Some of the top categories are pretty easy to predict but with the Oscars you never know for sure. I’ve seen all Best Picture nominees so the rest are guesses. (I am leaving the shorts categories alone.) Enjoy!
BEST PICTURE-The juggernaut among critics awards for The Social Network has given way to a film that tugs on one’s heart- The King’s Speech.
BEST DIRECTOR- David Fincher has paid his dues. Photo finish here with Tom Hooper hoping to ride the wave of The King’s Speech. And where the *%#! is Christopher Nolan’s name?
BEST ACTOR- Colin Firth’s time has come.
BEST ACTRESS-Natalie Portman gave a great performance in a physically demanding role of a lifetime. Sorry Annette.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-Christian Bale thinned out and carried the heart of The Fighter. Geoffrey Rush has a chance.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-Melissa Leo gets recognized for her body of work and a marvelous role-if only she hadn’t taken out those self ads. Hailee Steinfeld could pull an upset.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-The Kings Speech
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-The Social Network
BEST ANIMATED FILM-Toy Story 3
BEST FOREIGN FILM- Biutiful
BEST FILM EDITING-The Social Network
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY-True Grit’s Deakins finally gets his due.
BEST ART DIRECTION-Inception with Alice in Wonderland coming strong
BEST SOUND-Inception
BEST SOUND EFECTS EDITING-Inception
BEST COSTUME DESIGN-Alice in Wonderland
BEST MUSICAL SCORE-Inception but this is wide open
BEST SONG-127 Hours (although I hold out hope a Toy Story will finally win one.)
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS-Inception
BEST DOCUMENTARY-Exit Through the Gift Shop
BEST MAKEUP-The Wolf Man
The biggest tally may go to Inception with as many as 5 Oscars.
Vertigo
Vertigo
Friday, February 25, 2011
Domestic Life in THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
The nuclear family takes on a different spin when both parents are same sex and the kids are the product of a male sperm donor in The Kids Are All Right. When traumatic upheaval and revelations strike such a family, the results can be amusing and also tragic. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore highlight an insightful script about domesticity turned on its head.
Nic (Bening) and Jules (Moore) are lesbian parents of two teens, Joni and Laser. One day the children research and contact their biological father, Paul (Mark Ruffalo), who agrees to meet his progeny. After an awkward first meeting, things actually go well as the new family connections are explored by the kids and their newly found father. The couple of Nic and Jules are a contrast; Nic is the physician who is totally controlling while Jules is still trying to find herself with a new business of landscaping. Laser hangs with the wrong crowd and begins to realize that he deserves better through his bond with Paul. Joni is trying to assert herself as an adult and prepares to go to college. The moms show a parental responsibility to watch over their children and want to meet the dad. When Paul hires Jules to do work on his restaurant landscape, the two connect. As Paul’s influence begins to overcome the family, Nic feels left out. But there is an attraction between Jules and Paul that leads to a torrid affair, and when Nic discovers the truth, the family is torn apart. Into this mix are two maturing children whose emotions will be tested throughout.
The roles are well acted especially by Benning as a betrayed spouse, and in particular, her scene of revelation about Jules is a marvel of expressiveness and devastating heartbreak. This culminates in a powerful moment with all the principals present at Paul’s dinner table. Moore gives solid support and shines in her heartfelt plea to her family near the end. The ensemble is well cast particularly Ruffalo whose almost bystander role is suddenly elevated to catalyst and disruptor of the family’s dynamic.
The story has a nice balance of serious tones and comedic elements born out of the situations. The themes work on several levels like ingredients of a zesty recipe: the family chemistry, the couple of Nic and Jules, the kids’ developing bond with Paul, Paul and Jules, and shake and mix well. Everyone has needs and wants, and the strongest is a need to belong to a family and the need to connect with another human being whether it be Laser and his friends, Paul and Jules, Paul and his children, and Nic and Jules. Amid the conflicts, no one escapes unscathed. There are no real heroes or villains here, only hard truths about life and relationships.
The fact that two lesbians are having the conflict over infidelity may seem novel on the surface, but it could easily have been a heterosexual couple. In fact the notion of two lesbians virtually disappears as we witness and understand this family unit with its warts and all. It could be any family when you think about it. The fact that both Benning and Moore play their respective spousal roles so convincingly is a testament to their acting skills playing off an excellent script by Stuart Blumberg and Lisa Cholodenko, who also directs. The ending rings true and shows not only how far the relationships have come, but how that foundation, despite some serious challenges, is strong enough to survive. Life moves on, and there is hope for the future.
There are not a lot of loose ends in this story although, toward the end, it would be nice to get a bit more resolution to Ruffalo’s character. The film does contains a couple of brief explicit sex scenes without which this would essentially be a PG rated film. There is little to quibble about, and the viewer gets to experience one of the more insightful domestic dramas in recent years.
*** or **** stars
Nic (Bening) and Jules (Moore) are lesbian parents of two teens, Joni and Laser. One day the children research and contact their biological father, Paul (Mark Ruffalo), who agrees to meet his progeny. After an awkward first meeting, things actually go well as the new family connections are explored by the kids and their newly found father. The couple of Nic and Jules are a contrast; Nic is the physician who is totally controlling while Jules is still trying to find herself with a new business of landscaping. Laser hangs with the wrong crowd and begins to realize that he deserves better through his bond with Paul. Joni is trying to assert herself as an adult and prepares to go to college. The moms show a parental responsibility to watch over their children and want to meet the dad. When Paul hires Jules to do work on his restaurant landscape, the two connect. As Paul’s influence begins to overcome the family, Nic feels left out. But there is an attraction between Jules and Paul that leads to a torrid affair, and when Nic discovers the truth, the family is torn apart. Into this mix are two maturing children whose emotions will be tested throughout.
The roles are well acted especially by Benning as a betrayed spouse, and in particular, her scene of revelation about Jules is a marvel of expressiveness and devastating heartbreak. This culminates in a powerful moment with all the principals present at Paul’s dinner table. Moore gives solid support and shines in her heartfelt plea to her family near the end. The ensemble is well cast particularly Ruffalo whose almost bystander role is suddenly elevated to catalyst and disruptor of the family’s dynamic.
The story has a nice balance of serious tones and comedic elements born out of the situations. The themes work on several levels like ingredients of a zesty recipe: the family chemistry, the couple of Nic and Jules, the kids’ developing bond with Paul, Paul and Jules, and shake and mix well. Everyone has needs and wants, and the strongest is a need to belong to a family and the need to connect with another human being whether it be Laser and his friends, Paul and Jules, Paul and his children, and Nic and Jules. Amid the conflicts, no one escapes unscathed. There are no real heroes or villains here, only hard truths about life and relationships.
