HESHER....the loser with the heart of gold

A few weeks ago I had the great opportunity to visit the South by Southwest Film Festival in Austin, TX. I only spent three days there, but out of the eight films I saw there was only one that I highly recommend seeing once it hits theaters. The film is called Hesher (2010), and let me tell you, it’s the kind of indie film that reeks of originality and candidness. The cast is superb, the humor is down-right dirty, and the dialogue crackles with witty one-liners.

Hesher is a quirky black comedy that never lets up with its mordant sense of humor. In the spirit of Little Miss Sunshine (2006) and The Good Girl (2002), here is an indie flick with the right amount of rudeness, humor, and heart. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Inception and Mysterious Skin) leads the cast as Hesher; a loser with no direction in life. Hesher lives in his van, never washes his grungy long hair, and lives to feed off other people, and their own misery. He’s a nihilistic tool in the worse sense, but still, the veteran 20-something actor, Levitt, has the uncanny ability of exuding a certain charm about this misfit of an asshole character. Furthermore, in reality, the actor transforms from a nice Jewish boy from the suburbs to a pot-smoking arsonist with nothing but an attitude problem.

Hesher finds himself taking advantage of a broken-home, due to the loss of a young boy’s mother. He barges in, and he acts like it’s his own home, including watching porn in his underwear on the living room couch. This character plays on the weak and usually waits for someone to have the balls to discard his disgusting presence. Fortunately, for Hesher, the family he’s barged in on is grieving for a loss in their family, and events that take to the turn for the….well surprisingly, the better, in a more therapeutic sense.

The one that everyone hates and despises for his utter crudeness towards humanity just happens to be the very one to breath life into a broken-family, numb with emotional turmoil. At this point of the story, the writing and character development soar to another level; the poignant battles we must go through to deal with grief.

The stellar cast also includes Rainn Wilson, best known as a comedian on the hit show The Office plays the empty and forever-in-grief father. Piper Laurie plays the elderly grandmother, and I’m sorry for Carrie (1976) fans, but she does not lock up any family member in the closet to pray for forgiveness. Piper Laurie’s performance is as genuine and serene as any typical grandmother who smokes pot to help with her glaucoma. Natalie Portman plays a grocery clerk who also happens to become a part of Hesher’s whirlwind of destruction and later on, redemption. The key to the relationship between Hesher and this strange family is an adolescent boy, T.J. (Devin Brochu) played with the perfect sensibility of any angry, adolescent boy.

Hesher is the kind of indie film to take your friends out and laugh at the ridiculous, yet original dilemmas, and then, find a place in your heart to empathize with every character, no matter what bad things they might have done.

***1/2 (out of four stars)

RANGO.....the lizard with no name

Rango is by far one of the strangest animated films geared towards kids I’ve seen in a while. The film begins with our lizard hero addressing the camera as he plays make believe in his safe environment; a glass tank situated in the back of a sedan. Suddenly, an abrupt accident causes him to lose his safe enclosed home and venture into a new life in the middle of the desert. From here, the film stays true to the western genre, and introduces a variety of creepy-looking animated possums, armadillos, porcupines, rattle snakes and other familiar desert creatures. The animators and director Gore Virbinski uses the depleted desert as a metaphor to express an ill-resourced environment where the citizens are barely surviving. The folks inhabiting the town “Dirt” are cleverly animated as gray, ashy and weak, suggesting they are deeply deprived of water.

In fact, water plays an important role in the film as the single greatest resource to both sustain and destroy a desert habitat. Civilization vs. the landscape is a common theme in the western genre dating back to the 1930s and in Rango, the writers take it to a more intricate level. As Rango begins to learn about the towns folk he uncovers corruption amongst the highest order of citizens. The subtext is reminiscent of one of the greatest private-eye mysteries ever made, Chinatown (1974), which uses water as a means to hold the most power in a desert town. In Chinatown, it was 1930s LA, but in Rango, it’s a stereotypical western town.

As much as I enjoyed the more adult themes in a so-called “kids” movie, I was slightly put-off by the range of western clichés, such as walking into the saloon where only the scariest inhabitants hangout in, or where Rango is forced to draw guns with an opponent in the middle of the town. Scenes like these take me out of the realm of what I love about vintage spaghetti westerns and unfortunately reminded me of other western spoofs, such as Back to the Future III (1990).

I suppose for an animated film these scenes, which I can recall in dozens of films, are necessary to address the audience and say, "Look! You are now transported into the western genre.” Scenes like these only bothered me a bit more in this particular film because from screen right to screen left, Rango is filled with inventive imagery and smartly written adult-like overtones; I wish the originality stayed fresh throughout the lizard’s entire journey.

Johnny Depp leads the cast as the colorful lizard, Rango, which exudes the same weirdness as his portrayal as Gonzo journalist, Hunter S. Thompson in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (in fact, Hunter S. Thompson, the drug-induced writer, has a brief appearance speeding in his vintage red 60s convertible Chevy in the beginning of the film). I loved the awkward look of the slacker-type Rango; it’s much more fun to root for a hero that doesn’t clash with a more friendly, animated type. He’s slightly obnoxious and off-putting, and unlike most heroes in the western tradition, he rambles on with a jocular dialogue.

