Revenge is best served digitally. (Review of "The Social Network")

There is a misconception that a film's main character has to be a likable creation. It is inconceivable to follow a person who is not capable of adhering to our moral standards. They have to be upstanding citizens, nay, upstanding people in general. Any flaws they may possess must be eradicated by the end of the picture, to remind us of their horrendous nature.


Sadly, this threatens to rob films of their candor, instead perpetuating caricatures that have no basis in reality, and solely exist to serve a storytelling purpose. It's rare to find a filmmaker who's willing to let their characters simply be, disregarding the desire to constrict them.


With his lead character in The Social Network, David Fincher has proven, amongst many things, that he is that type of filmmaker.


As a result, Fincher's film, if anything, plays out like a revenge story. It may come as a surprise to some people that Mark Zuckerberg's rise to fame was instigated by his sheer hatred and jealousy of his ex-girlfriend, peers, and ultimately, his closest friend and Facebook co-founder, Eduardo Salverin.


Jesse Eisenberg portrays Zuckerberg as a viciously intelligent creature, never failing to dazzle someone with his wit while insulting someone one else with it. Eisenberg has essayed erudite characters before, but never with such a tenacity. Truly, there seems to be something sinister within his performance, causing the audience to not be quite aware of what he does next.


Napster founder Sean Parker arrives in the second act of the film, and quickly becomes Zuckerberg's mentor, for lack of a better term. However, Parker is more interested in finding a rebound after the Napster legal fiasco, and feels like Zuckerberg's Facebook is the new thing. He's charming, unpredictable, and relentlessly neurotic. Justin Timberlake performs every aspect of this character perfectly, coming off as incredibly magnetic. He eradicates any image of the lovable boy band member, and instead presents himself as a true thespian.


Although Salverin is initially Zuckerberg's best friend and business partner, he becomes increasingly aware of his friend's growing ego, and desire to exclude him from the development of Facebook. Garfield exhibits Salverin's optimism and panic beautifully, and will undoubtedly earn him more than a few award nominations.


A film detailing the origins of Facebook seemed an odd project for Fincher to latch on. However, it's pretty evident why he was drawn to the material, as it could be seen as a companion piece to his previous work, "Fight Club." Like "Fight Club," "The Social Network" is a satiric commentary on male psyche. Rather than focusing on their desire to use the act of fighting as a way to avoid being numb, instead, their need to sleep with beautiful women is the core of this story.


Anyone who believes that this is nothing more than "Facebook: The Movie" will be sorely mistaken. This is a true work of art, a great reminder of what filmmaking can achieve.

A true video-game film. (Review of "Scott Pilgrim vs the World")

In 2003, after a seven year absence, Quentin Tarantino unleashed the first volume of his film, Kill Bill, on the world. It was a joyous blast of brilliantly staged violence, and deliciously well-crafted dialogue. However, more so, it was a regurgitation of the pop culture that Tarantino had absorbed, particularly during the '60s and '70s. Not only did it reference films of various periods, but television programs, commercials, songs, etc. It was a visual capsule of what came before.


Since its release, many films have surely strived to entertain, but could hardly be referred to as products of the past, as Kill Bill was.

Edgar Wright's adaptation of the Scott Pilgrim comic book series, Scott Pilgrim vs the World, however, might be not only this decade's equivalent, but superior to Tarantino's film.

In addition to carrying exuberant storytelling, and an idiosyncratic sense of humor, Pilgrim is also an accumulation of geek culture of the past few decades. Fight sequences are staged as video game/arcade boss battles, accompanied by appropriate music. Scenes are regularly augmented by visual onomatopoeia, in the style of a comic book. The majority of the soundtrack is culled from works as varied as "The Legend of Zelda" and "Seinfeld."

Although the film is a natural progression for Wright, having incorporated games like "Tekken" and "Resident Evil 2" into the storytelling of his television series, Spaced, it's clearly his ambitious as well, easily topping the similarly audacious Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz within minutes. Many attempts are made to capture the tone of comic books, often costing from $150-200 million, but Wright's effort succeeds considerably, with less than half of the budget. It isn't simply replicating the frames; it is keeping the intent of those frames valid.

