Reel Quick Review - The Social Network

I was in Duluth this past weekend to visit a buddy of mine. During my visit we watched The Social Network. I'm a little surprised that I hadn't gotten around to seeing it sooner consider all the praise and positive buzz I had heard in my social circles, but better late than never.

If nothing else, the one thing that The Social Network has going for it is an undeniably interesting story - the origins of Facebook, the madly successful social networking site. Mark Zuckerberg, portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg in the film, is one hell of a character study - brilliantly gifted with computers, but socially inept, at least in the sense of understanding the workings and nuances of interpersonal relationships. He created one of the world's most successful internet websites and it has brought him both fame and infamy!

Based on actual events, the film, penned by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) and directed by David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club) is fast moving and filled with sharp dialogue that actually made me laugh out loud a few times, not necessarily because the situations were funny, but because the one-liners were superbly executed. Zuckerberg, by all accounts, is not likable for reasons made very obvious in the film - he says exactly what is on his mind, seemingly without any filtering whatsoever, and he just doesn't understand social moires. It's hard to know if he is actually as saavy as circumstances would have you believe or if much of his success is due to outside influences such as Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake).

As I said, the story is engaging and engrossing and Fincher does an excellent job of melding the present (legal depositions from Zuckerberg's lawsuits) with the past (flashbacks to what actually transpired) as the method of storytelling. No doubt Eisenberg was tested in his role as the laconic Zuckerberg and it all shines on screen as watch the story of the destroyed friendships behind the world's biggest "friend" driven network. 9/10

Rating Adjustments Vol. 1 - Judgments Revisited with the Passage of Time

So now and then I go back and peruse the history of the Film Lounge's reviews and reader comments. It's interesting for me, especially with the really old posts, to revisit them and check out my initial thoughts of a film a few years removed. Quite frequently I'll go back and read a review and worry that I no longer would rate it the same, but then I get to the end and see the rating and breath a sigh of relief because I feel that I did get it right and I would still give it the same rating.

But not always.

First, I feel its important that we be able to admit when we are wrong; we cannot be afraid to do so. And second, I think that it helps me to be a better reviewer and viewer in general to be able to, with the passage of time, be able to go back, think it through again and re-rate a movie if I can find justification. Quite often people tend to overreact (both positively and negatively) right out of the gates and I am no exception to that. I am, after all, only human.

During a recent trip back through the blog I ran across three entries that, as I read them and then saw the rating I gave the movies, I argued with my judgment at the time. So now I will address them and hopefully the record will be set straight.

Spiderman 3 (was rated 8/10) – Oh superhero movies.... My recent viewing and review of Green Lantern has really had me mulling things over during the past week. I've done a lot of thinking on the genre and looking back at all of them through the lens of full decade, I've had a lot of interesting thoughts, some of them expressed in my Green Lantern review.

One of the things that didn't make it into my final draft of the Green Lantern review was a portion where I put my feelings about GL into perspective by listing which superhero movies I felt were worse than GL. After much contemplation I feel Spiderman 3 is one of them. Many people will call me crazy, but I can't help my feelings. Agree or disagree, one thing is certain – Spiderman 3 is not 8/10 material.

First, it is the weakest of the trilogy - by far. Second, when I talk about Spiderman 3 with people it is never fondly. We all seem to complain about the “emo” sequence and how Tobey Maguire's Spiderman, while not terrible, is not really true to the comics. He isn't enough of a wise-cracker and is way too pathetic. Don't get me wrong, Peter Parker often battles with his self-image in the comics, but Maguire's version just doesn't get it right. Finally, Sandman, while the effects were well done, was under-utilized as a villain and we really didn't care about his story. It's largely forgettable as a movie. If you were going to sit down with friends and watch a Spiderman movie, it would either be 1 or 2, not 3.

The passage of time has only magnified Spiderman 3's flaws and the flaws of the trilogy as a whole, but 3's most of all. Therefore I am adjusting it's rating to 6/10.