The strange look of the film and the clever themes of power and corruption could’ve best served for a darker and less comedic experience. The studio is aware that this is a “kids” movie, but I was more moved by the adult concepts than some of the child-like humor. I felt Rango could’ve been more ambitious if it moved into a more thought-provoking direction, alienating a large chunk of its general audience. When animated films decide to truly push the limits of their content, I’ll be the first in line, but for what it is, Rango is a delightful animated concoction, but I felt the filmmakers could’ve pushed the contents’ boundaries a little bit more.

***(out of four stars)

Yale's favoirte comedy of all time is.......

      After growing up watching reruns of MASH on television, I had no intentions of seeing the original movie it was based upon. The show was a hit and the characters were zany, but it had the feel of any other kind of television sitcom; majority of the humor is centered on the witty punch lines. However, once I was introduced to the great American filmmaker, Robert Altman, my curiosity for MASH (1970) increased. After my first viewing, I was blown away by the improvised dialogue, the sheer irreverence, the anti-war message, the dark humor, and the daring visual style.

      Even though the film takes place at a dreary medical unit, and soldiers are dying left and right, Altman still creates an attractive environment, as if being on the front-lines is as chic as an exclusive after-party. His way of getting the cast together, studying the actors’ personal mannerisms, and utilizing their individual behaviors in an improvised technique is a tour-de-force for a director. The characters and the dialogue are constantly overlapping; from screen right to screen left, Altman depicts sort of a panorama of separate actions and conversations. His most experimental and daring use of overlapping sound is in Nashville (1975), but watch all of his movies, and the same technique is evident.

      The film opens with the pop-like melody of “Suicide is Painless”—the disturbing lyrics heavily contrast with the catchy tone of the song. The lyrics suggest that going to war and patriotism in the Vietnam era was like signing your own death wish. Now, even though MASH takes place during the Korean War, Robert Altman subtly refers to the Vietnam War, the current international crisis at the time. Like filmmakers during the McCarthy era, Altman knew he had to be a smuggler of important political messages, despite the censorship. The studio demanded that the film take place during the Korean War and Altman was infuriated. Why make a film in which the time and place has no relevance to what was really going on in the late 1960s? Throughout the film, Altman makes some of the locations look like Vietnam, rather than Korea. When the doctors go into town, a lot of the citizens are wearing those triangular, peasant-looking Vietnamese hats. In addition, the film refers to the “draft,” which didn’t occur during the Korean War.

      I absolutely love the murky look of the film. The camera is inertly panning across and constantly zooming in from a distance. It seems simplistic and a bit messy, as far as camerawork goes, but it truly brings out the actor’s dialogue and has the feel of a voyeur catching something he didn’t see before the cameras rolled. Robert Altman uses a lot of smoky-like filters in his camera, decreasing the brilliance in his colors. The gloomy cinematography looks like an old picture that has been handed down for over a century. It has a rustic look, but very authentic.

      The majority of the humor is dead-pan, dry, sarcastic, and subtle. Not every character has to be stuck in an embarrassing dilemma to make the audience laugh. The way Donald Sutherland and Elliot Gould casually interact with one another or purposely humiliate another comrade feels very natural. I guess this is the best comedy ever made because I’ve rarely seen rudeness seem so elegant. When the men make a bet to see if Hot Lips (Sally Kellerman) is really a blonde and pull the shower tent on her, it’s not the public humiliation of a woman that’s hysterical, it’s how all the men are sitting like a group of serious judges to see the real color of her pubic hair. It’s the non-nonchalant attitude towards everything that I find hysterical. Hence, lays the critical meaning behind the film. These doctors had to live in a sort of hysteria and craziness to deal with the constant bloodshed. MASH is one of the most beloved comedies of our time. To this day, the humor, the mischievousness, and the irreverence is still fresh as ever.

NO STRINGS ATTACHED is just another mediocre romantic hit

             Some might say that this is the perfect date movie. Lets look at the equation; two good looking stars, feather-light material, raunchy content, and the occasional penis jokes must be the new formula to get the 20-something couples back into the theater, rather than download movies via Netflix. While I was watching the R-rated romantic comedy in a packed house, I was surprised to see majority of the audience laughing. I didn’t laugh once, just smirked at the utter cuteness of the two leads, Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher.

Gross-out comedies and sex romps are dependent on a very crucial element; what’s the most embarrassing situation we can put the characters in? I’m not going to lie; this kind of scenario is the key to fine comedy. Remember when Ben Stiller got his scrotum stuck in his zipper in There's Something About Mary (1998) Do you remember dying of laughter when they cut to a close-shot of the unfortunate accident? How about when Joe Pesci showed up to court wearing a 19^th century velvet red tuxedo in My Cousin Vinny ( 1991)—now that’s comedy. 
What probably turned me off about No Strings Attached was the predictable plot and how tame the embarrassing situations were. I’m sorry, but the writers could’ve done much better than seeing a frantic Natalie Portman gorging donut holes, smearing the powder all over her face, or Ashton Kutcher waking up naked on a strange couch.

