Nightmare Alley

Director: Guillermo del Toro
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe, Richard Jenkins, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn, Mary Steenburgen, Peter MacNeill, Holt McCallany, Paul Anderson, Jim Beaver, Clifton Collins, Jr., Tim Blake Nelson
Running Time: 150 min.
Rating: R 

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Part remake, part noir homage, Guillermo del Toro's Nightmare Alley will likely go down as one of those more respectable reimaginings that gets more right than wrong, making for an immersive, entirely agreeable experience. Free of the supernatural elements that have categorized much of del Toro's work, all the attention shifts to the soullessness and moral corruption that resides within. And there isn't a much better a setting for that than traveling sideshow carnivals of the 30's and 40's, populated by downtrodden characters being either used, abused or manipulated as scams and cons run amok. With a script from del Toro and co-writer Kim Morgan, the second feature adaptation of William Lindsay Gresham's 1946 novel doesn't stray too far from the source material in the narrative sense, instead stylistically distinguishing itself in a class of its own, as del Toro's output tends to. 

With a stacked, all-star-cast and awe inspiring production design, the plot's essentially one long con game, and while the second half payoff's considerably more impactful than what precedes it, the whole setup looks better in retrospect, especially once the story arrives at its inevitably tragic destination. There's a certain aesthetic superficiality at play that matches its characters, so even while it doesn't transcend the horror genre to evolve into something more profound, you'd still be hard-pressed to find a a movie of its ilk more technically proficient or firing on as many cylinders.

It's 1939 and Stanton Carlisle (Cooper) takes a job as a carny after burning down his house with a dead body inside. When the carnival's owner, Clem Hoatley (Willem Dafoe) recruits him to help with the show's geek, who's fallen ill, Stan moves up to begin working with clairvoyant Madame Zeena (Toni Colette) and her alcoholic husband, Pete Krumbein (David Strathairn), who teaches him the secrets of their act. While learning and studying their cold reading and coded language tactics, he begins to fall for shy performer Molly Cahill (Rooney Mara), offering up some valuable new ideas for her electrocution act. But after Pete dies from consuming wood alcohol, Stan takes the lessons he's learned on the road with Molly as his assistant, leaving their carnival days behind to reinvent himself as a psychic act for Buffalo's wealthy elite. 

Ignoring Pete's warnings about leading people on when it comes to contacting the deceased, Stan's bluff is called by mysterious psychologist Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett), who attempts to publicly expose  his act as a fraud, with little success. Humiliated but intrigued by the scammer, she offers him a deal involving a rich but potentially dangerous patient named Ezra Grindle (Richard Jenkins) whose lover died years ago from a forced abortion. Despite Molly's objections, Stan makes promises to Grindle about his late partner he may not be able to keep, ensnaring himself in a web of lies and deceit from which there may be no escape. 

What makes this all mostly work is that there's just enough revelations and twists in the script, while still remaining relatively simple at its core. Themes of greed, avarice and betrayal are front and center, eventually coming full circle in a powerful ending, but not before some convoluted happenings occur along the way. Del Toro strikes just the right tone, especially in the early carnival scenes that set Stan on his dark path, eventually dragging Mara's Molly down along with him, though she admittedly registers a bit flat as a character.

Cooper's incredibly effective depiction of the protagonist's transformation from wide-eyed, ambitious awe into obsessive greediness is facilitated by the supporting cast. Whether it's Strathairn's hopeless drunk, Collette's tarot reader or Dafoe's swindling huckster, they all more than carry their share of the load. As does Tamara Deverell's production design and Dan Laustsen's cinematography, which immerses them all in this weathered, dirty, depressing "freak show" world. That this was also released in black and white actually makes a lot of sense, as it's hard to think of any recent picture with a content and visual style better suited to that treatment without it feeling like a gimmick. 

It isn't until Stan takes his act on the road with Molly and encounters Dr. Ritter that the movie really comes alive, with the possibility presenting itself that the ultimate player has finally met his match.  Blanchett's femme fatale looms largest of any character, bringing a cunning, seductive sense of danger and intrigue to Ritter with each carefully calculated move she makes. Her nomination-worthy performance is the ideal fit for this material, with the chemistry she shares with Cooper fueling the film's most tension-filled moments, even as it's clear the direction del Toro's heading in the last act. 

There are clues and brief flashbacks emphasizing a past Stan needs to run far away from, but can't, no matter how hard he tries. With this mentalist show, he's devised a one-way ticket to the big time, unaware his own weaknesses are about to be exploited and exposed as callously as his clients have been by him. What starts as a scheme goes entirely too far, his eventual comeuppance arriving in the final scene, sentenced to the very life he so desperately tried to escape, at any cost imaginable.    

Even as Del Toro's direction trumps the script, you'd often never know it, as the atmosphere and performances carry the day, specifically Bradley Cooper's. Further extending his run as maybe the most consistently reliable actor and movie star working today, he delivers again with his portrayal of this ambitious, narcissistic carny more than willing to sell his soul, or anyone else's, for a quick buck. Relentlessly depressing and darkly humorous, Nightmare may not be for all tastes, but it's still a keeper, likely to be revisited down the line as something slightly more accomplished than its critical and commercial reputation suggests.  

A Ghost Story

Director: David Lowery
Starring: Casey Affleck, Rooney Mara, Will Oldham, Sonia Acevedo, Rob Zabrecky, Liz Franke, Kenneisha Thompson, Barlow Jacobs
Running Time: 92 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

How often do we hear the obviously discomforting phrase, "Life Goes On" when someone passes away? If David Lowery's haunting and affecting A Ghost Story isn't one the saddest films about loss that's ever been made, then it's certainly among the greatest. It takes that statement and truly gets inside it, offering up a contemplative, poetic meditation on living and dying in this universe that's so important it feels as if we've been given answers to questions we didn't know we needed, or even wanted. And the script never once advertises it's doing that. Lowery just lets his story wash over us, showing what it must be like, to not only live with the grief surrounding a catastrophic loss like this, but be the deceased. It knows that while life does technically "go on" for most, it's nothing but an empty platitude when applied to the person who's gone.

So, how then can this film possibly attempt to articulate the feeling of no longer being alive? It's not as if the deceased can feel or do anything. And that's exactly the point. The entire concept is ingenious in its simplicity, and as you've already likely heard, this is the movie where Casey Affleck stands around in a white sheet with eyeholes and Rooney Mara eats an entire pie. That's the easy description, and on that alone you'll get a handful of people who won't see it, or will, and say they were bored to tears because "nothing happened." That's fine, but a lot happens, just not in the way anyone's used to. Emotionally, it's difficult to get through because it dares to go places that guarantee a lasting experience for those prone to falling under its spell.

Sparse and achingly real, there isn't much narrative to be found because it's interested in ideas large enough to transcend it. What starts as a painful reflection on love and loss gradually builds to more, crossing time, space and existence as it maintains this uncomfortable intimacy with the familiarity and monotony of everyday life. Unbearably depressing and strangely uplifting all at once, it's staying power already seems unrivaled, continuing to grow in my estimation since its initial viewing.

Quiet, sensitive Texas-based musician, "C" (Affleck) lives with his wife, "M" (Mara) in a small suburban home he loves, but she's hoping they can soon move out of. Unfortunately, the final decision rests with neither, as a tragic, sudden car accident claims C's life as he pulls out of their driveway early in the morning. While lying on the mortician's table, his spirit appears to rise from his lifeless body, and wearing a white bedsheet with two eye holes, he returns to their house as a passive, invisible observer of his grieving widow. Watching as C attempts to put the pieces of her now shattered life back together, he takes in the painful realization that things will gradually get easier for her. Soon, he'll be gone a little longer, and as a result, that absence may mean a little less.

