|
by Gavin
,
posted Oct 29 2011 10:57AM
|
 There have been some very good movies that were made over the years about Conspiracy Theories. What they end up doing is taking the most believed or plausible explanation for the events under question and make a film committed to that. Oliver Stone's masterpiece JFK is one of the best examples of it, but films like From Hell and All the President's Men are others. Anonymous is a film like those in that it looks at the theory that William Shakespeare did not actually write anything, but was just a front for the real writer who had to stay in the shadows. Unfortunately for Anonymous, this Conspiracy Theory is way too complex and doesn't hold water.
I'm not sure who this movie is made for. You would probably be interested in seeing this if you really loved Shakespeare's work and/or British Royal history; but if you do, then you'll not enjoy all the blatant inaccuracies in order to establish its point. But if you don't really enjoy Shakespeare and/or know very little about British Royal history, you'll probably really enjoy it; but let's be honest, you're not interested in seeing this in the first place.
Everything about the movie is top quality though. This is by far director Roland Emmerich's best film. He's the guy that is the Hollywood go-to for blowing up the world. His legacy until now has been films like Independence Day, 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow. Prior to this, his crowning achievement was The Patriot with Mel Gibson but the look and scope of Anonymous dethrones that in the attention to costumes, prop details and using Emmerich's experience with CGI to recreate the landscapes of 16th Century England.
The acting is tops as well. Usual goofball Rhys Ifans (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1, Notting Hill) is shockingly great in this darkly dramatic role as The Early of Oxford aka the true "William Shakespeare." But he's joined by A-quality performances from Vanessa Redgrave (Cars 2, Mission: Impossible), David Thewlis (the Harry Potter series, The Big Lebowski) and Rafe Spall (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) who steals every scene he's in as William Shakespeare, who they portray as a showboating, blackmailing, drunken moron. He's very funny to watch but this portrayal is one of vast inaccuracy, even within the context of the conspiracy. And there is an example of the downfall of this film.
Any true fan of Shakespeare can sniff out the rewriting of historical events to make a puzzle piece fit where it doesn't and that sticks in your craw too much to fully enjoy the film. The order of when plays were released is mixed up, Shakespeare's contemporaries are amazed at hearing things for the first time that they actually all did before he did, deaths of famous figures are jumbled about to make the story stick better, etc. Not to mention the fact that the story itself is so hard to follow and keep all the characters straight that motives for massive plot points get lost at the fast pace of this 130 minute film.
In the end though the film stands as a wonderful send-up to Shakespeare's words...whoever wrote them. Anonymous is beautifully framed in modern times by explaining to the audience that no matter who actually wrote them (historians are 95% sure it actually was Shakespeare, by the way) that the words were so perfect and beautiful that they define what it means to be human. And for that, I respect and liked this film. The rest is history.
Anonymous (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B | | | Tags : Social : 107.9 the End, Anonymous, David Thewlis, Gavin, Gavin Ferguson, KDND, Rafe Spall, Rhys Ifans, Roland Emmerich, Vanessa Redgrave, William Shakespeare
|
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Oct 14 2011 7:17AM
|
 There are few actors out there that I will gladly sit and watch with a smile on my face regardless of how bad the movie is. George Clooney is one of them. Sure I'm a little gay for the guy, but how can you not be? This new movie of his is not only starring him as a politician in the fight for the nomination but it was directed by him too. The last time he did both it was for Michael Clayton and it got him an Oscar nomination for Directing and a win for Acting. Sadly, this time around, it won't produce such accolades.
Despite the fact that The Ides of March has one of the most impressive casts this year and it does nothing for the film. It not only has Clooney but Ryan Gosling, Phillip Seymore Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood (The Wrestler). With that kind of pedigree, you'd think there'd be thespiatic explosions all over the screen. There isn't.
That's not to say that the acting isn't well done though. Everyone is natural and subtle but the script prevents them from displaying too much more than the cold Washington Insiders they are...that is except for Gosling. Once again, Ryan Gosling does a great job at showing us a very layered character. He's the cool and collected head of the political campaign that's put in two situations that lend itself to his undoing. One involves a tug-of-war between Hoffman and Giamatti and the other is cleaning up after Clooney. It's fun and unfortunate to watch Reynold's character become undone, but it's not enough to really get full entertainment out of it.