What also helps is casting the right people, and even if Wright failed on his terms, his stellar group of actors would have been able to pick up the slack. Every great young female actress is in this film, including Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Anna Kendrick, and Aubrey Plaza, and doing nothing short of their best. However, Ellen Wong, largely an unknown prior to being cast as Knives, gave, by far, the most compelling, spirited performance of the film. Her energetic disposition is infectious, and tonally complimentary to the piece. Cera, often referred to as a one-trick-pony, doesn't necessarily give a 180, but makes enough interesting choices with the material to distinguish Pilgrim from his other characters.

Revolutionary as it is entertaining, Pilgrim will resonate greatly with the 8-bit generation.

Sweet dreams (and some films) are made of this (Review of "Inception")

Some filmmakers just like to simply tell a story. They like having strong characters, good dialogue, and great performances, but they wouldn't be bothered if their film doesn't stay with their audience after the credits roll. They're content with entertaining them, believing that is their sole purpose.

Then, there are others, who aren't satisfied with that. They want their work to remain on people's minds for days, weeks, months. Even years. They create their films to be discussed, analyzed, and so forth. Their films aren't disposable entertainment, they're art.

One filmmaker who falls into the latter category is Christopher Nolan. From his debut film, Following, he has established himself as having a singular, and uncompromising voice. Its complex structure, essentially telling three acts of the story at once, set it apart from most independent films. His next film, Memento, had an even more unusual structure. The film was, for a lack of a better expression, "backwards," with each scene chronologically preceding the last. However, what made the film have substance wasn't the structure. It was the fact that Nolan utilized it as a vehicle to deal with themes such as perception, subjectivity, and memory.

Memento was critically acclaimed, even receiving an Oscar nomination, which created an opportunity for Nolan to produce films using the studio system, including Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight. Although they had higher budgets than his previous work, it's hard to discern if they were any less of an accurate representation of Nolan's voice.

Inception, his latest film, is arguably his magnum opus. It is certainly his most ambitious. Not necessarily due to having the largest budget, but the absolute lengths Nolan goes with his storytelling. The sheer imagination presented is far more fascinating than the majority of contemporary blockbusters.

For instance, in one sequence, we see an entire city block be flipped, and put upside down on-top of another one. It works not just because of how well it's executed, but because Nolan was able to immerse us in the reality so well, we are genuinely in awe of this act, rather than being numb to it, as what happens to most summer fare (Transformers, for example).

Once again, Nolan uses the concept of inhabiting someone's dreams as a way to continue many of his themes. Multiple narratives, loss of a loved one, etc. And, while the film is visually spectacular, how it interprets its themes is ultimately the draw, and the focus of the film.

An aspect that helps augment the themes is, of course, the characters. Nolan's characters are, generally, beautifully realized, and that remains the case here. They're performed by an utterly sound cast, with acting legends Michael Caine, and Pete Postlehwaite providing cameos. In particular, Levitt and Page are wonderful together, an indie dream-team, of sorts, considering their backgrounds. DiCaprio, as expected, is more than capable of creating a reliable emotional center for us to attach ourselves to, and Cottillard puts a spin on the role of lost love.

The final moments of Inception will be analyzed and debated about for years to come. Nolan would have it no other way.

Shoot to Thrill (Review of "Iron Man 2")

A filmmaker can face numerous difficulties when creating their art. Casting the right people, applying the proper tone, writing the perfect script. Make no mistake, it's an incredibly challenging position to be in.

When the art in question is the follow-up to a successful and critically acclaimed film, then it becomes doubly difficult. Now, there's an expectation. People have come to love the characters and want to see them grow, yet don't want to be betrayed by their development. This is largely why numerous filmmakers don't even bother to produce sequels to their work, afraid of the negative reaction from fans.

The ones that go about the task of doing so often get lambasted for their efforts. However, there are few that have been able to capture the spirit of the first film, and have even exceeded their entertainment and storytelling value. The films that fall into this category that come to mind are "The Godfather: Part II", "Empire Strikes Back", and "Toy Story 2."

