable and discusses many issues that all families have to deal with such as parenting style disagreements, infidelity, and children growing up to leave home.  The whole film feels very real and strikes a chord with nearly any American family.  I found all the characters very relatable and well-rounded.  No character is without fault, but no character is without sympathy as well.  Just like real life, there are no clear-cut heroes of villains.

The fact that this film centers around a homosexual relationship does not distract from the relatability of the film for any viewer.  I think that it has a lot to do with the fact that the film does not rely on stereotypes for the comedy but instead highlights the uncomfortable and upsetting situations that all families encounter but infused with this family's own quirky twist.  I found this very refreshing and what sets this film into a class of its own.

Entertainment- 7-Although I laughed the whole way through, it is not the type of humor that applies to everyone.  Don't go into this film expecting The Hangover or you will be sorely disappointed! 

Award -Worthy- 9-  For a comedy, this one could ask for little else in quality or originality.

Inception



Describing this film a difficult task.  The basic premise is based on the idea that technology exists for people to consciously enter other people's dreams.  Cobb, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is a very skilled dream navigator and uses his skills to extract information from powerful people.  When a powerful Japanese business man, Ken Watannabe, wants Cobb to plant information in the mind of a rival business man, Cillian Murphy.  With the help of his sidekick and a few very capable others, Cobb agrees to attempt.  What ensues is a mind-bending, as well as science-bending, adventure full of action, suspense, and surprise.

Ah Inception.  This summer blockbuster is another example of writer/director Christopher Nolan's signature genius.  With cult classic thinky films such as Memento and The Prestige as well as super-power blockbusters Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Inception is a brilliant marriage between the two.

The visuals in this film are spectacular.  From the seamless special-effects to the vast and varied landscapes this is certainly what we have come to expect from Nolan.  this is a beautiful expression of a very unique "what-if" scenario.   After seeing this film, the first thing you will want to do is see it again.  Films of this type are usually full of gaping plot and logic holes that really draw form the overall appeal of this film.  Although the holes are inevitably there, they are small and do not distract the viewer. 

There are two criticisms I have o this film.  One is that I felt the love story was a tad forced.  The only parts I felt drag are the scenes between DiCaprio and his on-screen wife Marion Cotillard.  Althea the wife's presence is necessary for plot reasons, I felt the emotion was lacking.  That leads to my second criticism which is that the characters are adequately likable but not multidimensional.  None of the characters surprise you or d some contrary to what you would expect with the possible exception of Arthur played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt who I felt stole the film.  I believe it is because of the characters' flatness that makes the love story seem a little forced.

Entertainment-10- I can't imagine a viewer not being fully engaged, although beware some might get confused if you don't follow very closely.

Award-Worthy-7-  Although technically innovative and intellectually stimulating, as I said the characters do not undergo any true transformations.  Also although the film makes the viewer think, it makes the viewer think about the film, not life or society or some other truth of humanity.

The King's Speech

This film centers around the current Queen Elizabeth's father, King George VI played by Colin Firth.  At the beginning he is a man with no thoughts of being the King of England, but aware of his speech impediment as a sign of weakness within the royal family in the midst of a burgeoning radio culture.  Anxious to prove his father wrong, his wife, played by Helena Bonham Carter, assists his enlistment of a speech therapist played by Geoffrey Rush.  Rush's unorthodox methods assist George's unexpected ascension to King and lead his country through the most trying time in British history, World War II. 

This is an exquisite film full of heart-wrenching performances, breathtaking cinematography and incredibly detailed set and costume design.   Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush are all nominated for acting awards and are all well-deserved.  Colin Firth has already won the Golden Globe and it is well deserved.  I was struck most by the interesting way the shots were framed in this film.  Many times, especially in the beginning of the film, Firth is placed off to the side of the frame or pinched in a corner.  This really lends to the feeling that George felt cast aside and passed over; almost as though he were part of the background rather than the focal point.  The sets are unique and full of vibrant color, as are the costumes.

