Movies Seen in 2010

[CaptainCanada]

70. The American (B+)
71. The Kids Are All Right (B+)
72. The English Patient (A-)
73. The Town (B+)
74. The Social Network (A)

One of the major debates among the critics is whether the film is a hatchet-job on Zuckerberg; some people (including the Z-man himself) say it is, a lot of the critics say it's more complicated.

I can't speak to whether it's a "hatchet-job", since to me that denotes false accusations, and I don't know enough to say how accurate all this is: but in terms of the story the movie presents, I'd say it's a pretty negative depiction. He comes across as having some sort of socialization problem, and rather gratuitously backstabs two different parties for motives that remain rather obscure; indeed, in a lot of ways I was surprised how much the movie really declines to characterize Zuckerberg. You come away feeling you know Eduardo, the Winklevosses', even Sean Parker, better than you really know him. Of course, he wasn't involved in this movie, but Sorkin could easily have given us his take on Zuckerberg's motives, etc., but declines to do so (various people speculate as to his motives).

The most obvious reading is that this is sort of the 21st century Citizen Kane, with Zuckerberg left alone at the top, constantly refreshing his browser to try and make contact with the girl who dumped him and set off the whole chain of events (in constrast with Sean Parker, who says he doesn't think at all about the girl who led to him creating Napster).

There is certainly some complexity in the way the characters interact that is atypical for stories like this: for instance, Sean Parker is a sort of Mephistopheles character leading the protagonist into new levels of douchey behaviour, but Parker's right, and Eduardo is wrong. And, from what we see, Parker doesn't have any real ulterior motives; he's a party-boy, but he seems like he buys into his philosophy. Eduardo is out of his depth past a certain point - not that this excuses the way Zuckerberg and co. treat him.

Great performances all around.

Story-wise, I did think the film sort of just ended, rather than concluding in any real way.

[Harvey]

220. The Cocoanuts [C]

Like most of the Marx Brothers' early motion picture comedies (this one is their first, in fact) The Cocoanuts has ten minutes of musical numbers that could be easily excised, and another ten or fifteen minutes devoted to secondary characters which are equally non-essential. The film is also hampered by sound technology, which was still being developed in 1929, meaning the sound quality is rough and non-diagetic scoring completely absent due to technical limitations. Still, when you get down to the three Marx Brothers (Zeppo is technically in this one, but his role is so small and played so straight that he might as well be unrelated to the others) the material is as great as ever (Chico at the auction is great, and Groucho gets plenty of great dialogue as usual). I wouldn't make it your first Marx Brother comedy, but it's worth watching.

[Wynterhawk]

The Descent 2: B+

I absolutely loved the first outing and I rank it among my top movies. But the ending to the first movie, if you count the uncut version, doesn't really leave it open for a sequel. But anyway, ok, there's a sequel, I can deal with it. While the sequel didn't have very memorable characters, it did manage to hold my attention.

[Captain Craig]

I saw Zombieland for the first time last night.
I like it but thought until the end it had a serious lack of zombies.
Also seems the zombies here have a bit more cognitive awarenesss than some zombie interpretations. Here they actually thought to climb ladders and turn door knobs most zombie films have them as lumbering idiots bumping into walls or through them.

[Harvey]

221. Next [F]
222. The Social Network [A]
223. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps [B+]

Next: A below average fantasy thriller that is brought down to a failing grade by the ending, which disregards the whole second half of the movie. The screenwriters and the director should have followed through and disregarded the whole movie in the first place, so that none of us would have to see it. Of course, among friends, you'd be hard pressed to find a movie easier to savage even when you're only paying half attention.

The Social Network: Is it the masterpiece of the decade? Hell, no. But the ridiculous hyperbole of some reviewers aside (Peter Travers calls it the movie that defines the decade...talk about not giving yourself time for perspective) it's a well-made movie with terrific performances and a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin (who also has an amusing cameo) that is as sharp as ever. I'd agree with CaptainCanada that the film has a sort of non-ending, but so did the story in real life, so that was pretty inevitable. Zuckerberg settled for a small slice of his fortune and ended up on top, at least financially. It's a fascinating movie about how business can totally corrupt a friendship, among other things, and people who can only see that it's about facebook are missing out on a good thing.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps: From 1986 to 1995, Oliver Stone directed (and often wrote) ten films which I'd rate from good to great. Even a relative misfire like The Doors from that period is eminently watchable. Since then, however, his track record has been pretty awful--I still haven't seen U-Turn, but everything in the past fifteen years save W. rates from poor to just mediocre. I'm happy to report that, despite the mixed reviews, that the sequel to Wall Street is just as good as the original. Yes, the very end is a tad sentimental and unbelievable considering the rest of the movie, but the original had the same problem (curiously, any moral uplift with Bud Fox is utterly crushed by Charlie Sheen's cameo in this movie, which confirms the running theme through most of this sequel that nobody can stay good for long). Like the original, there's a good supporting cast and good performances all around (LaBeuf might actually be better than Sheen's turn in the first one). Definitely worth watching, and perhaps a sign that Oliver Stone is a director worth watching once more.

