The Town

I really did not think that I would enjoy The Town (TT) because part of my movie snobbery made me think that it would be illogical for a movie to get me to believe that bank robberies or heists in general were still possible in today's technological and information age. People can't just roll up into a bank and rob it right? Aren't there too many safeguards at this point? Haven't we learned how to effectively thwart any would-be robbers out there? That was a big mental hurdle for me, so from the start, TT had it's work cut out for it.

The great thing about TT is that it actually makes me think that if properly planned, a heist or robbery of most any kind is still at least theoretically possible, which gives the film the credibility legs it needs to stand up for the 2 hours you watch it. I was engrossed by the way TT constructs the thievery. It all made sense and was very believable. Once I got passed that (and really, the opening bank robbery sets the solid foundation that the other 2 heists rest on) I was able to let myself get drawn into TT's characters, which were fantastic.

Ben Affleck is often knocked for his acting abilities, and to be fair, sometimes he deserves it (Pearl Harbor or Hollywoodland anyone?), but I really enjoyed his work as Doug in TT. I think that since the movie takes place in a setting he's very familiar with, Boston, he's able to really envelop himself into this character. He's supported strongly by Jeremy Renner, playing his lifelong friend and literal partner in crime (sorry, I'm a sucker for good wordplay) Jimmy. Renner was nominated for an Oscar, and this role further cements his status as a quality actor. Rebecca Hall as Doug's love interest and Blake Lively as Doug's ex-girlfriend are solid.

I don't really want to delve into the plot much because it is dense, but I will say that even though TT felt familiar, it wasn't predictable, which for a well established genre such as this is truly a great accomplishment. With the actors involved doing a great job of setting the mood and tone for the film, you really get wrapped in that rough, tough Bostonian lifestyle. You couldn't ask for more.

I also think Ben Affleck is developing into a really strong filmmaker. TT marks his second foray into the director's chair, after Gone Baby Gone, and I've been quite impressed with both of his pieces. He has a great understanding of establishing tone and mood in his films, and he gives his audience a great sense of the place, which he should be able to do easily since he grew up in the areas that both of the films are set. I also appreciated how he shot all of the heist sequences; some directors in their films really try to stylize or heighten the robbery experience with fast cuts, zooms, close ups, and other slight tricks. Affleck did a great job of not succumbing to those temptations too often, and it made the action feel much more realistic and natural, which I prefer; several of the sequences had a Heat-esque feel to them, which is no small feat. I think Affleck is showing signs that he could follow in the path of other actors who have achieved directing success, such as Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood.

Overall, TT was a fun and interesting experience. You'll get lost in the setting and the story. It's fun yet sad, interesting yet deliberate. TT is definitely a job worth signing on to.

127 Hours, The Kids are All Right, and Winter's Bone

I've decided to combine these three movies into one post as I have very few thoughts on each of them individually and don't think they'd make interesting reading on their own. So here we go:

127 Hours:

Aron Ralston (James Franco), an adventurous young man who loves time in the canyons and outdoors in Utah, gets his right arm pinned under a big rock that he can't move. He also didn't tell anyone where he was going, so he spends the next 127 hours trapped with no hope of rescue. He finally reaches a breaking point and cuts his own arm off to free himself and survive. The film follows Ralston on his journey while stuck under the rock.

Honestly, I blame me for not enjoying this movie beforehand. I knew he was going to cutoff his arm, and I know how much I don't enjoy seeing graphic medical stuff like this, even though I know it's fake, so I think I psyched myself out. I spent most of the movie waiting for the climactic scene, so I didn't get as emotionally invested in the film as I should have. I bet I would probably enjoy it upon a second viewing.

I will also give James Franco his due, he did a great job carrying this film on his own, since he's the only one on screen for the majority of the movie. He didn't do as good a job of holding a movie individually as Tom Hanks did in Cast Away, but he did a great job and has firmly established himself as a legitimate leading man in Hollywood. He's got an Oscar in his future.