C will meet new people and will surely now want to sell a house that contains plenty of warm memories, but stands primarily as a depressing reminder of a future together that's gone. While she can leave, he's trapped, standing on the sidelines long enough to frustratingly witness a new family move in and the house turn over yet again. He stays and waits for her to come back. Will she? When C's journey finally takes him out of the house, he embarks on a transformative trip through time and memory, finding out what it truly means to leave a lasting legacy in a universe where everyone has a history.

Emotional devastation. That's really the only proper description for what Lowery accomplishes in taking a seemingly ludicrous premise of a dead guy walking around in a ghost sheet and wringing such pathos out of it. Even one or two half-steps wrong in the presentation of this admittedly high risk concept could have resulted in disaster, but he somehow successfully walks that razor's edge, delivering this melancholic tone poem that haunts and wonders with each new scene. Much of that comes from the fact that you can sense the presence of C under the sheet.

You can just tell it's Casey Affleck under there rather than some stand-in or double. From the height to the posture and movements, it's definitely him, and you get the impression any attempt at a substitution would negatively manifest itself in a piece built entirely around mood and feeling. He has to move just right for all of this to work and not seem ridiculous, but Affleck goes several steps further with his head gestures, finding ways to convey an entire range of emotions through, yes, a sheet.

Much has been made of Rooney Mara's infamous pie-eating scene, but it seems that audiences are more put off by the audacity of the idea than the actual event, which sees her desperate, grief stricken character ravenously goes to town on this pie all within a single take. It's clear why the scene's here, as it might be the only true release M allows herself in the wake of this tragedy, but what's less obvious is how anyone could have serious thematic issues with it. If they're just bored then that's fine, as the film probably isn't for them anyway since many other scenes feel even longer. But Lowery's not just being pretentious or trying to shock. Rather, it's a deliberate attempt to take us inside the head space of a character who's dying inside, and that it succeeds at it (and much more when factoring in who else is in the room) should be enough to claim it works better than any lines of spoken dialogue could. It also calls to mind an old expression that you'd even watch a certain actor or actress just read the phone book for two hours. This takes less time, but substitute a dessert dish for that phone book and Rooney passes the test.

Possibly from corroborating once before on a Lowery project, Mara and Affleck have this easygoing shorthand as a couple in the early scenes, of which there are surprisingly few. Once the death occurs, most of the remainder belongs to her, carrying those scenes of grieving with expressions and silences that seem unconsciously plugged in to his spectral presence without ever truly being aware of it.
Daniel Hart's unnerving and hypnotizing score also adds to that feeling with invisible subtly, even as the film's loudest proclamation of outright emotion, Hart's band Dark Rooms' "I Get Overwhelmed" exceeds any expectation of a song powerful enough to break down the barriers between life and death.

With long enough stretches of no dialogue to qualify as a silent film, Lowery leans heavily on visuals, sound design, score and the performances to tell the story. The combination of being shot in an extremely boxy aspect ratio and Andrew Droz Palermo's washed out, grainy cinematography recreate the look of a vintage photo, while also serving to enhance the claustrophobia. It's as if we're looking through a peephole or viewfinder into these characters' lives, much like the deceased protagonist.

It's hard to prepare for what you'll experience when a premise this far outside the box lands on your lap. But there's no mistaking that A Ghost Story is, in every possible sense, an experience, albeit one requiring the viewer to enter with an open mind and heart. So many of its scenes are unforgettably haunting. Whether it's a sudden, explosive expression of the ghost's anger directed at strangers who have taken over his home, an unbearably sad, subtitled silent conversation that takes place between apparitions, or time travel trips into the future and past that deliver a cold but somewhat comforting truth: While the world goes on without us, it's entirely possible we each left a mark that made it just a little better for whoever comes next.

Lion

Director: Garth Davis
Starring: Dev Patel, Sunny Pawar, Rooney Mara, Nicole Kidman, David Wenham, Abhishek Bharate, Divian Ladwa, Kheshav Jadhav, Priyanka Bose
Running Time: 118 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Lion earns its Best Picture nomination in its opening half, trusting the audience to not only comprehend, but become completely enveloped in a story that's initially spoken entirely in Hindi, and without the benefit of subtitles. It turns out to be a wise bet. The opening 45 minutes are so expertly calibrated and performed, brimming with lump-in-your-throat moments of disbelief, perseverance and astonishment, it was almost inevitable that whatever followed would pale in comparison. That it doesn't, at least completely, is somewhat of a tiny miracle, with much of that credit going to Australian director Garth Davis, who in adapting Saroo Brierley's 2013 autobiographical novel, A Long Way Home, temporarily refutes the theory that Hollywood filmmakers pander to the lowest common denominator when it comes to depicting foreign cultures.

It opens with a mistake that has ripple effect on more than a few lives, but the true revelation might come in how frequently something like this occurs, or how little we hear about it. Then after a certain point, Luke Davies Oscar-nominated screenplay does kind of hit a wall, which has led to harsh criticisms that the film stretches out a 30-second spot for Google Earth to a two-hour running length. But there's just too much else it has going for it to make those completely complaints valid since, despite a weaker middle portion, the performances, cinematography and underrated musical score make it too powerful an experience to dismiss.

It's 1986 and a five year-old boy named Saroo (Sunny Pawar) lives with his mother Kamla (Priyanka Bose), older brother Guduu (Abhishek Bharate) and younger sister in a tiny, poor village in Khandwa, India. One night, when Saroo joins his brother Guduu for a night of train-hopping for food, Guduu leaves his napping little sibling at a station and when Saroo awakens to find his brother hasn't returned, he boards a train headed to Calcutta. Now completely lost and wandering around a city where he doesn't speak or understand the Bengali language, Saroo must survive on the crowded streets and rely on the help of strangers, some with motives more nefarious than others. After landing in the custody of police and eventually an orphanage, Saroo is adopted by Australian couple Sue (Nicole Kidman) and John Brierley and goes to live with them in Tasmania.

We catch up with him twenty years later as a young man (now Dev Patel), studying for his degree in  hotel management and involved in a relationship with American classmate, Lucy (Rooney Mara). But despite Saroo having a fulfilled life and more than anyone from his background could have hoped for, there's an incompleteness that eats away at him, stemming from a desire to track down his biological family and make sense of that night's events over two decades ago. While his adopted mother struggles with family challenges of her own, Saroo wrestles with the guilt and hope of finding "home," embarking on a journey of self-discovery sure to have a lasting impact on those he holds closest.

The opening section actually shares some similarities with the last entirely Indian-flavored Best Picture nominee (and eventual winner), Slumdog Millionaire. And while we know, like that film, we'll eventually be given our happy ending, the scenes of kids on the street here have a far different tone, especially when watching a scared young Saroo aimlessly searching for his brother in a perilous situation surely qualifying as an immediate "Amber Alert" if it took place today in the states. Even in 1986, as commonplace as lost, homeless children in India may have been, it's still kind of frightening to see through western eyes.