In the film, the two leads reach an arrangement to engage in a strictly sexual relationship. You know what--I think that particular scenario has a lot of room for side-splitting and inventive humor. It truly does, but since you know what kind of movie you’re walking into before the credits appear, you know they’re going to fall in love at the end. Another raunchy comedy that came out last year, Love and other Drugs (2010), contains a similar love/hate relationship, and I enjoyed the characters struggles until the tacked-on happy ending. Now, I’m not degrading happy endings. I love to feel uplifted after a movie, but why do the two star-crossed lovers always have to end up together where one is literally racing after the other when you know they could’ve called or sent a text message?

Studio romantic comedies are hit or miss these days. Sometimes, the filmmakers will try for inventiveness and still create something with mass appeal. The rest of the bunch are just thinking of mass appeal, and the finished product feels like it was manufactured on the basis of last years top grossing romantic comedy.

** (out of four)

Yale's top ten list for 2010

I know I am running late with my top ten list for 2010, but since I don’t receive tickets for advance screenings or passes for the numerous film festivals around the world, I couldn’t see every film that counts for 2010 until the new year. This was a surprisingly good year for films, specifically foreign cinema. I know my personal top ten list for 2010 won’t influence academy voters, but I’d like to think that my opinion counts with the best of them. Here are my favorite films of 2010…………

1. THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATOO. This Swedish hit was overlooked by the academy, but I was mesmerized by this grand and richly layered mystery. Noomi Rapace gives an outstanding performance as the sexually ambivalent hacker who helps uncover the disappearance of a woman almost forty years ago. As much as I liked the Girl Who Played with Fire (2010) I still felt that the first in the trilogy was the strongest and the most accomplished narrative. Just when you think the mystery is solved and the film is over, the plot reveals a bold character development, which reminded me of Kathleen Turner’s scheming plan in Lawrence Kasdan’s Body Heat (1981).
2. ANIMAL KINGDOM. This dark, gritty, and tension-filled independent film from Australia takes a generic crime story and turns it into an in-depth, sociological and psychological portrayal of a teenager’s survival amongst a dysfunctional family of born and bred criminals. Jacki Weaver gives an Oscar-worthy performance as the conniving, matriarch ringleader of the family. This film was overlooked by many, but I was really glad to see that Jacki Weaver received an Oscar nomination for best supporting actress.
3. MOTHER. A terrific, Hitchcockian thriller from South Korea. A desperate mother cares for her only dim-witted son who’s accused of murdering a young girl. Skeptical about the police investigation, she sets out to find out who was really responsible for the murder. A unique hybrid of quirkiness and mystery makes this one of the best thrillers of the year.
4. NEVER LET ME GO. This is an absolute jewel of a film. Never Let Me Go is an exquisitely crafted tale about love, loss, individuality, and the boundaries of life. I was in awe of the visual overtones of this sumptuous love story. The film has a terrific, sci-fi like revelation, which gives it an improbable connection between images and content. Andrew Garfield, better known as Mark Zuckerberg’s roommate in The Social Network gives a remarkable supporting performance here, and is a career worth tracking. He’s going to become a big star, considering he just got the lead role in the new Spiderman film, but make sure to see his earlier work.
5. THE GHOST WRITER. Roman Polanski is back in action with this highly intelligent mystery, which is reminiscent of his earlier work from the 60s. Even though there is very little violence, Polanski provides a timely, political thriller, which is more suspenseful than most big budget action films this year.
6. EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP. Documentary filmmaking has never been this fun and inventive. The story is about a shopkeeper’s attempt to document the famous graffiti artist, Bansky, who is revealed as a mystery throughout the film. This spontaneous and hip documentary calls attention to its eccentric filmmaker, but you never know who is really creating the documentary until midway through. I had a smile from cheek to cheek watching this artistic and very funny opus.
7. LET ME IN. A horror remake of the Swedish hit, Let the Right One In (2008), does justice to the original and director Matt Reeves shows a little mastery in direction. This film is about the unlikeliest of friendship between a bullied twelve year old boy and a mysterious girl vampire, who teaches him some life lessons along the way. Both elegant and chockfull of gore, Let Me In is a creeper of a keeper, which cleverly reinvents the vampire genre conventions.
8. 127 HOURS. Aaron Ralston is an adventurous young man who ditches his 9 to 5 life to climb the dangerous crevices of Utah’s canyons, and unfortunately, he gets his arm pinned under a bolder. Narrow spaces and a narrow narrative, but director Danny Boyle gives us a wide range of brilliant imagery—from shaky, digital-video footage to high-resolution textures. 127 Hours is undoubtedly, an unflinching look at a real life, grueling experience.
9. BLACK SWAN. Darren Aronofsky has finally honed his directing skills in this balletic and nightmarish soap opera of the highest order. A strange, very strange psychosexual melodrama, not for all taste, but I think it’s safe to say that Aronofsky’s vision of a hardcore ballerina on the brink of a psychological meltdown is so strong, he transcends what could’ve been a campy, backstage look at the ballet scene in New York City to a dark, brooding, and artsy feast for the audience into a more bizarre world. Black Swan will fall somewhere in between the erotically-charged Mulholland Dr. (2001) and the sexually frustrating Repulsion (1965).
10. THE KING’S SPEECH. A triumphant and beautiful drama about King George VI humiliating defect as a stutterer and his rare companionship with his speech teacher. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush give Oscar-worthy performances in this uplifting period piece about a conflict that is universal, whether you’re about to be king to the throne or promoted from a busboy to a waiter. In addition, this is the best photographed film of the year. I love how the director keeps the actors at the edges of the frame, and the cinematography provides a gloomy, pastel hue, which evokes the period of the film.