I found this film nearly perfect.  It was very entertaining.  the characters are endearing and relatable, despite the fact that most of them are royalty, and the viewer willing follows them on their journeys of highs and lows.  The story is very human and although important historical people are depicted and are involved in important historical events, the story the viewer is following is the one of a man being recognized for his true worth and releasing his fear and self-deprecation.  The only reason I don't feel it will win best picture is that the content is a bit dated.  This is the kind of film that would have won in the sixties and although the film is superb, it does not represent the future of film, but more a reinvention of the past.

Entertainment- 8.  I was thoroughly engaged with this film the entire time but if you don't care for period films or you are expecting constant action, you won't appreciate this film as much.

Award-worthy- 10.  Although I don't think it will take the grand prize this year, it is near cinematic perfection and s technically worthy of it.

Oscar Season is Officially Under Way!!

Ok, the Oscar nominations have been released and it is time to have a plan!  If you wish to see a full list of the nominations the site is http://oscar.go.com/  .   I've got a good head start this year.  Again we have ten nominations for best picture and of those, I only have to see 127 Hours and Winter's Bone.  I will be seeing 127 Hours this weekend since it has been thoughtfully re-released in the theatres due to its nomination, and Winter's Bone is available on DVD so I will be seeing that this weekend as well so look forward to reviews from those early next week. 
As for the other nominees, you will notice True Grit, the Coen Brothers' yearly contribution, as a dominating force despite its conspicuous complete absence from the Golden Globes.  Toy Story 3 is the shameless attempt by the academy to pull in the widest variety of viewers.  The Social Network is one of the forerunners especially since it nearly swept the Golden Globes.  The Fighter, Black Swan and The King's Speech are also firm candidates, although Black Swan is still my pick.  Inception is the token genre film while The Kids Are Alright is the token independent comedy.  Overall a good bunch with something for everyone to root for.

As for the minor nominations, I still have to see Animal Kingdom, Blue Valentine, Rabbit Hole, I Am Love, The Tempest, The Way Back, Barney's Version, and Another Year.  I have a lot of work to do.  I can rent Animal Kingdom, but the others I will have to be a bit creative.  Also this year I am going to make a real attempt to see the documentaries and short films if possible.  I'm not sure how to accomplish this so if any of you have any suggestions, I would be really grateful.  Otherwise, I'll let you know when I've made some progress.

Predictions

OK, here we go. The Golden Globes are on Saturday. I have not seen all of the films nominated, but these are the predictions I have for you so far.

Best Picture-Drama: Black Swan. This movie is very artfully done and beautifully perceived with just enough of a kick to keep it stuck in your memory.

Best Picture- Comedy: The Kids Are Alright. Everyone loves it when there is a comedy that finds a new topic to make fun of instead of trying to make us laugh at the same old jokes over and over. However, I thought RED was my favorite this year but I don’t think it is going to win.
　
Best Actress- Drama: For this category I choose Natalie Portman for The Black Swan for the simple reason that it is the only film I have seen in this category, also her performance was definitely good enough to win, but I don’t know if there is anyone who deserves it more.
　
Best Actor-Drama: Although the only film I have seen so far in this category is The Fighter, I don‘t think Mark wahlberg is going to win this one, I think this one will go to James Fanco for 127 Hours.
　
Best Actress- Comedy:  My money is on Julianne Moore from The Kids Are All Right
　
Best Actor-Comedy: I’m going out on a limb here and saying Johnny Depp for The Tourist.
　
Best Supporting Actress: I’m hoping Melissa Leo wins for playing the crazy mother in The Fighter.
　
Best Supporting Actor: I have a really hard time seeing anyone beating Christian Bale in The Fighter.
　
Best Director: Although Danny Boyle and Christopher Nolan are two of my favorite directors and I loved Inception, I think Aronofski deserves this one for Black SwanThis is what I have for you, may darling readers. We shall see what it is worth on Saturday, you never can tell when it comes to the Hollywood Foreign Press…
　

Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Saphire

This film was a nominee for best picture of 2009. Although I think everyone should see this movie, it is difficult to watch. The film centers around a 16-year-old girl named Clarisse Precious Jones. She is expelled form public high school for being pregnant for the second time. She is enrolled in an alternative education program that will teach her to read and get her GED. Despite the efforts of her new teacher and a social worker brilliantly played by Mariah Carey, Precious’s life continues to worsen chiefly due to her abusive and sociopath mother.