The fact that two lesbians are having the conflict over infidelity may seem novel on the surface, but it could easily have been a heterosexual couple. In fact the notion of two lesbians virtually disappears as we witness and understand this family unit with its warts and all. It could be any family when you think about it. The fact that both Benning and Moore play their respective spousal roles so convincingly is a testament to their acting skills playing off an excellent script by Stuart Blumberg and Lisa Cholodenko, who also directs. The ending rings true and shows not only how far the relationships have come, but how that foundation, despite some serious challenges, is strong enough to survive. Life moves on, and there is hope for the future.
There are not a lot of loose ends in this story although, toward the end, it would be nice to get a bit more resolution to Ruffalo’s character. The film does contains a couple of brief explicit sex scenes without which this would essentially be a PG rated film. There is little to quibble about, and the viewer gets to experience one of the more insightful domestic dramas in recent years.
*** or **** stars
A Girl’s Indomitable Spirit in WINTER’S BONE
Winter’s Bone, adapted by independent director Debra Granik and Anne Rosellini from the novel by Daniel Woodrell, is a small, low budget film with a courageous lead character. This is one of those small films that features strong performances particularly by newcomer Jennifer Lawrence.
In a rural part of the country, a teenage girl, Ree (Jennifer Lawrence), raises her family which includes her younger brother and little sister. While most girls her age are attending high school, she has to assume the role of sister and parent. Life is grueling and tough for Ree who cares for her siblings even as her mother is depressed and dysfunctional and her father, who has had scrapes with the law, is missing from a bond hearing. Unfortunately the family’s house has been put up as collateral for his bail and is in danger to be taken by the bail bondsman. Ree has to rely on the kindness and donations of food and supplies from neighbors, and when her home is about to be repossessed, her whole family is in danger of having their fragile world destroyed. Threatened with her family’s survival and determined not to lose her home, she sets out to find her father by questioning friends and family. It seems that there is a little family blood everywhere, and people might know more than they let on. Her uncle, Teardrop (John Hawkes), is a menacing, uncooperative person. She follows leads that are dead ends and wild goose chases. She is at the end of her rope and desperate. What can she do? Is her father dead or on the run? Her search leads to some really bad people who are local crime lords, and her punishment at the hands of those she thought were friends is graphic and ruthless. Her situation is nearly an impossible one for anyone much less a teenager. Then help from an unlikely source begins to shed light on the fate of her father as her family’s future hangs in the balance.
Family is all important to Ree. She is put in what seems to be a hopeless situation with no options. Undeterred, she will not let her family be broken up. She has to not only act and think like an adult, but to grow up fast and also teach her brother and sister about the basics of life including hunting and cooking. She cherishes her siblings and despite her dad’s criminal background and what it has done to the family, she clings to his clothing and belongings especially his guitar which also serves as a symbolic bond with her uncle. You ask yourself just what would you do in this situation? How would you survive? You respond to her plight by watching how she reacts to her circumstances.
The lack of a budget does not hinder the film due to its subject matter and focusing on the individual characters. This is a very linear narrative with no parallel action. Some of the dialogue which reflects the local dialects is at times hard to understand. The unknown faces lend a very authentic feel as if these people really live this life. The rural countryside is filmed as a very foreboding presence and is itself a powerful character. The film employs frequent handheld camerawork that lends an immediacy and documentary feel which work in the film’s favor. Even the film’s colors are a darker hue which adds to the somber tone.
Lawrence really impresses in one of her first starring roles on film. The story rests on her shoulders, and she is more than up to the task. John Hawkes is believable as her uncle, and what’s fascinating is his character’s development and his dramatic changes over the course of the story.
It is a kind of downer of a film as the odds are stacked against Ree, and while Winter’s Bone is not for everyone with its solemn, serious themes, for those willing to immerse themselves in an intimate, realistic tale of loyalty and survival and a young girl who bravely carries on, it is an inspiration.
*** of **** stars
In a rural part of the country, a teenage girl, Ree (Jennifer Lawrence), raises her family which includes her younger brother and little sister. While most girls her age are attending high school, she has to assume the role of sister and parent. Life is grueling and tough for Ree who cares for her siblings even as her mother is depressed and dysfunctional and her father, who has had scrapes with the law, is missing from a bond hearing. Unfortunately the family’s house has been put up as collateral for his bail and is in danger to be taken by the bail bondsman. Ree has to rely on the kindness and donations of food and supplies from neighbors, and when her home is about to be repossessed, her whole family is in danger of having their fragile world destroyed. Threatened with her family’s survival and determined not to lose her home, she sets out to find her father by questioning friends and family. It seems that there is a little family blood everywhere, and people might know more than they let on. Her uncle, Teardrop (John Hawkes), is a menacing, uncooperative person. She follows leads that are dead ends and wild goose chases. She is at the end of her rope and desperate. What can she do? Is her father dead or on the run? Her search leads to some really bad people who are local crime lords, and her punishment at the hands of those she thought were friends is graphic and ruthless. Her situation is nearly an impossible one for anyone much less a teenager. Then help from an unlikely source begins to shed light on the fate of her father as her family’s future hangs in the balance.
Family is all important to Ree. She is put in what seems to be a hopeless situation with no options. Undeterred, she will not let her family be broken up. She has to not only act and think like an adult, but to grow up fast and also teach her brother and sister about the basics of life including hunting and cooking. She cherishes her siblings and despite her dad’s criminal background and what it has done to the family, she clings to his clothing and belongings especially his guitar which also serves as a symbolic bond with her uncle. You ask yourself just what would you do in this situation? How would you survive? You respond to her plight by watching how she reacts to her circumstances.
The lack of a budget does not hinder the film due to its subject matter and focusing on the individual characters. This is a very linear narrative with no parallel action. Some of the dialogue which reflects the local dialects is at times hard to understand. The unknown faces lend a very authentic feel as if these people really live this life. The rural countryside is filmed as a very foreboding presence and is itself a powerful character. The film employs frequent handheld camerawork that lends an immediacy and documentary feel which work in the film’s favor. Even the film’s colors are a darker hue which adds to the somber tone.
Lawrence really impresses in one of her first starring roles on film. The story rests on her shoulders, and she is more than up to the task. John Hawkes is believable as her uncle, and what’s fascinating is his character’s development and his dramatic changes over the course of the story.
It is a kind of downer of a film as the odds are stacked against Ree, and while Winter’s Bone is not for everyone with its solemn, serious themes, for those willing to immerse themselves in an intimate, realistic tale of loyalty and survival and a young girl who bravely carries on, it is an inspiration.
*** of **** stars
TRUE GRIT and a Girl’s Mission
Joel and Ethan Coen (No Country for Old Men, Fargo) have extended their filmmaking prowess into new territory by adapting Charles Portis’ famous novel, True Grit, and their interpretation is a refreshing take on the western genre and compares favorably to the memorable John Wayne starring version of 1969. Purists who thought it would be sacrilege to remake a western classic have little to fear. Thanks to a smart script and strong acting, True Grit comes off as a very solid film with some similarities and noticeable differences from the original film.