Sitback, hangout, indulge.....SOMEWHERE

What’s a mega action star’s instinctive motivation for any role they take? Answer: their salary, what else? Is the life of the celeb-party animal and superficial adoration really what it’s all about?

Sofia Coppola’s artsy, new wave, European-like, lingering film, Somewhere probes the dull lifestyle of an overpaid Hollywood action star, the same way director Michelangelo Antonioni depicted the so-called “swinging” life of a fashion photographer in the influential Blow-Up (1966). Coppola and Antonioni come from different generations, but both filmmakers have an acute eye for what it’s like to be alone, when you’re never really alone.

The opening shot of Somewhere is of Stephen Dorff’s character, Johnny Marco, making the day pass by circling his expensive Ferrari in the middle of the desert. After a few laps, he gets out and glumly looks into the bright sky. He’s obviously bored, but if he’s so bored, why does he doe it? My initial response was that Dorff’s character never really knows what he wants out of life. It’s not his lucrative career, it’s not the drugs and the booze, it’s not the tiresome string of one night stands—it’s a human connection that he’s missing out of life.

Now, before you walk into the theater expecting my distinctive response to be written on the screen, than you’ll be terribly disappointed. This is a quiet and moody film, meandering through a small myriad of authentic characters, specifically the relationship between Johnny Marco and his estranged daughter, Cleo, played with great spontaneity by Elle Fanning, younger sister of Dakota Fanning.

Sofia Coppola’s work evokes her own sensibility and privileged childhood. The characters in her films are never truly outward with their emotions and are usually the non-traditional lone-wolves of a glitzy lifestyle. Somewhere challenges the viewers to come up with their own conclusion of Coppola’s emotionally ambivalent characters.

Sure, some of her work is a bit self-indulgent, but it’s quite hard to make a highly personal film without being a tidbit self-indulgent. This isn’t Sofia Coppola’s greatest achievement, but it’s nice to go to the movie theaters and hangout with characters that seem like they have it all, but still feel utterly empty inside. Like the title, the central character doesn’t go anywhere, but he has to end up somewhere, and it’s not about a place, it’s about a human connection; discovering a valid state of mind.

*** (out of four stars)

127 HOURS is an unflinching experience

Narrow spaces and a narrow story, but director Danny Boyle gives us a wide range of brilliant imagery—from shaky, digital-video footage to high-resolution textures. 127 Hours is undoubtedly, an unflinching look at a real life, grueling experience.

If you've seen the promotions or read the book the film is based on, than you'll know that this is a true story of an adventurous, free-wheeling man, Aron Ralston, played with such bravado by James Franco. The film is entirely about Aron's unfavorable predicament; his arm gets pinned under a bolder while rock climbing between the dangerous crevices of Utah's canyons.

Director Danny Boyle applies a vibrant, “hip-hop” style, integrating eye-popping split screen effects, pulse-pounding music, and subtle use of CGI (computer graphics imagery). Basically, this is just as much Boyle's film as it is Aron Ralston's true story. What I admire about 127 Hours is how the audience gets to know Aron as he reflects on his life in the midst of his injurious situation; we get to understand his strong sense of adventure and turbulent past relationships. Sometimes, when your life is on the line, and death is the next rational possibility, it makes sense to take a step back and study your own humanistic pitfalls.

While I was captivated by the film's fast-motion language and thinking about Aron's spirited nature, I couldn't help but ponder about Sean Penn's lyrical and cautionary road film, Into the Wild (2007). Both films are about characters who are seemingly bored with a 9-to-5 society, and they yearn for something more out of life; they want to taste the natural landscapes that haven't been tainted by our economic growth and real estate development. Boyle paints a gorgeous portrait of the Utah canyons, which sent me back in time when Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper road their motorcycles along similar territories in Easy Rider (1969)--the golden sunset touching along the edge of the rocky horizon, reflecting an array of red, orange, blue, and purple hues.

