The Social Network

Tim Lincecum will be pitching again on Thursday. I will not be watching any movies for a while.

(Please let Never Let Me Go continue for another week!)

And speaking of Andrew Garfield...

I went to see The Social Network. It is as good as everyone says. If you like Aaron Sorkin's signature dialogue (and I do), you'll enjoy this. To be honest, I don't really feel that I have much to elaborate on what reviews have come before. It's not really about Facebook. It's really about friendship, greed, rivalry, entrepreneurship, and how business is changing. The writing is good, the directing is good, the acting is good. I do hope that Andrew Garfield gets a supporting actor nod. I thought he was fabulous.

I've seen several movies lately that I thought could stand to trim 10-15 minutes, but not this one. It's pretty perfect. And I liked the narrative structure that intercut the lawsuits with the actions surrounding the founding of the site.

It was weird that the CGI on the Winklevoss twins was so perfect, while the cold breath scenes were so jarring. But that was the only complaint I could think of. Well, that and the fact that women hardly figure into the film at all, which I'm sure is not true to real life. (I think Zuckerberg has a long term girlfriend and I think his right hand person is a woman.)

I suppose I'm not really raving about this one, because I didn't fall in love with it the way I did with Winter's Bone (or Zodiac or Fight Club for David Fincher comparisons). And it isn't a 'fun' movie, so it's hard to get super excited about it. But it is incredibly well done and it's surprising that a film that is so much about hacking and writing code is entertaining and dramatic. The drama between the founders and owners takes up much of the film and I did want to know where Eduardo Saverin ended up (according to Wikipedia, he now owns a 5% share in Facebook, worth $1.3 billion).

5/5 stars

It's halloween it's halloween

Speaking of horror films, Shocktillyoudrop has 13 new Halloween classics of the last 20 years. LOVE the top 2.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest

I know. I'm woefully behind on my horror films. But I can't help it - the Giants are in the playoffs, so a lot of my tv time has been monopolized by baseball. I'll probably keep watching things through November.

Also - a quick note on Conviction. I thought the Boston Globe review brought up a good point (surprisingly; I don't think they have the world's best reviews). The bit was this; "Rockwell’s face conveys the emotional wear and tear of prison life, but his character’s struggle is the existential meat of the movie: How do inmates survive an unjust conviction?" While Rockwell really does do a great job in those brief scenes of demonstrating his character, the reviewer makes a great point. I think the movie would have been much better if we had seen more of Kenny's struggle alongside his sister's. But, hey, I'm a big Oz fan. I love prison drama.


ANYWAYS - the Brattle got a special preview screening of The Girl That Kicked the Hornet's Nest, so I went to that last night.

[On a quick note: reason #37 I love the Brattle? Ned was talking up some upcoming shows and mentioned that they would be showing Frederick Wiseman's new film, Boxing Gym, which is mercifully short, and a good chunk of the audience started laughing. How many places in the world will you be around people who get a Frederick Wiseman punchline?]

Back to the Hornet's Nest.

The good news is I liked it much better than the second film. I didn't like it as much as the first film, but overall I enjoyed it. My only quibbles would be that a little bit of the middle started to drag before the trial kicks in (which is surprising, considering how much material they were trying to cram in from the book). Also that a couple of my favorite characters from the book got minimal screen time. But that problem is definitely understandable, given the length of the source material. Oh, and they changed Erika's arc, which I thought made her a little bit shrill in the movie. I liked her so much in the book that I found that change a little disappointing, but it was a pretty minor part of the movie. And I definitely think that Erika needed to stick around Millennium for the plot of the film (in the book she leaves for a different position).

I was discussing the film at work today and I hadn't thought about this before, but I think one of the reasons I really enjoyed it was that it passes the Bechdel Test. I was thinking about how much I enjoyed the scenes between Lisbeth and Annika. And it struck me that I think part of that chemistry is that they are both really interesting, strong female characters interacting with each other, which I don't get to see very often.

I really liked Annika in this movie - I think she provides a really interesting counterpart to Lisbeth. They unfortunately left out one of my favorite cross-interrogations of hers from the book, though - when she tears down the psychiatrist's argument that Lisbeth's piercings and tattoos indicate a damaged psyche.

I don't remember if in the book Annika was pregnant? But she was in the film, and I really liked that, too. It was jarring at first. I can't think of the last time I saw a pregnant woman on film where the film wasn't about her pregnancy. But no - in this film, she was just going around, being a lawyer, and the fact that she was pregnant was never commented on. Just like in real life, but hardly ever like in the movies.

Oh and I loved the guy they got to play Anders Jonasson, Lisbeth's doctor. The actor they picked was younger than I had pictured from reading, but he was so spot on in the way in which he cares for Lisbeth.

Mikael and Lisbeth continue to be riveting to watch. Noomi Rapace is such an exceptionally gifted actress that she can hold the audience's attention so well while being mute and still.

Obviously, there is more in the books, and it will be interesting to see what David Fincher does with the material, but the Swedish films are well worth a watch. (Okay - the second one isn't, but it leads into the third...)

4/5 stars.