What really sells this is the editing and the likably adorable child actor playing young Saroo, Sunny Pawar, whose combination of wide-eyed panic and innocence, along with some steely determination, carries the first half of the picture, eliminating the language barrier for both him and us. It seems like eternity he's on the streets, avoiding kidnappers and potential child molesters on his way to who knows where. It's disturbing how few people care about kids like him running around in the streets and really do nothing even when they think they are. That is until, by sheer luck, he meets someone who finally takes the necessary measures to offer actual help.

After watching this five-year-old struggle to survive after being separated from his sibling, it's of little surprise the second half of the film would have to work hard to match the Dickensian heights of its opening hour, both in tone and quality.  But it works well as a logical next chapter, thanks largely  to the strong performance of a nearly unrecognizable Dev Patel as the adult Saroo, whose suddenly jolted into finding his biological family, but fears the ramifications of what going forward with such a plan could do to his adoptive mother, already at the breaking point dealing with her other adopted Indian son, the emotionally disturbed Montash. The casting of both the child and adult versions of this role are spot-on, as actors Kheshav Jadhav and Divian Ladwa are so eerily identical in both manner and appearance you'd really think the filmmakers pulled a Boyhood, checking in with the same person twenty years later.

The entire second half really belongs to Patel, who nearly everyone had written off as a one-movie wonder after Slumdog Millionaire peaked almost a decade ago. And for a while there, it really looked like they were right. He returns in a big way here, a better, more mature actor, fully capable of handling the complexity of emotions running through Saroo as he embarks on his (Google) search for his birth mother. Just the very conceit of this true story could have been problematic on screen, but Patel takes what could have been a dramatically inert arc and draws us into his journey, which is as much internal as external. It helps that the first half of the picture was so strong, that our recollection of the opening half hour drives nearly all interest in the rest, with him filling in the blanks.

Rooney Mara's role and performance has been criticized by some as a throwaway, and while her work as Saroo's girlfriend Lucy won't be the first discussion point coming out of the film, it shouldn't  anyway. It's entirely functional since we need to know the man that young boy has become and what his life evolved into in the twenty years since the train station, not to mention what he could potentially be risking or giving up by doing this. Her part is what it is, and the never uninteresting actress serves it well, despite the nagging feeling she could have been given more. The other half of the equation is Nicole Kidman, who as Sue gets opportunities in the latter half to convey a woman crumbling at the emotional distance that's been put between her and her family, which has more to do with the struggles of raising the far less adjusted adopted son than Saroo's secret urge to reconcile his past.               

Intelligently addressing universal issues involving memory and identity, Lion tells a worthwhile, important story that most will feel more fulfilled having experienced. As for whether it manipulates, all movies do. The real question is how well. Aside from an unnecessary ending coda that spends too much time reinforcing a point the preceding hour and a half made perfectly clear (an epidemic these days), this more than passes that test, and does it with two phenomenal performances in the same central role, one which could easily be remembered as the year's most satisfying acting comeback.
     

Her

Director: Spike Jonze
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara, Olivia Wilde, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Pratt, Matt Letscher, Portia Doubleday, Brian Cox
Running Time: 125 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

I'll have to tread lightly in properly explaining my minor disappointment in Spike Jonze's Her. The very word "disappointment" is a film critic's worst enemy because it implies expectations. That in itself isn't fair, but it's true. When you have a director that's as original and groundbreaking as Jonze you can't help but anticipate a grand slam each time out. It's very good, but leaves this nagging feeling it wasn't all it could have been, despite it being difficult to describe exactly how. To be honest, it's kind of surprising it's struck the chord it has amongst critics and moviegoers, even earning enough admiration to sneak in as a Best Picture nominee. Something this eccentric usually ends up splitting everyone down the middle. But it's easiest to name what it does exceptionally well, and topping the list is the depiction of a near-future that's completely believable in terms of technology and its effect on our lives.

Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), is a shy introvert who works for a company that writes personal love letters, but he's lately been distracted and depressed over his upcoming divorce with childhood sweetheart, Catherine (Rooney Mara). His new rebound girlfriend is an Operating system, or OS, named "Samantha" (voiced by a never seen Scarlett Johansson), who's designed to behave and evolve as an actual human being would. Unready for the commitment that comes with an actual human relationship so soon after the collapse of his marriage, he unrealistically holds out up for a reconciliation with Catherine, even if Samantha seems to be the perfect substitute. For him, it represents the chance to open up about his fears and dreams without having to deal with the complications that might accompany a conventional relationship (or so he initially thinks). For Sam, it's a chance to learn and grow, transcending her role as an OS to more closely resemble an actual person with real, rather than programmed, feelings. Of course, both want something out of this neither can possibly get from the other and with that comes the realization that even an artificially programmed relationship can come with pitfalls. And for the emotional fragile Theodore, just as much pain.

That this still feels like a one man show with so loaded a cast is a credit to what Phoenix does with a role that on paper seems thankless. He steers this premise as far as he can and then some because, if we're being completely honest, this is still about a man who falls in love with his computer. And yet not. It's up to the actors and script to somehow make that concept work, so from that perspective it's hard to call the effort anything other than a success. As for Johansson, it's ironic she isn't physically present to witness what ends up being her most captivating performance in a while. When compiling a list of her greatest attributes, her unmistakably deep and raspy voice probably goes unnoticed by comparison, making it a stroke of casting genius from Jonze to recognize that and nab her. It's also maybe a stroke of luck considering the part was originally intended for Samantha Morton, who was dropped at the last minute. More than that, there's this rare opportunity for Johansson's looks to be taken completely out of the equation. The conversations and flirtation between the two are initially compelling, and when the time comes for their relationship to get "physical," what occurs is downright bizarre.

We know where all this is headed and it's hardly a spoiler to say that Theodore is going to get dumped to learn lessons about life and himself. And that's when it started overstaying its welcome a bit with me in the third act. There are only so many arguments, misunderstandings, make-ups and examples of petty jealousy you can take, especially when one half of the couple is a disembodied voice. And because the relationship is is so believable it almost veers away from speculative sci-fi and social commentary, evolving instead (along with Samantha) into conventional relationship drama territory. When that happened, I started losing interest and at just over two deliberately paced hours, it's arguable Jonze should have spent more time in the editing room. The closing half hour in particular seems to almost spin motionlessly, in search of an ending. Eventually it finds one, even if I'm still not sure it's the one it deserved. 

It's worth noting how everyone around Theodore reacts to his new girlfriend since it teeters on the edge of being completely absurd, while somehow remaining relatively realistic. For ex-wife Catherine, it's the former, and yet another excuse for him to avoid a real adult relationship with responsibility and actual consequences. We're shown poignant glimpses of their marriage and it's relatively easy to judge what went wrong based on flashbacks and a pained conversation  between the two late in the film. His friend Aimee (Amy Adams, basically covering Cameron Diaz's role in Being John Malkovich, complete with the frizzy hair), is supportive, as is his happy-go-lucky co-worker Paul (Chris Pratt). Seeing everyone's differing reactions to Samantha within the context of this society was strangely more interesting to me than anything involving Theodore's relationship with her. But the most discussion-worthy scene involves his blind date with a clingy friend of Aimee's (memorably played by Olivia Wilde), that doesn't at all go in the direction you're expecting, and the result is all the more intriguing because of it.