The film moves at a deliberatly slow pace. It's not heart-pounding or edge-of-your-seat. It plays out more realistic than most political thrillers do. I appreciate that. But when it comes to how I want my movies, realism is appreciated but not throughly loved. I would have enjoyed a few more twists and turns and a little more passion from the players would have pumped more life into the film. But it's still very dark, sinister and paints an ugly portrait of American politics...and that I like.
The Ides of March (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: B-| | | Tags : Social : 107.9 the End, Even Rachel Wood, Gavin, Gavin Ferguson, George Clooney, KDND, Maris Tomei, Paul Giamatti, Phillip Seymore Hoffman, Ryan Reynolds, The Ides of March
|
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Sep 15 2011 4:21PM
|
 In the opening sequence of this crime drama, Ryan Gosling is introduced as a getaway driver for two faceless thugs stealing money from some unknown destination.  The scene builds to what will be an inevitable chase scene between them and the cops.  Tension mounts as a creeping Cat & Mouse game plays out with them slowly trying to sneak down the streets of LA without being spotted.  Surely, this car chase scene is gonna be epic and kick this movie off in full throttle.  But no.  It never comes.  In fact, the sequence involves slow driving, methodical evasion moves and an  anticlimactic getaway.  Never once is any of it boring though.  And this sets the tone of Drive.
Drive is a gritty crime movie that takes place in LA but we're not sure when due to a misleading soundtrack choice of heart-pounding synth pop and cliche costume choices. Â These were deliberate choice by director Nicolas Winding Refn, who directed the brilliant Bronson in 2008, which introduced the world to Tom Hardy (Warrior, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises). Â I'm sure he also had a call in the promotion of this film that uses hot pink '80s style font for all the advertising and credits. Â Coupled with the heavy female soundtrack and Gosling's adorable manboy face, you'd expect this to be a film about crime that's made for women. Â A warning to all lovers of The Notebook, this is not the Ryan you're expecting.
Drive is one of the most violent movies I've ever seen. Â Sure there are movies like Saving Private Ryan or Nightmare on Elm Street that are officially more violent, but Drive is filled with unexpected brutality. Â This is NOT a film for the slight of heart. Â Some of the scenes generated audible gasps from the audience and people turned away from the screen. Â In some cases, people got up and left the theater. Â Yes, some of this violence is gratuitous but never once does it not fit the tone of the film. Â It's all done for a reason and in some cases even meant to be playful.
The entire cast is brilliant. Â It also features Carey Mulligan (An Education), Ron Pearlman (Hellboy), Bryan Cranston (AMC's Breaking Bad) and comedian Albert Brooks (Mother, Finding Nemo) as an Oscar-caliber villain. Â He is a perfect baddie and nobody would EVER have guessed that. Â It's that kind of risky choices that makes Drive and Refn's vision that deserves top notice from people.
All that being said, this is not a movie for mass audiences. Â It has a pace that is slow and deliberate. Â The film takes itself more seriously than it deserves but that can be overlooked. Â Gosling's character, who is only listed in the credits as "Driver," is mysterious and a man of few words. Â He says very little and Refn allows moments of the film to go on in complete silence for agonizing amounts of time. Â However, after a full viewing, I'm sure those pregnant pauses are far more important and justified on a second enjoyment.
There are few movies that, after I see them, I look forward to seeing again as soon as possible;Â Drive is one of them though. Â It's not a classic story of a criminal with a heart of gold. Â It's a story of a criminal who tries to do the right thing after falling in love, but displays acts of violence that suggests an almost psychotic and homicidal maniac past. Â Gosling does a stellar job showing that without ever saying a word. Â But again, don't go into Drive with any pretense. Â It's not Fast and the Furious filled with amazing car chase scenes! Â It's not The Notebook filled with passionate love scenes. Â It's brutal, weird and inspired! Â It's one of those movies that makes you think you just saw something important...even if you're not 100% sure what you just saw.
Drive  (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: A |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Mar 30 2011 10:48PM
|
 Here's a quiz that has nothing to do with how good or bad Jane Eyre is, the film based on the classic novel most of us had to read in school by Charlotte Bronte. Â What's a worse movie watching experience? Â A: Theater full of teenagers. Â B: Â Theater full of ethnic stereotypes (you know what I mean). Â C: Â Theater full of old people. Â After seeing Jane Eyre I can confidently say that the answer is C. Â My theater was packed with the geriatric and if they weren't loudly snorting in through their nose every 15 seconds or trying to gnaw down their buttered popcorn, then they were loudly explaining the movie to each other. Â But I will try not to allow that to ruin my opinion of the film...I just had to vent.
