Michael Douglas, like most skilled actors, can deliver good performances in his sleep, but these types of actors are only exciting to watch when they try something different or really put in the work to elevate their performance. In “Solitary Man,” it seemed to me like Douglas was sleepwalking through the entire movie.
It’s really a shame because this could have been a great role for him. Fascinating performances often arise when actors take parts that reflect where they are in life, particularly at milestone ages. From child to teen, from youth to adulthood, from young to middle-aged, and for Douglas, from middle-aged to the age of mortality. The theme of confronting old age is particularly eerie to watch now given Douglas’ fight with cancer.
Yet while all the components are there, something just doesn’t add up. I wouldn’t attribute it all to Douglas; the film’s plot is pretty weak and the self-examination severely underdeveloped. This is such a rich topic, but the movie only brushes the surface. Douglas’ Ben Kalmen struggles with a lot of things: his loneliness, his infidelity, his fall from grace in business, his desire to stay young, among others.
The psychological struggle is all provided by Douglas, not at all by the script. Nowhere is there a great line for us to chew on or a particularly interesting plot development to leave us reeling. There’s just predictable old plot gimmicks that run for 90 minutes, which hardly feels adequate for Douglas to give the character much depth.
He gets no help from an impressively cast ensemble including the likes of Susan Sarandon, Jenna Fischer, Jesse Eisenberg, and Mary-Louise Parker. The writers don’t bother to give any sort of depth to these supporting actors; they might as well have just abandoned names altogether and called the characters “aging ex-wife,” “young new girlfriend,” and “beautiful daughter.” There’s so much “Solitary Man” could have been, but not even Michael Douglas can save it from becoming an entirely forgettable snooze. C /
This is totally random, out there, and will probably be discarded as one of those “too personal” posts that probably have no use to the average reader. But if you made it past that first long sentence, then clearly you give some sort of a care about what I’m writing, so I’ll write it anyways.
For all those in need of a productivity boost, I have a tip that has been working for me a lot recently. Simply play the track “In Motion” from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’ prodigious score for “The Social Network” and feel your fingers get in rhythm with the pulsating beat. Then curl them up into a fist one a finger at a time, beginning with the pinky, a la Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg hacking into the Harvard network to create Facebook. And then attack whatever task you need to do.
You may not feel like you are sewing the seeds for a multi-billion dollar company, but it sure feels a lot better than just diving into the task with a frown.
Has Facebook made us more connected to our friends? Or does hopelessly staring at their pictures, their moments, their lives only increase our feeling of isolation? Such has been the question for the past five years as the Silicon Valley start-up has all but taken over the world. We have been forced to ponder how much we want people to know about who we are, using our profile pages as a façade to cover the person hiding deep inside. We can sculpt social perfection on the site, and perhaps that is why we pour so much time into it.
That’s the story of us in the Facebook age. However, anyone not willing to closely scrutinize “The Social Network” might have the mistaken notion that the movie is only about the founders of the site. While Aaron Sorkin’s script concerns itself entirely with the Facebook’s early years, the perspective is not limited merely to those intimately involved in creating the predominant social networking site of our time.
If Sorkin and director David Fincher had been interested in doing that, they would have made a documentary on the birth of Facebook. Instead, their fictionalized account is meant to challenge our conceptions of communication and friendship in the digital era, as well as the changing nature of innovation. As the face of human interaction becomes increasingly digital, this commentary will be an important work to consult. “The Social Network” could very well be the movie that future generations will watch to get an idea of the millenials (or whatever history will call us). The movie now puts the pressure on us to decide how to interpret its message: do we go polish our Facebook profiles or become disillusioned with the site?
Since creator Mark Zuckerberg refused to participate with the production, Sorkin and Fincher present him as they see him: a visionary with his fair share of vices who winds being torn asunder by two people with different ideas for the future of his creation. Jesse Eisenberg hardly makes him sympathetic, but the ultimate interpretation of Zuckerberg is left to the viewer. Is he a hero, a villain, or an antihero? Whatever mold he fits, it cannot be denied that he is a figure of huge importance to the digital age. Take his social idiosyncrasies out of the picture, and his journey is not too different than our journey with Facebook.
Are we just a month and a half away from the release of 2010’s Best Picture? Ask some Oscar pundits today and they might say just that. No one has seen “The Social Network,” which hits theaters October 1, in its entirety, but people have sky-high expectations based on the brilliant marketing campaign.
The buzz started with the release of some tantalizing teaser trailers and an intriguingly mysterious poster. When we saw the full trailer playing before “Inception,” it was a wowing experience (that would still pale in comparison to the two and a half hours afterwards). The trailer’s opening minute is very unique as it has nothing to do with the movie at all. Rather, we watch people interacting on Facebook, a reminder of how much it has enhanced our connections to our friends. Then we pixelate to Mark Zuckerberg, and the history begins.