Her is melancholy in both tone and atmosphere, to the point that at times I found it almost unbearably depressing and claustrophobic, with very few moments of uplift. Even the supposedly happy moments have this tinge of sadness to them. Did it hit too close to home? Am I just sick of watching people on their phones? Or maybe it's impossible to feel any true excitement watching a man fall in love with his operating system. You bring a bit of yourself to every movie you see but that rings especially true here, as anyone who see it is likely to only do so through the filter of their own experiences and relationships. But it sure is something to look at. The world building by Jonze, the costume and production team, and cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema is incredible, making it impossible to go through a scene without appreciating all the attention to visual detail. As expected, Arcade Fire's score is top notch. Going just far enough, it resembles a future we'd recognize, but features enough elements that it could easily be mistaken for the present or any other point in time. The aesthetic decisions not only make sense, but don't date the movie, insuring it could be one of the rare future cinematic societies we don't giggle at a few years down the line.  

The situation that unfolds here could literally happen next week, if not right now. Everyone's already figuratively in love with their phones and electronic devices so the idea of a lonely man literally falling in love with one isn't much of a stretch at all. Jonze should be praised for not making that obvious point and turning the premise into a finger wagging condemnation of our obsession with modern technology, which would have been too easy, not to mention pointless. Instead, you could argue the exact opposite argument is made, in that technology can open our hearts and minds, just as long as it isn't used a surrogate for curing the personal problems we heap on ourselves. 

Side Effects

Director: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Rooney Mara, Channing Tatum, Jude Law, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Ann Dowd, Polly Draper, David Costabile, Mamie Gummer
Running Time: 106 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)
 
The character Rooney Mara plays in Side Effects is so interesting and complex it's easy to imagine a wide variety of films across different genres that her protagonist could have been the centerpiece of. It just so happens that the one Steven Soderbergh decided to make is a 90's-style psychological thriller. And who would have guessed? He's really good at it. Of course, it's not that much of a surprise. He's good at most things, often impossible to pigeonhole into any specific genre. I had originally intended to label this, his supposed send-off as a feature director, as "smart" or "clever" until further reflection convinced me the story itself is kind of prepostruous. Almost spectacularly so, with twists and turns so far-fetched and convoluted they would never hold up in any cinematic court of law, much less a real one. And yet, Soderbergh brings an artistry to the material that makes it seem incredibly intelligent. It's all in the "how" and by the end I was almost howling with laughter at the events that went down, which, for a change, is actually meant as a sincere compliment.

Mara is Emily Taylor, whose husband Martin (Channing Tatum) has just recently been released from prison after serving a four year sentence for insider trading. His return and Emily's struggles to adjust to a less opulent lifestyle causes her depression to resurface when she drives her car head-on into a parking garage wall in an apparent suicide attempt. Psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) is put in charge of her care, prescribing her a variety of anti-depressants while consulting with her former therapist Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) regarding her history and the best approach to treatment. Seemingly an emotional wreck on meds or off, Emily tries a new experimental drug called Ablixa, which allows her to function normally, aside from one dangerous side effect. This causes another incident where the intended victim this time the isn't herself, causing a controversial ethical and legal dilemma. Then twists and turns come at full force.

Initially the film moves at a deliberate, methodical pace that  practically mirrors the mood of the depressed, withdrawn Emily. Until it doesn't. For a while the movie itself also seems to be on meds as the first hour plays as almost a dream, giving us as good a glimpse as any into what it must be like to be utterly and hopeless to the point of being barely functional. While depression is usually defined as the inability to construct a future, for a while we wonder if this girl's even able to construct a present. She also seems gifted with the most understanding mother-in-law (Ann Dowd) and boss (Polly Draper) on the planet. Then the big event happens and I'll be careful not reveal too much other than a crime is committed that has huge ramifications for every character and calls into question just how responsible a doctor should be held over their patient's actions, as well as how responsible an actual patient is for their own behavior while under the heavy influence of prescription medication. As quickly as screenwriter Scott Z. Burns brings up these issues, he ditches them in favor of going a route that's a bit sillier, but still expertly crafted. And the transition getting there is seamless. The twists and turns aren't exactly shocking when you think back on them and a great deal of what happens stretches credibility even for a legal potboiler, but everything is just too well executed and performed for the viewer not to be totally sucked in.

When it becomes apparent where everything's going, you start to realize how tricky the scenes are to perform and that none of it would have succeeded without Mara's sad, almost other worldly performance that evolves into something else entirely in the film's second half. Some actresses just have that"it" factor. An indescribable presence that can't be described in any way other than an inability for audiences to take their eyes off them whenever they're on screen. She's got it and is able to convey so much with just her face that dialogue hardly even seems necessary during the opening hour. Only when the final credits roll do you realize just how much she had to do without looking like she was doing anything at all and how the original casting choice of Blake Lively (who dropped out before filming) probably wouldn't have fit what Soderbergh was going for because of her accessibility and openness as a movie star type. Mara is much harder to read and far less accessible as an actress, which only serves to help make her more captivating than ever here.

For Law and Zeta-Jones this represents their highest profile roles in some time, with the former basically owning the movie's second half as lead when the focus shifts to Dr. Banks, while Jones chews up and relishes what might be the most  over-the-top, certifiably insane part the usually buttoned-up actress has had yet. Tatum has by far the smallest and briefest role, but following last year's discovery that he's actually a good actor, the floodgates have opened in terms of the types of roles he can play. Despite limited screen time, he's believable in this one.

While the debate's already underway as to Soderbergh's best film (Contagion gets my vote), there's little doubt this is easily his most fun. He has a very distinctive visual style that really seems to have come into its own in his last few releases and there's mistaking that this very much bares his mark, with a script that matches his cool, clinical aesthetic perhaps more than any of his previous efforts. The direction definitely outweighs the script, as it's easy to imagine a low-rent version of this that would go straight to video on demand or play on cable late at night if it were put in the hands of a less accomplished filmmaker.  It takes real skill to take material that treads similar territory as cheesy thrillers like Jade or Wild Things and turn it into high art but he pulls it off with style to spare. And without Mara in the lead I'm not sure any of it would have been possible, as she conclusively puts to bed any doubts she's the real deal. If Side Effects really is Soderbergh's last feature before retiring (which I don't buy for a second by the way), it'll be hard for anyone to say it wasn't a fun way to go out.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Director: David Fincher
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgard, Robin Wright, Yorick Von Wageningen, Steven Berkoff, Joely Richardson, Goran Visnjic
Running Time: 158 min.
Rating: R

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

It's a terrible feeling when a highly anticipated release lets you down. It's an even worse feeling when it's made by your favorite director. But in the interest of looking at the glass half-full, David Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo remake is probably as good as it could possibly be and it's easy to imagine a worse result had another filmmaker tried to tackle it. I haven't read author Stieg Larsson's first book in his "Millenium Trilogy," nor have I seen the 2009 Swedish film adaptation that starred Noomi Rapace in the title role. But what's interesting is how little interest I want to after seeing this. And that's not to say the picture is a full-on failure by any stretch. From a direction, production and acting standpoint it's actually outstanding, which leads me to believe the source material is the culprit here, preventing this project from ascending to a higher level. It feels like a David Fincher film. It looks like a David Fincher film. But the soul is missing. Two intersecting stories are being told and while one is moderately successful the other is unmistakably ordinary. The acting and direction almost save the day, struggling to lift the material out of routine thriller territory.   