The Kids are All Right (TKAAR):

TKAAR is the story of a lesbian couple, Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore), who had 2 children via artificial insemination, Joni and Laser. Laser gets curious about their biological dad, so he and Joni track him down and find Paul (Mark Ruffalo). When Nic and Jules find out that Joni and Laser have contacted Paul, they try to get to know him. Paul upsets the family apple cart in a variety of ways, the biggest by having an affair with Jules. This makes life difficult for everybody, but in the end Nic and Jules find their way back to each other before taking Joni to college.

I didn't really enjoy TKAAR. My biggest issue was that I didn't believe the plot point about Jules and Paul having an affair. I just didn't believe it, and since so much of the plot was dependent on it, it made much of the movie seem false to me. I did think Julianne Moore was wonderful in her role.

I will give TKAAR dap for finally addressing an issue I've had with pretty much every movie ever made. At the end when Jules and Nic take Joni to her residence hall room, it actually looks like a residence hall room!!!! It is not ridiculously large, it doesn't have outrageous furniture or look like it's been designed by an interior decorator. It looks like the right size of a residence hall room and has residence hall furniture. I wish more films did this. I'm just saying.

Winter's Bone (WB):

WB follows Ree, a 17 year old girl whose dad, a meth lab cooker, bonds out of jail, using the house Ree, her mom, and two younger siblings live in as collateral. She has to find him before the bond is defaulted and Ree and her family are kicked out of the house. She then explores the drug underworld of the Ozarks trying to find him, meeting many colorful characters and getting unexpected help along the way.

My biggest problem with this movie? It. Is. Boring. Really. Really. Boring. I didn't at all connect emotionally to this film either. I did however, understand that southern, roughneck mentality that permeates pretty much every character in this film, as I've had many friends that reminded me of some of these characters - whether or not that's a good thing, I haven't decided yet.

I know this was a critical and indie darling; it just never hooked me. And if you can't hook me into a story about drug dealers and crime, what's the point really? (Ironically, I thought the same thing about the TV show Weeds and yet I keep watching. Probably out of habit now more than anything)

The Green Hornet

The Green Hornet (GH) is a movie that I'd been pretty excited about when the announcement of its production came over a year ago. My enthusiasm diminished significantly when the release date got pushed - twice - to this January. If the movie was any good, it would come out either in the summer or the post-Thanksgiving to End-of-the-Year time periods. So I went into this not expecting a whole lot.

And that proved to be for the best. How do I describe GH's plot? It's a lot like watching an episode of WWE Monday Night Raw or Friday Night Smackdown. There are three basic elements of the WWE plotline: 1. Spend the majority of your time following a story that is ridiculous, ludicrous, and otherwise silly in every respect (and if you stop and think about it long enough, illogical and nonsensical); 2. Have your main protagonists win your audience over through continuous sophomoric and juvenile one liners at the expense of the bad guys; 3. At the end, have everybody beat each other up (there's even a modified hardcore match between Britt Reid and Kato halfway through the movie). I've basically just described to you GH. There's nothing in this movie that will surprise you or shock you - it runs through the checklist of comic book movie cliches fairly smoothly. And the 3rd act of GH truly spirals into the depths of ridiculousness; at one point, I leaned over and asked a friend I was with about a continuity error and said, "Oh, who gives a crap?" That sums it up.

(Random Aside: There is an infrequent 4th element of WWE plotlines that GH does use to an extent: the hottie. Occasionally WWE storylines will involve one of their Divas as part of the story to ramp up the tension between the good and bad guy or use to garner audience sympathy for the good guy. This happened in basically every Macho Man Randy Savage storyline ever - thanks Ms. Elizabeth. While Cameron Diaz's Lenore Case doesn't necessarily ramp up the tension, she does garner audience sympathy for Seth Rogen's Britt Reid. Honestly, much like WWE Divas, the plot doesn't really need Lenore to be very noticeable or do very much, and again, much like WWE Divas, that's probably for the best, as in most scenes Diaz looks like she's calculating how much straight $$$ homey she plans on getting. Let's just move on.)