Told in flashback by a woman’s voice, a 14 year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) wants to avenge the murder of her father at the hands of Tom Chaney (a grizzled Josh Brolin), and she arrives in a small town to hire Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), an aged, hard drinking veteran lawman who has done his share of killing and more. Mattie is not one to be trifled with and as another pursuer, Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), realizes, not one to intimidate. Headstrong, she has grit herself. Together the trio search for Chaney and seek out a lead in another outlaw, Ned Pepper (an unrecognizable Barry Pepper). As friction mounts among the searchers, LeBoeuf strikes out on his own, and Cogburn and Mattie come upon a cabin. There, a couple of outlaws are smoked out, and this leads to Ned Pepper and his gang. Can Chaney be far behind? It all culminates in a final confrontation between Cogburn and Ned Pepper as Mattie comes face to face with her quarry and LeBoeuf reenters the scene with violent results.
Bridges (Crazy Hearts) is utterly convincing in making this version of Rooster Cogburn his own persona. He portrays him as a proud, grumpy curmudgeon who just may be a crack shot and smarter than he lets on. This takes nothing away from the over the top performance of John Wayne who won an Oscar for his rendition. You could almost see Tommy Lee Jones in this role. We gets bits and pieces of Cogburn’s past, and some of the tales make you wonder if they are utter fabrications or sheer exaggeration. Steinfeld is a marvel in her first movie role. She embodies Mattie as a take charge gal who will not be deterred and has enough smarts and spunk to strike a hard bargain with any man. Witness her amusing negotiations with a horse trader and wearing him down. Damon (Good Will Hunting) does well in a supporting role and adds more nuance than Glen Campbell’s version of LaBoeuf did in the older version. Brolin and Pepper have what amount to small but memorable screen time as the bad guys.
The dynamics of the trio are interestingly portrayed as LeBoeuf and Cogburn face off and trade barbs, while Mattie asserts herself every chance she gets. You even think there might be a hint of attraction between Mattie and LeBoeuf. The arc of LeBoeuf’s character deviates from the 1969 film significantly especially at the climax. The only negative is that his fate is left open ended and unresolved.
Much of the film is superior to the older version. There is really only one scene that would suffer in comparison to the original film, and that is the climactic charge by Cogburn against the bad guys. Bridges does well but he is not John Wayne. The scene lacks the heroic, mythic feel of Wayne. Also, when Bridges is shown in closeup carrying Mattie to safety, it seems a bit phony. But those are minor observations. A final sequence shows what happens many years afterward and serves as a melancholy postscript, and it has a final feel of a film like Unforgiven. The film could easily work without it though.
Thanks to the Coens, the authentic sounding dialogue, which is laced with humorous moments including a shooting contest between Cogburn and LeBoeuf, is peppy and sharp, a marked improvement from standard western fare. There are times when Bridges’ drawling and inflections are hard to understand but you get the gist anyway through context and body language. Technical crafts are standout especially a good musical score by Carter Burwell and beautiful cinematography by veteran Roger Deakins (A Beautiful Mind).
The Coen brothers must have been drawn to the quirky characters and the language of the novel, and while this is certainly not their best film, it is a very entertaining western with some standout performances.
*** or **** stars
Told in flashback by a woman’s voice, a 14 year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) wants to avenge the murder of her father at the hands of Tom Chaney (a grizzled Josh Brolin), and she arrives in a small town to hire Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), an aged, hard drinking veteran lawman who has done his share of killing and more. Mattie is not one to be trifled with and as another pursuer, Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), realizes, not one to intimidate. Headstrong, she has grit herself. Together the trio search for Chaney and seek out a lead in another outlaw, Ned Pepper (an unrecognizable Barry Pepper). As friction mounts among the searchers, LeBoeuf strikes out on his own, and Cogburn and Mattie come upon a cabin. There, a couple of outlaws are smoked out, and this leads to Ned Pepper and his gang. Can Chaney be far behind? It all culminates in a final confrontation between Cogburn and Ned Pepper as Mattie comes face to face with her quarry and LeBoeuf reenters the scene with violent results.
Bridges (Crazy Hearts) is utterly convincing in making this version of Rooster Cogburn his own persona. He portrays him as a proud, grumpy curmudgeon who just may be a crack shot and smarter than he lets on. This takes nothing away from the over the top performance of John Wayne who won an Oscar for his rendition. You could almost see Tommy Lee Jones in this role. We gets bits and pieces of Cogburn’s past, and some of the tales make you wonder if they are utter fabrications or sheer exaggeration. Steinfeld is a marvel in her first movie role. She embodies Mattie as a take charge gal who will not be deterred and has enough smarts and spunk to strike a hard bargain with any man. Witness her amusing negotiations with a horse trader and wearing him down. Damon (Good Will Hunting) does well in a supporting role and adds more nuance than Glen Campbell’s version of LaBoeuf did in the older version. Brolin and Pepper have what amount to small but memorable screen time as the bad guys.
The dynamics of the trio are interestingly portrayed as LeBoeuf and Cogburn face off and trade barbs, while Mattie asserts herself every chance she gets. You even think there might be a hint of attraction between Mattie and LeBoeuf. The arc of LeBoeuf’s character deviates from the 1969 film significantly especially at the climax. The only negative is that his fate is left open ended and unresolved.
Much of the film is superior to the older version. There is really only one scene that would suffer in comparison to the original film, and that is the climactic charge by Cogburn against the bad guys. Bridges does well but he is not John Wayne. The scene lacks the heroic, mythic feel of Wayne. Also, when Bridges is shown in closeup carrying Mattie to safety, it seems a bit phony. But those are minor observations. A final sequence shows what happens many years afterward and serves as a melancholy postscript, and it has a final feel of a film like Unforgiven. The film could easily work without it though.
Thanks to the Coens, the authentic sounding dialogue, which is laced with humorous moments including a shooting contest between Cogburn and LeBoeuf, is peppy and sharp, a marked improvement from standard western fare. There are times when Bridges’ drawling and inflections are hard to understand but you get the gist anyway through context and body language. Technical crafts are standout especially a good musical score by Carter Burwell and beautiful cinematography by veteran Roger Deakins (A Beautiful Mind).
The Coen brothers must have been drawn to the quirky characters and the language of the novel, and while this is certainly not their best film, it is a very entertaining western with some standout performances.
*** or **** stars
The Majestic Roar of THE KING’S SPEECH
As a document of a little known history of pre-World War II England, The King’s Speech is a fascinating, heart rending dramatization of King George VI, who assumed the throne despite a debilitating speech problem at a time when his country needed him the most. Well directed by TV veteran Tom Hooper (John Adams) from a lifelong project by screenwriter David Seidler, it boasts Colin Firth’s (Bridget Jones Diary, A Single Man) best performance as the beleaguered king and award caliber support by Geoffrey Rush (Shine, Elizabeth) and Helena Bonham Carter (Alice in Wonderland, Room With a View).