Disgraced journalist and co-owner of the Swedish Millenium magazine Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) has just lost a very public libel case brought against him when he's hired by millionaire Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to investigate the disappearance and possible murder of his grandniece Harriet 40 years ago. It's a case full of holes and mysteries in which Blomkvist relies on old photographs, notebook scribblings and feuding siblings to unravel the sordid secrets of the dysfunctional Vanger clan in hopes of finding leads. Upon requesting a research assistant, he's given tatooed, body-pierced computer hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), who has a history of physical and sexual abuse. A ward of the state due to mental incompetency, she's forced to perform sexual favors for her rapist guardian Nils Bjurman (Yorick Von Wageningen) in order to receive an allowance. That is until she breaks free. Cold and untrusting, Lisbeth isn't the easiest partner to work with but she and Blomkvist make an effective team as they inch dangerously closer to discovering the truth about Harriet's disappearance.

It takes almost an hour and a half into the almost 3 hour film before Lisbeth and Blomkvist even meet with much of the preceding time allotted to setting up the mystery and getting to know the leads. With Lisbeth's situation it's time mostly well spent but Blomkvist's investigation and the case is a drag, too often playing like a poor man's Zodiac. It just isn't interesting at all and at times seems completely indistinguishable from a missing persons TV crime drama case. Even more alarming is that none of the plot developments caught me off guard despite having zero familiarity with source material or the original Swedish film. It's also odd the revelations would be so dry, especially considering how cool and edgy the film has been touted as being. Most of that edginess comes when the focus is on Lisbeth and remarkably I had no problems believing the relationship that develops between her and Blomkvist or how quickly it was consummated. In fact, given how psychologically damaged she is and how bored he must have been from investigating this case, it almost seems inevitable.

Mara's performance is about as great as you've heard, sporting a remarkable, unwavering Swedish accent and doing her best to supply depth where there's seems to be very little coming from Steve Zaillian's script. Though I was still unsure at many points how I was supposed to feel about Lisbeth as a character. Regardless of how she's depicted in the novels or original films, I did sense a play was being made to make her increasingly sympathetic to the point of almost being a lovesick puppy as the film entered its final act, which seems at odds with how uncommercial everything else is. Daniel Craig's miscast as a passive bookworm but turns in typically strong work anyway. If anything, this role really highlights the challenges facing Craig in a non-James Bond project since it's inescapably off-putting seeing him play such a non-heroic part, especially in a thriller. I had to keep reminding myself Blomkvist was just a journalist who can't shoot his way out of any situation. Stellan Skarsgard, Robin Wright, Joely Richardson and Steven Berkoff are given roles of varying importance and quality to the story.

That the film's sole Oscar win for editing is a head-scratcher, unless the honor refers to the least amount of editing. There were many spots during the first hour where I felt certain scenes could have been chopped and tightened for clarity, as it marks the first instance in a Fincher film where copious details don't justify an exorbitant running time or add depth to the story in any meaningful way. This is especially true at the tail end where there's a perfect point to start wrapping up the picture following a chilling sequence that's highlighted by an unforgettably creepy musical moment. But then proceedings drag on for almost a half hour longer. It's bad enough this coda seems pointless, but it's also presented in a needlessly confusing manner, sucking the energy out of the narrative as the film limps past the finish line. Whether it's true to the source material or not, if it wasn't going to be presented crisply then there's no reason to include it. If the editing is close to being a disaster the opposite should be said of Jeff Cronenweth's cinematography and Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' haunting score, both of which  compliment the murky atmosphere. The opening credit sequence (set to Karen O and Reznor and Ross's cover of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song") looks tremendously cool in a high-tech music video type of way, even if I couldn't thinking that was its only purpose. In any event, I'd be crazy to say the movie doesn't look great.

That this all almost still works despite these flaws is a credit to Fincher, who's slumming it here with pulpy material below his talent level. For the first time he actually feels like a hired gun. Here's hoping he doesn't sign on to film the two sequels and moves on to something else as there's nothing left for him to try to elevate here. But he does remain true to form in managing to provoke a strong reaction, even if that reaction is negative. Given the filmmaker, it's always possible I could return to this down the road and come out with a new appreciation, but a single viewing definitely feels like enough right now. There's just very little depth or subtext to the story, which is especially problematic if an actress is going to be put through what Mara is. She hasn't even looked the same since this wrapped and that she's already contractually committed to continuing this is unfortunate. It shouldn't be too much to ask that a film featuring brutal rape and murder have something to say, especially if it's taking up this much time, talent and money. I knew going in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo wasn't be an amusement park ride and didn't want it to be. But what really surprised me was just how little it amounted to.

Five Favorite Scenes: The Social Network

As I keep digging into The Social Network Blu-ray (so how about that weird packaging and the brilliantly bizarre title menu?) I've come to the conclusion that if it wins Best Picture that's great, but if it doesn't, well then, that's fine too. The Academy has impressively avoided rewarding the most deserving film for the past 83 years so why start now? No validation is necessary here because this is far and away, hands down the best film of this past year or any other recent one and nothing even comes remotely close. Oscar or not. It's best just to celebrate the achievement on its own terms and remind oneself that Driving Miss Daisy won Best Picture. See? That feels better already. As we all know, losing might actually be the best thing for it. For all the controversy surrounding the truthfulness of the movie I think it says a lot about Time's "Person of the Year" Mark Zuckerberg for publicly being a good sport and taking this bullet like a man for the sake of his company. Aaron Sorkin's script loosely incorporates real facts into a semi-fictional work so damning it makes Oliver Stone's W. look like a tribute documentary and it wouldn't have taken but a phone call to his lawyers for Zuckerberg to stop this project altogether (or at least prevented the use of his name and Facebook's trademarks). But he didn't. Give him credit for being seemingly one of the few to actually grasp this is meant for entertainment. He had to be slandered and dragged through the mud for the film to work as well as it does.

Back in October, I attempted a somewhat objective assessment of the film knowing my time to rant and rave about its greatness would get here soon enough. So now it's here. Director David Fincher has gone on the record humbly insisting his film isn't as "important" as Zodiac and if we're going strictly by their topics, he's right.  Only movies are rarely about their actual topics. Such is the case with The Social Network, a film no one said could be made, based on a topic no one wanted to see explored on screen. The level of difficulty here was insurmountable. I'd say in terms of actual execution this feels more important than anything he's done so far. So, how did Sorkin and Fincher ever make a movie about Facebook? Well, for starters, they didn't. Ranked in non-chronological order below are my five favorite scenes/moments in the film, along with accompanying thoughts. Obviously, SPOILERS follow.

5. MEET SEAN PARKER 

This brief, but memorable scene toward the middle portion of the picture when the action moves to the West Coast marks the first onscreen appearance of Justin Timberlake as Napster founder Sean Parker. It also marks the first instance of applause erupting from the theater I saw it in (the second: the reveal of Mark Zuckerberg's "Ardsley Athletics" T-Shirt). Has there ever been a better character introduction? If I could pick one scene that exemplifies the strength of Sorkin's writing it would probably be this brief sequence. Even over the "Did I adequately answer your condescending question?" lawsuit deposition scenes. A strange statement, but I just love the way this whole exchange unfolds and doesn't take the predictable route you'd expect given the situation.

It's reasonable that Parker would know every little detail about Amy (Dakota Johnson) from Stanford because he's Sean Parker and he does his research. So there's a glimpse of actual common sense in a movie script. Yet somehow Sorkin writes the scene in such a way that she still seems right in step with him and doesn't come across as an airhead for not knowing who he is, or worse, just a slutty party girl who woke up as his latest conquest. Of course, he finds out about "Thefacebook" through someone else, which is typical, and sets the stage for his leech-like behavior later as a charismatic opportunist who sees his opening and takes it. It's easy to see how Zuckerberg fell under his spell and bought what he was selling and why the purely idealistic Eduardo would hate his guts. The more times I watch the film the better Timberlake's performance seems, dropping subtle clues that the likable but flawed Parker was destined all along to make that pathetic police station phone call to Zuckerberg at the end of the film because that's what always happens with him. We get our first glimpse of that here.