Monique, who plays Precious’s mother, won best supporting actress for this film. She is sickeningly good in this roll. Many times when an award is presented for acting, especially in supporting roles, I feel like they only awarded one because they had to. Mo’Nique truly deserved this award. The passion these actors had for this project is clearly visible in the quality of all the performances. I also really enjoyed the cinematography. Not grand or epic, but unique. Several times I notice the camera suddenly zoom in and then out again. This is not a camera movement that American audiences are not used to seeing. It really makes the viewer feel put on edge and enhances the discomfort with the situations. What is there to say about the story? It is awful, horrific, heartbreaking, sickening, terrible. There are not enough words to describe how this movie makes the viewer feel. This is a hard-hitting film that doesn’t pull any punches.
　
Entertainment- 4- This is not a feel-good movie. I would not suggest just watching this for fun.

Award-worthy- 9- There are few criticisms to give except that this story of abuse is not new, but it is presented with near cinematic perfection.

An Education

I present to you another film in the running for the least heard of film of 2009! Just kidding. But seriously, no one saw this movie. This film is about a 16-year-old British girl named Jenny in 1961. She meets an older man, David, and is quickly infatuated with the way he sweeps her away from her boring and strict parents and into a world of music, culture and fun. Her infatuation leads her to overlook some very suspicious aspects of David’s character. His infatuation with her leads him to do some rash things of his own. By the end David is revealed to be quite a different man than he is first supposed. Her parents and friends are just as smitten as she is, the only person in this film that seems to see the underlying problems with their relationship before it is too late is her teacher, Miss Stubs.

This is basically a coming-of-age tale, the protagonist of which comes out the other end wiser and with her two feet firmly planted on the ground. Or that is the general idea. My biggest problem with this film is the “so what?” factor. Once this story is over, she continues her life precisely as she would have without having experienced these events except now she KNOWS things about the world. So what? The whole film is about her asking questions as to the point of her life so far and those questions don’t get answered in this movie she just ceases to feel the need to ask them anymore. I still can’t decide if this film is pro or anti-establishment. Jenny’s father, the source of confinement and frustration, is a symbol of the establishment, but so is Miss Stubs, Jenny’s role-model and ultimate friend. At the same time David represents the anti-establishment and is a symbol of both freedom and of unfulfilled expectations. Jenny herself represents both the establishment and the contempt of it.

Entertainment- 6- I actually quite enjoyed watching this film, although had I not been going to review it would have been perfectly happy to immediately forget it.

Award-worthy- 5- this film gets halfway there. It asks the questions, but does not deliver any satisfactory answers and the film-making and performances are only adequate.

Black Swan

Here is another Golden Globe nominee for best picture in the drama category as well as nominations for actresses Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis and director Darren Aronofsky. This film is about a ballet dancer, Nina played by Natalie Portman, who lands the lead roll in her company’s production of Swan Lake. She begins to fear that another dancer, Lily played by Mila Kunis, will steal her roll. Lily represents everything that Nina is not. Nina has an obsession with perfection which means that she has an obsession with her own imperfections. When Lily effortlessly embodies all the things she cannot seem to be, Nina sees this as a personal threat while at the same time being fascinated by Lily. Nina lives with her mother who was once a dancer as well.