Like all movies that are based on a book, you have to prepare yourself for a lean and trimmed representation of what the pages contained. Â Unfortunately for director Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre), Jane Eyre is a really long book. Â What they chose to chop was selective and calculated but it was also somewhat vital to character development. Â If you never read the book and expect the movie to make you love Jane as much as the readers do, you will be disappointed. Â But this should make English teachers happy who will easily be able to catch whether or not a student read the book or saw the movie...be warned!
The film has a great dreary look to it and I know it's easy to chalk up the overcast sky and pall of gloom as...well...England, but it actually fits the mood of the story very well. Â Of course after sitting through two hours of that kind of atmosphere, it doesn't make you feel romantic at all and instead makes you want to jump off a cliff.
The performances from star Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are Alright) and Michael Fassbender (Inglorious Basterds, 300) are very good, especially from her. Â She displays the reserved joy and masked misery that Jane should, although the years of torment that leads to her stoic persona are cut from the film.
The problem with this adaptation is where they decided to take it. Â I never took Jane Eyre, the book, as a sweeping period romance but instead a gothic mystery that had romance in it. Â Nevertheless, a sweeping period romance is, indeed, where it ended up. Â I won't give anything away but scenes of spooky noises and terrifying night visions could have made the film much more entertaining to a broader audience, but instead they were cast aside to cater to middle-aged women seeking 19th century romance.
This isn't me just hating on the movie because it's simply not the book. Â I try to separate my feelings on the two. Â If you never read the book you will probably enjoy the film at a "take-it-or-leave-it" level. Â Dangerous though since if you did read the book, you will probably wish you did it again instead of see the film.
Jane Eyre (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B- |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Feb 2 2011 4:35PM
|
 To say that The Company Men is a movie that doesn't have a blatant agenda and message behind it is the same thing as saying a Michael Moore movie is fair and balanced. Â The drama with an all-star cast of Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones, Chris Cooper (American Beauty, The Muppets) and Kevin Costner is a clever disguise for a scathing expose on the downsizing of corporate America. Â I know, that sounds dry and boring. Â Why should we care about a bunch of overpaid, privileged white collar guys that get thrown out on their asses by a corporation while the CEO continues to swim in money? Â Because everyone in America knows someone like this. Â This movie pumps in the same veins as 2009's Up in the Air with George Clooney. Â It holds a magnifying glass on a few characters to show what it's like to be laid off in your forties and fifties with a mortgage and family to support. Â Sure it's not the life-or-death problems that they face in third world countries or the epic drama depicted in war films; but for our times, this is as bad as it can get for some. Â It's the middle class nightmare that weighs on all of our minds. Â But no matter how important and real the plot for The Company Men is, the emotion that comes out of it is just scratching the surface. Â A cast was put together for this that has enough Oscar and Oscar nominations between them to choke a donkey, but director/writer John Wells (E.R., The West Wing) failed to get an Oscar-worthy performance out of any of them. Â The film felt clunky at times and was in need of a good oiling. Â That's an issue with a movie that features lots of characters with lots of story arcs that intersect. Â It's hard to keep them all straight and it's even harder to go into enough depth for each one to make us care. Â The closest we get to attachment is with Affleck's family man character who struggles putting his ego aside when he has trouble landing another white collar job and may have to take a blue collar one from his brother-in-law, who's played by Costner. Â Although it's hard to feel like you're walking through this mid-life disaster with these people that still doesn't make it boring. Â The movie moves very well and draws you in just enough. Â It could be that it's something most of us can relate to on one level or another that makes it, at the very least, a good film. Â Tommy Lee Jones plays his usual melancholy character that feels empathy for those around him and does a good job of showing it through his droopy eyes and limited but pertinent lines. Â The Company Men rises above most so far this year and stands among one of the better dramas of 2011 but failed to meet my expectations. Â The film might have been improved, ironically since it's about downsizing, by eliminating a few of the characters and focused on the ones that remained more; concentrating the drama and not spreading it out. Â But I guess that would be against what the film stands for, huh?