In 1925, Prince Albert (Colin Firth), who is second in line to the throne, gives a speech through BBC radio at Wembley Stadium in England, and it goes poorly as he hesitates and stumbles his words much to the astonishment of the crowd. He has a stuttering problem that is revealed in the most public and humiliating way. By the 1930’s in London, Albert is subjected to a multitude of therapies and remedies that range from speaking with a mouthful of marbles to smoking! His frustration grows until he abandons any hope of solving his affliction. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), seeks out an obscure, Australian speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who feels confident he can cure the prince. A struggling actor himself, Logue has a playful sense of humor that does not ingratiate himself with the future King of England. It is a humbling process, but he slowly brings the prince out of his timid and isolated shell. They work on a progression of methods which includes utilizing recordings and headphones and delves into Albert’s childhood. The therapy sessions are not without setbacks but a bond develops into a strong friendship. As 1936 approaches, King George V dies, and when The Prince of Wales (Guy Pierce) abdicates the throne to be with an American divorcee, the title and responsibility fall on Prince Albert who is desperate not to be placed in this position when England needs a leader. As the clouds of war approach Europe, Prince Albert is named King George VI on December 12, 1936. With England on the brink of declaring war on Germany, and a radio broadcast to all of England and the world, George summons Logue to coach him through the most important speech of his life. With Logue at his side to guide his every word, George speaks to the nation.
Hooper does a very straightforward job without having to resort to flashy camerawork but instead lets his actors do what they do best-act! This long gestating screenplay started with Seidler as a child stutterer listening to radio broadcasts of the king, and it was not until his widow, the Queen Mother, died that he had her conditional consent to tackle the story. It does play a bit with facts but never loses sight of the core relationship of the two disparate men and how a common actor taught a prince to be king. Technical production is excellent all around from the impressive period costumes and art direction to the dramatic score and dark hued cinematography.
It is the interplay and war of wills between Firth and Rush that is the delicious center of this relationship based story. Reunited after having costarred in Shakespeare in Love, both actors are at the top of their game, and part of the fun is that despite the seriousness of the therapy, there are humorous moments to savor. Carter plays ‘less is more’ in one of her more conventional roles, and she is quite convincing as royalty. Some nice turns are made by acting royalty, Michael Gambon, Guy Pierce, Derek Jacobi, and Claire Bloom among others.
The story adds texture in the family details by revealing George V as a domineering father. The troubles of George VI are shown in intimate scenes with his children as he tries to read a story but is handicapped by his impediment. The documentary footage of Hitler’s mastery of public speaking is studied with fascination and almost envy by George. It is an ironic yet telling scene. Logue adores his own family, and his down to earth persona is in sharp contrast to George VI’s more formal yet heartfelt affections for his family. There is a good contrast made of the King’s life from that of the common man. In the scene where George VI is crowned King, he must address his court and realizes that everyone, even his own family, will now treat him differently. Life will never be the same again. When George VI makes his speech at the end, we see that he is learning to be a king.
As a piece of history, The King’s Speech is thoroughly engaging, but what makes it affecting is one man’s triumph over adversity with the support of a loving wife and the friendship of a unique therapist.
**** of **** stars
In 1925, Prince Albert (Colin Firth), who is second in line to the throne, gives a speech through BBC radio at Wembley Stadium in England, and it goes poorly as he hesitates and stumbles his words much to the astonishment of the crowd. He has a stuttering problem that is revealed in the most public and humiliating way. By the 1930’s in London, Albert is subjected to a multitude of therapies and remedies that range from speaking with a mouthful of marbles to smoking! His frustration grows until he abandons any hope of solving his affliction. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), seeks out an obscure, Australian speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who feels confident he can cure the prince. A struggling actor himself, Logue has a playful sense of humor that does not ingratiate himself with the future King of England. It is a humbling process, but he slowly brings the prince out of his timid and isolated shell. They work on a progression of methods which includes utilizing recordings and headphones and delves into Albert’s childhood. The therapy sessions are not without setbacks but a bond develops into a strong friendship. As 1936 approaches, King George V dies, and when The Prince of Wales (Guy Pierce) abdicates the throne to be with an American divorcee, the title and responsibility fall on Prince Albert who is desperate not to be placed in this position when England needs a leader. As the clouds of war approach Europe, Prince Albert is named King George VI on December 12, 1936. With England on the brink of declaring war on Germany, and a radio broadcast to all of England and the world, George summons Logue to coach him through the most important speech of his life. With Logue at his side to guide his every word, George speaks to the nation.
Hooper does a very straightforward job without having to resort to flashy camerawork but instead lets his actors do what they do best-act! This long gestating screenplay started with Seidler as a child stutterer listening to radio broadcasts of the king, and it was not until his widow, the Queen Mother, died that he had her conditional consent to tackle the story. It does play a bit with facts but never loses sight of the core relationship of the two disparate men and how a common actor taught a prince to be king. Technical production is excellent all around from the impressive period costumes and art direction to the dramatic score and dark hued cinematography.
It is the interplay and war of wills between Firth and Rush that is the delicious center of this relationship based story. Reunited after having costarred in Shakespeare in Love, both actors are at the top of their game, and part of the fun is that despite the seriousness of the therapy, there are humorous moments to savor. Carter plays ‘less is more’ in one of her more conventional roles, and she is quite convincing as royalty. Some nice turns are made by acting royalty, Michael Gambon, Guy Pierce, Derek Jacobi, and Claire Bloom among others.
The story adds texture in the family details by revealing George V as a domineering father. The troubles of George VI are shown in intimate scenes with his children as he tries to read a story but is handicapped by his impediment. The documentary footage of Hitler’s mastery of public speaking is studied with fascination and almost envy by George. It is an ironic yet telling scene. Logue adores his own family, and his down to earth persona is in sharp contrast to George VI’s more formal yet heartfelt affections for his family. There is a good contrast made of the King’s life from that of the common man. In the scene where George VI is crowned King, he must address his court and realizes that everyone, even his own family, will now treat him differently. Life will never be the same again. When George VI makes his speech at the end, we see that he is learning to be a king.
As a piece of history, The King’s Speech is thoroughly engaging, but what makes it affecting is one man’s triumph over adversity with the support of a loving wife and the friendship of a unique therapist.
**** of **** stars
Heart and Soul of THE FIGHTER
OK, you may think, “another boxing film about a nobody who becomes somebody”, right? Don’t underestimate The Fighter as another boxing film. It has heart and good acting, but most of all, it is authentic. This film purposely avoids sentiment and going for easy, weepy moments. Rocky this is not. This pet project of producer and star Mark Wahlberg has been years in the making and the payoff here is a gallery of great performances by talented actors who do justice to their real life counterparts.