This is a very uncomfortable movie to watch. Almost immediately the disturbing nature of Nina’s relationship with her mother is apparent as we see the mother dressing her adult daughter and serving her breakfast, which she coos over. The tone continues as Nina’s relationship with the ballet director unfolds. What made me squirm the most was Nina’s physical condition which seems to be partly due to delusions and partly to self-mutilation. There are few things I enjoy more than a truly delusional main character and hat feeling of not knowing what really happened and what was made up as you left the theatre. This film provides both of these aspects but the glee I usually feel when I encounter a film like this was overshadowed by the sheer intensity of every scene. About 20 minutes into this film the tension grabs you and it never lets up for the rest of the film.

Natalie Portman does an amazing job and has a definite chance of taking home best actress. Even though you know her character is bat-shit-crazy, you can’t help but root for her. There wasn’t a part when I felt taken out of the movie because I sensed her acting, the whole thing felt very natural. I also really enjoyed how the film was shot with lots of shadows and mystery from the camera’s point of view. It really lends to the whole theme of the viewer not being sure of what they have seen or if it was real. Overall I’m really glad I saw it and the more I think about it the more I like it, but I have no plans for seeing it again anytime in the near future.
 Entertainment- 4- Most people are not going to like this film. It is just a little too scary and uncomfortable for those who like the comedies and “thinkie” films. At the same time, it is not exciting or fast enough for those who like horror and suspense films. The film is character driven and heavily focused on that character’s obsession.

Award-worthy- 7- I think this came together well as a film. The story, cinematography, set and costume design as well as the performances all enhance the themes of obsession and intensity. I didn’t see anything truly new, but Aronofsky's attention to detail and subtle manipulations bring all the aspects of this film into harmony working together like the dancers in a ballet.  I think this film is a tough competitor this year for best picture and Aronofsky is at the forefront of the director race.

True Grit (2010)

The very words “True Grit” invoke images of wide open spaces, revolver pistols and John Wayne.  The version John Wayne starred in from 1969 is a firm cornerstone of American film history.  Now, today, in 2010 the Coen brothers, creators of a few integral pieces of film history themselves, have made another version of this story.  True Grit of 2010 cannot be called a remake, however.  Both films of the same name were made after the 1968 novel by Charles Portis.  The story centers around a young girl named Mattie Ross whose father is murdered by a hired hand, Tom Chaney.  She enlists the help of the meanest marshal she can find, Rooster Cogburn,  in order to bring the fiend to justice.  She reluctantly accepts the help of a Texas ranger, LaBoeuf, who has also been searching for the same man for a different crime.  The three of them set out on the trail of the coward Tom Chaney.

It is difficult to rate this movie on its own rather than merely compare it to the earlier version.  I have not yet read the book, but the Coen brothers’ version is supposed to be closer to the novel than the John Wayne film.  They are so similar, however, that I must assume that the 1969 version also follows the novel quite closely.  The new version certainly has more events happen.  Small encounters that did not happen in the first version are certainly from the novel.  However, I got the feeling that the Coen brothers sacrificed the characterization for the plot.  The relationships between the characters were lost in this film.  The relationship between Mattie and Rooster, the driving force behind the emotion in this story, leaves much to be desired.  I did not feel as endeared to Mattie as I did in John Wayne’s version.  I also feel that although there were more events occurring in this version, they were almost rushed through or unfinished.  Almost as though they were so concerned with not leaving anything out that they just put an abridged version of each scene in the film so as to make sure they were all there but without going over time.

There are elements present here that you would expect from a Coen production.  The dark humor abounds in this movie.  I laughed all the way through even though the film is so dark.  The violence and gore in this film is fascinatingly realistic.  I don’t mean to say that it is excessive, but it is very believable.  In true Coen brothers’ fashion, this film does not pull any punches.  The tone of gritty realism really modernizes this film.

Entertainment: 7.  Overall this is a very entertaining film from the dialogue and visuals, but if you need to have a character to hold on to, you might be a little disappointed in this film.

Award-worthy: 5.  Although the cinematography is very good, and all of the actors hold their own, no performances truly stand out and the film lacks a certain magic required to see the film on the podium come Oscar season