The Company Men (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: B | | | Tags : Social : 107.9 the End, Ben Affleck, Chris Cooper, Craig T. Nelson, Gavin, John Wells, Kevin Costner, Movie Reviews, The Company Men, Tommy Lee Jones, Up in the Air
|
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Jan 12 2011 5:24PM
|
 Oo! Â It's the dreaded (almost) NC-17 rated movie with Ryan Gosling (The Notebook, Lars and the Real Girl) and Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain, Shutter Island) that everyone talked about before it came out because of its graphic sex scenes. Â Yes, this movie does have sex scenes that flirt with graphic and they're very uncomfortable to watch, but if that's all you talk about from this movie, it's a damn shame. Â Blue Valentine follows a married couple from the time of them meeting and falling in love to the time of their marriage falling apart. Â That story couldn't possibly have been told more often, right? Â But what makes this one unique is how the stories overlap each other and are downright painful to watch. Â In fact, pain is what this movie is all about. Â I myself come from a broken home. Â My parents got divorced when I was 13 and anyone who has ever lived through a divorce, either as a child or spouse or both, will have a really hard time watching this. Â Some of the scenes are so realistic and so flawlessly portrayed that it made me cautious to keep watching. Â What's so impressive about these scenes though is the control over them. Â It would be easy to do a movie about a failing marriage that's full of black and white characters that just scream the whole time. Â Blue Valentine doesn't allow that to exist while it's under the careful command of director Derek Cianfrance, who mostly has a background in documentaries. Â That's obvious as you watch it because the whole film has handheld camera work and heavily improvised dialogue. Â In fact one scene that takes place on the Brooklyn Bridge was improvised so much that Gosling scared the crap out of the crew and Williams when he climbed over the edge of the bridge (where there was no safety net) and threatened to jump. Â It's one of the many scenes that is so uneasy to watch that it makes you want to shut it off. Â I'm not a big fan of Gosling or Williams, but they did a great job in this. Â Williams actually is the better of the two. Â Gosling's character doesn't change through the film since he's a husband that doesn't want to lose his family. Â Williams had to pull off someone who falls in love and falls out of it while filming and she does it with finesse. Â I felt that she loved and hated, both with passion, multiple times in the non-linear story. Â What prevents this film from breaking into the realm of greatness is mostly what makes it so good: the pain. Â Blue Valentine is a miserable movie and loves every second of it. Â It never once tries to be uplifting or beautiful or charming. Â It's not romantic. Â It's not sweet. Â It's a movie about a crumbling marriage where you feel every sting of heartbreak. Â But why would anyone want to watch that...especially more than once? Â I don't at least.
Blue Valentine  (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: B+ |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Dec 24 2010 7:19AM
|
 I hope that Christian Bale is already practicing his acceptance speech for winning the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. Â Besides the fact that the infamous method actor sculpted himself into a 120 lbs crackhead for the movie (he's done that AND WORSE for movies before though), he also blends a perfect mix of sympathy, comedy and suffering into arguably the best performance of his career. Â He plays Dicky Eklund, the brother of famous boxer "Irish" Mickey Ward, who's played by Mark Wahlberg. Â Besides also being joined by the beautiful and extremely talented Amy Adams, you won't recognize another actor in this movie directed by David O. Russell (Three Kings, I Heart Huckabees). Â This is his finest work as well. Â Be warned, the film is very misleading. Â You know it's about a boxer and the film is called The Fighter, but it's not the cliche sports movie you've seen over and over again. Â I would say this might be the best Boxing movie since Rocky and, in some aspects, might even give it a run for its money. Â Yes, the Boxing parts of the movie feel like they could be interchangeable with any other Boxing movie to ever come out (although Russell really impressed me by switching his camera to a digital one for the fights to give it more of a Pay-Per-View look) however Boxing has very little to do with the movie. Â This really is a movie about a family dealing with addiction. Â Bale's character is addicted to crack. Â Wahlberg's character is addicted to his brother. Â And Alice the mother, who is played amazingly by Melissa Leo (Frozen River, Conviction) is addicted to the fame. Â Everyone in this, with the exception of Wahlberg, deserves a nomination. Â It drips with talent. Â And hats off to Russell for also casting many locals in key parts that make you shake your head wondering "where the hell did they find these people?" Â Well, they found them in Lowell, Mass, where it all took place. Â Russell even allowed Mickey's trainer, Mickey O'Keefe, play himself in the film. Â Everything feels more like a documentary with it's shining authenticity and handheld camera work. Â It's true that the movie reminds you of something you've seen before. Â It has the archetype of almost every sports film but it also has the archetype for every poor family struggling with drug addiction. Â But rarely are those stories told together with so much talent and attention to detail put into it. Â If you're looking for a sports movie, you'll get one eventually but you have to wait a while for it. Â If you're looking for a family drama, you'll get one right away but you'll have to appreciate the Boxing too. Â My wife had zero interest in seeing this with me but went just to make me happy. Â By the end of the film, we were both sitting in the darkened theater with tears in our eyes and a desire to see it again. Â In fact she liked it more than I did. Â The Fighter won't win Best Picture because there are too many other movies that are just slightly better, but it deserves to be considered one of the Top 10 films of the year without a doubt...and doesn't have to fight to get there.
