Dogtooth - Official Trailer [HD]

This movie ranks #1 on my Netflix Queue. Check it out.

Movie #33 Children of Men

I had the great pleasure of attending a movie at a small film fest this weekend.  The fest theme was "Bad Futures".  It consisted of 15 films over the course of 3 days.  The common thread between the films was dystopia.  Films that played were Blade Runner, A Clockwork Orange, The Matrix, 2001: A Space Odyssey and a slew of others including the film I saw Children of Men.

I had seen Children of Men once before on DVD.  I remember liking it, and I remembered some of the details.  Mostly what I remembered was a long single take of a war zone being interrupted by the cries of a baby.  Why would a baby crying cause a battle to cease?  It is the first baby most of the soldiers had ever seen.  The film is set in Britain in the near future.  For some unexplained (most likely unknown) reason mankind had lost it's ability to reproduce.  The "fun" part of the movie is that it really doesn't matter why humans can't make babies, what matters is how would we cope when the youngest person on the planet is slightly over 18 years old.

Children of Men does not exist in a Blade Runner futuristic world, nor does it have the conceptual complexities  that The Matrix presents.  This is a simple story of survival in a world not unlike the one that we live in now.  The largest effect this global neutering seems to have had is a strict nationalism.  Britain has closed it's borders and any immigrants are being caged up and shipped out.

This movie rocked my world.  I was completely engulfed from the first 10 minutes.  The movie is brilliantly directed  and written by Alfonso Cuaron and stars Clive Owen, Michael Caine, Julianne Moore, and Chiwetel Ejiofor (one of my favorite working actors).  Cuaron's camera work is haunting and disturbing.  There are at least 5 scenes with a near 10 minute unbroken take.  There is one scene in particular where the group is in the car and things start to go wrong, it intimacy and shock and realism of this scene left my hands shaking.

Clive Owen gives the performance of his career in movie.  He is perfectly understated while retaining an interest that can't be avoided.  I found I was putting myself in his shoes (or flip flops) very early on in the movie.  Michale Caine pays his hippie father and allows for some great comedic moments to counterbalance the pessimistic outlook.  Owen's character in the movie, Theo, get recruited by a renegade group headed by Julianne Moore.  He is to supply traveling papers for a young black woman with a secret.  His motive is simple.  The renegades are offering money and he needs money.  As part of the arrangement he ends up having to escort this young woman.  This is where all hell breaks loose.  Cuaron allows his protagonist to make bad decisions, and fumble around.  He really is the futuristic "Joe six-pack".  You can't help but think "What would I do in that situation".  He doesn't act out of any "allegiances" or "codes" or "morals".  His actions are generated by his need to survive.  It is not until late into the movie where he really does anything that most people would consider courageous.  And even then he gets the rug pulled out from underneath him. It is the difference between "hero" and "protagonist".  Like a sci-fi Benjamin Braddock. 

I'm not sure if I simply have a better appreciation of cinema now, or if  seeing this film on the big screen made it so much more memorable.  But whatever it was I was hooked.  This will be joining my DVD collection very soon.  I give it a 5/5 stars!  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NikEQy1XxDE

Restless HD 2011 Movie Trailer Gus Van Sant

I figure this one isn't on your radar yet, but you better put it on there.
In Van Sant we trust.

Movie #32 Jackass 3-D

I don't really even know where to start on this one.  I saw this in a nice theater in my girlfriends home town.  We were on a long weekend to visit her mother, sister and the rest of the family.  The was my first time meeting them.  I think things went pretty well.  I chewed my food with my mouth closed and laughed at everyone's jokes.  I thought if I typed out the activities of the weekend maybe I could find some thread of a connection to the movie.  No dice.  And now that I think of it, I am so glad there was no similarities between my weekend and the MTV wrecking crew called Jackass.

I say that I have no idea what to do with this blog mostly because Jackass has no reference points that I am aware of.  It is not a "movie".  That is to say that it is not fictional , at least not in its presentation.  Nor is it a documentary.  I would best describe it as Candid Camera meets America's Funniest Home Videos made by The 3 Stooges.