And while "Iron Man 2" certainly aspires, and makes a decent attempt, to stand next to those classics, it ultimately comes up short in delivering the goods.

What made the first film so endearing was its strong emotional core, which was accentuated by Robert Downey Jr's performance. You felt a connection to him, you could understand his struggle. However, despite a few attempts in the sequel, you never quite get the same reaction. Although Downey plays it beautifully, you don't buy it as well. His arc feels somewhat superficial, contrived. You don't necessarily care what Tony Stark's problems are. You laugh at his jokes, you marvel at his zeal, but you don't see his heart.

In fact, you could say that about the film itself. The wit, charisma are all there, but you never once get the heart. In the first film, the characters felt like three-dimensional beings, actual people. Here, there are occasional flashes of that, before replaced by quips and special effects.

However, all that being said, "Iron Man 2" is still enjoyable fun. There are some truly memorable scenes, including a court hearing scene which features classic Downey dialogue. Sam Rockwell, who portrays Tony Stark wannabe Justin Hammer, is magnificent; you can't take your eyes off of him. Scarlett Johansson also handles her complex action sequences with great ease, and has solid chemistry with the rest of the established cast. One of my favorite elements of the first film, the relationship between Stark and his secretary, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), continues quite well, leading into an interesting and satisfying conclusion of their arc.

While hardly destined to be a classic sequel, by emulating the majority of the great elements of the first film, it is able to be a watchable follow-up.

AJP.

Do we get wiser when we get older? (Review of "Greenberg")

We're all getting older. It's an inevitable, and arguably tragic part of life. Like it or not, the rebellious youth we start off life being will eventually turn into a more softened individual; perhaps married, perhaps popping out a few kids here and there, perhaps paying a mortgage. We're all victims of this.

Even filmmakers have to grow up. In his nascent days, Kevin Smith told the tales of the angry, young man, such as "Clerks" and "Chasing Amy," and then, went on to apply a more mature tone in his later work, like "Jersey Girl" and "Clerks II." Although "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" was a bit of a throwback to his earlier films, "Cop Out" reinforced this older sensibility. Richard Linklater followed-up his look at carefree romance, "Before Sunrise," with "Before Sunset," which featured the same characters, but their naiveté was replaced with mid-life crises.

Noah Baumbach's debut, 1995's "Kicking and Screaming," was a witty, and fresh look at post-grads who refuse to move on from their golden college years. Similar to the previously mentioned works, "Screaming" represented the twentysomething generation, the overeducated drifters. It immediately was drafted into the Generation X ranks, despite Baumbach's discomfort with that label.

However, starting with "The Squid and the Whale", Baumbach focused his attention elsewhere, developing a more mature sense of storytelling. Instead of witty twentysomethings, his characters were a self-destructive family, dealing with the parents' divorce. His next effort, "Margot at the Wedding," continued this theme.

"Greenberg", his latest film, is actually, in a lot of ways, is a meeting of his younger and older sensibilities. This is encapsulated in the two leads; Florence Marr, a twenty-seven year old assistant, and Roger Greenberg, a forty-year old failed musician. Their contrast in life experience is apparent in the majority of their dialogue.

Baumbach has never been one to force the audience to like his characters. He does something much riskier: he presents them as real people. Roger is an embittered, neurotic individual, destined to destroy anyone's attempt at reaching out to him. Florence is flawed as well, making one of the biggest mistakes of her life in the first five minutes of the film.

Ben Stiller, known for his broader work, is able to turn in a nuanced, honest performance, his best since his role in Wes Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums." Like Jeff Bridges in "The Squid and The Whale", he understands not only the dramatic aspects of the character, but the humor as well, which could be an oversight made by another actor.

Greta Gerwig is one of the most natural performers to grace the screen. You never once question the reality she presents. Florence is the most developed of the characters Gerwig has portrayed, or at least, it feels as such. Perhaps, it's because it's her most featured role. Regardless, it seems that "Greenberg" will be a great launching pad for Gerwig, and more people will be aware of her immense talent.