The Fighter  (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: A+ |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Oct 21 2010 4:58PM
|
 What do you hope to do when you're 80-years-old? Â I think most of us would be happy just being alive. Â Oscar-winning Director Clint Eastwood is 80 and seems to be getting younger and younger with each new movie he does. Â I was never really a big fan of Eastwood as an actor. Â Dirty Harry movies never did much for me. Â As a director, however, he's given us some of the best films of the last decade. Â I thought Million Dollar Baby and Flags of Our Fathers were incredible and powerful. Â But (and I know many disagree with me) he also gave us complete duds like Gran Torino and Invictus. Â Hereafter is his first dive into the paranormal but it's not scary at all. Â This could be a sequel to The Sixth Sense and Matt Damon is the little kid all grown up. Â He's the reluctant psychic that can commune with the dead. Â He has a gift but doesn't want to use it because it's too hurtful to his life. Â Sounds like a pretty cliched story, right? Â Well, what Eastwood and writer Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon, The Queen) tried to do to make it fresh is have two other stories that are totally unrelated to Damon's and have them crisscross a la Traffic or Babel. Â The other two stories involve a French journalist played by Cecile de France and a young British boy played by Frankie McLaren. Â Either of these stories would be interesting on their own but are told in such a boring, plodding way. Â The story of the French woman starts the movie and it's utterly amazing and enthralling. Â It takes place during the 2004 tsunami in Thailand. Â It's so incredible in the way it was filmed and really does a great job of showing how horrible that event was. Â The British boy's story also involves a true story and it is the terrorist bombing of the London subway in 2005. Â However, whenever Eastwood does a movie that features a child actor to carry a major role, it's a safe bet that it will be cast horribly. Â The reason why Gran Torino was so bad was because the two child actors he cast were unwatchable. Â McLaren isn't much better. Â I get the impression that he was cast because he was a twin and has the most pathetic, dopey look on his face that screams tragedy without saying a word. Â And if he was playing a mute in the film, that would be just fine, but he's not. Â I know it's cruel to single out a kid as the weakest link in a painfully average movie so I'll emphasis that it's not just him. Â The whole film lacked any kind of energy or pulse. Â I wish Matt Damon's psychic character could commune with this dead film to find out how to make it better. Â Even the moments that made me tear up only achieved half of the potential the story offered. Â The good news though is that doing these movies seems to keep Eastwood alive and well and we can keep hoping for another Million Dollar Baby.
Hereafter (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: C |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Oct 7 2010 9:33PM
|
 By this time, anyone who has any interest in pop culture...even the vaguest amount...knows that Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator, Signs) lost his mind about a year and a half ago. Â He grew a hobo beard and dredded-up his hair in strands of neglect and filth. Â He walked away from his Oscar-nominated career as an A-list actor to go after a ridiculous goal of being a rapper. Â People watched him crash and burn on the David Letterman Show and on the pages of gossip rags. Â Well, it turned out that it was all for this film, which was directed by his brother-in-law Casey Affleck (The Killer Inside Me, Gone Baby Gone). Â When I'm Still Here (which is named after one of Phoenix's more promising songs) first came out, people still believed that it was a documentary about his descent into madness. Â In the weeks that followed the movie's slow and limited release, the two actors went on a press tour admitting that it was all a hoax. Â This made what would've been a really scary, sad but above all, weird documentary about lunacy into a regular movie that was just plain weird. Â It's one of the most complicated movies I've ever seen. Â I don't understand why they made it. Â It's essentially one of the biggest gambles with a person's career I've ever seen in Hollywood. Â It's not a comedy either. Â Don't go into this thinking you're gonna see something like Borat or Bruno. Â This is a fake documentary that's more on the side of drama, but it's drama you don't care about. Â Not to mention the fact that it's VERY adult. Â Besides seeing Phoenix do blow, pills and smoke weed (all of which he swears were fake), you see him get oral sex from a hooker, full-frontal male nudity and someone take a dump on his face. Â None of which is done to be funny, not that it really would be anyway. Â There are some scenes that are uncomfortably awesome though. Â After chasing him all around the country for a sit-down, Phoenix eventually meets with Puff Daddy to discuss producing his album. Â After listening to dismal cuts from it, the situation turns palpable with tension as Phoenix assumes the sale of working together and Diddy tries to let him down without hurting his feelings. Â Another positive trait of the film is that it's one of the most interesting character studies ever. Â Again, that doesn't make it good though. Â The fact that he kept a character going for 18 months during every waking hour is really impressive. Â In fact it's so impressive that he might be a long shot for a Best Actor nomination. Â But the movie as a whole is like wearing a shirt that's too small; the film feels uncomfortable and awkward and doesn't make glad you're going through it. Â If you're really into art films that make you think "what does this mean?" more than movies that you can just sit back and enjoy, you'll probably enjoy this more than I will.
