The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
Director: David Fincher
Screenplay: Steve Zallian
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Robin Wright, Yorick van Wageningen, Goran Visnjic, Embeth Davidtz, Joel Kinnaman, Elodie Young, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, Steven Berkoff, Joely Richardson

One-sentence summary: Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander attempt to solve the case of Harriet Vanger, a 16-year-old girl who has been missing for nearly 40 years.

Review: There's no denying that Stieg Larsson's Millennium Trilogy has become something of a publishing phenomenon. Sure, it's no Harry Potter, but publishers are always ecstatic when something comes along that makes people run out and buy books. It's also something slightly confusing for the more discerning reader because The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not that great of a book. In fact, it's actually very boring until about halfway in when Blomkvist and Lisbeth finally meet each other and Lisbeth becomes involved in the Harriet Vanger case. Up until that moment, the Lisbeth vignettes are far more exciting than seeing Blomkvist traipse around haphazardly trying to come up with leads of any kind. You remember the scenes concerning Lisbeth's horrifying "experiences" with her new guardian more than scenes of Blomkvist taking care of a cat. (If there is ever any type of scene to make an audience deathly quiet, it's a rape scene. And there's two of them in here!)

Thankfully, David Fincher and Steve Zallian mitigate the boredom of Blomkvist's investigation by rushing through all of the introductory fluff. It's actually almost too fast. Your head spins when Blomkvist gets a hurried overview of the Vanger clan, and unlike the novel, you don't exactly get the luxury while you're in the theater of re-reading passages and trying to figure out how everyone is related (plus there's that handy family tree in the book).

Ultimately (and much like the novel), the Harriet Vanger mystery doesn't matter nearly as much as the relationship between Blonkvist and Lisbeth. In this sense, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is very much your basic superhero origin story. Origin stories are always a bit of a slog to get through, but once you do, the sequels tend to be far more enjoyable because there's no set up, no universe to establish; you hit the ground running.

If I'm being honest, I think I may never need to re-read the novel because this particular adaptation is just so good. Even with the flaws I mentioned above (which is a result of Larsson's writing more than anything else), it really is the best possible way to bring you into Larsson's series without making you sit through more useless fluff than necessary. The score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is absolutely stellar and sets the mood beautifully. Zallian alters the ending in such a way that it didn't feel overdone or dragged out like in the novel and it's certainly not as random as the Swedish adaptation, and I actually think Zallian improved the ending. It's a welcome change.

Zallian also tones down Blomkvist's womanizing ways, which is refreshing but unintentionally reveals Blomkvist to be rather boring. That's okay; ultimately, the Millennium Trilogy is all about Lisbeth. And let me tell you: Rooney Mara brings Lisbeth to life. The inevitable comparisons between her and Noomi Rapace will never cease, but that's only to be expected. Both actresses bring something a little something different to their portrayals, and neither is inherently superior than the other in my opinion. Would it be too much to expect an Oscar nomination for Rooney Mara? Probably. But I would be pleased to see her get the recognition she deserves.

Final word: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the best possible version of Larsson's novel thanks to some smart writing decisions that improve on the source material, and given that the next two novels are even better than the first one, anyone who's a fan should be eager to see what David Fincher and Steve Zallian do with the next two films.

A Tale of Two Sisters (2003)

A Tale of Two Sisters (2003)
Director: Kim Ji-woon
Screenplay: Kim Ji-woon
Starring: Im Soo-jung, Moon Geun-young, Yeom Jeong-ah, Kim Kap-su

One-sentence summary: Two sisters, Su-mi and Su-yeon, return from the hospital only to have to deal not only with their new (and rather suspicious) stepmother but with a strange presence in their house.

Review: Some fairy tales are pretty horrific if you think about them. This isn't limited to just the ones from the Brothers Grimm--it's something that's found in other cultures as well. A Tale of Two Sisters is a loose adaptation of a Korean folktale, Rose Flower and Red Lotus, that does, yes, feature an evil stepmother. And people dying. And ghosts.