Transformers (2007) (was rated 9/10) – Here is another film that has lost some luster. Perhaps not a lot, but some and more because of the second installment than anything else. Looking back, 9/10 seems a tad high to me. The visuals, which carried the movie, were great then and still are now, but Michael Bay's name is uttered in jest these days and he consistently puts out summer cash-cows with little, if any, substance. Let's face it, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was not good, and by not good I mean irritatingly bad! (Don't make me invoke the twins!) That said, Transformers did meet my expectations in 2007 and didn't do anything to offend its in own right and did genuinely entertain. However, thanks to number two (A PUN!) I won't be seeing Transformers: Dark of the Moon. New rating – 8/10

Next (was rated 7/10) – Here is a movie that is largely forgettable to me. In fact, the only thing I really recall about Next is that the concept was really cool and I feel like I gave it an extra point for having an interesting concept. Now, I still think the concept is interesting, but I can't justify a 7/10 rating as it definitely is not as good or entertaining as some of the other 7/10 movies I've reviewed on this site. So, to make myself feel more at ease, this movie is getting adjusted down to 6/10. Sorry Nick Cage – Kick Ass is still awesome!

Green Lantern May Not Shine, But It Definitely Glows

After a full decade of the comic book movie wave coming out of Hollywood, it appears, at least to this reviewer, that the honeymoon with audiences is over. After X-Men, Spiderman, Hulk, Batman, Superman, Fantastic Four, DareDevil, Ironman, Thor, etc, etc, etc., people are starting to get bored. How do I know? I went to go see Green Lantern and was shocked.... shocked that is wasn't nearly as bad as the swath of reviews would have you believe. Admittedly, Green Lantern (henceforth GL) has its share of flaws and areas that could have been stronger, but the majority of reviews out there would have you believe this movie carries the plague. It doesn't. It's very run-of-the-mill, formulaic and isn't as easily accessible to those unfamiliar with its mythology as say Spiderman or Batman, thus slowing it down with explanations. However, if those are its sins, then I think a lot of people giving it bad press have overreacted.

Admittedly, as a fan and reader of the comics, I've been looking forward to GL for months now, albeit with great trepidation and concern. Then as we got close to release and the reviews started coming in, I got really disheartened. RottenTomatoes has it hovering between 22% and 25%, but I told myself I would see it and so I did.

First let me talk about the movie itself. Having read plenty of reviews beforehand, I lowered my expectations. It's an origin story and it stayed pretty faithful to the source material. Ryan Reynolds did a fine job as Hal Jordan and while he didn't always have the strongest script to work with, his charismatic charms went a long way. There was also a lot going on for a movie on the shorter end of the run-time spectrum. They had to explain a lot of back story quickly to set up Hal's being chosen by Abin Sur's ring to join the GL Corps. (If you are getting lost just reading this synopsis, then we're hitting one of the major hurdles facing GL as a movie.)

Aside from the back story, the movie crammed in Sinestro and his role, the Guardians of the Universe and two separate villains – Hector Hammond and Parallax. To put it into perspective, that is like cramming Joker, Catwoman and the Penguin all into one Batman movie. (They came close, but never got that crowded).

The quality of the CG effects were one thing that really had me concerned going in, but they actually turned out pretty good and I never found myself distracted. The script was weak at times, but for a writing committee that included three novices, it wasn't as bad as I was expecting either. Interestingly enough, the action was less than I was expecting, but again, there was much to explain and the movie was fairly short.

Lower expectations aside, GL is nowhere near 25% territory. It simply isn't. I've been to movies in the last couple of years that made me wince (Sucker Punch), groan (Transformers 2) and keep checking my watch (Harry Potter 7, Pt. 1) and I did none of those things with GL. The movie has it's problem, but not all of them are the movie's fault. As an origin story it is derivative, and that is the term that many reviews are invoking as they pan the movie.

Guilty.