I should stop trying to wrap my mind around this film and just discuss it.  For those of you who don't know, Jackass is based off an MTV show.  It is a group of 20 something boys doing all sorts of dangerous, stupid, and disgusting "stunts" and pranks.  The film hinges on two factors:

• How much they can gross out the audience.
• How much they can make the audience laugh.

 Fortunately, they hit me hard in both categories.  This is the most visceral comedic reaction I have had to a movie since I watched Borat the first time.  I should say that these are the lowest of the low brow laughs.  Things like a man trying to hit a ping pong ball with his penis and super-gluing a midget to a fat guy.  If you laugh at videos of a man taking a wiffle ball bat to the groin (and really who doesn't) this should have you rolling in the isles.   The other reaction I had was literally trying to hold back the puke.  There is enough poop and urine in the movie to get me though for a long while.  The "scene" in the port-a-potty makes the bathroom in Trainspotting look like the bathroom in Sleeper.  If you are at all quezey about bodily functions and/or full frontal nudity I would stay away from this "film".

My biggest problem with the film is the same as the one that I had with the television show.  As long as these idiots are going to prank and torture each other I'm fine with that.  It is when they go out in public and reign their mischievousness on others that I find it mean spirited.  And I think that brings the momentum they have been generating to a halt. I didn't think the 3-D really added anything to the film.  More so I would say that the use of the high def super slow motion was very effective.  One of the goons that helped to start and direct this show is Spike Jonez of "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation" directorial fame.  I have seen Spike use this techunique in some music videos and skateborad videos as well.  It is very effective here.

Overall this was a nice cap to a great weekend.  I enjoyed Jackass 3-D and would give it 3/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKwjU_pSSW4

Just left Jackass 3-D. Let me clean up the vomit and I'll blog about it later.

Visiting Penn State with my wonderful girlfriend! We went to the campus theater and saw Children of Men. Review to follow.

Movie #31 The Secret of Kells

Great night tonight.  I snuck out of work after only 10 hours.  Pick up the kiddos and headed home.  Usually Tuesdays night are reserved for our house famous tacos.  Taco Tuesday as is has titled.  Tonight however I didn't feel like going to the grocery store so we made spaghetti.  The three of us all chipped in and made a wonderful diner with homemade sauce, and garlic cheesy bread.  It was delicious.  Again normally we watch reruns of The Office. That is unless it is American Idol time, then the whole schedule changes.  Tonight though there were baseball playoffs on instead of The Office.  I scanned the channels and there was nothing on.  I looked at my DVR'ed shows and there was barely a movie made after 1948 on there.  Now I much as I would have liked to sit and watch "The Third Man" or "The Big Sleep" or "His Girl Friday" I didn't think those would be a big hit with my tween daughters.

Then I remembered that I had added the 2009 animated Irish film "The Secret of Kells" to my Netflix queue.  This film was nominated for Best Animated Film at the 2010 Oscars.  I had heard great buzz about it and was waiting for an opportunity to watch it with the kids.  I really enjoyed it.

The story is that of a young monk living in a city where the Abbot is having a wall built around the city to protect it from the marauding vikings from the north.  The junior monk, Brendan, has never been outside the city walls.  The construction is interrupted by a visit from a monk named Adian.  He visits from a far away land that was destroyed by the vikings.  He carries with him a magical book that Brendan can not get his mind off of.  Where the Abbot who is also Brendan's uncle is a strict disciplinarian, Adian is older and encourages Brendan to explore and imagine.  Brendan sneaks out from the walls into the surrounding forest.  There he meets a young girl that may be a fairy. 

This film is a wonder to behold.  It was created using traditional animation.  Not computers.  The imagery and use of space in this movie is like nothing I can remember.  The story is totally original.  It felt like it could have been an ancient tale passed down through generations.  The skill of the animation as a tool to tell the story is where I was most impressed.  The scenes in the forest, the scenes were the threat of danger is discussed and the scene in the dark place are all so well executed.   It reminded me of the films of Studio Ghibli.  Think of the way Miyazaki uses space and time in an animated frame.  There are no limits.  The Secret of Kells is like an Irish version of that. 