This true story centers on boxer Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) who struggles to be a junior welterweight champion with training by his half-brother and former fighter, Dicky Ekland (an emaciated Christian Bale). Dicky lives his dashed dreams through Micky and has his own problems with drug addiction and other criminal activities. The extended family includes a supportive father and a controlling mother, Alice (Melissa Leo). Micky’s life changes when he meets a bartender, Charlene (Amy Adams), who believes in him. When the opportunity comes to take his career to the next level and work with professional trainers and management in Las Vegas, Micky’s relationship with Dicky is jeopardized and causes a mighty rift with his family especially his ‘manager’ Alice who feels betrayed. To make matters worse, Dicky gets in trouble with the law and must serve prison. He still lives in the past, clinging to memories of boxing Sugar Ray Leonard in 1978. Micky is so torn when a seemingly winnable fight switches his intended opponent to one who is much heavier at the last minute, that he contemplates quitting altogether. Riddled with guilt, he becomes reclusive until Charlene intercedes. He begins to fight again and amasses a series of wins until he is one step away from a championship if he can overcome a challenger, Sanchez, and Dicky offers tips on how to fight him. Faced with a chance to really make something of his career, Micky must choose between his new handlers and Dicky who taught him everything he knows about boxing. It could mean a championship in the end.
The film works on different levels of relationships: Micky and Charlene, Micky and his family, but most of all the film rests on the bond between the two brothers. There is a good sense of family life and local flavor. Micky and Dicky grew up local athletes and resident celebrities of sorts in a blue collar town where everybody knows each other. When Micky and Charlene challenge Alice, there is a tumultuous change of dynamics and a tense battle of wills. The best scene and also a turning point in the story happens when Dicky confronts Charlene about her own shortcomings, and everything in a way comes full circle as each person must look within to missed opportunities and not achieving their dreams. It is an honest, pivotal moment that validates Dicky’s character who, surprisingly, still knows a thing or two about boxing. Ironically Micky and Dicky’s scenes recall Marlon Brando and Rod Steiger as brothers in On the Waterfront also about a washed up fighter.
The fight scenes are quite convincing and well edited, and when you have a well chiseled actor like Wahlberg (The Departed), a kind of modern day John Garfield, you accept him as a boxer without question. Bale (The Dark Knight) really inhabits his portrayal of a proverbial loser, and he looks the part having shed substantial weight. Was this once the boy who enchanted us in Steven Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun? Come to think of it, Spielberg has another young alumnus in Adams (Catch Me If You Can) who makes the most of her role as a bright, headstrong woman who supports Micky and butts heads with Alice and her daughters literally. Leo (Frozen River) is quite good as the proud matriarch whose influence and authority is threatened.
The film tells its story as directed by David O. Russell (Three Kings) in workman like manner. It’s almost the kind of film Clint Eastwood makes these days. The story and relationships are strong enough to easily carry the film without resorting to sentimentality. Indeed, there is a thrilling moment ringside where a shot almost follows through with Alice and Charlene hugging, but Russell cuts away to another unglamorous shot. Bravo for not taking the easy way out although there are a couple of scenes could have been extended more. It’s also nice to see the real life brothers in the end credits, and you know that the film has done their lives justice. The original screenplay and story had a lot of writers involved, and the result is a heck of a remarkable comeback story and a family that would not quit.
***1/2 of **** stars
This true story centers on boxer Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) who struggles to be a junior welterweight champion with training by his half-brother and former fighter, Dicky Ekland (an emaciated Christian Bale). Dicky lives his dashed dreams through Micky and has his own problems with drug addiction and other criminal activities. The extended family includes a supportive father and a controlling mother, Alice (Melissa Leo). Micky’s life changes when he meets a bartender, Charlene (Amy Adams), who believes in him. When the opportunity comes to take his career to the next level and work with professional trainers and management in Las Vegas, Micky’s relationship with Dicky is jeopardized and causes a mighty rift with his family especially his ‘manager’ Alice who feels betrayed. To make matters worse, Dicky gets in trouble with the law and must serve prison. He still lives in the past, clinging to memories of boxing Sugar Ray Leonard in 1978. Micky is so torn when a seemingly winnable fight switches his intended opponent to one who is much heavier at the last minute, that he contemplates quitting altogether. Riddled with guilt, he becomes reclusive until Charlene intercedes. He begins to fight again and amasses a series of wins until he is one step away from a championship if he can overcome a challenger, Sanchez, and Dicky offers tips on how to fight him. Faced with a chance to really make something of his career, Micky must choose between his new handlers and Dicky who taught him everything he knows about boxing. It could mean a championship in the end.
The film works on different levels of relationships: Micky and Charlene, Micky and his family, but most of all the film rests on the bond between the two brothers. There is a good sense of family life and local flavor. Micky and Dicky grew up local athletes and resident celebrities of sorts in a blue collar town where everybody knows each other. When Micky and Charlene challenge Alice, there is a tumultuous change of dynamics and a tense battle of wills. The best scene and also a turning point in the story happens when Dicky confronts Charlene about her own shortcomings, and everything in a way comes full circle as each person must look within to missed opportunities and not achieving their dreams. It is an honest, pivotal moment that validates Dicky’s character who, surprisingly, still knows a thing or two about boxing. Ironically Micky and Dicky’s scenes recall Marlon Brando and Rod Steiger as brothers in On the Waterfront also about a washed up fighter.
The fight scenes are quite convincing and well edited, and when you have a well chiseled actor like Wahlberg (The Departed), a kind of modern day John Garfield, you accept him as a boxer without question. Bale (The Dark Knight) really inhabits his portrayal of a proverbial loser, and he looks the part having shed substantial weight. Was this once the boy who enchanted us in Steven Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun? Come to think of it, Spielberg has another young alumnus in Adams (Catch Me If You Can) who makes the most of her role as a bright, headstrong woman who supports Micky and butts heads with Alice and her daughters literally. Leo (Frozen River) is quite good as the proud matriarch whose influence and authority is threatened.
The film tells its story as directed by David O. Russell (Three Kings) in workman like manner. It’s almost the kind of film Clint Eastwood makes these days. The story and relationships are strong enough to easily carry the film without resorting to sentimentality. Indeed, there is a thrilling moment ringside where a shot almost follows through with Alice and Charlene hugging, but Russell cuts away to another unglamorous shot. Bravo for not taking the easy way out although there are a couple of scenes could have been extended more. It’s also nice to see the real life brothers in the end credits, and you know that the film has done their lives justice. The original screenplay and story had a lot of writers involved, and the result is a heck of a remarkable comeback story and a family that would not quit.
***1/2 of **** stars
The Agony and Ecstasy of 127 HOURS
Based on the harrowing tale of survival by Aron Ralston and adapted by Simon Beaufoy and director Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later), 127 Hours challenges the viewer to share in a difficult, life changing event that most people could never contemplate. It’s quite a feat to engage and emotionally move an audience focused solely on one person in one place. For an actor to pull this off is a great testament to James Franco’s acting skills and physical prowess as well as Boyle’s ingenuity behind the camera.