Halloween Challenge #4 - The Birds

I've never seen The Birds because I honestly couldn't believe that birds could be scary. The whole premise seemed sort of silly. In fact, it always made me think of a Far Side cartoon in which a farmer and his wife are sitting in their house looking scared and saying, "Oh no! The chickens have cut the power!".

They're birds.

But, I get a lot of; "YOU haven't seen THE BIRDS?" So, fine. I watched it.

My overall impressions is that it has not aged well and it is not one of Hitchcock's better films. However, I did like it more than I expected to, and probably because he is such a fine director. I did get a little bored though (it is just not that scary), so here are my notes taken while watching:

- I had no idea this was based on a story by Daphne Du Maurnier
-Ahh... San Francisco
-I spy Hitchcock!
-Tippi Hedren... she talks funny. I'm surprised they didn't do re-takes for some of her lines.
-the lack of a constant soundtrack

This was actually the thing I noticed most in watching the film and I really enjoyed it. There's a lot of silence. There isn't a constant score playing, trying to ramp up your emotions. It actually does a better job of letting the audience tense up on their own than if there were screeching violins in the background.

-Ah, painted backdrops. You look so silly.
-Man, pecked out eyes. Way gorier than what I would have expected for something this old.
-I'm sorry. I find this romance utterly unconvincing.
-Ok. The birds on the playground is pretty creepy.
-The kids running away? Not so much.
-Tippi is actually a pretty strong heroine. Surprisingly.
-Bitchy old ornithologist FTW.
-Crazy Irish drunk FTW.
-The birds looking down on the explosion might be my new favorite camera shot.
-Wrestling with a seagull? Not. Scary.
-but those live ones sure looked painful.
-Oh my god. Stop standing there and help.
-Some of those sound effects are not birds. They sound like lasers.
-Oh my god. The birds cut the power!
-I take it it back about her being a strong heroine. Open the fucking door!
-Wait, WHAT?!? That's the end? Abrupt much? Sheesh.

There you go. The Birds in 60 seconds. 2/5 stars.

Hallow... nope. Bunny and the Bull

Yeah, yeah. I know. Not doing so well on that whole horror movie thing. But hey - I've got a long weekend coming up.

(and Never Let Me Go and the Social Network to see... Shhh.....)


Bunny and the Bull



I enjoyed this film. It's written and directed by the director of The Mighty Boosh. Actually, the movie feels a lot like A Very Special Episode of the The Mighty Boosh. It's surrealist and a little whimsical and centers on an unlikely friendship. And yes, both Vince (Noel Fielding) and Howard (Julian Barratt) pop up as crazy characters.

The story is about a shut-in, recollecting his jaunt across Europe with his best friend the year before. The shut-in, Stephen, is sensible and practical and had just gotten a PhD in order to ask out a girl at the start of the adventure. His best friend Bunny sleeps around, drinks, gambles compulsively and organizes crab races in Polish restaurants on a whim. On the way they meet a Spanish girl whom, of course, they both fall for.

The film uses a lot of animation and Wes Anderson-style design and eccentrics. Also, I got a lot of flashes of Withnail and I, what with the sensitive somewhat crazy person with the more outlandish crazy friend, only with less Life Upon the Wicked Stage and more graphic design. I liked the animation though, in part because the film is really visually interesting and partly because it works well with Stephen's psychosis and ruminations.

My only complaint was that it could have been a little shorter. It started to drag a little bit in the middle. Overall, though, it was enjoyable. I'd definitely recommend checking it out if you get the chance.

3.5/5 stars.

Halloween Challenge - #3 Time Bandits (?)

Okay, okay. Not really a horror or thriller. But it's been at my house for weeks and I needed to hurry up and see it (again) so that I could get something new. I had seen it before when I was a little girl, but only remembered bits and pieces of it. Mostly the bit at the end with the big fight.

The basic premise is that a little boy hooks up with a roving band of time traveling drawves and they pop through several historical time periods. All the while they are on the run from god (whom they stole the time travel map from) and end up facing off with evil incarnate.

That summary, along with the knowledge that it comes from Terry Gilliam, will give you a pretty good idea of whether you will enjoy it or not. It comes out of the same camp as Labyrinth - fantasy that works best for kids, but is entertaining enough for adults. While I enjoyed Time Bandits, I'm not sure it's as clever as Labyrinth, although Labyrinth may just hold more of a nostalgia factor for me.

Michael Palin (who co-wrote the film) and John Cleese pop up with cameos, and Ian Holm plays a Punch and Judy obsessed Napoleon. Sean Connery turns up as a Greek king, as well, in a segment which attempts to give some emotional grounding to the child star.

Speaking of whom, that child had no eyebrows. I spent the first half hour wondering if it was a young Matt Smith (it was not).

I'm glad I saw it again, if only to remember what happened in it, but I'm not sure I'd recommend spending time on it unless you have kids.

3/5 Stars

Dear Katherine Heigl

Dear Katherine Heigl,

Your bosses might have an issue with you calling the projects you are supposed to be promoting "a little bit sexist" or saying that something "sucks."

The rest of us have an issue with your sexist work sucking.

You don't have an image problem. You have a career problem.

Sincerely,
America


[Update: Girls on Film tackles the issue.]