Here is one of the problems – many superhero stories have the same basic formula. Take Spiderman for instance. You have a normal kid and one day he gets bitten by a radioactive spider. The next thing he knows BANG he has super spider powers. At first he is overwhelmed and doesn't know what to make of it. Then he begins to harness and control the abilities and starts “strutting” and showing off. Finally, he must decide if he will act using those powers. Now take away “Spiderman” and the radioactive spider and you have a template for a sequence of events that is used, more or less, by Ironman, DareDevil, the Fantastic Four, the X-Men and, yes, GL. Hell, even Hulk to a certain extent! That is the nature of a lot of superhero stories, folks. Now, once you get past the origin phase, then each character's adventures go off in their own unique direction. It is because of this that I would argue that this movie would have had a much better reception, say, five years ago when comic book movies were still relatively new. People complain that it is derivative because it is.

Another problem is that GL isn't as well known to general audiences as say Spiderman, Superman or Batman, thus making it a bit harder to just sit down and immediately understand the premise if you haven't read the source material. GL spends a bit of time explaining and for those unfamiliar it really needs to. The story isn't primarily set on Earth, the powers aren't “physical” in nature and there is a lot of back story. GL packed a lot of stuff into a movie that doesn't even run two hours; I would say a little too much. People are saying that they had a hard time following the story and I don't doubt it or fault them for that. Again, it goes back to the accessibility problem.

I've also read reviews that criticize elements that are innately part of the story, things like Hal's “daddy issues”. Look, if that bothers you or seems contrived, then GL probably isn't for you because Hal Jordan has “daddy issues” and family issues to boot. It's actually a big part of who he is and why he is special as a lantern. Remember, even Spiderman has “uncle issues” and Batman has “parents issues”.

Some are blasting the child-like sense of wonder the movie plays up, saying it will play better to kids. I won't take issue with that observation, but I will tell you that there were elements that conjured up memories of Spiderman's rooftop sequence for me. Again, derivative.

One comment I've read that I think is fair compared GL to the 1980's The Last Starfighter (one of my childhood faves and now a sentimental favorite). The similarities abound and that doesn't necessarily make it a bad movie.

Ultimately my initial reaction is that I was entertained, but I think the fact that I am a GL fan helped for reasons already stated. As a comic book movie it didn't bring anything revolutionary to the table which seems to be trying the patience of many reviewers. Yes, it could have been better and stronger in some areas, but as a whole it isn't terrible, just generic. Again, five years ago, this wouldn't have been as much an issue as it is in 2011.

I don't think it is fair to call GL a disaster. It could have been stronger, but its not a failure. It's is admittedly harder to get into than other superhero flicks and probably better suited to the readers and fans than for general audiences. While it didn't blow me away, I was entertained and not disappointed. For its problems, Green Lantern may not shine, but it definitely glows. 6/10

Only One Part, Deathly Hallows, Part 1 Needs Editing

(My apologies to any of you out there who read this blog and have been waiting for this review to actually appear for months and months. For whatever reason, I just haven't gotten around to this review sooner. Finally, I have sat down and written it. Better do it before the final film is released, no?)

Let me preface this review with a warning that this review is probably less about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 than it is as a sounding board for me concerning the one issues with today's films in general, of which this film just happens to be an example - length, and more specifically editing and pacing.

First, the vitals about the film itself. One thing is for sure – the Harry Potter franchise of films has been pretty darn entertaining stuff from the get go. There have a been a few different directors who have helmed, two Dumbledores in Richard Harris and Michael Gambon and a excellently cast group of young actors who have grown up with their characters on screen. OK, maybe a little faster in the case of Rupert Grint. Despite the scope of the franchise and the fact that a key character has been portrayed by two different actors, as a whole the series is very entertaining! There has been ample opportunity for things to really go awry, but it hasn't, and despite some stylistic differences from film to film, with this series you basically have a seamless “whole”. It is an impressive feat!

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 represents the first part of the final chapter of the story of young wizard Harry Potter and his companions at Hogwarts. Much like the children who grew up with the books, the films have also matured over the past decade, getting more serious and certainly darker in tone. Never has it been darker than in this, the final chapter. For Harry and his cohorts, the situation certainly is bleak and often seems to be without any hope at all.