From just the trailer alone, “The Social Network” looked like a movie for our time, more clearly zeitgeist-tapping than any movie in recent memory. It takes a dramatic look the founding of Facebook, one of the defining inventions of our time, but also seems to tackle the subject of how the social networking site has affected the way humans communicate with each other.
How much of a judgement call, though, can we make on the movie based on the trailer?
When I thought about the Oscar contenders with the best trailers over the past few years, a few names stuck out in my mind. “Brothers.” No nominations. “Revolutionary Road.” One major nomination, no Best Picture nomination. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” 13 nominations including Best Picture. It’s a mixed bag of results. Trailers can be a sign of great things to come or merely disguise the lackluster by showing everything good to offer in two minutes. So I don’t think we can call it a sure bet just because of the trailer.
And is being the presumed frontrunner the best thing for “The Social Network?” I analyzed some movies in the same position last year in my Oscar Moment on “Invictus,” and here’s what I found:
The only real conclusion that can be drawn from those results is that having sky-high expectations can often yield unfavorable results. If people expect something amazing, it is all the easier to underwhelm.
There’s a more in-depth look at the fates of these movies on that posting, but there has been a definite tendency for these movies to underperform in awards season. This isn’t your traditional awards candidate – at least it isn’t being sold like one.
Sony is selling the movie mainly on the subject. I bet the average American knows “The Social Network” as “The Facebook movie,” which is certainly good for drawing in an audience. I think the premise alone draws in $80 million in revenue, but the fact that it’s going to be really good will increase its total take to somewhere in the range of $120-150 million. I’m hardly a box office analyst, I know, yet I feel pretty confident making this financial prediction. Judging from the amount of trailer parodies hitting the web, it’s definitely reaching the younger crowd, the most volatile demographic for movies like this.
When it comes to awards, though, money isn’t everything. “The Social Network” has a lot working in its corner, namely director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin. Fincher is a well-respected figure, earning his first Oscar nomination in 2008 for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” Before that, he directed cult favorites like “Seven” and “Fight Club.” I didn’t think that his prior resumé qualified him for a project like this, but Fincher has proven himself at being versatile in the past.
While Sorkin doesn’t have an Academy Award nomination to his name, he has earned a great deal of acclaim for his work in writing for movies, television, and the stage. His style is greatly admired, and he is one of very few writers whose name could sell a product. Sorkin adapted “The Social Network” from last year’s book “The Accidental Billionaires,” but Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has written off the movie as pure fiction. The fact that he has so vehemently denied the movie being factual only increase the intrigue around the movie. Could there be some parts so true he doesn’t want us to know?
Those are the big names of “The Social Network,” and I think most of the praise will fall on the two of them. Will there be any love for the actors? Could Jesse Eisenberg, at 27, gain any heat in the Best Actor race? If the movie winds up being the talk of the town, he could easily find himself in heavy consideration. If he were to win, Eisenberg would be the youngest Best Actor winner ever.
Best Supporting Actor could get interesting, too. I don’t think people can take Justin Timberlake seriously enough for a nomination, although anything can happen if the movie is huge. The first Academy Award nominated boy band member … wouldn’t that be something.
The more likely candidate, it seems, is Andrew Garfield. Seen him recently? He was just cast as the new Spider-Man. The trailer sure makes his performance seem like the kind the Academy loves, lots of screaming and shouting to be found. Garfield also stars in awards hopeful “Never Let Me Go,” so he could receive a nomination in “The Social Network” as a reward for a great year of work from such a new actor on the scene. Plus, how cool would it be to have an Oscar winner playing a superhero?
The first time the world gets a glimpse of the movie is at the New York Film Festival. Until then, we wait. And watch the trailer again … and again … and again …
BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor (Garfield), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing
OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Timberlake), Best Original Score
It seems particularly fitting that the riotous climactic battle of “Zombieland” should take place in an amusement park. Really, the whole movie itself is like a carnival ride. Designed for maximum entertainment, it’s a high-speed tour through the zombie apocalypse told with irreverence instead of the usual sympathy. The filmmakers understand that the people that watch movies like “Zombieland” get a kick out seeing some comical carnage, and they give it to us gratuitously.
The humor never gets old or boring though, and not just because watching a zombie get owned is one of the funniest things ever. Much to my surprise, “Zombieland” is also an incredibly witty movie, drawing a great deal of laughs from some uproarious one-liners. It has the pop culture sting of a Quentin Tarantino script, which is one of the biggest compliments I could give a movie.
In fact, this is one of the rare movies where I wanted to see more. Clocking in at under an hour and a half, it doesn’t end too soon so much as it ends too quickly for us. As long as you don’t mind the blood and gore, watching zombies die in as many ways as the screenwriters could think of is enough to satisfy for well over the time they gave us.