Unlike his character, Roger Greenberg, Baumbach has proven that growing older isn't necessarily a burden. At the very least, you can make good movies.

Hardly a "Cop Out"

Re-inventing yourself in the middle of your career is surely an audacious move, especially if you're generally prone to get a decent reception from critics and audiences by staying within your boundaries. Whether or not it actually works out is subective, and pointless to even debate (unless financially speaking, which could be argued. But regardless). But it's quite a commendable feat, one would have to admit, to try something new late in your career.

After his last film, "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," recieved an underwhelming box-office return, filmmaker Kevin Smith had a bit of a mid-life crisis. Although hardly a ticket-led director, he felt that the film should have earned more, and was compromised by a lackluster marketing campaign. However, this would wound up leading to a much bigger revelation: that Smith had lost interest in telling the stories that had defined himself as a director, the tales that helped crusade the pop-culture junkie slacker generation. What would Smith do, having lost this drive?

The answer came to him by way of WB President Jeff Robinov, who, having seen ZAMMAP, sent Smith the script for "Cop Out" (then titled, "A Couple of Dicks.) Smith had largely been disinterested in realizing someone else's script, feeling himself to not be a capable visual filmmaker, simply just a writer who shoots his screenplays. But, after the ZAMMAP fallout, he had a change of heart, and signed on to direct the film.

The film is an unapologetic love letter to the '80s buddy cop comedy genre, and features many of the classic beats of that type of film, such as a rival detective team, damsel in distress, drugs, etc. But with a film like this, you can't simply just admire it at an originality standpoint; Any enjoyment you get will come from the EXECUTION. And in that regard, I believe Smith has succeeded considerably.

Part of directing is knowing how to cast right, and Smith was able to assemble an impressive line-up of actors. There is, of course, Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan, who play off of each other like a seasoned comedy team; Morgan, in particular, is able to show what else he's capable of than what he is offered on "30 Rock." Kevin Pollak, someone who is never cast as much as he needs to be, plays a great sardonic detective, hoping to poke holes in Willis and Morgan's boat. Adam Brody appears as his inferior, following up on his great performance in last year's "Jennifer's Body." Guillermo Diaz portrays an absolutely insane, over-the-top gangster, who has a sometimes peculiar obsession with baseball. And, finally, Sean William Scott essays the role of one of the most idiosyncratic thieves ever seen on cinema, and hits every comedic note beautifully.

Speaking of beauty, Smith has stepped up his visual game quite a bit. There are several dolly moves and pans; always wisely utilized, and helps a largely vernacular film pop. Perhaps with this film, if nothing else, will prove to naysayers that Smith is a credible visual director, and maybe to himself as well.

Yes, this review is coming from a Kevin Smith fan. However, I had my doubts about the film, fearing that it'd be just a vulgarfest, with none of the wit presented in Smith's previous work. And whilst it's not a groundbreaking masterpiece, ultimately, that wasn't the goal. It's supposed to entertain, which is the primal goal of every film. And it's a genuinely entertaining movie.

AJP.

A Look At: (500) Days of Summer

The subject of love as seen in cinema is a tricky beast. It can be interpreted as being manufactured and having no basis in our reality, or overly cynical, which, in a way, is contradictory to love itself. So what is the best solution? What should filmmakers do in order to properly and creatively portray this subject on film?

Thankfully, Marc Webb and co. did not have to worry about this problem with (500) Days of Summer, because, as the narrator clearly states, it's not a love story.

Instead, the film is about misconstrued expectations, the falsehood of memories, and self-happiness.

These themes are represented in the characters Tom and Summer. Tom is a cat who sincerely believes in the "one," having misinterpreted the ending of "The Graduate." Appropriately, he works for a greeting card company. There, he meets Summer Finn, whom he designates as being his one, true love.

Summer, however, is a more complex beast than Tom is initially lead to believe. Their tumultuous relationship causes Tom's behavior, job, and views on life to go completely haywire.