The actors seem to be going through the motion here. My folks saw GH and she hated Seth Rogen's performance. I think her stumbles on a line between funny and irritating; there are some moments of genuine hilarity and others where the jokes fall flat on the floor and he sounds like a baffoon. I wouldn't say he's not good, but considering he's the co-writer of the movie his comedic fingerprints are all over it, so if you're not a big fan of his, you won't like GH. I've already commented on Cameron Diaz, and I would say the exact same thing about Tom Wilkinson and Christoph Waltz, Oscar nominees who are better than this inferior material. The only standout is Jay Chou as Kato. He is legitimately charming and fun to watch.

Ultimately, you know what you're getting with GH. If you go in with the right mind set and appropriate expectations, you'll get what you're looking for. If not, you'll get stung.

I've really gotta stop ending these entries with bad puns . . .

The King's Speech

The King's Speech (KS) is the dramatic and sometimes cleverly humorous true story of England's King George VI aka Bertie (Colin Firth) in the years leading up to World War II. Bertie's got plenty of troubles long before he ascends to the throne. Most notably Bertie stammers, with pretty much everyone everywhere, a thorny problem when you're a member of the Royal Family and expected to speak publicly to your countrymen. He also is at odds with his older brother Edward VIII (Guy Pearce), who, though next in line for the throne when their father George V (Michael Gambon) passes away, is seen by everyone as disrespecting the crown by dating a divorced American woman. Can Bertie make his brother see reason? Can Bertie overcome his stammer? Can England persevere during these dark times?

To totally summarize KS's plot would be laborious, so I'll try to be brief. Bertie's speech impediment is his major flaw; he can't seem to get through any kind of conversation without, well, stammering his way through it. Despite numerous attempts to correct his issue and at his motivational end, Bertie's wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) convinces him to try one more man: Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel uses his rather unusual methods to try and help Bertie speak properly: speech exercises, physical movements, singing what he has to say, etc. These speech therapy sessions run concurrently with other big moments in Bertie's life. Bertie and his dad are worried that Edward will marry the twice divorced American Wallis Simpson and disrespect the crown. Hitler and Nazi Germany are continuing to threaten Europe. Bertie sees his ascension to the crown coming like a train on the tracks, but he doesn't want the job because he doubts himself - this doubt is primarily fueled by his stammer, which he doesn't fully believe he can fix. It's a vicious cycle.

KS does an excellent job of balancing all of its storylines: Bertie and Edward's contentious relationship, the slow march of England to war with Germany, and the difficulties of the speech impediment on Bertie, all while keeping the relationship between Bertie and Lionel at its core; the gradual growth of their friendship through the film is truly beautiful to watch. KS builds the dramatic tension while finding the precise moments to inject humor and warmth. The screenplay is exceptional, and the subject matter, which is handled so appropriately, is accessible to anyone; there is not a single person I can think of who wouldn't enjoy watching this movie.

The pacing of KS is perfect. Historical movies such as this sometimes fall into the trap of either moving to quickly through the events or crawling too slowly towards its obvious climax. KS avoids these snares. Not too fast yet not too slow, it rhythmically builds to its climax: King George VI's speech to all of England which essentially starts WWII. By the time Bertie gives his speech, you are so wrapped in the story and his success as a character that you can't help but be excited, cheering him on internally with every spoken cadence. In the theatre I saw KS in, during his climactic speech, numerous members of the audience were literally on the edge of their seat. That's a pretty amazing feat considering the climax of the movie is a man talking.