127 Hours builds to a moment of absolute pain and gore. However, this is not the kind of gore that you love to observe the special-effects make-up know-hows, like from a George A. Romero zombie picture, but the kind of violent content that allows you to sympathize with the central character. I'm not going to lie, it was hard to look at on the big screen, but after sticking with James Franco's character for a swift, yet tantalizing hour-and-a-half, you knew it had to be done.

127 Hours is one of the best films of the year. A perfect fit for Oscar-winner Danny Boyle's giddy and colorful, imaginative style.

**** (out of four stars)

BURLESQUE never dares to be burlesque

When I first saw the coming attractions for Burlesque, and realized it was written and directed by a single filmmaker, Steve Antin, I thought to myself, it will either be really good or really bad. Well, I hate to say it, but the latter preconceived notion won. What should have been a joyous, campy and kinky occasion, comes together to be no more than a mainstream, made-for-MTV movie. Burlesque is a poor excuse for a musical; its only intent is to provide a glitzy showcase for Christina Aguilera, who can’t act nearly as well as she can sing. I initially thought Maria Carey couldn’t act, but it goes to show you—when a good director like Lee Daniels is behind a project, Carey busted out a truly natural and realistic portrayal as a social worker in Precious (2009). Perhaps down the road, Christina Aguilera will acquire a decent acting coach, or an acting coach altogether, to help deliver a performance worth investing in, or at least a decent delivery of dialogue. Those who’ve seen Cabaret (1972), or are very familiar with Bob Fosse’s weird and wonderful stage manners and meticulous choreography, will certainly notice how the director and choreographer of Burlesque literally lifted off the opening dance routine and surreal atmosphere of Cabaret; right from the circus-looking women with clichéd bowler hats, to the recognition of the band in the background, to the performers leeching together in a sexy, yet want-to-be risqué manner. Now, I’m all for influences from other films. I love it when a filmmaker rips-off a particular scene they absolutely adore and somehow reinvent it in their own material. Hence, lies the problem with Burlesque; the filmmaker forgot to reinvent the opening dance routine of Cabaret, and instead, created an updated, carbon-copy, which the director just wanted to see on celluloid—bowler hats and all. The story is your run-of-the-mill girl leaves small town in search for stardom in a big city. We see this numerous times, and by now, I’m sick of it. Christina Aguilera’s character is living in a dumpy motel room, looking for a job as a singer and dancer. She comes across a so-called “burlesque” nightclub on sunset strip in Los Angeles, owned by the headstrong Cher, and helped managed by Stanley Tucci. Unfortunately, a corporate mogul is trying to buyout the underground hangout, which doesn’t have any appeal, except to refer to great cinematic hotspots like the Kit-Kat Club in 1930s Germany in Cabaret. The inept love story and pointless plot is as predictable as a car driving through a tunnel on a one-way street; you know where it will come out. However, a predictable storyline is okay as long as the film has something else to offer, which it doesn’t, except for Christina Aguilera’s screen presence and popular voice. She’s talented, I’ll give her that, but if I wanted hear her music or watch her dance, I would’ve bought her latest album or turned on MTV, rather than pay a ticket for Burlesque. Earlier this week I heard a film critic refer to Burlesque as a fun, “campy” musical movie. Fun—it depends on your personal taste, but campy—it certainly was not. When I think of “campy,” I think of Mommie Dearest (1981), Evil Dead II (1987), Showgirls (1995), or Valley of the Dolls (1967). I’m not afraid to admit it, I’m a big fan of camp trash—it’s a genre all on its own, I think. Hell, I even think that Showgirls was a notch better than anything Burlesque had to offer. I mean, any studio that attempts to a produce a 50 million dollar exploitation movie like Showgirls, understands the humor that makes campy filmmaking worth indulging in. As far as I’m concerned, Burlesque is like a cheaply home-made dress that your mother insists you wear for prom night; it saves money and has all the right elements for the occasion, but once you show up, you really wish that you just bought the damn thing in a store. *1/2 (out of four stars)

