Movies to Study: The Social Network January 17, 2011

In lieu of a review for ‘The Social Network‘, I am adding it to my collection of Movies to Study. As always, there are a good amount of spoilers here to provide thorough analysis.

I intend to say that ‘The Social Network’ is a film driven by its screenplay (by Aaron Sorkin, based on Ben Mezrich’s novel), and that it is very much an achievement in writing more than anything else; however, all aspects of this film are astounding and it makes one complete package that leaves such a lasting impression because it is a situation (Facebook) which is still evolving.

So we begin with Mark (Jesse Eisenberg) talking to Erica (Rooney Mara) at a bar. He thinks fast. He talks fast. We are, as Erica is, slightly baffled. She mentions that he says so many things at once she “doesn’t know which one to aim for.” Yet Mark isn’t one of those geniuses who completely lacks social skills. He can socialize, but the rate at which he spits out his thoughts is overwhelming, yet if they were dissected it’s clear there is a common thread. He’s not speaking just to get rid of air. This scene in its entirety is a wonder in itself. But this also sets the groundwork of what the film is about: relationships.

Of course, this means Mark’s relationships with a few key people: Erica, the Winklevoss twins, Eduardo Saverin, and Sean Parker.

The framework of the film is that two different people are suing Mark over his success with Facebook. The first is the Winklevoss twins, played by Armie Hammer. In a script lush with one-liners, the Winklevosses (“Winklevi”) are comic relief. They are, in essence, the opposite of Mark. They come from money, are 6-foot-5, members of the most prestigious honors clubs, and row crew in the Olympics. They have an idea, but lack any of the real programming talent to make it happen. They just have money and are accustomed to having success. That’s why they bring Mark in. That’s why, when broken down, Mark despises them so much by the time of the lawsuit.

‘Somewhere’ January 3, 2011

In a sweet stroke of the brush, Sofia Coppola has created another great movie in ‘Somewhere.’ The film centers on Johnny Marco, an actor whose life is at a standstill, and he doesn’t realize this until his 11-year-old daughter comes to visit for an extended stay.

What makes this film so pleasant is that it is an observation, not a driven piece of work. Of course plot structure and three-act stories are good, but here we watch Johnny Marco’s life, his daughter, and his progression as a human being, and the watching of this is what makes the film a unique experience. There are clearly remnants, or at least similar themes, to Coppola’s ‘Lost in Translation,’ but ‘Somewhere’ stands on its own strength.

The American December 21, 2010

Why was there such backlash at ‘The American‘ when it was in theaters? Were people expecting something along the lines of ‘Shooter‘? Don’t get me wrong, ‘Shooter’ has some good moments, but ‘The American’ is a much more mature version of a similar premise.

The film carefully navigates us through the life of Jack, who seems peaceful enough, but unwilling to compromise his privacy, which we see quickly. It is a bold move to open a film with a scene like this, but director Anton Corbijn and writer Rowan Joffe know what they are doing. Daily life seems interesting for Jack because George Clooney doesn’t oversell it and leaves us guessing. Then when we hit peaks in the story, like little bursts of action or little quips in dialog, it keeps us hooked.

I want to say that to watch this film you will need patience, but what kind of warning is that? This is not a Jason Statham movie, but the plot revolves around a man whose job is to make special weapons for special murders. How good of a tease s that? So sit down, pay attention, and enjoy the ride. It’s a good one.

The Tourist is a Troubling Movie December 13, 2010

It is hard for me to accurately describe how bad ‘The Tourist‘ is without giving away a great deal of spoilers. But I am sometimes baffled at how much talent can be put into a single movie, and yet such banal material is produced. Forgive the banal cliche, but too many cooks….

We have an Oscar-winning director, two Oscar-winning writers (Christopher McQuarrie ‘The Usual Suspects’ and Julian Fellowes ‘Gosfard Park) (though it should be noted they are credited with ‘and,’ not ‘&,’ meaning no direct collaboration), Johnny Depp, a solid actor, and Angelina Jolie, whom I am not a fan of but has had a few good roles. And yet….

Inception July 21, 2010

‘Inception‘ is the sort of movie I heard about, thought about, and then when I actually saw it, was severely disappointed. It is a heist movie (or reverse-heist movie, because an idea is being implanted) that stretches so thin I stopped paying attention to the action and started wondering about the motivation for the characters. If one has to ask themselves why a character is doing something, then something is wrong with the story.

I shall give ‘Inception’ some credit because it does do some things well. The concept of levels in a dream world and the manipulation of those dreams, while not completely fresh, is done well. There seems to be no real plot holes (other than why there is no gravity in Level 2 yet there is in Level 3 and Level 4, since all of the characters know that the van will be falling) in the dream sequences, and that in itself is quite a trick to pull off. However, since we are dealing with ultimately four levels of dreams, the action scenes, which are more than enough action at one level, are multiplied by four and hardly entertaining enough to captivate the audience and stop us (or at least myself) from questioning how the story got to that point. Especially since we already know what will happen in each level because the plan was laid out beforehand.

So let us backtrack….

A Single Man June 10, 2010

‘A Single Man‘ is a film that begins so powerfully that when it gets about halfway through you know there’s no way it can sustain that kind of momentum.

Colin Firth is the reason this movie is so good. Not ten minutes in to the film I felt so much sympathy for the protagonist. I was surprised because usually it takes an hour of careful building to make an audience be moved by a tragedy. There is something about Colin Firth’s voice-over narration that makes everything seem so bleak, and I was sucked in.