The good news is that both kids seemed to enjoy the film.  I would say quite a bit more that the movie we watched the other day "Secretariat".  My youngest asked all kinds of questions after the film about how cartoons are made.  I also love it when a story (movie) talks about other storytellers.  It always feels so personal.  I gave The Secret of Kells 4/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMPhHTtKZ8Q

Movie #30 The Town

This is the second time I have watched the town.  I wanted to blog about it again because this time I took my father and step mother to the show.  My dad generally liked it.  He likes a little more action in his heist films than this movies provides, but over all he enjoyed it.  My step mom didn't make it though the film.  She has a high sensitivity to profanity.  I didn't even realize that the movie had an excessive amount.  And I had seen it before.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  It is an R rated film about bank robbers in South Boston.  That isn't exactly Sesame Street.  I just thought I might warn anyone that if they do get an allergic reaction to sex, violence or language then The Town might not be for them.

For those of us that can't get enough sex, violence or cursing, and those who enjoy suspenseful well shot action scenes and great performances The Town is a solid film.

Hard to believe these guys kiss their mothers with those mouths.  I mean except the one who's ma was a coked out whore who hung herself with a clothes hanger.

Movie #29 Secretariat

I took the kiddos to the theater this weekend.  At first glance it appeared that there was nothing new out this week and surely nothing as eye catching as last weeks The Social Network and Let Me In.  I wasn't entirely right, but I wasn't entirely wrong either.

Secretariat is based on the true story of the last horse to win the triple crown and the family that raised him.  The movie starts off as pretentious as it is preachy.  I though after 5 minutes that this looks like the perfect place to take an $8.00 nap.  It does come around.  The movie is largely saved by the performance of John Malkovich.  He plays an eccentric trainer attempting retirement.  he is brought on board by the female owner of the horse Penney Chenery (played by Diane Lane).  Penney is the no-nonsense matriarch of the family after her mother dies in the opening minutes of the film.  Malkovich is the only one in the picture that keeps his performance in check.  All the other characters by WAY too far at least once in a while.

This is a films as much about old, white money and it is horse racing.  A topic that I do not find all that interesting.  I like listening to rich white people bicker about weather or not to sell a seven million dollar horse for a mere six million dollars about as much as I like listening to 20 somethings complain that their parents are trying to control them. 

This movie is not a total bust however.  I have to give it credit.  Sports movies, by their nature, are inherently dramatic.  The sport aspect assures that.  Who will win?  The good team that worked had, paid its dues, learned from its mistakes?  Or the bad guys that cheat, take performance enhancing drugs, expect to have things handed to them.  Hoosiers, Rudy, Rocky, and The Karate Kid all quickly come to mind.  Secretariat manages to infuse excitement and drama into a story where I already knew the ending.  I know the horse wins all three races.

The film is extremely sappy though.  It is a Disney production and they seem to still abide to the Hayes Code of the 40's & 50's.  Not bad deed is left unpunished.  They introduce a ridiculous character in the final act to be Secretariat's nemesis.  He plays the rival loud mouth trainer.

Except Malkovich (who was as good as I have seen him in a while) all the performances struggle.  There would be a great drinking game in this movie.  When Miss Chenery finishes a conversation with Mr Chenery and he doesn't say anything, take a shot.  You would be plastered half way through.  I really began to laugh at it.  The actors and directors are mostly to blame for the performances, but the script didn't give them much to work with.  In particular I like how they almost halfway try to work in this 60's hippie vibe using one of the Chenery daughters as a catalyst.  That is until they realize that the hippies were dirty, drug using, protesters.  Disney isn't going to show that.  So they give us the hippie movement by way of the Brady Bunch.  Comicial. 