THE SOCIAL NETWORK.....a rebel with a laptop

The Social Network is a fascinating look at the creation and legal dilemmas surrounding the ever-present Facebook. The film moves at a lightning-fast pace, covering a multitude of relationships, legal issues, messages, and themes. The filmmakers took a true story and used it as a backdrop to reflect on our current social hierarchies. When I first heard about this film I didn’t really see a compelling story. It felt more like a 60 Minutes interview than anything else, but leave it up to a great script and strong director to visualize this computer-orientated material. Typically, director David Fincher won’t tackle a project unless it has a buzz on it, so hot—it drops on the lap of every major agent in Hollywood. I wasn’t sure how the filmmakers were going to setup the dramatic arch of such a computer-bound narrative, and then it hits you twenty minutes into the film; reveal the story slightly out of chronological order, based on the specific legal elements. I'm not saying it wouldn’t be fascinating to watch the eventful rise and fall of a young adult’s hubris in the order it actually happened, but sometimes, a narrative works a little better if the structure is tweaked—crafted in a way that better serves the character dynamics. I’m not going to lie, a second viewing won’t hurt. The combination of intelligent, argumentative dialogue and thematic understandings of success is so layered, I’m sure I missed out on a few important messages. Sometimes, when you tend to focus on how well a film is shot and crafted, it’s hard to concentrate on the details of the story, along with the rapid-fire dialogue. When I first posted my Facebook profile in 2004, I was attending the University of Hartford in Connecticut. This was when Facebook was still relatively new and didn’t include all of the features such as the shared wall, chat, and certain privacy settings. In fact, it was still oriented towards college kids with an “edu” email address. What differentiated Facebook from other friend sites, such as Friendster and My Space, was its exclusivity. It started out in Harvard, but before long, it branched out to every university across the globe. This exclusivity leads to Facebook’s best innovation. When you’re in college, besides getting good grades, what are most students in search for? Answer: a relationship. I think facebook’s bold venture allowed students to see what other students who wanted to get laid, wanted a boyfriend or girlfriend, was already in a relationship with so-and-so, or was just looking for friendship. A single website gave you all of these options and allowed people to put themselves out there and network with others according to their own priorities—whether it was to start a club or look for a one night stand. Now, Facebook is universal, open to all, and the exclusivity is out of the picture, and it’s the dollars that matters. The Social Network follows the cynical, somewhat misanthropic, computer rebel, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), who created one of the largest computer websites in the world. His best friend and Harvard roommate, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), is his so-called partner in funding and establishing his new website. Along the way to success, Zuckerberg befriends a Californian connection, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), who invented the widely used Napster music program. According to the film, Zuckerberg stole the Facebook idea from two, buffed-out, Harvard elite twins and cheated them on their original idea. This and many other legal infringements lead to a multimillion dollar lawsuit. This goes to show you, when the economy is down and a lot of money is involved, friendships will be betrayed, egos will be conflicted, and entitlement will be the name of the game. Jesse Eisenberg, a strong Jewish-looking actor pinpoints this character as much as he nails the timing of the razor-sharp dialogue. He understands this young, ambitious individual. Zuckerberg really isn’t a bad guy or as rebellious as he comes off. He’s a man of strong principles, even when those principles betray the ones around him. He believes that the one who created is the one who is credited. Well, in this fiercely competitive American society, where lawyers, agents, and government officials run the game, Zuckerberg is really just a pawn. Even when his points come across as valid, there are certain principles in society, which undermine his own, and the only way to save his reputation is to play the game his own lawyers conduct. When all is said and done, Zuckerberg is still just a young man who wants to be accepted. He comes off as a rebel, but in a key scene where his new, party-animal friend, Sean Parker, gets arrested at a frat party, his image is suddenly tarnished. We finally see that his reputation means a lot more than his credit. This is a prime example as to why this character works—it’s three dimensional, and by the end, Zuckerberg’s personality backfires on the audience’s expectations. I think one of the film’s strongest themes is social elitism. The film questions the importance of elitism in a university, which is bound to its social upbringing, more so than a student’s GPA, at least I speculate. In the scene where the Harvard twins are in a rowboat competition at a prestigious English school, director Fincher blurs out the edges of the frame in certain close-up shots. The rowboat scene is understated by Trent Reznor’s (lead singer for Nine Inch Nails) tantalizing and operatic score, which goes to show you that music can reveal a whole new level to a scene. The overall understanding I received from that masterly shot-and-edited scene is that Fincher is both revealing and mocking the students’ focal point and sheer determination to be accepted in Harvard’s elite social circle. This is as far as I’m going to delve into the narrative. As you can see, it covers a lot of ground and David Fincher’s craft is in top form. Checkout The Social Network and I guarantee you’ll have your own thematic understanding of this entertaining true story. ***1/2 (out of four stars)