I'm Still Here (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: C |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Sep 30 2010 9:44PM
|
 This sounded like the worst movie EVER! Â Am I right?! Â Was anyone actually excited about a movie about freaking Facebook?! Â How shocking could it be? Â The dude gets unfriended in the end? Â Boy, could I have not been more wrong though. Â Who knew that the history of Facebook is so interesting? Â Mark Zuckerberg did, for one. Â He's the teenage genius that created the social network and is played very well by Jessie Eisenberg (Zombieland, Adventureland). Â This was exactly what he needed to get out from the shadow of Michael Cera and prove that he's not just a cheaper version of him but instead a serious actor that should be given his deserved attention. Â Another actor in this film that demands attention is *gulp, sigh* Justin Timberlake, and yes I mean THAT Justin Timberlake. Â Apparently, when he's not bringing sexy back, he's taking acting classes because he's great in this as the creator of Napster, Sean Parker, who becomes a perfect villain for this tale. Â But still, why is this interesting to anyone? Â Well, apparently there were two lawsuits filed against Zuckerberg and Facebook at the same time and out of those lawsuits came three very different stories of what actually happened, who did what and when. Â Getting more interesting, right? Â Now throw in the combination of two guys at the top of their craft to tell the story and you've got yourself a dream team. Â Director David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club) is one of the best directors out there now and Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing, A Few Good Men) is not only one of the best screenwriters in Hollywood but also has his own frenzied pace of dialogue that never gets old or dusty. Â These guys put together such an amazing vehicle for which this story is allowed to rocket along at a two-hour runtime that seems to be 45 minutes, that it may be some of their best work...it definitely is for Sorkin. Â To top it all off, the score for the film is done by former Nine Inch Nails genius, Trent Reznor, who Fincher worked with before on Seven. Â He's made such a haunting and playful electronica musical score for this that the phrase "Oscar-winner Trent Reznor" seems like it should have always been how we referred to him. Â In fact, there's no reason why everyone I've mentioned above should be nominated for an Oscar for this film. Â On top of that, I'd say that The Social Network is the film to beat for Best Picture this year. Â Not too shabby for what started off as the most boring-sounding movie I ever heard. Â But really what it is is a version of Goodfellas for the 21st Century. Â It's a gang that no longer gets back at people by shoving an ice pick into the back of their heads but taking them to court for hundreds of millions of dollars. Â They don't rule the streets with an iron fist but rule cyberspace with geeky pompousness. Â No one in the movie is 100% bad and no one is 100% good. Â Zuckerberg is portrayed as someone who wages a war on privilege, apathy and wealth by creating something that all the ivy league sons of millionaires couldn't do...an original idea that only he could make. Â But once he makes the monster in his lab, it breaks out and runs amuck on the citizens of the town below. Â The question is will anyone want to actually pay to see a story about this nerd and his quest for respect? Â Well, if Facebook was a country, it would be the third most populated country on Earth. Â So, yeah, I'd imagine some people have interest in it.
The Social Network (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: A+ | | | Tags : Social : 107.9 the End, Aaron Sorkin, David Fincher, Gavin, Goodfellas, Jessie Eisenberg, Justin Timberlake, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Cera, Movie Reviews, Nine Inch Nails, Sean Parker, The Social Network, Trent Reznor
|
|
|
| |
|