My kids did seem to enjoy their selves and it had enough moments to keep me awake the entire time so I didn't hate this movie.  I will give it a 2/5 stars and hope that Malkovick continues on this path.  But I have seen the trailer for R.E.D.  Check out the link below for the Secretariat trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKmuvjL2cVw

Movie #28 King Corn

I caught an interesting documentary tonight.  King Corn.  The premise  is two college guys from Boston movie to Iowa to raise an then follow though the food chain an acre of corn.  Sounds simple enough.  What they discovered however is not so cut and dry.

This is a solid documentary.  It is clear that the production budget was low, but that doesn't mean that the film looks amateurish.  My beef with the picture is that I think the film makers play dumb a little too often.  They are the surrogate for the audience, and it is a bit of a slap in the face to think that Americans don't know some if the basic farming staples.  At first I thought i might know some of this because I was raised and currently live in the "corn belt".  But for example are we really that surprised that corn is planted, protected from bugs, fertilized and harvested by large tractors and combines?  Compared to the traditional way of farming by hand or with long forgotten farming tools.  I could have done with a little less of the soft sell. 

What these two guys did find out was fascinating. Things like farmers used to be paid by the government NOT to produce on all their land.  This way the demand was high and then the selling cost of grains would also be high.  Currently farmers are encouraged to grow as much as possible and they are given a bunch of subsidies to counter balance the low cost of grain.  Also, most of the corn grown in Iowa (millions of acres) are not immediately consumable by humans.  90% of the corn grown in Iowa goes to grain to feed farm animals.

This is where the film starts to get a little expose on you.  It just barely chips at the tip of the iceberg of the meat industry in this country.  Films like "Fast Food Nation", and "Food Inc." both really delve into this dark and disgusting corner of the food market.  Apparently corn is the majority of what cows eat now a days and it is killing them.  We plump them up to get the most meat per cow.  Even at the risk of endangering the cows and ourselves in the process.

We then spend a good deal of time on High Fructose Corn Syrup.  This is a food additive created from corn.  It is in nearly everything we eat or drink.  It is quickly replacing natural sugar because it is cheaper and easier to produce.  It is most likely one of the major causes of diabetes in this country.  Let's just say if a man walked up to you on the street and tried to sell you and ounce of HFCS (and told you everything it does to your body) you would run away and call the cops.

The movie then hits on the impact that all this industrialization has had on the family farmer.  A nitch of small town communities that is rapidly disappearing.  They boys rent a acre of land off a kind gentle farmer.  They spend a lot of time with this fella getting to know him and listening to stories of days gone by.  Then at the end of the film he is forced to leave the family farm and auction off his possessions due to lack of funds. 

The films is sort of an up beat picture for all of the negative impacts they find that corn has on people.  Mostly because they didn't focus on one issue.  They jumped around and didn't line the cross hairs up and ask probing questions.  The film makers seemed content to skim the surface of some major issues in service of a peppy story.  I enjoyed King Corn, but would recommend the fantastic documentary Food Inc. for a hard hitting, smart, informative doc on the food industry.  But the next time I drive by a grain elevator and see a small mountain of corn on the ground around it, I will think twice about scarfing down the cheeseburger and large soda.  I would give King Corn a 3/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiCRwMMh9k8

Tonight I will be watching a Kung Fu movie called "Ip Man".

Falling behind on my blogging. I rewatched The Town the other night. I Also started a doc called King Corn that I need to finish.

Movie #27 Gimme Shelter

Maybe having the Hell's Angels work security for you isn't such a good idea.  That is sort of the message in the 1970 documentary Gimme Shelter directed by Albert and David Maysles.  The films chronicles the escapades and events that lead to the free music festival at the Altamont Speedway in 1969.  This concert production was put on mainly by the management of the band The Rolling Stones and Jefferson Airplane.