4. HARVARD CODE OF CONDUCT

One of the film's more exciting, overlooked aspects was being given full access to Harvard University without really being given access to Harvard, a setting we've really never seen fully exploited on screen before (let's not count 2001's Harvard Man). Fincher changes that, miraculously giving us a very specific sense of time and place without ever even filming at the actual location (Fincher was forced to use Wheelock College as a stand-in) and it's a feeling especially present in the opening campus scenes. The two self-professed "gentlemen of Harvard" who best exemplify this world and our preconceived notions of it are Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, twin rowers who find their idea for a campus social networking site hijacked by Mark Zuckerberg. Supposedly the real twins were thrilled at their depiction in the film, which is hilarious on too many levels to list. Then again, everything involving the Winklevi is hilarious as played by Armie Hammer in the best depiction of preppy entitlement ever put to screen.

I like how Sorkin doesn't write them as villains or bullies, but hard-working guys who had an idea that really could have been stolen out from under them. And they've got a strong case, which leads to their meeting with clueless, hysterically patronizing Harvard President Larry Summers (Douglas Urbanski) in which they futilely attempt to convince him that Zuckerberg's in violation of Harvard's student "Code of Conduct." Their allegations sound as ridiculous to him as the idea of making a movie about them seemed to us. You could compile another separate list of the twins' greatest moments ("I'm 6'5, 220 and there's two of me!") but this scene best exemplifies how the actor immerses himself in two very different and distinct personalities. As dark and nasty as the film gets at times, Hammer insures that it's also a comedy.

3. RICH MAN

Leave it up to Fincher to somehow find the one Beatles song that hasn't been played out. In a career packed with memorable musical moments he always seems to pick just the right song and put it in the perfect place for maximum effect, but he outdoes himself here. You could argue that with Reznor and Ross' haunting score the entire picture is a musical moment unto itself (their brilliantly twisted version of "In The Hall of the Mountain King" during the twins' Henley Royal Regatta rowing race is obviously one of many highlights) but what else but the under-appreciated 1967 Beatles B-Side "Baby, You're A Rich Man" could possibly wrap up the conundrum that is Mark Zuckerberg, or at least the fictional version of him presented here.

The "likability" of the character, and his obsessive desire to be popular, is something that's returned to many times as we get the unofficial closer to his conversation with Erica at the bar, except this time in a conference room with attorney Marylin Delpy (Rashida Jones, getting to deliver that unforgettable final line).  He might end up as a billionaire but this Zuckerberg never cared about money at all which might be his only link to the real-life counterpart, making the ending song choice especially ironic. Sitting alone at the computer, pathetically refreshing the page to see if Erica accepts his friend request is also the least pathetic and most understandable choice Zuckerberg makes in the film, confirming the trace of humanity we suspected he had throughout.

2. THE BAR 

Supposedly, Fincher filmed 99 takes of this opening scene in the bar to knock all the acting out the two actors, which kind of makes sense when you consider they're delivering Sorkin's dialogue. Anyone who watched The West Wing or any of his other TV or film projects knows how wordy it is and how fast it needs to come out. If it it doesn't it can really sound like someone's reading from a script, which you obviously never want. The best thing about Eisenberg's performance is how he almost invisibly implies on his face all these emotions that his character seems incapable of even expressing to anyone.

As Erica, Rooney Mara has an even tougher job here, having to sell that she would even like and date this guy to begin with, then by the end of a single 8 minute conversation be believably fed up enough with his arrogant antics to just walk. She knows his game and won't stand for it, making all the misogynistic accusations leveled against the picture seem ridiculous, especially considering the women always seem much smarter than the guys throughout the film (save Eduardo's psycho girlfriend). With minimal screen time Mara makes us believe that letting Erica go is a mistake Zuckerberg won't ever be able to live down. When we get to the final scene the big revelation isn't that he built a billion dollar company to impress her, but that he believes giving it all up for another chance would be worth it. The scariest part: He's right.


1. EDUARDO SAVERIN'S MELTDOWN

Oh, that "Facebook movie." So cold, cynical, detached and unemotional. Such unlikable characters. Speaks to the mind, not the heart. No one has any FEELINGS. And that's only the second biggest misconception about the film. The biggest is one that Fincher's addressed in many interviews and involves the perception of the picture as some kind of cinematic landmark that speaks to a generation (one that ironically refused to support the movie and probably cost it a few Oscars). I expressed my own doubts on that when I reviewed it and see his point since it usually takes decades to make such a determine any film's value as a cultural touchstone. It also burdens the movie with added pressure it doesn't even need because it's important enough just as what it is: A perfectly directed, written and acted coming-of-age drama about the destruction of a friendship. And it all builds to this. 

Eduardo enters Facebook headquarters a boy but walks out a man after realizing he had the screws put to him by his best friend And in a movie packed with endlessly quotable lines, the criminally un-nominated Andrew Garfield gets to deliver its best to Timberlake's befuddled Parker, a verbal blow anyone caught in a volatile confrontation wished they could come up with in the heat of the moment. After being used and stepped on (though it's a credit to Garfield's performance it never exactly seems that way) Eduardo finally learns the hard way how to stand up for himself becoming the emotional center of what's otherwise been described as the most unemotional of films. He's our way in. Even though its characters talk endlessly, the film wisely holds a lot back in terms of what they're actually thinking and feeling until here, why is why this breaking point moment registers as powerfully as it does.

Images: DVD Beaver

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Director: Samuel Bayer
Starring: Jackie Earle Haley, Rooney Mara, Kyle Gallner, Katie Cassidy, Thomas Dekker, Kellan Lutz, Connie Britton, Clancy Brown
Running Time: 95 min.
Rating: R

★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

On the horror remake offensiveness scale, A Nightmare on Elm Street would probably fall somewhere in the middle, ranking below A Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween and Psycho but slightly above Friday the 13th in terms of how many fans a reboot will upset. While the 1984 original was an entertaining, well-made 80's slasher with an unusually original premise for its time, it wasn't scary and with each progressing sequel Freddy Krueger, much like Jason, became less an icon and more a parody. That seems to be reoccurring problem in the horror genre as these franchises continue long past their expiration date, losing all creative steam while the studios beat a dead horse trying to wring every last cent out of them. Saw is the latest victim, and though its seventh installment is being touted as the last, you can bet it'll eventually be back in some form or another. These movies always come back, and that's not necessarily such a bad thing since many love them with a passion so in that sense reviving a long-dormant franchise like Nightmare isn't the worst idea there is. Sure, it's a shameless cash grab, but at least there's a need for creative resuscitation here, unlike the recent remake of that same year's The Karate Kid, which raped a classic story solely for profit. Hardcore horror fans may feel the same way about this but they should at least be grateful the kids aren't pre-teens, it's rated "R," and there's a concerted effort to return the series to its darker, more serious roots. Unfortunately, for all the arguments you can come up with for this remake being somehow defensible, the filmmakers have gone out their way to make it FEEL as pointless and disposable as possible. The same problems that have plagued all the other Platinum Dunes-produced horror remakes like Chainsaw, Friday The 13th, The Amityville Horror and The Hitcher are again on display to a lesser extent, but this does have three big things going for it: A great concept and two very talented actors. The results are decidedly mixed, but better than expected. In the end though, it still doesn't work mainly because these horror remakes are all starting to feel and look the same, adding nothing to what was already there and ineffectively re-executing everything that was done well enough the first time around.