trick "r" treat, LET ME IN

Horror fans mark this one on your calendar. Both elegant and chockfull of gore, Let Me In is a remake done right. Well, I can’t really hold to comparison because I’ve only watched the first twenty minutes of the Swedish hit, Let the Right One In (2008). Unfortunately, it was dubbed in English, (a nightmare in itself) so I turned it off. Anyways, back to the American adaptation, Let Me In, filmmaker Matt Reeves, fresh off the gimmicky Cloverfield (2008), shows a little mastery in direction. Honestly, I didn’t really care for the apocalyptic, monster invasion, Cloverfield. Perhaps if it came out before the whole found-video-shaky-footage rave, it would’ve caught my attention, but at the time, the concept seemed tiring. Let Me In is a unique vampire film about the unlikely friendship between a bullied, 12 year-old boy, Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) whose parents are in the middle of a divorce, and a mysterious girl, Abby (Chloe Moretz) that also happens to be a vampire. They meet outside in the snow-covered apartment complex, and the curious boy, always peeping out his bedroom window, is wrapped up in the mystery of his new friend and her older caretaker (Richard Jenkins). The director keeps the perspective towards the boy’s point-of-view. When he sits down for dinner with his mother, the camera never cuts to her face. In fact, she’s mostly seen out-of-focus in the frame or seen in a distance, which cleverly expresses her absentee presence as a parent. This notion sets-up the framework for the boy’s new-found relationship, considering he learns a little life skills from a girl vampire. Let Me In holds onto the same mythology of old vampire movies (burning sunlight, thirst for blood, sleeping in coffins), but never goes overboard with the genre conventions. Reeves tries to take this story as seriously as possible. It doesn’t poke fun at the genre or execute messy set-pieces of vampire violence. No, I’m afraid, non-stop violence fans, that the gruesomeness isn’t senseless; it serves the characters, the narrative, and the gorgeously lit atmosphere. Along with the fresh take on the vampire genre, Let Me In is expertly photographed. In the scene outside the apartment complex, where the two friends meet by the snow-covered jungle-gym, the surrounding lights give the images a hard-orangey hue. There were also times when the cinematographer doesn’t completely block the lighting, letting in an ominous ray of metallic blue across the frame, which serves as a recurrent visual motif. Furthermore, in another fantastically shot scene where the unidentified guardian of the vampire attempts to dispose of a body in a half-frozen creek, the contrast between the snow and the dark night is so heavy that it almost looks as though it was shot in black-and-white. Shooting in snow-covered surroundings adds a crisp aesthetic, which is unlike filming in any other type of weather condition. Now, for the best part of the cinematography—the gruesomeness and blood-dripping gore is ironically a beauty to behold. There is no shock value here; it’s just shocking how much blood there is when you suddenly forget you’re watching a vampire movie, along with an absorbing tale about childhood friendships, hardships, bullying, and curiosity. Kodi Smit-McPhee is a child actor I’m going to enjoy watching grow up. He portrays a shy, pasty-looking dork, but at the same time, still remains utterly cool. One of my favorite scenes is where he puts on a record for Abby and slyly grooves to the 70s tune, trying to impress her. Come on, who hasn’t tried to impress a person they’ve had a crush on with their favorite brand of music? Well, I have, and so naturally that little humanistic scene stuck with me long after the screening. Child performances in films of such darkness can be difficult to swallow. However, McPhee gives a remarkable performance of such subtlety and aloofness, I could easily identify with him. Let Me In builds to a conclusion I sensed was coming. It didn’t matter though. How the scene was visualized by Matt Reeves was still a shock to me; my heart was literally racing with adrenaline. All I can say is this—sometimes it’s what you don’t see that brings out the most suspense. I know I can be a snob and completely disapprove of horror remakes (because American audiences can’t read), but I think it’s hard to deny that this is still a great horror film with a unique, improbable relationship. Let Me In doesn’t spell out every detail to the audience. The director provides many nuances, which hints about the mysterious relationship between Abby and her older companion. Is he Abby’s father, brother, a childhood friend, or a sadistic individual obsessed with vampires? Who knows exactly? Sometimes, it’s the mystery that makes it all the more interesting. Overall, I enjoyed this moody little creeper of a keeper. Let Me In anytime, well, probably not during the day. ***1/2 (out of four stars)

NEVER LET ME GO is jewel of a film

I was in awe of the visual overtones in this gorgeously made film. Deep, subtle, beautiful and cryptic--Never Let Me Go is sure to instigate profound conversations after the screening. Like Dead Man Walking (1995) and Million Dollar Baby (2004) there’s a social morale buried under this sumptuous love story. The film follows the friendship of three children growing up in a tightly-secured boarding school in Britain, beginning in 1978. They are cutoff from the outside world; a life without a choice, but a life with a designated focus. The story spans almost three decades, following them from childhood to adulthood. The surroundings are ever constant, even though the film follows them for three decades. I would love to reveal what these special individuals are modeled and raised for, but giving away that revelation wouldn’t be fair to the viewers. I must say, it’s a very unique premise; one that gives the audience a very improbable connection between images and content. Never Let Me Go struck a nerve. I felt for these characters, very deeply. I wanted them to realize what these young and loving individuals could’ve achieved in the world they grew up in. They were brainwashed into thinking they were isolated from everyone else, but in reality, there were no boundaries. They could’ve escaped from the life they were brought-up in and should’ve rebelled from the establishment. Angry, sad, sweet, longing, optimistic—I love it when a film channels these ambivalent emotions and allows me to ponder about an alternate direction for the characters to venture into. If a film does that, then it must work. After viewing this movie, I’m very curious about picking up the novel to see how the filmmakers translated the descriptions into these picturesque images. My guess is that the book is written on the same lines as The Horse Whisperer—with deft metaphors and rich characterizations. As much as I wanted closure to the narrative, I think the film does a great justice by leaving the audience in the dark. It gives the viewer more room to think, and it stimulates an array of intelligent inquiries. Never Let Me Go dares the viewer to look beyond the beautiful imagery and delicate character interrelationships, and discover a multitude of hidden meanings and themes. Above all, this is an exquisitely crafted tale about love, loss, individuality, and the boundaries of life. ***1/2 (out of four stars)