In the autumn of 1969 the country was still feeling the contact high left over from Woodstock earlier that summer.  Then along comes the worlds largest and most famous hard blues band The Rolling Stones.  They pictured a west coast Woodstock.  In some aspects they succeed.  Unfortunately they were all the wrong aspects.  First off there was a gross misunderstanding of how many people would be attending both festivals.  The venue was expected to hold 50-100 thousand fans.  Estimates are over 300 thousand attended.  Traffic was backed up for miles.  It is reported that it took almost a week to get the traffic flow back to normal after the show.  Another more serious screw up was concerning security.  Woodstock was a free-for-all.  The local police, state, and federal agents tried at first to contain the madness, but ultimately succumbed to it.  At Altamont the Hells Angels were brought in to police the crowd.  The film shows the brutal beating they inflicted on those in attendance.  Altamont recorded two births, 1 homicide (documented in the movie) and three accidental deaths.  One of which drowned in a storm drain overfilled with human waste.

This film works on many different levels.  It is absolutly a time capsule.  I would love to sit down with the people being documented today and get their opinions now that over 30 years has past.  The flower child movement was in full swing.  Naked bodies were gyrating around everywhere you looked.  And drugs.  Oh the drugs.  There were no shortages of every mind altering drug one could imagine.  Nor were there a shortage of people willing to consume those drugs.  This film has some of the most surreal moments I can think of.  I laughed out loud at Jerry Garcia (the lead singer of The Great Full Dead) saying "This is weird".  How screwed up is something when members of The Dead think that things are "weird"? 

The film cuts in and out of a recording studio where members of the Rolling Stones are watching footage of the happenings from that night on stage.  With in this, the Maysles present a brilliant documentary.  They seem to have their cameras in just the right place at just the right time.  If you have ever seen a Maysles brother film you know there is no narration or imposed story lines.  They are not interested in getting a point across.  They simply present the material.  It is up to the viewer to construct whatever narrative you want.  They are sorta the anti-Michael Moore.  In this film they succeed in glorious fashion.  This is now my favorite "Rock Doc".  Sorry The Last Waltz. 

The music in Gimme Shelter is good, but there are constant interruptions when fights break out in the crowd.  If you are interested in a film solely for the music I suggest you check out Ladies and Gentlemen.  The Stones Doc I reviewed last month.  The music in that film is more solid and recorded better.  If however you are interested in a full cinematic experience then this is the film for you.  I enjoy documentaries and have tremendous respect for those who make them.  In particular when you can express a personal style and artistic touches within a documentary without taking away from or imposing anything on your subject matter.  The Maysles are masters of this.  The film is shot beautifully.  The camera work is loose but skillful.  There is a constant feeling of chaos and uncertainty, all the while an undercurrent of control exists. 

Gimme Shelter is close to being a perfect film.  I would easily give it 4.5/5 stars.  And I'll cross my fingers for the Criterion Collection DVD of this movie to be under my Christmas tree this year.  For more information check out the link below for the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPNeh4d9guk

Movie #26 Let Me In

Remakes.  I am the first one in line to complain about Hollywood cashing in on some cheap remake of a classic or foreign film.  How many of my childhood memories are going to be spat upon by the studios.  This year alone there was a remake of Alice in Wonderland, The Karate Kid, Clash of the Titans, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Piranha and I'm sure a slew of others I am forgetting (or trying to).  If you add sequels into the mix I would be that over 50% of the movies released this year were based on some other visual source material. 

Let Me In is a remake of a Swedish film that was released in 2009 called Let the Right One In.  The original film was a much adored feature by the few thousand Americans that saw it in it's theatrical run (myself included).  It has also gained a lot of notoriety after having been released on DVD.  So why would Hollywood feel the need to remake such a little known film?  One that has a loyal all be it small fan base.  This isn't the new Harry Potter film with a legion of fans that will flock to the theater reguardless of the quality of the film.  This also isn't some cheap slasher mash up that can be thrown together for a quick opening weekend cash grab then fade away into the $5 DVD box at Wal-Mart.  The original is an art film.  The original is understated and subtle.  Things that neither Hollywood or remakes are known for.