In April, 2003, Aron Ralston (Franco) escapes the rat race of the city to go hiking in a remote terrain. After parking his car, he goes mountain biking and then by foot deeper into isolation. There, he comes upon two hikers, Megan and Kristi, who are a bit lost. He tells them that the earth with its rocks and mountains is always moving. How prophetic! Aron guides the women and puts them on the right track after a brief adventure in a cave and a sparkling pool of water. Later, he proceeds on his trek of solitude and, while climbing between a narrow ravine, slips, and as he falls, a large bolder tumbles and pins his arm against the wall. Trying everything possible to dislodge the rock, he finds he is hopelessly trapped with limited supplies. No one knows where he is because he was didn’t care enough to mention it to family or friends. He is a confident, even cocky explorer whose cavalier attitude changes through this ordeal. He displays some amazing resourcefulness in such moments as when he erects a mini tent to protect his head from the elements. As he waits in vain for help that is not coming, he contemplates his survival skills and evaluates his life and relationships. Life is precious, and he must do whatever he can to survive even if it means the unthinkable.
The entire film works despite the fact it centers exclusively on one actor. (The Spirit of St. Louis is another that comes to mind.) Franco accomplishes the difficult task by making us care for an arrogant, free spirit who knows no fear. The film focuses on minute details that could easily be glossed over. The simplest of acts become a tortuous struggle as when his pocket knife falls and he must retrieve it while still pinned. A drink of water from his ever shrinking supply becomes an agonizing death watch. The flashback scenes give us some background into his family life and a former girlfriend. He even fantasizes a vision of a boy, a son that he will perhaps have someday? He regrets the things left undone or unsaid and resolves to make changes in his life if he makes it out alive. The fact that we know the outcome does not at all diminish the agony we feel for him in close quarters and his determination to survive. In a way the big rock is a kind of metaphor for his life. What should be a liberating journey becomes a test of survival, and as the hours go by and one day bleeds into the next, we become a part of his limited world complete with cracks of sunlight and an occasional bird or insect. After awhile you wonder if we really see images he is seeing, or if it is nothing more than a mirage or hallucination. During his ordeal he uses his mini video camera to document his plight and to report on his situation and feelings. The camera becomes a sort of confessor for him.
Yes, the scene where he must separate himself from the rock is excruciating but never exploitive. The subsequent scenes where he makes his way back to civilization and encounters other hikers are powerfully heart wrenching yet life affirming. It packs a punch and wrings you emotionally as Franco finds salvation when all hope is seemingly lost. By film’s end we breathe a collective sigh of relief. Yet it is the cumulative effect of emotions and our shared experience with him that are truly affecting.
Boyle utilizes handheld cameras and crisp editing to keep things moving along in a methodically paced narrative. It is ironic at how the beautiful landscape is in sharp contrast to the horror that Aron must experience. The film may set a record for having the longest running time before displaying its first title card. There is a nice epilogue which alludes to his prophetic visions from before. This is not a morbid exercise in claustrophobia or grossness but rather a realistic recreation of the triumph of the human spirit against impossible odds and the bleakest of settings.
*** of **** stars
In April, 2003, Aron Ralston (Franco) escapes the rat race of the city to go hiking in a remote terrain. After parking his car, he goes mountain biking and then by foot deeper into isolation. There, he comes upon two hikers, Megan and Kristi, who are a bit lost. He tells them that the earth with its rocks and mountains is always moving. How prophetic! Aron guides the women and puts them on the right track after a brief adventure in a cave and a sparkling pool of water. Later, he proceeds on his trek of solitude and, while climbing between a narrow ravine, slips, and as he falls, a large bolder tumbles and pins his arm against the wall. Trying everything possible to dislodge the rock, he finds he is hopelessly trapped with limited supplies. No one knows where he is because he was didn’t care enough to mention it to family or friends. He is a confident, even cocky explorer whose cavalier attitude changes through this ordeal. He displays some amazing resourcefulness in such moments as when he erects a mini tent to protect his head from the elements. As he waits in vain for help that is not coming, he contemplates his survival skills and evaluates his life and relationships. Life is precious, and he must do whatever he can to survive even if it means the unthinkable.
The entire film works despite the fact it centers exclusively on one actor. (The Spirit of St. Louis is another that comes to mind.) Franco accomplishes the difficult task by making us care for an arrogant, free spirit who knows no fear. The film focuses on minute details that could easily be glossed over. The simplest of acts become a tortuous struggle as when his pocket knife falls and he must retrieve it while still pinned. A drink of water from his ever shrinking supply becomes an agonizing death watch. The flashback scenes give us some background into his family life and a former girlfriend. He even fantasizes a vision of a boy, a son that he will perhaps have someday? He regrets the things left undone or unsaid and resolves to make changes in his life if he makes it out alive. The fact that we know the outcome does not at all diminish the agony we feel for him in close quarters and his determination to survive. In a way the big rock is a kind of metaphor for his life. What should be a liberating journey becomes a test of survival, and as the hours go by and one day bleeds into the next, we become a part of his limited world complete with cracks of sunlight and an occasional bird or insect. After awhile you wonder if we really see images he is seeing, or if it is nothing more than a mirage or hallucination. During his ordeal he uses his mini video camera to document his plight and to report on his situation and feelings. The camera becomes a sort of confessor for him.
Yes, the scene where he must separate himself from the rock is excruciating but never exploitive. The subsequent scenes where he makes his way back to civilization and encounters other hikers are powerfully heart wrenching yet life affirming. It packs a punch and wrings you emotionally as Franco finds salvation when all hope is seemingly lost. By film’s end we breathe a collective sigh of relief. Yet it is the cumulative effect of emotions and our shared experience with him that are truly affecting.
Boyle utilizes handheld cameras and crisp editing to keep things moving along in a methodically paced narrative. It is ironic at how the beautiful landscape is in sharp contrast to the horror that Aron must experience. The film may set a record for having the longest running time before displaying its first title card. There is a nice epilogue which alludes to his prophetic visions from before. This is not a morbid exercise in claustrophobia or grossness but rather a realistic recreation of the triumph of the human spirit against impossible odds and the bleakest of settings.
*** of **** stars
Darkness at the Soul of BLACK SWAN
Director Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream) has done some offbeat films but has always elicited strong performances from his leads. Perhaps his greatest achievement is getting an Oscar worthy performance from Natalie Portman in Black Swan, a film that does an impressive job of depicting a psychological downward spiral of a competitive ballerina in the role of a lifetime.