A Tale of Two Sisters takes the basic idea of the folktale (two sisters against an evil stepmother) and runs with it in a way that eventually the movie doesn't resemble the original folktale at all. This isn't a bad thing because there's a beautiful twist at the end, but I can't say I'm too happy with how the movie got there.

There are a lot of hints scattered throughout the movie that make sense only after you've seen the whole film, so it's a movie best experienced at least twice, but on the second viewing I'm not sure it holds up as well. The movie felt disjointed, particularly near the end when it felt like it kept going and going. If Kim Ji-woon had just moved some scenes around, maybe it wouldn't have felt so patchwork. I also think he could've held off on a couple of clues that would've made the reveal that much more shocking.

I think above all, this isn't a horror movie. It's marketed as one because it's easy to pull some choice ghost scenes from the movie and put them in the trailer, but that's not what the movie is really about. At the end of the day, the real stars are the family members, and the odd little haunting bits don't really seem to affect their day-to-day life all that much. The presence of ghosts (okay, and a couple of "scary" scenes) doesn't mean it should automatically be classified as a horror movie. There's a certain kind of atmosphere in horror, and I can't say that A Tale of Two Sisters really has that atmosphere, but it's okay because the movie, for all its faults, is a decent watch--horror or not.

Just think of it as a modern-day fairy tale, complete with an evil stepmother, and you've got yourself in the right mindset.

Final word: A Tale of Two Sisters is a decent film but questionable writing/directing decisions means that the movie is not as great as it could have been.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
Director: Joe Johnston
Screenplay: Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely
Starring: Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Stanley Tucci, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Dominic Cooper, Samuel L. Jackson

One-sentence summary: During World War II, Steve Rogers is selected to undergo a process to create the world's first super-soldier.

Review: I'm going to be frank. I've never been particularly fond of Captain America as a character, mostly because I've felt like he stands for a particular brand of ultra-patriotism that isn't necessarily conducive to the kind of diplomatic relationships we need to foster today.

That said, I think it was pretty brave of Marvel to go ahead and commit to developing Captain America as a film franchise, and I think they did a great job of it. If nothing else, Captain America: The First Avenger sets up The Avengers beautifully, introducing the Tesseract/Cosmic Cube that we first saw in the stinger at the end of Thor.

But again, I'll be honest: I probably won't come back to the movie again.

Captain America: The First Avenger is a vital movie to the Marvel Cinematic Universe because it brings together seemingly disparate ideas already planted in Thor and contextualizes it in a way that doesn't make The Avengers seem haphazard. Not gonna lie, I geeked out when I realized that the entire beginning of the film was all about Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) getting his hands on the Tesseract, and he had this whole spiel about Odin and Yggdrasil and the power of the "gods."

That aside, it's not like Captain America: The First Avenger is a bad movie, it's just not up my alley. Yeah, the action sequences are great, and it's nice to understand why Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) was selected for the super-soldier experiment, and Stanley Tucci is awesome (as always). But something just felt a little off, and I think it was because I kept coming back to what Captain America stood for. The movie does a good job of employing tunnel vision and not reminding you of just what else was going on while Captain America was hunting down HYDRA, but it's hard to see a movie set in World War II and not think about what else was going on at the time. World War II is a downer.

Like I said earlier, I see Captain America as a relic of an age gone by, and he's not necessarily the hero we need anymore. However, I am fully prepared to see what they have in store for him in The Avengers and Captain America 2.

Final word: Captain America: The First Avenger is a good popcorn superhero flick with nothing inherently wrong but some may find it lays the patriotism on a little thick.

Bad Teacher (2011)

Bad Teacher (2011)
Director: Jake Kasdan
Screenplay: Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, Jason Segel, Lucy Punch, Phyllis Smith, John Michael Higgins, Molly Shannon, Eric Stonestreet

One-sentence summary: Elizabeth Halsey is a teacher concerned only with marrying the richest man she can get her hands on, and soon decides to try to figure out ways to earn even more money to get a boob job (which will in turn attract potential suitors).