Beyond the story, the other major strength of this movie is the acting. Every single actor in this film is perfectly cast - there are no weaknesses. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush are locks for Oscar nominations, and they are more than deserved. Individually they both establish themselves as excellent actors that have true dramatic skills, yet their on-screen chemistry is so good, so authentic, so genuine, so touching that I half suspect that when a day's shooting was over they went out for beers together. I wouldn't be surprised if either or both actually won the Academy Award. Additionally, Firth's chemistry with Helena Bonham Carter is also strong. She does an excellent job of embodying a woman that is supportive and loving yet challenges her husband when he needs it. Guy Pearce is excellent as Bertie's contemptuous brother, and Derek Jacobi shines in his few scenes as the Archbishop Cosmo Lang.

My only complaint, if you can call it that, is that there were times when the camera angles or shot choices were a tad distracting. I can sometimes be frustrated by films that are "over-directed." While there certainly are instances when that happens in KS, like a few of the elongated tracking shots when characters are walking (the scene that best exemplifies this is when Lionel and Bertie are walking and arguing in the park), it doesn't happen often enough for it to be a true sticking point. This really is a minor quibble.

I loved KS. Right after the Social Network, I thought this was the 2nd best film of 2010. It is engaging yet endearing, thought-provoking yet insightful, poignant yet funny. As I said before, I cannot think of a single person who wouldn't enjoy this movie. Go see it. You'll be glad you did.

Long live the King!

True Grit (2010)

True Grit (TG10) is a remake of the 1969 classic of the same name starring the legendary John Wayne. This iteration was written for the screen and directed by Ethan and Joel Coen, and stars Jeff Bridges in the iconic role of Ruben "Rooster" Cogburn, the angry, drunk US Marshal employed by Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) to capture and bring to justice evil Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), the man that killed her father in cold blood. Cogburn and Mattie are joined in their quest by LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), a Texas Ranger that has been chasing Chaney for quite some time.

I'm normally quite averse to most movie remake ideas, particularly ones where they remake a classic that stands up well to time. I know it's mostly for economic reasons, but honestly some iconic movies just need to be left alone (could you honestly imagine ever hearing of a remake of the Lord of the Rings? Or the Harry Potter films? Right. That feeling of confusion and wave of ridicule you just got is why I don't really like remakes). The one reason I did give TG10 a chance was because of the Coen brothers. The Coen brothers are on a big roll and have proven, particularly in the last 4 years, that they are gifted filmmakers who understand how to properly construct a story. 2 of their last 3 films have been great, critically praised, and nominated for Best Picture: No Country for Old Men (NCFOM), which won them an Oscar for Best Director, with the film winning the BP Oscar, and A Serious Man (most folks seem to have ignored Burn After Reading. Having seen it, I'd say that's a good thing). Because this story was going to be in their capable hands, I went into the theatre keeping an open mind and reminding myself that every once in a while the remake can do the original justice (think King Kong of a few years ago).

Unlike book to film comparisons, I have no trouble comparing remakes to originals, as they are on the same medium. Fortunately for us, TG10 delivers the goods and is the original's equal. This film does a great job of setting the atmosphere of the movie's time period from the jump, drawing us in to the classic, idealized American West. We get the sense of lawlessness and incivility that the West is known and celebrated for in American cinema. The movie is also beautifully shot; as with NCFOM, the Coens once again show a great aptitude for putting the American West landscape on film and finding strategic moments to fill our eyes with beauty - shots where there is light snowfall, particularly at night, immediately spring to mind. That's not to say that TG69 (1969 was when the original was released - get your mind out of the gutter) didn't effectively capture the West; it just didn't do it as thoroughly as TG10. I know a lot of that has to do with the advancements in camera technology, but it nonetheless makes a big difference. The Coens also bring a lot more wit and humor to this incarnation than the original, with some scenes being laugh out loud funny. I appreciated that small thread of humor woven throughout.