What's truly remarkable about this film is not the outrageous laughs it receives, but the utter, brutal honesty that it offers. The characters in the film are real people, and they behave, and feel just like real people. And despite the idiosyncratic humor, the tone of the film is generally very realistic, a sharp contrast to the cheesy, routine studio pictures of this nature.

One of the most noteworthy and talked about aspects of this film is its peculiar structure. It goes back and forth during the 500 days of their relationship. Seemingly random, it actually helps the audience see Tom's viewpoint, and to be by his side throughout the film.

Portraying Tom is Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who has become a sort of indie king. Tom's a bit of an everyman, which is not the easiest thing to pull off. We get to see all of the colors of the rainbow with his character, from his happy post-coital dance to his drunken despair. Levitt plays it beautifully, never missing a beat.

Deschanel, however, might have the toughest part to portray. Summer could easily be a one-dimensional bitch, simply created to drive the story. However, there are many different shades to her character. Her individuality, blunt honesty, and unorthodox sense of humor. Anyone could play the perfect dream girl. Deschanel does one better: she plays an actual girl.

"500 Days" is, for my money, the be-all end-all look at twentysomething love. A valentine to the maturity that comes out of broken relationships.

When gold loses its luster.

Award shows intend to honor popular, successful films and bring attention to artier, more difficult to market pieces of work. Unfortunately, this is a lose-lose situation, as one seems like pointing out the obvious, and other seems to choose something that isn't well-known. The 2010 Golden Globes, hosted by Ricky Gervais, failed to select any risky nominees, and instead went the easy, and predictable choices.

One of the biggest examples of this was James Cameron winning Best Director for "Avatar." Now, "Avatar" is a wonderful film, truly. A total and veritable game-changer. But game-changer or not, Cameron didn't earn it as much, I think. He hadn't made a picture for twelve years, and when he does, we throw the awards at him, instead of honoring someone like Tarantino, my pick, who had made three movies since he was nominated, four if you are under the "Kill Bill Vol 1&2 are separate movies" party.

An another obvious choice was Christoph Waltz' Best Supporting Actor win for "Inglourious Basterds." However, this was clearly the best choice. Waltz gave easily one of the most memorable performances this past DECADE, let alone year. And none of his fellow nominees even came close to matching the acclaim he received. Hopefully, this will mean he is a shoe-in for the Oscar.

I also think it's time that Pixar not have a monopoly on the animated film category. I mean, seriously, they might has well have an award waiting for them each year. "Up" was one of my favorite films of the year, don't get me wrong. But in terms of the achievement in the animation world, it seems like "Coraline" or "Fantastic Mr. Fox" were more deserving. Their handmade, stop-motion approach is a wonderful, refreshing change from the constant dominance that CG has on the genre.

As a contrast to the state of obviousness mentioned above, a genuinely surprising win was Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner's Screenplay win for "Up in the Air," considering Tarantino was nominated, but well earned, since the film featured the most realistic dialog in some time, along with "Basterds." Although one wonders how much of Turner's work is featured in the film, and if not much, why he might not deserve the win. Regardless, a great choice.

Although some good choices were made here and there during the Globes, it's safe to say that they lost a bit of their luster this year.
AJP.

Favorite films of '09

While I'm not one for being a conformist, there are certain traditons amongst bloggers, film critics, or film geeks in general. One of those is the "Best of '09" lists, which I'm sure, by now, you're all sick of seeing. But allow me to pipe in with my two cents.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: There is still a few films I have yet to see that possibly will make an appearance on this list once I do see them, so consider this blog a work-in-progress. The films I have yet to see are:
"The Hurt Locker."
"Where the Wild Things Are.."
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"Moon."
"Me and Orson Welles."
"The Box."
"Taking Woodstock."
"Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus."

And now, without further ado, my favorite films of the year...

1. Up in the Air
2. Up
3. Inglourious Basterds
4. Funny People
5. (500) Days of Summer
6. Avatar
7. Star Trek
8. Coraline
9. District 9
10. Jennifer's Body
11. Precious

Honorable Mentions :
The Hangover
Orphan
Pirate Radio
Sherlock Holmes