Nina Sayers (Portman) works hard at her craft and gets the coveted starring role in Swan Lake. Doted on by her mother (Barbara Hershey in an unusual role) and pushed to extremes by her ballet director, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel), she begins to feel threatened and becomes delusional and loses touch with reality. A new arrival, Lily (Mila Kunis), understudies her and becomes not only her friend and night scene companion, but also her main competitor and threat. Is she undermining her on purpose or is Nina just imagining it all? As opening night approached, the visions become even more disturbing to the point that Nina is at the brink of her sanity and the curtain opens on the most important moment of her life.
Portman projects a complex series of conflicting emotions including anxiety, jealousy, and even guilt as if she does not deserve the lead. Guided by Aronofsky, she soars as she has never done before. Not only does she perform a substantial amount of physically demanding ballet, but we see things through her eyes and feel her pains. Does she really commit the horrible acts she thinks she may have done or is it all in her warped mind? It’s not a pleasant journey. There is extremely disturbing use of mirror images that reflect Nina’s face and become Lily in the next instant in jarring and unexpected fashion. Is Nina seeing Lily or is it a reflection of her own self? A moment that shows the various pieces of wall art at her home coming alive in nightmarish figures is truly unnerving.
Kunis as Lily brings enough menace to her role. Winona Ryder has a supporting role of a retiring, vindictive ballerina, Beth MacIntyre, who ends up in the hospital. A scene where Nina worships Beth is reminiscent of Anne Baxter and Bette Davis in the dressing room scene of All About Eve. Beth is bitter and even self abusive which kind of foreshadows what awaits Nina. Cassell is effective as the ballet director whose sexism and unusual methods are suspect but never his quest for the absolute best for his production. Hershey registers as an overly concerned, controlling mom.
The film does a good job of showing the mental and physical toll that rehearsal and practice take on a performer, and to make matters worse, the angst exhibits itself seemingly on Nina’s body in distorted and grotesque manifestations. The physical mutations would probably amuse and please the likes of David Cronenberg and David Lynch. As Leroy demands more than what she shows in technique, she knows she has to give everything in her soul and more to satisfy the ballet’s demands. There is an interesting dichotomy showing two sides of a ballerina’s psyche with the repressed, uptight Nina whose frigidity is counterpointed by the free spirited and sensual Lily. Lily evens brings out her sexuality and inner yearning that seems all too real, or is it a dream? Something that is never mentioned or shown is if Nina is a virgin or ever had a real boyfriend. Then there is the duality within Nina of White and Black Swans in which the dark side must emerge if she is to fully inhabit the lead role.
Much of the film recalls other memorable films that bend reality like The Fight Club or Affliction, and Nina’s descent into madness has striking similarities to Roman Polanski’s classic Repulsion whose woman descends into psychological delusions and paranoia.
Aronofsky’s use of camera work is startling as it works in concert with Portman’s performance, and when you see the change in her eyes near the end, it is stunning. The film employs lots of handheld shots with cinematographer Matthew Libatique to visualize a subjective viewpoint for Nina. The score by Clint Mansell is well done with a touch of foreboding. Both of them are Aronofsky veterans. The final scene as Nina readies to perform the last act as she morphs into the Black Swan to complete her transformation is haunting. The final shot is unforgettable. Some viewers may be turned off by its repellent imagery but others will be astonished by a powerful depiction of madness at any price.
***1/2 of **** stars
Nina Sayers (Portman) works hard at her craft and gets the coveted starring role in Swan Lake. Doted on by her mother (Barbara Hershey in an unusual role) and pushed to extremes by her ballet director, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel), she begins to feel threatened and becomes delusional and loses touch with reality. A new arrival, Lily (Mila Kunis), understudies her and becomes not only her friend and night scene companion, but also her main competitor and threat. Is she undermining her on purpose or is Nina just imagining it all? As opening night approached, the visions become even more disturbing to the point that Nina is at the brink of her sanity and the curtain opens on the most important moment of her life.
Portman projects a complex series of conflicting emotions including anxiety, jealousy, and even guilt as if she does not deserve the lead. Guided by Aronofsky, she soars as she has never done before. Not only does she perform a substantial amount of physically demanding ballet, but we see things through her eyes and feel her pains. Does she really commit the horrible acts she thinks she may have done or is it all in her warped mind? It’s not a pleasant journey. There is extremely disturbing use of mirror images that reflect Nina’s face and become Lily in the next instant in jarring and unexpected fashion. Is Nina seeing Lily or is it a reflection of her own self? A moment that shows the various pieces of wall art at her home coming alive in nightmarish figures is truly unnerving.
Kunis as Lily brings enough menace to her role. Winona Ryder has a supporting role of a retiring, vindictive ballerina, Beth MacIntyre, who ends up in the hospital. A scene where Nina worships Beth is reminiscent of Anne Baxter and Bette Davis in the dressing room scene of All About Eve. Beth is bitter and even self abusive which kind of foreshadows what awaits Nina. Cassell is effective as the ballet director whose sexism and unusual methods are suspect but never his quest for the absolute best for his production. Hershey registers as an overly concerned, controlling mom.
The film does a good job of showing the mental and physical toll that rehearsal and practice take on a performer, and to make matters worse, the angst exhibits itself seemingly on Nina’s body in distorted and grotesque manifestations. The physical mutations would probably amuse and please the likes of David Cronenberg and David Lynch. As Leroy demands more than what she shows in technique, she knows she has to give everything in her soul and more to satisfy the ballet’s demands. There is an interesting dichotomy showing two sides of a ballerina’s psyche with the repressed, uptight Nina whose frigidity is counterpointed by the free spirited and sensual Lily. Lily evens brings out her sexuality and inner yearning that seems all too real, or is it a dream? Something that is never mentioned or shown is if Nina is a virgin or ever had a real boyfriend. Then there is the duality within Nina of White and Black Swans in which the dark side must emerge if she is to fully inhabit the lead role.
Much of the film recalls other memorable films that bend reality like The Fight Club or Affliction, and Nina’s descent into madness has striking similarities to Roman Polanski’s classic Repulsion whose woman descends into psychological delusions and paranoia.
Aronofsky’s use of camera work is startling as it works in concert with Portman’s performance, and when you see the change in her eyes near the end, it is stunning. The film employs lots of handheld shots with cinematographer Matthew Libatique to visualize a subjective viewpoint for Nina. The score by Clint Mansell is well done with a touch of foreboding. Both of them are Aronofsky veterans. The final scene as Nina readies to perform the last act as she morphs into the Black Swan to complete her transformation is haunting. The final shot is unforgettable. Some viewers may be turned off by its repellent imagery but others will be astonished by a powerful depiction of madness at any price.
***1/2 of **** stars
The Phenom of THE SOCIAL NETWORK
As a chronicle of events leading to the creation of the social networking site Facebook, touching nearly every computer user in the world, The Social Network is a fascinating take on Mark Zuckerberg, a maverick, whose brilliant mind is matched by his arrogance. Directed by David Fincher (Se7en, The Fight Club) from an excellent screenplay by Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The West Wing) and based on the book, The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich, this is a fascinating study of a success story complete with intrigue and subterfuge. In this case, the incidents play on a very human level. You would think this would make an excellent made for television HBO movie, but Sorkin and Fincher have created a remarkable, cinematic vision of an inventor, albeit a troubled one.