Ben Affleck calls the shots in THE TOWN

Quentin Tarantino once said about making his first film, Reservoir Dogs (1992), that it’s safer to work in a subgenre, like a heist film, than to tackle a broad genre, such as horror, comedy, crime, or western. A heist film is a subgenre of the crime genre. Other subgenres would include mobster films, screwball comedies, and slasher films. Basically, it’s a genre that’s a little more concentrated than what a thriller or a comedy would offer. That is exactly what Ben Affleck, the co-writer, director, and star of The Town utilizes here. I’d have to say, nobody can paint the small hoods of Boston better than someone who grew up there. Sure, The Town lacks the cerebral narrative construction of Reservoir Dogs and the extensive character development of Michael Mann’s Heat (1995), but Affleck’s The Town delivers the goods, bottom line. After I walked out of the theater I wasn’t sure if this film was worthy of three stars or an extra half a star, just for relentless entertainment. By the time you finish reading this review, you’ll notice my answer at the very bottom. Ben Affleck plays Doug MacRay, an ex-con and bank thief, part of a tight crew of criminal misfits, growing up in Charleston, a close-knit town, most likely on the grubby side of Boston. The gang of thieves is under tight scrutiny by FBI agent, Adam Farley, played by Mad Men’s Jon Hamm. His best friend growing up and trusted partner-in-crime, James Coughlin, is a trigger-happy cowboy played by the Oscar-nominated actor, Jeremy Renner. I really hope that Renner doesn’t get typecast as these macho, adrenaline-seeking characters, but what can I say, he’s got the perfect look, build, and edgy attitude to deliver these kinds of action performances. I just think that after The Hurt Locker (2009) he should explore more intimate and in-depth portrayals. The opening robbery jumpstarts the film into overdrive and the energy never lets up. The errors of the bank heist call for extreme measures; it involves a hostage situation where the gang kidnaps the bank manager, Claire, played by Rebecca Hall. Who would’ve thought that the victim would lead to a love affair with one of the robbers? Affleck’s character eventually falls for Claire, and after foreseeing his inevitable downfall as a criminal, he tries to find a way to turn his life around. Like most criminal characters, escaping a dangerous lifestyle leads to stepping on others’ toes. The Town is an entertaining heist film mixed with the authentic flavor of the Boston hoods. Affleck’s directorial achievement is well-done, well-executed, well-acted, and contains one terrific set-piece after another. My only problem with The Town is that I’ve seen this type of heist film before, specifically with Heat, which I think, is one of the best heist films ever made, next to The Asphalt Jungle (1950). The Town covers the same grounds as Heat, except there are fewer dots to connect in the plot. 125 minutes flies by incredibly quickly, like a shot of adrenaline pumping through the plot in a swift pace. However, I could sense the beginning action sequence before the credits appear, and pictured the resolution before the grand slam finale started rolling. Besides the predictable nature of the plot, this is pure entertainment. The excitement and array of flawless performances make up for what I’ve already seen in similar heist films. I remember reading the promotional reviews for The Town on the newspaper ad, and a critic said, “It’s Heat meets The Departed.” Well, those of you who’ve seen Heat will certainly notice the similarities, but just because The Town takes place at the same location as The Departed (2006), doesn’t mean you’re going to walk into the same cinematic experience. I need to make this perfectly clear; Boston, LA, New York—it doesn’t matter the location, The Departed takes place in Martin Scorsese’s universe and no one else’s. Sure, somebody else wrote the sensational cop-and-gangster drama, but once Scorsese gets involved, it transforms into his own directorial vision. I can’t say that Ben Affleck has established himself as an auteur director. There isn’t a distinct taste that says I’m walking into a Ben Affleck film and no one else’s. Perhaps down the road he’ll achieve what other prominent actor-turned-directors have accomplished, specifically Clint Eastwood (Mystic River, Unforgiven), Sean Penn (Into the Wild), and Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon, A Beautiful Mind). Let’s not forget that Play Misty for Me (1971) was Eastwood’s first directorial effort, and it took him almost twenty years until he could shine as a gifted talent in Unforgiven (1992). Affleck’s first foray in the director chair, Gone Baby Gone (2007), was a milestone more ambitious than Play Misty For Me, and who knows, maybe in less than twenty years he’ll bloom into a gifted auteur. Widely-receptive and hardworking actors spend a plethora of time on the film set, working with a variety of talented directors. I think it’s safe to say that actors have some of the best training in filmmaking. Ben Affleck has already received an Oscar for screenwriting (Goodwill Hunting), maybe directing will be his next statue. With that in mind, Affleck does an overall, excellent job at co-writing, directing, and acting in this action-packed heist drama. Box office receipts are in line with the critical response—don’t miss it! ***1/2 (out of four stars)