5/5
David Fincher's The Social Network is a vibrant, invigorating film filled with excitement and possibility. The movie chronicles the beginning of the new digital era of human interactions. It is not so much about the creator of Facebook as it is about the unrelenting, self-propelled technology that everybody is trying their best to keep up with. It is a classic story of how we as a society deal with each other, how we share stories, how we reveal our emotions. It tackles betrayal, regret, and love. The plot itself is based on two lawsuits launched against Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg). The first is by fellow Harvard undergrads Divya Narendra (Minghella) and the Winklevoss twins (Hammer) for stealing their idea, originally called Harvard Connection. The second is by best friend, co-founder, and CFO Eduardo Saverin (Garfield) for being written out of his share of stock options.
It is difficult to describe how compelling this movie is. The script is an absolute treasure. It unites fast-paced, witty, intellectual dialogue with important, ancient thematics. It is fresh and edgy and filled with electricity. The cinematography is beautiful and appropriately moody. The editing may be one of the most underrated aspects of this movie, but it is essential to its success. The story could have easily taken 3 hours, especially given Fincher's propensity for making movies longer than they need to be, but I'm thankful that they were able to edit it down to just 2 hours. It is expertly paced with only the essential ideas. And last but not least is the acting. It is spot-on. The characters are full and richly textured. You feel their pain and heartache and sorrow. You are enraptured by their vivacity and exhilaration. They are not just fascinating character studies. They are living and breathing people with the same unique talents and flaws that you love and hate about your friends and enemies.
And of course there is the subject matter. I wonder what it means that everybody who saw this movie went home and posted their thoughts about it on Facebook. People complained that this movie came out too soon: Facebook's role is still being sorted out. We are right in the middle of it and don't know how it will all play out in the end. But I think now is the best time to make and release this movie precisely because we are still in the thick of it. People said the same thing about 9/11 movies, but they remain some of the best and most memorable movies because they are tied to my memory of life events and contain universal themes. This movie is exactly the same. And while it may not have all the facts right and may be biased one way or another, it is a phenomenal story that is flawlessly told. It must be seen, and sooner rather than later.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/
Showing posts with label andrew garfield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label andrew garfield. Show all posts
October 15, 2010
May 10, 2010
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)
2/5
Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a mesmerizing acid-trip of a film, but little more. The plot follows the centuries-old Dr. Parnassus (Plummer) and his troupe of storytellers (Garfield, Troyer, Ledger) as they attempt to free the minds and save the souls of modern-day Londoners through his imaginarium. He must win over 5 souls before the devilish Mr. Nick (Waits) wins over 5 souls as part of a wager to save his daughter (Cole) before she turns 16. Yes, it's fairly convoluted and entirely fantastical, but it is precisely this freedom from rules and expectations that make this movie so exhilarating and captivating. Because it is so bizarre, you never know what happens next or how it will end--you are continually drawn along its winding trail until the very end.
But that is also one of the film's flaws. Sometimes it feels drawn out or scatterbrained. And while it keeps stringing you along, you get the sense that most of the questions you have about what exactly is going on will never be answered. As for the other technical aspects, this film is a mixed bag. The acting is competent (as far as I could tell), but the characters are all so unorthodox and otherworldly that it's hard to appreciate the acting that they're doing. Some aspects of the writing and story are fascinating, but the plot overall is unnecessarily tortuous and confusing. The movie as a whole feels like the work of a mad genius, someone so far ahead of everyone else's reality and so far ahead of modern technology that frustratingly incomplete ideas obscure the underlying brilliance. Either that or Gilliam is just crazy. Gilliam has made much better movies; this is nowhere near his best.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/

But that is also one of the film's flaws. Sometimes it feels drawn out or scatterbrained. And while it keeps stringing you along, you get the sense that most of the questions you have about what exactly is going on will never be answered. As for the other technical aspects, this film is a mixed bag. The acting is competent (as far as I could tell), but the characters are all so unorthodox and otherworldly that it's hard to appreciate the acting that they're doing. Some aspects of the writing and story are fascinating, but the plot overall is unnecessarily tortuous and confusing. The movie as a whole feels like the work of a mad genius, someone so far ahead of everyone else's reality and so far ahead of modern technology that frustratingly incomplete ideas obscure the underlying brilliance. Either that or Gilliam is just crazy. Gilliam has made much better movies; this is nowhere near his best.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)