I greatly enjoyed the beginning of this film, but oh, would it be a spoiler to say that instead of breaking new ground the film finds its way back to the comfort zone? After watching 50 minutes anyone who has seen a dozen movies can tell what will happen in the next 50. There are no real surprises.

But this is not a waste of time. Does a film have to break new ground to be entertaining? Certainly not. But if it wants to be a great film, innovation is required. There isn’t much here. I could summarize the plot in a paragraph or two, but I will instead use the one-sentence summary from IMDb: “A story that centers on an English professor who, after the sudden death of his partner tries to go about his typical day in Los Angeles.” That’s all you really need to know.

The film seems to be not about the plot so much as how it is told. For Tom Ford’s directorial debut… not bad at all. I’m guessing he chose to adapt this novel because it had personal weight on his life. That is never a bad thing, but if he moves in a new direction for a next film, I can see good things in the future for his film career.

The Graduate April 13, 2010

The first time I watched ‘The Graduate‘ I was in my first real phase of movie-loving. I think I was going down the AFI 100 Movies list (note: before the 10th anniversary one) and checking off at least a movie a day. I was a teenager.

And ‘The Graduate’ was ranked as the 7th best film of all time. At the time, I thought: Really? Better than ‘Some Like It Hot’ or ‘Psycho’ or (the poorly ranked and yet undeniably fantastic) ‘Fargo’? I like the rankings on the old list better than the 10th Anniversary list, all films considered, but that is a topic for another post.

So the first time I watched ‘The Graduate’ I was underwhelmed because I did not relate much to any of the characters. I was just pleased to have seen another ‘classic’. Now, having watched it again at a new stage in life, it has left a completely different taste in my mouth, despite Ben’s awkwardness and the tonal dichotomy being the same.

New Day, New Movie (4): Shutter Island March 24, 2010

Most of my NDNM posts contain spoilers, and this one is no different, but since it’s probably still in theaters, I am putting a definitive spoiler warning.

There comes a certain bar when you are one of cinema’s greatest directors, and that bar is very high in Scorsese’s case. What happens with ‘Shutter Island‘ is we get a decent movie made in such a fantastic way. Can style compensate for a lack in both originality and storytelling? Maybe just a little bit.

Inglourious Basterds (a lengthy analysis) February 15, 2010

Chapter One
Get the Tarantino Talk out of the way

I plan to discuss ‘Inglourious Basterds’ at length and, with that, to not confuse the movie itself with its writer/director. I do admire Quentin Tarantino for a few reasons and think ‘Pulp Fiction’ is a truly great film. He has had a good career with one great film (Pulp Fiction), three good films (Kill Bills, Basterds), and handful of films I can stand to watch, but could do without (Death Proof, Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown). But, having made a great film, doesn’t that put him above at least 90% of the directors working today? Sure it does. Is he the best currently-working writer/director? Nah.

Chapter Two
I Bet You’re Glad…

… that I didn’t make the first chapter as long as Tarantino did in ‘Basterds’. We’ll get to that in a moment.

One thing Tarantino has always done (and what makes his writing so unique) is take roundabout paths to get to his point. Let’s look at the scene in ‘Pulp Fiction’ where Jules is interrogating Brett about Marsellus Wallace. His whole point is to get Brett to admit that he tried to fuck Marsellus Wallace (if you need a refresher, you can watch the scene here). But Jules begins by asking what Marsellus Wallace looks like, ending up at “does he look like a bitch?” and ultimately “well then why’d you try to fuck him like a bitch?” That scene is almost old enough to be deemed a “classic”. But my point is that the whole scene takes us in loops and we really don’t know what’s going on until the end — and then it’s all so clear. Once it is finished we feel like we went on a ride.

This works when it is with dialog for a few minutes. The problem comes when it is for an entire scene (that is more than a few minutes), which happens at least twice in the movie.

The first is during the opening chapter. At about 17 minutes, we get three things: Hans Landa is The Jew Hunter, smart, and toys with people; that Shosanna escapes and her family was killed by Nazis; and we are placed in World War II. This scene could have been sufficiently shorter and given us the same things. Hans Landa seems to be wasting both LaPadite’s (the farmer’s) time and ours. I understand on a first viewing this scene is tense. I was anxious, just as you were. But when it was finished, I found myself wondering, was all of that really necessary? The problem is that it is at the beginning of the film and we know nothing of Shosanna and her family. Maybe Tarantino was counting on our sympathies for the Jews to make the scene tenser, but I don’t think that was accomplished. Also, whatever happened to LaPadite? Shosanna wasn’t pissed at him, or want revenge against him?

Review: The Blind Side February 6, 2010

I put off watching ‘The Blind Side‘ because, quite frankly, it seemed like a bunch of the same-old, same-old. Well, it is, but at least it is watchable.

It is not watchable because of Sandra Bullock’s leading role, but in spite of it. She does a good job with the part, but what’s with all these awards? Oh, I forgot, Hollywood is almost completely politics. Bullock has been around the (acting) block and made some decent movies. It’s time to award her career with an Oscar. Sorry, but I’ll be damned if I support that. The award should go to the best performance, and both Carey Mulligan and Meryl Streep were in better and more challenging roles. Too bad Bullock was the only one in a crowd-pleaser.

But enough of Bullock. ‘The Blind Side’ is a moderately true story about a big, unfortunate black child who receives a home, an education, and some love from a wealthy Memphis family. Not surprisingly, the family that helps him is white. I suppose by now you will be aware of the movie and know that that child is Michael Oher, who now plays for the Baltimore Ravens. It ruins a bit of the magic when you know how things will end up (this is why I’m rarely a supporter of biopics).