Although it's been a long time since I've seen TG 69, there are a few differences, some big, others tiny. The biggest one is that, for me, TG10 really fleshes out and completes the Mattie Ross character, rather than regulating her to a tag-along like the original. I suspect the original gave much of her character's chutzpah to the Rooster Cogburn and LeBoeuf characters so as to make them seem more heroic and important - in a postmodern, more feminist world, I like TG10's interpretation of Mattie better. Additionally, as best I remember TG69, LeBoeuf stays with Cogburn and Mattie throughout their adventure, whereas in TG10 he goes away for a while and comes back. I think this is pertinent as it increases some of the antagonism between LeBoeuf and Cogburn. And finally, some scenes, like the finding of Emmett and The Kid in the small house, are set at night in TG10 as opposed to the day in TG69. While I imagine that TG69 had to set most of its action during the day for technical reasons (harder to film things on location at night in 1969 vs today), the nighttime setting is preferable as it adds to the tension of the action. TG10 is just as good if not better than TG69 in most respects with one exception: the iconic, climatic Rooster vs Lucky Ned and his gang shootout. While Jeff Bridges is great (see below), he ain't John Wayne. You just don't get the same adrenaline rush and chills as the original gives when Rooster rides into his adversaries. John Wayne will always own that scene.

My biggest complaint about TG10 would be something that a friend pointed out to me before I saw it and then subsequently noticed in the viewing. The film is set in Arkansas in the late 1800s, yet all of the characters, with very few exceptions, speak perfect, proper English with fantastic diction. I have lived in the south for many years, and though I've never lived in Arkansas, I know several people that have and I can assure you that it is hard to be in a southern community and not have people that have a drawl, speak with improper grammar, or sound awkward. While I recognize some of that is the Coen brothers style of dialogue, it seemed nonsensical to not at least attempt southern speech. Even Damon's lame attempt at a Texas accent doesn't cut the mustard. A story set in the old south where everyone speaks properly? That dog don't hunt.

No conversation about TG10 can be complete without talking about the amazing cast. It's kind of impossible to takeover a role that's already been cemented in most people's mind as legendary - John Wayne did win his only Academy Award for TG69 - but Jeff Bridges does an excellent job as Rooster; he will no doubt get an Oscar nomination. Bridges' Rooster is more drunken, slovenly, and ill-tempered, which is probably how the author of the TG novel imagined him. Damon adds to his list of impressive supporting roles as LeBoeuf. Brolin is serviceable as Tom Chaney, and Barry Pepper makes a pleasantly unexpected but welcome appearance as Lucky Ned. But the real star of this movie is Hailee Steinfeld. She is fantastic as Mattie Ross, perfectly capturing her character's determination, gumption, wit, and intelligence; you know almost immediately that this is no ordinary 14 year old girl. Her scenes with Colonel Stonehill perfectly encapsulate the essence of her character. She is a real joy to watch, and she should grab an Oscar nod. It is well deserved.

Overally, this is a great moviegoing experience. I think TG10 is slightly superior to TG69, but they are both worth your time. Let the hunt for Tom Chaney begin (and then begin again).

The Black Swan

Darren Aronofsky's latest film, The Black Swan (BS), is, to be kind, a true mind screw. BS follows ballet dancer Nina, portrayed by Natalie Portman, who lands the coveted roles of the White and Black Swans in Swan Lake. Her company's director Thomas, played by Vincent Cassell, one of my favorite foreign actors (most know him as the Night Fox from the Ocean's movies, but his French film La Haine is awesome), explains the White Swan is beautiful, technical, untouchable, somewhat distant, while the Black Swan is gorgeous, seductive, enticing. Thomas casts Nina because while he knows she can do the White Swan easily, he believes she can portray the much haughtier Black Swan, which is far outside her comfort zone; he also casts Nina because there is a sexual attraction undercurrent in their relationship. Can Nina learn to portray both roles convincingly by opening night?

As Nina struggles to embrace the Black Swan, Thomas brings another skilled ballet dancer, Lily, played by Mila Kunis. Lily is carefree and has a hint of rebellion in her, and dances more like how Thomas wants Nina to dance the Black Swan. This makes Nina very insecure about her ability to keep the coveted role. She works harder.