Those are the questions that are buzzing around this film.  This film is in a "no win" situation.  Remakes are though to never be better than the original, and this isn't the type of movie that is going to draw a large audience on opening weekend.  As a matter of fact my local theater (from now on will be known as the cardboard box) opted to screen Case 39 instead.  Apparently this is a horror picture with Renee Zellweger that I have never heard of, and I hear about every movie.  Judging by the Metacritic scores they chose poorly. Case 39 = 30.  Let Me In = 80.

Let Me In stars Chloe Moretz of Kick Ass and 500 Days of Summer fame.  It also stars Kodi Smit-McPhee.  His major prior role was in last years The Road.  It also has smaller roles for Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas (who apparently has it in his contract that he must play a detective in every role).  The film is about a 12 year old boy who is a bit of an outcast.  He is brutally picked on by the school bullies.  His parents are getting a divorce and he doesn't seem to have any friends.  He meets a young girl who moves into his apartment complex.  Or at least she seems to be a young girl.  The arrival of the girl and her father coincide with some horrific murders.  

The kids forge a awkward friendship.  The girl, Abby, walks around only at night and in the snow without shoes on.  When asked if is cold her response is "I sorta don't get cold".  After watching the trailer I have decided that it is not spoiling anything to inform you that she is a vampire.  What's great about this movie and the original is that being a vampire doesn't really seem to matter that much to the young boy Owen.  It is no different than having bad acne, or a crackling voice to him.  He falls in love with her.

Allow me to say THANK GOD for R rated horror films.  I have grown sick of these PG-13 pseudo horror films.  The one's where they want to scare you, but no so much that scare off the ticket sales of the 14-18 year old demographic.  I am sick of "horror" films that are afraid to be honest with their audience.  Let Me In is R rated and terrifying.  There are no punches pulled and the film is a big success for it!

This remake is very close to the original.  You can tell the film makers had a lot of respect for Let the Right One In.  They didn't go out of the way to change a lot of things.  There is a bit more CG in the remake, some of which works, some of which doesn't.  But they didn't Americanize it too much.  They simply retold the same story in a different language in hopes a new collection of people will discover it.  It has been proven that American audiences will not attend foreign language films in the theater.  That is a shame.  I probably watch 20-30 foreign language films a year.  Not all of them work.  But with the availability of digital photography and mediums like YouTube and OnDemand services world cinema is now more accessible than ever before.  I strongly urge anyone who might read this to give the foreign language films a chance.   Heck email me and I will get you going with a "starters guide to foreign films" DVD list build specific to your tastes.

I really enjoyed Let Me In.  I think it did Let the Right One In a service.  I might even call the comparison a tie.  Anyway, this was a great weekend.  I saw my most anticipated movie of the year with my girlfriend and it lived up to expectations.  Then I was pleasantly surprised by a remake that I had concerns was going to be a thrown together mess.  I would give Let Me In a 4/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h39ikMdei4

IP MAN TRAILER

There's nothing I like better than a good butt kicking martial arts film. And this one looks like a good one.

At Show Me's waiting for Let Me In to open. Football on 20 screens. I'm blogging and listening to movie podcasts!

Movie #25 The Social Network

Late in this movie Jesse Eisenberg as co-founder of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, asks one of his defense attorneys out for a bite to eat after a long day of depositions.  She rejects him instantly.  This is the Social Network movie in a 5 second span.  To say that The Social Network is about Facebook is to say that the movie "Network" is about journalism.  The Social Network is about alienation, obsession, revenge, privilege, ambition, control, jealousy and how having friends affect those issues.  Director David Fincher weaves these themes into every scene without ever hitting you in the face with them.

The movies opens with Zuckerberg getting dumped by his girlfriend after an exhilarating all be it brutal and nasty war of words in a bar.  He goes back to his dorm and starts down a path that begins with drunken blogging and end with him being the youngest billionaire in history. He creates a site where people can rank college girls against other college girls by their "hotness".  This prank ends up crashing the Harvard servers in 2 hours after 22,000 hits.  The campus elite get word of this and recruit Zuckerberg to launch a social networking site that would be exclusive to Harvard students.  Zuckerberg takes that idea and grows it over the next few weeks into what would become The Facebook.  He is aided by his best (only) friend Eduardo Saverin, played be Andrew Garfield.  Saverin puts up the cash for the venture.  He is also being targeted by one of the campus clubs that Zuckerberg wants to be a part of.