Review: When it comes to comedy films, sometimes you have to let things slide for the sake of allowing the humor to come through. I would say that Bad Teacher is one of those movies, but the problem here is that Bad Teacher isn't really that funny. I'm not sure I had a single laugh-out-loud moment the entire film, even with the great cast the movie has.

This isn't to say it's a completely terrible movie. I've certainly seen worser movies, and I'd sooner decide to watch Bad Teacher again than watch lesser films. I think that's an interesting conclusion to arrive at. Bad Teacher isn't funny, but it's got some sort of strange charm to it that keeps you watching. In that way, I guess it's sort of the perfect movie to put on at a party or a get-together with friends but then forget about as you start up conversations about topics completely unrelated to the film.

This isn't a movie about Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz) coming to some sort of life-changing epiphany. It's not about her coming to see the error of her ways. Nope, it's very one note: Elizabeth cares just about herself and her needs, but she's not really repulsive for it. I'm going to attribute that to Cameron Diaz's charm. I guess I've got to admit that I'm still wondering why she ends up with Russell Gettis (Jason Segel) in the end because it sort of goes against her character, but whatever.

Final word: Bad Teacher is a little bland but for some reason it never really feel like you're wasting your time watching it.

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
Director: George Nolfi
Screenplay: George Nolfi
Starring: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, John Slattery, Terence Stamp

One-sentence summary: David Norris meets Elise Sellas and they feel an irresistable attraction to each other but higher powers intervene and try to keep them apart despite how "right" their budding romance feels to them.

Review: I think most of us would agree that we'd like to think our presence here means something. Whether it be to change the world or simply keep it running, we want our lives to have meaning. Some believe that our path in life is predetermined, some believe that it's entirely up to us to make our way in the world.

The Adjustment Bureau thinks we can have the best of both worlds.

The basic idea of The Adjustment Bureau is that there is the titular Adjustment Bureau that makes sure people don't deviate from the plans outlined for them by the "Chairman." They tail these individuals and, if necessary, course-correct in case any deviations occur. The main conflict of the film arises when David (Matt Damon) discovers that he was always meant to be with Elise (Emily Blunt) but then his plan changed; she was no longer a part of it. Despite that, the pull he feels towards her causes him to do whatever necessary to ensure that they can have a future together.

Matt Damon and Emily Blunt really sell you on the idea that David and Elise belong together. There's this cute chemistry when they're together that is a lot like the kind of chemistry you'd see in a good comedy movie, and it's not necessarily romantic chemistry from every angle. David and Elise are genuinely good together, even if you can't explain in concrete terms why. They just... work. It's been my experience that the really good relationships aren't always explainable. I had no problem accepting their romance.

The main reason I love the movie, however, is not because of Matt Damon and Emily Blunt (though it was hard not to be entertained when they had their cutesy moments together). It's its worldview. The movie posits the idea that from birth, everyone is set on a very specific path. Maybe it changes along the way, maybe it doesn't. Because of this path, you're given certain skills, abilities, and opportunities to ensure that you'll be successful in your endeavors. However, you still have the freedom to choose what to do with everything you've been given. We were given free will, and therefore we have the ability to exercise it. Will we follow what seems to be our preordained path, or will we forge a new path, possibly at the risk of losing what could be a very successful future?

Or is free will just an illusion and we were always meant to make the decision to deviate? Is the deviation a part of our path?

I leave it to you to answer these questions on your own.

And that's why I love the movie.

Final word: The Adjustment Bureau is an excellent film that makes you really think, and if that doesn't interest you, at least see it for the chance to see Matt Damon and Emily Blunt be really cute together.

The Ring (2002), Rings (2005), The Ring Two (2005)

The Ring (2002)
Director: Gore Verbinski
Screenplay: Ehren Kruger
Starring: Naomi Watts, Martin Henderson, Daveigh Chase, David Dorfman, Brian Cox, Amber Tamblyn

One-sentence summary: Rachel Keller investigates a rumor about a cursed videotape that kills you in a week after you watch it.