[CaptainCanada]

Harvey wrote:

---

I'd agree with CaptainCanada that the film has a sort of non-ending, but so did the story in real life, so that was pretty inevitable.

That's pretty much what I thought; Facebook still exists, Zuckerberg still runs it, so there wasn't much that could be done there. Hence, looking back, they emphasize his friendships and how he ends up alone, waiting to see if Erica (who might as well be named "Rosebud") will "friend" him.

I also wonder if the fact that Justin Timberlake undoubtedly lost a lot of money thanks to Napster made him lend extra zeal to his depiction of Parker as a flashy scumbag.

[Harvey]

The thought that Timberlake was influenced by losing money over Napster never occurred to me, but it's hard not to think about now. He certainly spared nothing in his depiction of Sean Parker as a cowardly and ultimately irrelevant flim-flam man.

[emacs]

during the 35th Toronto International Film Festival ( http://tiff.net/ ) i saw these films, many of which i recommend highly.

- The King's Speech
- Biutiful
- The Housemaid
- Aftershock
- Black Swan
- 127 Hours
- I Saw the Devil
- The Town
- Fubar II
- Monsters
- The Butcher, The Chef and the Swordsman
- SUPER
- Insidious
- Norwegian Wood
- Pinoy Sunday

[JacksonArcher]

I think Justin Timberlake surprisingly gave the best performance in the film, which is saying something since the entire cast is rock solid, and I think he'll walk away with the very least a Best Supporting Actor nomination. I never liked him as a recording artist, but he's been proving himself as a solid, consistently strong actor. Color me impressed.

The rest of the movie aside, I have a hard time finding any complaints, besides the point mentioned above that the movie does sort of just end, leaving you feeling a little unsatisfied. However, that's to be expected when you're telling a story about something that is still, for the most part, still on-going. I will say though that only David Fincher (and Aaron Sorkin) could make a movie that is 90% talking 100% entertaining, even though it did start to feel a little sluggish around the infamous chicken cannibalism bit.

Still, the movie manages to take all of the computer programming jargon, technicality and chronology of the creation of Facebook and make it into a relentlessly engaging, emotionally affecting and entertaining movie all around. For anyone who compares Jesse Eisenberg to Michael Cera, after this movie the comparisons will stop. He delivers a really multi-faceted, wide-ranged performance which takes you from outright disliking the guy to feeling sympathetic toward him at the end. That's the testament of a good performance in my opinion.

I was surprised at a cast that is mostly twentysomethings that I couldn't find a weak link at all. Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Eduardo makes him the most likable and enduring of all the characters in the film, and even Rooney Mara's short but pivotal role as Erica is very strong. Aaron Sorkin's script is incredibly tight, witty and sharp; the cinematography, score by Trent Reznor and editing is all very well done; and David Fincher creates a great sense of mood with the settings, color platette, pace of the film and does a great job directing his actors.

I wouldn't say this was the film of the decade, or even the film of the year. However, it's incredibly fine filmmaking and definitely one of the strongest films of the year so far. A solid ***1/2 stars.

[CaptainCanada]

The funny thing is, if Justin were to win the Oscar (I think a nomination is highly likely now, at least), he would be three quarters of the way to EGOT.

[LitmusDragon]

Bicentennial Man - B. Surprisingly faithful adaptation of Asimov's classic SF tale.

[marillion]

The standouts, besides the usual round of summer blockbusters, have been the first two "The Girl" movies from Sweden. I thought "Dragon Tattoo" was superior as a suspense/thriller, but I enjoyed the character development in "Played with Fire"...

Last week, I went to one of those special screenings of "The Exorcist" at the local multiplex. It was the directors cut, which I've never seen and enjoyed it immensely. Intersting the continuity errors you suddenly see when you watch something on the big screen for the first time, ever.. They also tacked on one of the "making of" mini-docs after the feature and that was quite enjoyable.

[Wynterhawk]

CaptainCanada wrote:

---

The funny thing is, if Justin were to win the Oscar (I think a nomination is highly likely now, at least), he would be three quarters of the way to EGOT.

Hm interesting. Can I ask what EGOT is?

[Captain Craig]

EGOT, I think is:

Emmy
Grammy
Oscar
Tony

[CaptainCanada]

Dead in Wynter wrote:

---

Hm interesting. Can I ask what EGOT is?

As Captain Craig said: Emmy Grammy Oscar Tony; also called the Awards Grand Slam. Only ten or twelve people have done it (depending on whether you count honourary awards).

Timberlake has six Grammies and two Emmies already; if he won an Oscar, he'd only need the Tony.

70. The American (B+)
71. The Kids Are All Right (B+)
72. The English Patient (A-)
73. The Town (B+)
74. The Social Network (A)
75. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (B+)

Had a few DVDs lying around waiting to be watched, and in memory of the late Sally Menke, decided to finally watch Kill Bill; did the first volume tonight. The verdict: technically impeccable (there's some really gorgeous imagery, such as the final swordfight in the snow garden), with some good fight scenes and jump moments, but it's held back by having absolutely no real depth (I understand that the second part is better on that score). Strong performances all around, for what the material provides. I like the detail of the Bride's legs not working when she wakes up from her coma (though if you're going to bring that into play, one could just as easily wonder about her arms).