The Facebook grows and grows.  They expand it beyond the Harvard campus into the other Ivy League schools, then nation wide using college email addresses as a means of keeping it exclusive.  You are part of a club if you are on The Facebook.  The story takes a turn once the FB team is introduced to Sean Parker.  The creator of the music stealing service Napster.  He is a familiar character.  IF not by name then by his actions.  He is the person Zuckerberg wants to be.  He is cool.  He talks fast, he orders food for everyone at the table, he is surrounded by beautiful women.  He is the antithesis of fame and success.  Although it is all an illusion.  He is broke.  He is crashing at random peoples houses. He is a leach.  Saverin sees it, Zuckerberg doesn't and Parker becomes the crowbar that will divide the two of them.

The film is brilliantly narrated through not one, but two trails Zuckerberg is a part of.  The depositions are a narrative device used to create flashbacks, all the while pushing the story forward.  The first case is Saverin suing Zuckerberg for stealing FB from him.  The other comes from the Harvard trio that claim they first come up with the idea of the social network.  Jesse Eisenberg was given a monstrous task.  Playing a character that at no time is sympathetic.  Not for one instance is the protagonist of the films looked at in a matter that would make the audience care about him.  And he does it brilliantly.  He is aided by director Fincher.  Who never misses an opportunity to exclude Zuckerberg.  In so many frames of the films Zuckerberg is on one side of the screen while everyone else is on the other.  He never once attends a party.  Not even the 1,000,000 member party for FB.  He is isolated either by choice, or by fear.  You decide which one is sadder.

Aaron Sorkin penned the script.  he is probably best know for his work on the TV show The West Wing.  I never watched that show, but I have heard that is was great. I can definitely see where it could be.  He writes the legal scenes with razor sharp jabs and prickly honesty.   He also has fully developed, flushed out characters.  Everyone's motives are clearly understood, but only when they are supposed to be.  Sorkin seem to write more in the silences than he does in the dialogue.  And that is saying something because this film is packed full of dialogue.  That opening scene is reminiscent of His Girl Friday.  I'm not sure if is refreshing, stimulating or intimidating to write a script where everyone is at a Harvard education level of speaking.  But Sorkin nails it.

I could blog about this movie for hours so I will touch on a few other things that really caught my attention.  I am sure that I will be seeing this again the theater again.  First, the score.  The music for The Social Network was composed by Trent Reznor of "Nine Inch Nails" fame.  It is dark and atmospheric.  It is the perfect accompaniment to the mood of the film.  At a couple of points in the film I thought it was a little loud.  As if it wasn't mixed quite right, but overall it was excellent.  It reminds me a lot of the music in There Will be Blood.  Not in style, but in utility.  Next would be Fincher's use of camera.  I literally gasped at a few shots in the movie.  There are only a few working directors that can get away with such bold shot selection.  Not to mention the perfect use of CGI.  How do I know it is perfect?  I couldn't find it.  Finally is the performances.  I though Eisenberg was perfect.  Garfield as Saverin seemed a little overwhelmed.  Perhaps it was because his character is a bit of a patsy.  But the performance that stood out for me was Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker.  What a great, meaty role.  The enfant terrible.  TImberlake dives headfirst into the role and it pays off in spades.

Well, I am off to go see Let Me In.  The remake of last years Sweedish film Let the Right One In.  Look for that review later today or tomorrow.  I'm sure I will be reposting about The Social Network later so look for that as well.  To view more check out the trailer below.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SocialNetworkMovie?v=53OUHupfqws&feature=pyv&ad=6836107426&kw=the%20social%20network%20trailer

At the theater for The Social Network. Review to follow.