BS is ultimately a psychological character study of Nina. We get deep inside her mind to see all the things that fuel her insecurity, and we witness the battle she has in her mind as she struggles with maintaining her good girl sensibilities while being attracted to and embracing her darker yearnings. What forces Nina to her psychological breaking point? Several things. The constant specter of Lily potentially taking the role from Nina is always in the background of her mind. Further, Lily continuously encourages Nina to be more adventurous and daring, taking her for a night out where they get a bit crazy. Nina lives with her mom, played brilliantly by Barbara Hershey, a former ballet dancer herself, pushes Nina to be better technically and harasses her to ignore outside influences, mainly Lily. Thomas keeps prodding Nina to push herself farther and be more seductive so that she can be the Black Swan and become the new face of their company, replacing the past-her-prime Beth (played by Winona Ryder in a pretty bizarre cameo - she's on screen maybe 5 minutes).

With all of these outside forces pushing and prodding and pulling Nina, she spends the movie descending into psychological madness. Her mental health deteriorates like it is going down a drain, slowly at first, but then faster, more frequently, more violent and volatile. Scenes that are terrifying to watch turn out to be figments of Nina's eroding imagination - or are they? Aronofsky submerges us fully into Nina's psychotic breakdown, to the point that towards the end of BS, Nina literally turns into the Black Swan, feathers and all. For Nina, she had to do that psychologically or she would be unable to dance the way she needed.

Eventually, Nina's real and imagined worlds collide and are indistinguishable, which is I'm sure what Aronofsky is going for. If Nina cannot tell the difference between the real and the fantasy, why should the audience? There are two sides to this coin though: some folks will find the breakdown fascinating and enjoy the tease of fantasy and reality, while others will be hopelessly frustrated and annoyed. I was somewhere in the middle. Shortly before the end of BS I told my girlfriend that the film is weird. It most definitely is playing a different tune, one that will draw in some and repel others. I anticipate this being a polarizing experience.

Natalie Portman has been getting lots of Oscar buzz for BS, and today I think she is the frontrunner. And while she is great, I never got the sense that her performance was at the level of an Academy Award; when you compare her performance with the women who have won Oscars in the last few years, I don't see it at the same level. It's not that she's not good; I just don't think it's Oscar good. But the Academy love people that transform themselves or bury themselves in a character, which Natalie does. She clearly underwent several months of preparation for this role, as she does many of the artistic dance movements herself (or the special effects department did a phenomenal job of transposing her face on the actual dancer. Knowing the tight budget this film was on, I'm sticking with her preparing). You totally believe her as a ballet dancer, and I will give her props for deftly handling the psychological complexities of her character. I just don't know if I would give her the Oscar for it (at the end of the day, there may not be a better performance to give the Oscar to).

To me, BS is like a previous Aronofsky movie, Requiem for a Dream, mixed with All about Eve. It's good, but I don't know if I would watch it many more times, if at all. It's definitely a movie that will challenge your brain. When it was over, nobody in the theatre moved; we all kind of looked around thinking, "what just happened?" I imagine we'll be talking about that for years to come.

Love and Other Drugs

Meet Jamie Randall (Jake Gyllenhaal). Jamie's a guy who knows how to seduce the ladies without getting attached or committed. He's smart, funny, and good looking, but he's also shallow and treats women like sex objects. It's 1997 and Jamie's brother just sold his internet IPO for mucho dinero. Jamie's parents pressure him to be successful, so he decides to become a pharmaceutical drugs salesman. He goes to work for Pfizer and gets trained by his partner Bruce (Oliver Platt) to approach doctors and push samples of Pfizer's drugs. While working with fairly slimy Dr. Stan Knight (Hank Azaria), he meets Maggie (Anne Hathaway), a 26 year old with Parkinson's Disease. Because of both their hangups - Jamie hates commitment and Maggie doesn't want anyone taking care of her when her condition worsens - Jamie and Maggie decide to have a purely sexual relationship free of any attachment. But how long can that last? This is the story of Love and Other Drugs (LOD).