This film see Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Harmione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) on the run and on their own. Voldemort's agents are everywhere and have infiltrated even the inner workings of the Ministry of Magic. Our heroic trio must prepare themselves for the final showdown with the forces of evil and in doing so must face their own doubts and fears. Needless to say, the tone is heavy and dark.

Did I mention that Harry, Harmione and Ron are on the run? They are... for the whole movie. And while that is in keeping with the story, with the film clocking in at 146 minutes, by the end I couldn't wait to get out of the theater. It felt like an eternity had passed!

The film itself is fine. Radcliffe, Watson and Grint once again do a great job with their performances and the action that there is was good stuff. Without a doubt it is another solid entry in the franchise, if only the first part of the final chapter.

And that is where my beef comes in. Why was this movie 146 minutes long when a solid third of it was nothing more than Harry, Harmione and Ron sulking amongst themselves and wallowing in their own self-pity and loneliness? How much can they possibly drive home the point that, yes, they are on the run, they are on their own and they are riddled with their own doubts? If I had to spend one more minute at their makeshift camp in the wilderness I might have had to slit my wrists. GET ON WITH IT!

What is even worse is that you can pretty much rest assured that the final film will be nothing but action from the open frame to the rolling of the credits, so why did we have to endure a two and a half hour precursor wherein very little of anything with any real substance actually happened? To make more more money with two films? (BINGO!) Because they thought it was necessary to tell the story? Both?

I have the same beef with the Lord of the Rings films. With every subsequent viewing they just seem to get longer and longer. I actually have trouble sitting down and watching them now (definitely require a break in the middle) and I don't own them. Don't get me wrong, that trilogy is great, but they are really long, arguably too long. Yes, they have great action sequences and are epic stories, but other movies like Clerks II make great fun of them by accurately pointing out how much filler they actually contain that contributes nothing substantial to the end product. (Randall: "The first film - walking. The second film - walking. The third film - walking... toss the ring into the volcano. Hell, even the trees walked!")

I tend to give the Lord of the Rings films a pass because they were the first of this current generation of film making to really push the two and a half hour mark. They are that long without the “extended edition” cuts and with the fact that they cut a lot out from the books. But that is the difference – the source material is a book and these are films. Practically speaking, the film medium demands more editing, because in a theater you cannot just put down the film and pick it back up at your leisure like you can with a book. Hell, as much as I love it, even The Dark Knight is probably a tad bit too long.

So there I was sitting in the theater, watching Deathly Hallows, Part 1 and wondering when the hell it was going to end, knowing that this wasn't even the final film. The film needed to cut down because they definitely could have conveyed the despair of Harry, Harmione and Ron in much less time than they took.

I could even understand if they wanted to do one three hour final film to wrap up the series. Yes, it would have been VERY long, but it would have been a grand finale and the action heavy story would have made it bearable. You could also save substantial running time by making use of the editing that should have happened with Part 1. However, by having two films as they are and dragging the first one out as long as they did just seems excessive to me. Needless to say, regardless of the fact that this was not a bad film, I won't be watching it on DVD very often (or any time soon) because it is just too long for what it is. It isn't the book. If you want the book, then read the book. It's a matter of knowing how to use the medium.

So the bottom line from me is this – the Harry Potter franchise has another solid entry to it, but it is just too damn long and for that I must dock it a few points. 7/10

Living Up to Its Name, X-Men: First Class Delivers

Summer 2011 is one filled with heavily anticipated super-hero movies – Thor, X-Men: First Class, Captain America and Green Lantern. Just like the last few “comic book” summers, this one has plenty of hype and scrutiny headed its way, perhaps even a little more than before. You could say that 2011 is the first summer of the second decade of the comic book movie era, an era that began with X-Men way back in 2000. In its wake we've received a pantheon of comic book movies – both good and bad – that have seen the successes and failures of the genre discussed, debated and dissected ad nauseum, with many comic and film fans growing weary of what they see as sub-standard realizations of comics, especially super-heroes on screen. So with X-Men: First Class going back to the beginning (both literally and figuratively), how does it play? Well, let me give you my take.