The actors are all good, in particular Woody Harrelson as Tallahassee, the outrageous zombie hunter with an unnatural affinity for Twinkies. But let’s be honest, who watches this for Jesse Eisenberg? Or for Emma Stone? If you’re going to watch this, it’s because you want to see some zombie horror that doesn’t take itself seriously in the slightest. Horror comedy has generally been a cult genre, but “Zombieland” is a movie that definitely has the power to make it mainstream in a big way. This is one kickass horror comedy that will have you busting a gut. B+ /
The honor of being “F.I.L.M. of the Week” is now officially bestowed upon “The Squid and the Whale.” It is perhaps one of the most brazen movies I have ever seen, and I loved every minute of it. I should have known by reading the movie’s tagline, “Joint Custody Blows.” The movie is based on events from the life of writer/director Noah Baumbach (a frequent collaborator with director Wes Anderson), a fact that only enhances the experience. Chronicling the events following the separation his parents in the 1980s and the chaos that ensues, “The Squid and the Whale” joins “Revolutionary Road” as one of the few domestic dramas that I buy completely. The believability is a result of Baumbach’s clever dialogue, which got him an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay, and two powerful performances from Laura Linney and Jeff Daniels that deserved to be lauded much more than they were.
The film is a masterful piece overall, but it is particularly deft at showing the psychological effects of the divorce on all involved. 16-year-old Walt (Jesse Eisenberg) becomes a prime example of how we all become our parents whether we like it or not as he uncertainly navigates a relationship while pondering other options. On a similar note, 12-year-old Frank (Owen Kline) begins to probe into the sordid secrets of the world of drugs and sexuality with potentially harmful consequences. And the harm doesn’t stop at the kids. Both Bernard and Joan, played respectively by Daniels and Linney, have to deal with the breaking of the fragile joint custody agreement. Their personalities lead to split alliances between the kids; Walt sides with his father while Frank sides with his mother. And Bernard and Joan only deepen the divisions as poor decisions are made and new romantic relationships are formed.
Even though a comparison was drawn earlier to the heavy “Revolutionary Road,” “The Squid and the Whale” is much different. It provides plenty of laughs, many from the profuse profanity from Daniels and the young Kline, but equally from some biting, witty dialogue from Baumbach. His knack for finding the lighter side of the bitter dissolution of a marriage that makes “The Squid and the Whale” such a marvelous film. And did I mention that it runs only 80 minutes long?
“Adventureland” is a big slice of ’80s nostalgia pie served on a plate with no other embellishments. I bother to make this mouthwatering comparison because for someone like me who didn’t live in the era, the movie doesn’t quite hit home. Kudos to writer/director Greg Mottola for mastering the feel of the decade’s teen movies, but I felt like he packed it with ’80s inside jokes. To set the record straight, I don’t mind watching movies where all the jokes don’t register with me. I understand that only stoners can fully appreciate “Pineapple Express” and only musicians can feel likewise about “This Is Spinal Tap.” Yet the aforementioned movies hold out a welcoming hand and draw you into a world which perhaps you are not entirely cognizant. “Adventureland,” on the other hand, scorns those who did not live in its time, making me feel like an unwelcome outsider.
The plot revolves around James (Jesse Eisenberg), a recent college graduate forced to take a summer job at the Adventureland amusement park due to some unexplained financial troubles. The cast of characters he has to deal with are a stark contrast from those he encountered at Oberlin, from the penny-pinching park owners (Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, “SNL”) to the high-pitched squealer with a compulsion of punching between the legs. Life is pretty miserable for James until the beautiful Em (Kristen Stewart) saves him from being stabbed by a fed up customer. They slowly discover a deep affection for each other. But ultimately, they find out that they don’t really know what they want. Em has an affair with the married Adventureland janitor Connell (Ryan Reynolds); James goes out with chatterbox Lisa P. during a brief break in his relationship with Em. Their relationship is marked by vacillation, which would be refreshingly realistic if it didn’t get caught in a mire of clichés.
Just a rhetorical question: is it a recurring theme of 2009 comedies to have hilarious supporting characters that get no screen time? Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman in “Funny People,” as well as David Koechner in “Extract,” provided the best (in Koechner’s case, the only) laughs of their respective movies but were seen criminally little. The same goes for Hader and Wiig in “Adventureland,” who light up the screen with their zany characters during the limited time that we see them. Unfortunately, Mottola nails these characters and not any of the more prominent ones. James feels like a slightly less pathetic Michael Cera. Em is somewhat more realized, and Stewart does her best to flash her acting chops in the role. She gets the fact that Em is an enigmatic girl, yet Stewart’s transparent portrayal doesn’t do this side justice. The absolute worst is Ryan Reynolds’ Connell, a subplot so poorly written it hurts to watch. Ryan Reynolds seems to be having a dreadful time, constantly asking himself, “Why did I do this movie?” Mottola’s “Adventureland” is a styling love story of the ’80s, but his infatuation blinds him from creating anything that transcends the confines of his favorite decade and still holds meaning for those who didn’t live it. C- /
Recent Comments