There's a lot to like about LOD, primarily, Jake and Anne. Now I'm a big Anne Hathaway fan (she's my #1 celeb crush), but even if I wasn't, you can't deny how good both she and Jake are in their roles. They fit easily into the skins of their characters and have excellent chemistry together. A lot of hoopla was made of the actors being naked in this movie, and yes, they are naked quite a bit, but I didn't think they were naked for any longer amount of time than in many other movies of this kind (if famous people getting nude on film is your thing, you're in for a treat). As a guy in a relationship, there are many pieces of their romantic connection that I could relate to. I also appreciated the wonderful job that Anne did of portraying the physical manifestation of the degenerative disease; it's evident that she did her research. I found myself invested in this relationship and rooting for these characters to come together, which is the hardest trick for any romantic film, and because of Jake and Anne LOD pulls it off.

Which isn't to say that the other performers are slouches either. Oliver Platt continues to add to his impressive résumé of supporting roles as Bruce, Jamie's partner in crime who keeps telling Jamie he wants him to carry them to Chicago, the Shangri-La of pharmaceutical sales. While Jake and Anne carry the movie, Oliver is the most interesting character. He steals almost every scene he is in. Josh Gad plays Jamie's brother. His character is used as comic relief throughout the movie, and while he manages it well, lots of his gags seemed forced and contrived. This is one of the few weak spots of this movie. And does anybody play a slimy, skeezy, sketchy guy better than Hank Azaria? Hank is like a designated hitter in baseball: he may not play all the time, but when he does, you have to respect his game. I always enjoy his performances. And in LOD, he is funny, mean, and creepy. Fantastic.

I was worried prior to seeing LOD that by adding the Parkinson's element into the movie it would get preachy. Films like this that have these kinds of elements can veer into the "we should be finding a cure at all costs" territory (and all the furor about stem cell research the last 10 years or so only fueled my concern). LOD mostly steers clear of this familiar plot trapping by focusing on the love and relationship of the two characters as they both slowly realize they want to be together for the long haul. The only scene that I felt dipped its toe into the preachy pool was when Maggie accompanies Jamie to a convention into Chicago and attends a gathering of people with Parkinson's sharing their stories (and it's right across the street from the convention. Convenient plot device anyone?). While I get that it is important to talk about these kinds of issues, most movies don't know how to balance and focus the story between the actual plot and the other human issue they're addressing. LOD delicately and appropriately strikes the right balance.

Is LOD somewhat predictable? Sure. But the story is a lot of fun, and the 1997 setting provides some amusement: I chuckled the first time they talked about Jamie responding to his pager (we still use one at FSU for duty purposes) or when Jamie takes out his cell phone and it's one of the early ones that looks like a door stopper. There's plenty of humor, particularly as Jamie spectacularly fails at selling in the first half hour, but there's also a lot of heart and emotion that clicks. Whatever drug they used to make this movie, write me a prescription because it cures Stale-Movie-Syndrome with no side effects.

The Social Network

I have found my favorite movie of 2010 so far, and it is The Social Network (SN). SN, written by exceptional screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, directed by David Fincher, and based on the book The Accidental Billionaires, is the story about how Facebook was founded and established and the ensuing controversy surrounding it. I was initially reluctant to see this movie as I didn't think it would be particularly interesting to watch how the largest social network on the planet got started.

Boy was I wrong.

SN crafts its story not based on the technology or how it is introduced but instead decides to use all the key players in its founding as the foundation for studying human and corporate behavior. The resulting dissection is so engrossing, so absorbing, so utterly fascinating that you can't look away. Not only that, but if you're on Facebook (and let's be honest, you probably are) you will start to reflect on how you personally utilize it and how your social behavior has been modified as a result of its existence in your life. That sounds like a rather grandiose proclamation for a fairly straightforward movie about a website, but it is true.