I've never been a big reader of the X-Men comics, but I've more or less enjoyed the films to date, although X3 didn't do much of anything for me. X-Men was OK, especially considering it was the first of its kind (I do personally find it a bit boring), but X2: X-Men United was great! My initial reaction to First Class is that I enjoyed it more than X-Men and certainly X3, but maybe not quite as much as X2. And who know, maybe my impression will change with time.

First Class is a prequel and takes us back to the beginning of the mutant story which is in the 1960s (or 1940's if we're being very precise). This movie feels like it's own story in almost every way which I really appreciated. I never felt like the creators were going out of their way to setup something specifically for the movies that already exist, so it was free to be its own story. That said, I also never felt like this story created any conflict with the existing installments either, so kudos to director Matthew Vaughn and the writers.

The stage for the story is the Cuban Missile Crisis, wherein the United States and Soviet Union stood on the brink of all-out nuclear war. According to this story, history was not all it seemed. A powerful mutant named Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) was actually manipulating the situation with the help of his beautiful femme fatale Emma Frost (January Jones) and associated mutants known collectively as the Hellfire Club. Shaw wants nuclear exchange because his mutation allows him to absorb kinetic energy and thus grow more powerful. You guessed it – Shaw wants to rule the world.

The CIA is onto to Shaw and his gang (somewhat) but they don't fully understand what is going on until agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) observes the mutants using their powers while spying on them. Feeling they have no choice but to fight fire with fire, the CIA seeks out a mutant expert. Enter newly-titled "professor" Charles Xavier (a powerful telepath) (James McAvoy) and his longtime childhood friend Raven Darkholme (a shapeshifter) (Jennifer Lawrence) who join with the CIA to locate mutants and help stop the Hellfire Club.

In the meantime, Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) is on a personal mission of vengeance against Shaw because it turns out that Shaw was helping the Nazis at the concentration camp Erik and his family were imprisoned at during the Holocaust. Erik uses his power (magnetism) to aid him in his quest. Both hot on Shaw's tail, Erik and Charles run into each other and Charles convinces Erik to join them. The problem is that Charles and Erik have very different views on mutants – Charles wants peaceful co-existence with humans and Erik wants humans to take their place beneath mutants, aka homo-superior.

Long story short, the two do become friends and work together to locate and train mutants but ultimately take different paths during the final confrontation with Shaw, thus setting the stage for all X-Men stories to follow, including the movies we already know. Again, I appreciated that First Class never felt tied-down by the existing movies and yet didn't conflict with them either.

As an origin story I thought the story worked quite well. The audience gets the origins of Professor X and Magneto in entertaining fashion and those of the greater collection of X-Men without all the “teenaged angst” as other reviews have pointed out. The characters weren't whiny and self-loathing as the younger mutants seemed to be in the other films, but rather more conflicted as to what their place in the world was, especially Raven/Mystique and Hank/Beast (Nicholas Hoult) who are on a journey of self-acceptance, more-so than Charles and Erik because their mutations are visible to the naked eye.

The movie also presented a good balance between action, drama and humor, preventing it from being just a slap-stick affair, a CGI expo or just plain boring. Additionally, I felt the film was well cast top to bottom. McAvoy and Fassbender make the characters their own but they don't conflict with the characters as we already know them. They also gave some depth to the Professor X/Magneto relationship without getting bogged down and slowing the overall pace of the movie.

Some reviews have taken issue with Kevin Bacon's “over-acting”, but let's keep perspective here – Kevin Bacon has a game named after him and is partly famous just for being himself. Considering that he in no way distracted from the film, you'll get no complaints from me.

After the disappointment of X3, the X-Men franchise had a lot to lose with X-Men: First Class. Thankfully Vaughn and his talented cast delivered a well-made and entertaining installment to the franchise which has me on board for future installments. Have no fear - X-Men: First Class lives up to its name. 8/10