In the fall of 2003, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is portrayed as a computer genius at Harvard University with few social graces. What we know now as Facebook had its modest beginnings as a response to a failed relationship with a girl. Needing to vent some anger, Mark modifies a campus website and with the help of his buddy, Eduardo (Andrew Garfield), a concept is born for socializing on the internet. When web traffic to the site spikes to record numbers, people begin to take notice, and a phenomenon is born. A group of Harvard students enlist Mark to develop his site with their financial backing, but when they discover that he is working on his venture without them, they become incensed and contemplate legal action. Mark and Eduardo become popular ‘rock stars’ on campus as the new Facebook spreads like an epidemic to other college campuses like Yale, Columbia, and Stanford. Soon, the company approaches critical mass and the milestone of being able to monetize the site and turn a profit. Napster creator, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), reaches out to the growing network because he understands its vast potential. Mark becomes enamored and captivated by Sean’s leadership and vision and is drawn to Silicon Valley much to Eduardo’s consternation. But with Sean’s guidance comes his lavish, illicit lifestyle which has potential consequences for all. As the company expands to the whole country and becomes a global presence, it seeks more capital, and the ensuing growing pains will test friendships and lead to betrayals and litigation. By the end, everyone is suing to get a piece of the action. We’re not talking millions of dollars at stake but staggering numbers that far exceed normal comprehension.
Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland, Zombieland) is perfectly cast as Mark Zuckerberg, a high energy geek running around a snowy campus in his shorts and flip flops and is quick to respond to his critics with venomous sarcasm. Making us fascinated with such an unsavory character is testament to his performance. Justin Timberlake is excellent as the charismatic entrepreneur Sean, who is portrayed as a narcissistic, lecherous Svengali and mentor to Mark. Andrew Garfield lends very strong support as Eduardo, Mark’s roommate.
The film’s pace is rapid and driven, not a slow spot at all. Its structure incorporates flashbacks and flash forwards in a masterful display of film editing. The story works as a kind of techie mystery especially from the point of view of a legal deposition that frames the events of the past. Every major player gets a scripted point of view Rashomon style. All through the narrative, you keep wondering if Mark knows more than he lets on. Is he naïve or is he a schemer or both? Was the betrayal of Eduardo orchestrated by Mark or was it the machinations of Sean? It is never truly clear as to Mark’s culpability. This is success, but at what price?
There’s very little to gripe about in this film. A short scene with Eduardo’s psychotic girlfriend is shocking but ultimately pointless. Were the filmmakers trying to show his poor judge of character? Also, I noticed a scene where the actors talk in the supposed cold with digital condensation coming from their mouths; so how come the extras don’t have any? A major subplot showing Eduardo’s initiation to the elite Phoenix Club never makes clear whether Mark had a hand in his acceptance.
With its fascinating subject matter, the script begs your attention and participation. Sorkin has done a marvelous job of bringing a book to life and complemented with Fincher’s acumen. The dialogue is stunning in its blatant display of Zuckerberg’s intelligence and rebellious streak. The result is a chronicle of a techie generation with not one false note and a thoroughly engrossing screenplay that has Oscar written all over it. Fincher is proving himself to be a great director when given superior material, and his branching out from thrillers to more mainstream fare has been remarkable (as in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). One can only wonder the goodies that await movie audiences as he explores further.
**** of **** stars
In the fall of 2003, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is portrayed as a computer genius at Harvard University with few social graces. What we know now as Facebook had its modest beginnings as a response to a failed relationship with a girl. Needing to vent some anger, Mark modifies a campus website and with the help of his buddy, Eduardo (Andrew Garfield), a concept is born for socializing on the internet. When web traffic to the site spikes to record numbers, people begin to take notice, and a phenomenon is born. A group of Harvard students enlist Mark to develop his site with their financial backing, but when they discover that he is working on his venture without them, they become incensed and contemplate legal action. Mark and Eduardo become popular ‘rock stars’ on campus as the new Facebook spreads like an epidemic to other college campuses like Yale, Columbia, and Stanford. Soon, the company approaches critical mass and the milestone of being able to monetize the site and turn a profit. Napster creator, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), reaches out to the growing network because he understands its vast potential. Mark becomes enamored and captivated by Sean’s leadership and vision and is drawn to Silicon Valley much to Eduardo’s consternation. But with Sean’s guidance comes his lavish, illicit lifestyle which has potential consequences for all. As the company expands to the whole country and becomes a global presence, it seeks more capital, and the ensuing growing pains will test friendships and lead to betrayals and litigation. By the end, everyone is suing to get a piece of the action. We’re not talking millions of dollars at stake but staggering numbers that far exceed normal comprehension.
Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland, Zombieland) is perfectly cast as Mark Zuckerberg, a high energy geek running around a snowy campus in his shorts and flip flops and is quick to respond to his critics with venomous sarcasm. Making us fascinated with such an unsavory character is testament to his performance. Justin Timberlake is excellent as the charismatic entrepreneur Sean, who is portrayed as a narcissistic, lecherous Svengali and mentor to Mark. Andrew Garfield lends very strong support as Eduardo, Mark’s roommate.
The film’s pace is rapid and driven, not a slow spot at all. Its structure incorporates flashbacks and flash forwards in a masterful display of film editing. The story works as a kind of techie mystery especially from the point of view of a legal deposition that frames the events of the past. Every major player gets a scripted point of view Rashomon style. All through the narrative, you keep wondering if Mark knows more than he lets on. Is he naïve or is he a schemer or both? Was the betrayal of Eduardo orchestrated by Mark or was it the machinations of Sean? It is never truly clear as to Mark’s culpability. This is success, but at what price?
There’s very little to gripe about in this film. A short scene with Eduardo’s psychotic girlfriend is shocking but ultimately pointless. Were the filmmakers trying to show his poor judge of character? Also, I noticed a scene where the actors talk in the supposed cold with digital condensation coming from their mouths; so how come the extras don’t have any? A major subplot showing Eduardo’s initiation to the elite Phoenix Club never makes clear whether Mark had a hand in his acceptance.
With its fascinating subject matter, the script begs your attention and participation. Sorkin has done a marvelous job of bringing a book to life and complemented with Fincher’s acumen. The dialogue is stunning in its blatant display of Zuckerberg’s intelligence and rebellious streak. The result is a chronicle of a techie generation with not one false note and a thoroughly engrossing screenplay that has Oscar written all over it. Fincher is proving himself to be a great director when given superior material, and his branching out from thrillers to more mainstream fare has been remarkable (as in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). One can only wonder the goodies that await movie audiences as he explores further.
**** of **** stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)