Much of the original story remains intact (save for a few changes) which is a good thing because this is one of the rare slashers powered by a concept so strong that even the 1984 film and its inferior sequels couldn't fully capitalize on it. In a small American suburb, high schoolers Nancy (Rooney Mara), Quentin (Kyle Gallner), Jess (Thomas Dekker), Kris (Katie Cassidy) and Dean (Kellan Lutz) are all having nightmarish visions featuring a severely burned man in a red and green striped sweater and a glove equipped with sharp knives. He attacks only in their dreams and if he kills them there, they die in real life. The key is to stay awake (whether that be with the aid of stimulants or just sheer force of will) so that doesn't happen but Freddy slices through the teens until only Nancy and Quentin are left to discover the truth of everyone's shared past with this man and attempt to defeat him for good. One of the more positive changes the updated script provides is the introduction of the idea of "micro-naps" in which the potential victims fall asleep for 10 or 15 minutes, making it even harder for them (and us as the viewer) to distinguish between what's real or not, which ups the suspense level considerably. There isn't anyone who hasn't dozed off for a few brief minutes or felt so tired that they haven't a clue where they are making so it's a clever twist on a familiar idea.

Giving us as much back story on school caretaker and accused child molester Fred Krueger as possible (even going so far as to come up with with an origin story for his sweater) isn't necessarily a bad idea in theory since he isn't one of those horror villains where the more you know or see of him, the less scary he becomes. He simply isn't scary at all to begin with so no harm done there. But you do have to question the logic of showing and spelling out information what was subtly, but effectively implied in the original films. This can't either but it makes little sense attempting to recreate key scenes, moments and plot points from the original, only with cutting edge computer generated effects. Re-tracing the original film's steps beat for beat but with higher production value is a silly idea that only helps make this feel like the latest inferior sequel in the franchise. This is a problem similar to the one marring the final act of Rob Zombie's 2007 Halloween remake, in which he attempted to faithfully reconstruct and jam John Carpenter's original film into the last third of his, but with more overt brutality. It's almost as if all these filmmakers want to have their cake and eat it too by teasing a new direction only to fall back on recreating scenes from the original (in some cases rather poorly) as some kind of misguided tribute or an attempt to throw a bone at hardcore fans. Last year, Zombie rebounded strongly with the gutsy, unrelenting Halloween II when he strayed as far as possible from the source material, finally breaking free from the genre conventions holding these remakes back. That's a template this could have followed in place of the typical sequel/reboot mish-mash route that was chosen instead. It's also interchangeable with a lot of other recent horror remakes with its slick music video style approach to the material, which diminishes the sense of dread and urgency in favor of making everything look dirty, but high budget dirty.  In other words, it's too polished. Maybe not coincidentally, this was directed by Samuel Bayer, who's first ever directing gig was Nirvana's classic 1991 "Smells Like Teen Spirit" video. Say what you want about Zombie's efforts but at least he captured the visual feel of trashy, low budget midnight drive-in movies.

The biggest hurdle cleared is the casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger, who steps into the role made famous by Robert Englund after online fans pushed to have him cast. They were right on target, and as much as this will upset loyalists, he's no worse at it than his predecessor. Not necessarily better mind you, but different in a way that's appropriate for the liberties taken with the source material. Whether that more realistic approach (facially looking very much like an actual burn victim) is the right one considering this is supposed to be a horror/fantasy character may be up for debate, but Haley's the right guy for the job considering Freddy is supposed to be more frightening than entertaining. His small stature is a minor issue (he's nowhere near the physical presence Englund was) and there aren't as many clever one-liners for him to deliver, but that's not what's really called for here anyway. Unfortunately the character he's given isn't all that interesting and the flashback backstory, despite playing to all of his strengths as an actor, isn't really developed enough since doing that would mean the writers would have to stray from the predictable horror rules suffocating the picture.

My (and seemingly everyone else's) new favorite actress of the moment, Rooney Mara, gives us a Nancy that's a far cry from Heather Langenkamp's appropriately superficial incarnation over 25 years ago. Sullen, morose, and shy, she's the most withdrawn female protagonist we've seen in a horror movie in some time and pensively looks and acts like she's suffered some great tragedy, maybe one outside of what's actually happening in this story. And whatever that tragedy is I can practically guarantee you it would have made for a better movie than we got here. As an actress, Mara has this interesting look and expression to her face that's inscrutably intelligent, making you think she knows something you don't and if you stare long enough you might be able to figure out what. It was evident in just her few sensational, Oscar-worthy scenes in The Social Network and it's only a little bit of a surprise that the quiet intensity that made her performance there so memorable carry over into this. It's unlikely any studio decision makers completely knew at the time of her casting just how much they got or what would happen with her career so it's unfortunate that she's contractually locked (as is Haley) into appearing in a sequel should it occur. And judging from the final scene, it's a safe bet it will. That this doesn't seem like the worst news in the world for her (at least no worse than Robert Downey Jr. spending the rest of his career in Iron Man purgatory) is a credit to how much she brings to a project that doesn't deserve her talents. Until she takes over the film, Katie Cassidy does a surprisingly credible job early on with a one-note scream queen character and Kyle Gallner seems right at home as the weirdo, emo co-lead opposite Mara. Friday Night Lights' Connie Britton and gifted character actor Clancy Brown are wasted in the obligatory adult roles, as is too often the case in these types of films.

Sadly, the acting all-around is actually better than the original and it doesn't seem to help one bit since no one could decide whether they wanted to make a slasher with cheesy acting faithful to the original or an updated version that takes itself seriously. The result ends up being a fake cheesy slasher taking itself too seriously and I'm wondering if removing some of the goofier horror elements and playing it as a straight psychological drama would have been wiser. With a premise this strong and the acting clearly there to support it, a gripping story could have been constructed centering on dreams and reality as these teens come to grips with a buried childhood tragedy. NOES 2010 feels like it should have ambition beyond just covering the original and if a more realistic approach was the game plan they should have had the guts to go all the way with it since there was real potential to do something interesting here. This near-miss exposes the biggest problem with remakes in that there's always a cause to worry that studios will continue to casually resurrect a beloved title or franchise without seriously considering how.

The Social Network

Director: David Fincher
Starring: Jessie Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Rooney Mara, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella, Brenda Song, Rashida Jones
Running Time: 121 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

SPOILERS FOLLOW 


“You are going to go through life thinking girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd. I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that that’s not true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.”  


David Fincher's The Social Network doesn't waste any time. It gets down to business right away and if you thought going in this would just be "The Facebook Movie" it takes only until the end of the verbally explosive opening scene to change your mind. In it, future Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) gets dumped by his girlfriend Erica Albright (Rooney Mara) after she tires of putting up with his obsession with gaining entry into Harvard's "final clubs" because they'll lead to a better life. They talk and talk, firing Emmy-winning writer Aaron Sorkin's dialogue at and over each other at machine gun speed in a crowded, dimly lit bar with the conversation becoming more contentious as he turns sarcastic and condescending. At first, she almost seems interested, almost amused, until it becomes obvious this is someone without a clue how to interact with people, and as shocked as he is at being dumped, we are at how he got a date with her in the first place. Then comes that blistering quote above. That question of whether Zuckerberg really is an asshole never completely goes away. And if he is, does that preclude him from being a genius? Or a visionary? Or maybe he's just lucky. We don't get what resembles an answer until the final scene but it's the aftershock of the opening one that reverberates through the rest of the picture.