Rings (2005)
Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Screenplay: Ehren Kruger and Jonathan Liebesman
Starring: Ryan Merriman, Emily VanCamp, Alex Breckenridge, Josh Wise, Justin Allen

One-sentence summary: An underground subculture has formed that uses Samara's cursed tape in a twisted game of chicken.

The Ring Two (2005)
Director: Hideo Nakata
Screenplay: Ehren Kruger
Starring: Naomi Watts, David Dorfman, Simon Baker, Elizabeth Perkins, Sissy Spacek, Ryan Merriman, Emily VanCamp

One-sentence summary: Rachel and Aidan have started a new life in the small town of Astoria, Oregon but their peace is short-lived when Samara finds them.











Review: Stories are never set in stone. What makes a new interpretation fresh is how it takes the source material and alters it for whatever reason, and then we see how the changes affect the overall feeling. Sometimes they work beautifully. Other times they don't.

For all the vitriol diehard fans of the original give the remake, you have to hand it to The Ring for ushering in a wave of remakes of Asian horror films. They obviously did something right, and only the most reluctant fans would refuse to allow The Ring the chance to impact them as Ring did. Yes, The Ring is a louder film than Ring. Yes, it sort of holds the viewer's hand by trying to come up with explanations for most everything in the film. But to compare it endlessly to Ring would be unfair to The Ring because, frankly, The Ring is still quite good. The big changes they made--allowing Samara to appear like an innocent victim at first, having Anna kill Samara instead of the father figure like in Ring--add new layers to a familiar story that, yes, makes it fresh and exciting. While it becomes pretty obvious after awhile that Samara is the main antagonist, it's still brilliant to have her line, "But I do. And I'm sorry, it won't stop" have a double meaning. If there was anything I took away from the remake, it would be that line. I loved it on my first viewing and I still love it nine years later.

If there's one big complaint I have about The Ring, it would be the needless haunting. The Ring is sort of tailored towards an audience raised on Hollywood films where things can't stay static for too long, but I feel like the excessive haunting makes it a little too obvious that Samara is the true antagonist. She's a child, and children like to play with their toys. Rachel's theory that Anna is the progenitor of the curse is a nice (if obviously mistaken) change from Ring but the audience isn't going to fall for that, not when the victims have been messed around with for so much up to that point in the movie. However, Anna's unexpected role as Samara's murderer ends up being expanded upon wonderfully in the sequel, if unintentionally (and I have a low enough opinion of Ehren Kruger that I do believe he stumbled upon this plot thread by accident).

The main theme of The Ring Two is motherhood. Samara, for some unexplained reason, begins to identify Rachel as her mother. The issue I have with The Ring Two is that it doesn't hone in on this plot quickly enough. The unrated cut of the movie adds an extra 20 minutes, something that the movie just doesn't need. I wish the other characters cast suspicion on Rachel as an abusive mother (which she certainly isn't) earlier. I still get uncomfortable when I watch Rachel try to drown Aidan in an effort to make Samara leave his body. You can tell that she thinks she's crazy for even trying it, but she does it anyway because she feels like she has no other choice. She's even taking advice from a crazy lady! I also loved the suggestion that this hasn't been the first time Samara has haunted a woman and her child in an effort to find a new mother figure. The Ring Two has a lot of great ideas going for it, but it's executed rather haphazardly, and I'm pretty sure I can blame both Nakata and Kruger equally.

But speaking of great ideas, Rings is something completely unique in the entire franchise, both Japanese and American. It's easier to pull off in the American version, of course, because of the heightened emphasis on the haunting. The idea that there are people out there who will use the hallucinations from the cursed tape as a way to get high? It's brilliant, simply brilliant. I honestly wish they had never come up with this idea until recently so we could see it put into action in The Ring 3D (which may or may not be coming, I'm not sure anymore). As it stands, Rings is a great bite-sized companion to The Ring and The Ring Two, but I'm certain that with a bit of work, it could easily be expanded into a full-length feature. Alas, we're past that point now, so I'm only speaking out loud.