SN follows Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard student who in 2004 who creates a website called Facemash, where Harvard students are given the pictures of 2 girls and then asked to rate which one is hotter. The site explodes overnight, but makes Zuckerberg look like an insensitive jerk - which we discover continuously throughout the movie that he probably is. This act grabs the attention of 2 other Harvard students, the Winklevoss twins, looking to meet girls, so they enlist Zuckerberg to help them create a new site called Harvard Connect, a social website exclusive for Harvard students to meet each other. Zuckerberg decides on his own to take this small idea and expand it into a site exclusive for college students that can be adapted to any college or university; with the help of his business-savvy friend Eduardo, they create The Facebook company.

thefacebook.com takes off, acquiring thousands of members and expanding to other campuses virtually overnight. As the site evolves, the Winklevosses try "gentlemanly" means to get Zuckerberg to acknowledge he stole their idea. Zuckerberg ignores them, so they eventually decide to sue him for theft of intellectual property. In the meantime, Zuckerberg and Eduardo meet Sean Parker, the founder of Napster, who encourages Zuckerberg to make Facebook ("drop the 'the,' it's cleaner") bigger, as he feels it's a billion dollar idea that could be revolutionary. He also encourages Zuckerberg to go to California, as that is where "it" is happening, so Zuckerberg decides to go west.

Zuckerberg starts to be influenced more by Parker and the California lifestyle and listens less to Eduardo. Zuckerberg decides to restructure the company, which leaves Eduardo out in the financial cold. He decides to sue and Zuckerberg finds himself the subject of lawsuits from Eduardo and the Winklevosses. The ugliness grows.

What do I love about SN? Many things. I truly appreciate the symphonic dialogue that Sorkin creates with every single project he writes (The West Wing tv show, with The American President as its forerunner, is one of my 3 favorite dramas of all time). The first scene of SN, where Zuckerberg's girlfriend breaks up with him, is genius. It's smart, sharp, witty, and engaging. Sorkin is a screenwriting king, and SN may end up being his crown jewel.

I also loved SN's acting. Jesse Eisenberg is fantastic as the socially inept and corporately defiant Zuckerberg. He really embodies the character and makes him someone you both like and dislike at the same time; this is an incredibly difficult feat to pull off. The actors playing Eduardo and the Winklevoss twins are really good for their first major roles. My only complaint for the whole movie is that I've seen the real Sean Parker and Justin Timberlake is nothing like him. While I get he is playing a character, it is difficult to separate what I know in real life from what I see on screen.

Fincher excellently showcases the numerous subcultures within SN. As someone that works with college students on a daily basis, he expertly captures what it is like to be in a college environment. Unlike other Hollywood movies, which make college students very wooden, 2D, non-thinking characters, the students in SN are fully realized. I see these students everyday on my campus, and I guarantee that anyone that works or attends a private school will identify with the elitist air that those students, like the ones at Harvard where this film is set, walk around in. He also wonderfully displays the business world, its cutthroat, underhanded, and greedily seductive nature. As a former business major, I haven't been this engrossed in the corporate environment since watching Wall Street on dvd. Anyone who likes that climate or has tried to create a viable website will enjoy it. And of course how can we forget the social environment? The film raises interesting questions about how and why we interact with people in a social context. It makes us think about what information about other people is important to us (like "relationship status").

It's been about 4 days since I saw SN, and I keep thinking about it. It is one of those movies that sticks with you after you've seen it. You process various scenes in your mind. You wonder about issues the film raises. You chuckle at lines that tickled you. I believe that if a vote were held today it would win the Best Picture Oscar. I thought it was too early to try and analyze how technology how we interact with the world and people in it. I now think that it's never too early to start reflecting on our world, no matter how long I take to get 500 million friends.