That night, the brutal break-up sends Zuckerberg sprinting back to his dorm room to drunkenly blog about Erica and with the help of his best (and only) friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), create a stir with a server-crashing page called "FaceMash," a "Hot or Not" type application where guys get to rate and compare the physical attractiveness of females on campus. With that the idea of Facebook is planted and one of the elements I appreciated most in Sorkin's screenplay is its full acknowledgment that Zuckerberg didn't exactly invent the light bulb here, but expanded on what was already being implemented shoddily by Friendster and MySpace. It's all in the execution, much of which revolves around the added ingredient of "exclusivity," or the notion that people want to feel as if they're in on something cool. That's what the other social networking sites were missing and once it's incorporated into what was then known as "THE Facebook" the possibilities became endless, as did the pitfalls. Ironically, Zuckerberg provides the perceived social acceptance for people online he could never receive himself on campus until meeting the Winklevoss Twins (Armie Hammer), crew team jocks who recruit him as programmer for their new relationship-based "Harvard Connection" web site emerging (coincidentally or not) just as Zuckerberg launches his.

The story is mostly told through flashbacks and interspersed with courtroom depositions from the two lawsuits eventually brought against Zuckerberg by the twins claiming intellectual property theft and from co-founder Saverin, who's cut out of his piece of the pie by his best friend as the company expands. The wedge driving them apart is Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), a hard partying hype machine looking to latch on to the next big thing after lawsuits from the music industry bled him dry. What's so funny is as the company grows bigger and bigger the further removed it becomes from the original conceit of re-creating the social experience of college online. With expansion comes at least some degree of exclusivity lost and you're left wondering whether the whole thing really would have been better off confined to campuses, since Facebook, as we know it now, has inadvertently come closer to re-creating the social experience of high school more than college. More importantly, we're also left wondering whether Zuckerberg would have been better off since the "better life" he wished for himself didn't necessarily include being the CEO of a billion dollar company. Money isn't the primary motivator for someone who shows up to courtroom depositions wearing jeans and Adidas flip-flops.

Jesse Eisenberg wasn't just the best choice for Zuckerberg, but the only actor who could have possibly done justice to the role, giving his most complex performance yet and one that should finally end those annoying and unjustified Michael Cera comparisons. Having already occupied one end of the spectrum with awkward portrayals of sensitive nerds who win the girl at the end, he leaves the nerd part intact, but removes nearly every other emotion. His trademark accessibility as a performer is muted, offering the character up as a damaged, rejected soul so frustrated at his social incompetence (which borders on Asperger's) and obsessed with fitting in that he uses the only weapon he has: His I.Q. Surprisingly, Timberlake's performance as opportunistic party animal Sean Parker isn't the strongest among the major supporting players but it's important to put that in perspective since he still steals every scene he's in. At first glance he appears to be playing an exaggerated version of himself but his work grows on you and the more you think back on it the more you have to love the irony of music's biggest superstar giving inspirational speeches extolling the virtues of internet piracy and file sharing.

British actor (and future Spider-Man) Andrew Garfield, steals the movie out from under everyone as Eduardo Saverin, the company's CFO who's betrayed by his best friend. We anticipate a smooth, cool operator in full control but Garfield conveys a certain vulnerability and wimpiness that suggests he's being taken for a ride and used as Zuckerberg's doormat, yet he still manages to find a way to make him not come off as a fool. He earns the most sympathy and while still not totally blameless emerges as the biggest victim no matter how many different sides of the story seem to be presented. It's his story as much as Zuckerberg's and you should probably get familiar with his laptop smashing meltdown at Facebook headquarters as you'll likely be seeing many clips of it over the next few months.

As twin rowers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (AKA the "Winklevii"), Armie Hammer, aided by Fincher's impressive Benjamin Button-level technology, creates two separate and unique personalities, identical only in never knowing how it feels to not get what they want, as Zuckerberg puts it. Consider how unlikable they could have been and appreciate how Hammer prevents that, to the point that you actually kind of feel bad for these privileged kids and want to take their side, if only because no one else will. With just two and a half scenes and under five minutes of screen time, Rooney Mara is unforgettably devastating as the catalyst of this social earthquake and it'll be a while before I forget that look on Erica's face when she realizes how Zuckerberg humiliated her. Facebook was about a girl, which makes perfect sense since everything always is. Speculation can now start as to whether she's real, fictitious or maybe resides in that gray area in between. 

Watching the deposition scenes and seeing each character's point of view gives us no better understanding of the truth since all that can be said for sure is that each character believes completely what they're saying. Similarly, you're left to watch and wonder how much if any of Sorkin's script (adapted in part from those depositions and Ben Mezrich's non-fiction novel, The Accidental Billionaires) can be considered a reliable interpretation of real-life events. Supposedly, the real Zuckerberg hasn't seen the film but has gone on record stating it's fictional and meant to be fun.  And on that count he's right, especially anything involving the twins and Zuckerberg's hilariously sarcastic "testimony."  Whether he's viewed it or not, or whether he actually means that or not, he may have unintentionally hit the nail on the head in terms of the right approach to take with this. And there are definitely worse things than being an important enough American figure to warrant a picture of this quality.

With Fincher and Sorkin involved I knew this wouldn't actually be ABOUT Facebook, but it's still amazing just how little it is about it and how much is accomplished with what looked on paper to be the most laughable of topics for a feature film. We should have known not to doubt them when we first hear Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' unforgettably unnerving and moody score and see just how dark and gloomy everything looks, confirming that the director who made Fight Club and Zodiac most definitely made this. And as challenging as it should have been to maneuveur around a subject that potentially deals with a lot of talking and sitting around at computers and boardrooms, it's surprising the number of scenes that consist of that, and how tension-filled and exciting they are. 

Comparisons are being made to Citizen Kane, but in all fairness those stem mostly from narrative and thematic similarities, which are plentiful. Like Kane, Zuckerberg gets lonelier and more isolated as he rises to the top, except he manages to spread his loneliness to everyone else. We're all now as socially disconnected as he is, while strangely somehow feeling more connected, at least on some superficial level. Yet there's something admirable and anti-heroic about the character because he set out to achieve a goal and did it the only way he knew how.

How you enter The Social Network is a big determining factor as to how you'll feel when you leave, mainly because of that mysterious phenomenon known as "HYPE," a force capable of cutting down any film, regardless of quality. It seems for a change I was actually able to keep my insanely high expectations mostly in check, resulting in them being exceeded. And as difficult as it's been, I've been careful to contain my praise knowing plenty of opportunities should arise for me to gush about it further in the coming months. It'll be interesting to find out how a film so timely and dependent on current technology will age, but I bet if you showed it to an audience ten years ago and told them this is the direction we're headed, their eyes probably would have popped out of their heads.

It's entirely too early to determine whether it "speaks to a generation" but it definitely speaks to the moment and there is a feeling that its story of greed, loneliness and betrayal has a fighting chance at outlasting the social phenomenon that spawned it. Despite not caring much for Facebook, I'd never suggest the story behind it doesn't deserve to be told, especially when it's constructed as brilliantly as this. The Social Network makes the strongest case yet for Facebook's existence, being that we couldn't have gotten this film without it.