I'd also like to make a quick note about the score by Hans Zimmer. He made some fantastic themes for the films, and they certainly rank amongst my most memorable scores.

The Hollywood version of the cursed tape story isn't perfect, but then again neither is the original. (Ever notice how both Rachel and Reiko are still being haunted through day 7 even though they've both made a copy well before then?) I have to hand it to Hollywood for putting their own spin on the tale and going in a completely different direction than the source material. In the end, we got some great ideas that may never have been seen otherwise because there's simply no place for them in the Japanese films.

Final word: The Ring is a great, if slightly flawed, horror film that's sure to please anyone who isn't spending the entire runtime comparing it to the Japanese original. Rings is a brilliant short film that's a glimpse into what could have been had they expanded the short into a full-length feature. The Ring Two is perhaps thirty minutes too long if you're watching the unrated cut but it explores some fantastic ideas otherwise.

In Time (2011)

In Time (2011)
Director: Andrew Niccol
Screenplay: Andrew Niccol
Starring: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Vincent Kartheiser, Alex Pettyfer, Matt Bomer, Olivia Wilde

One-sentence summary: In a world where time is currency, Will Salas is given a century's worth of time and soon discovers the sinister truth behind the "economic" inequality between his life in the ghetto and those at the top who have accumulated millennia, making them virtually immortal.

Review: I find that I'm attracted most to science fiction that is able to use some kind of concept to shine a light on society. Dollhouse is an excellent example (though it's a TV series and not a movie, but it's an excellent TV series nonetheless). Sometimes it's really easy to let the concept overrun the point the story is trying to make, and I'm happy to say that In Time is not one of those films.

The basic concept of the universe In Time is set in is that everyone stops physically aging at the age of 25 and then a biological clock is switched on that lets them know how much time they have left before they die. Time is currency in the film; you work for it, you spend it. Those at the top of the "economic" ladder have hundreds, if not thousands of years. Those who live in the ghetto live day to day, constantly in danger of timing out. It costs time to travel between "time zones," ensuring that it's difficult for the average layperson to move up economically.

I'm sure by now you realize how socially relevant the movie is right now. Three words: Occupy Wall Street.

It's pretty crazy how perfectly timed (no pun intended) the movie's release was. A happy accident, I'm sure. I'm curious to see how many people pick up on the movie's idea that everyone deserves a chance to live the "American dream" and that those at the top are unfairly keeping all their time to themselves. It's insane to see Phillippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser) have over nine millennia on him when Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) was lucky to even have 24 hours. Of course, this leads into the movie's Robin Hood-like plot when Will and Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) decide to steal time to distribute to everyone in the ghetto.

If there was maybe one criticism I had to say about the movie, it's that it's so packed full of scenes and ideas that it feels much longer than its 109 minutes. Really, I think it's worth it. If you're the thinking type, you're going to leave the theater with a fresh perspective on current events.

Okay, and maybe the movie's concept was an excuse to cast all pretty people, but overlook that!

Final word: In Time is a smart, relevant take on economic inequality that perhaps surprisingly turns out to be a futuristic spin on Robin Hood.

Red State (2011)

Red State (2011)
Director: Kevin Smith
Screenplay: Kevin Smith
Starring: John Goodman, Melissa Leo, Michael Parks, Kerry Bishé, Kyle Gallner

One-sentence summary: Pastor Abin Cooper is the head of the Five Points Church, an ultra-conservative church that gives the Westboro Baptist Church a run for their money not only in ideology but also in sheer firepower.

Review: Let's make this clear: I didn't enjoy Red State very much.

Don't get me wrong, as a gay man, I can get riled up over anti-gay rhetoric. And Abin Cooper (Michael Parks) says a lot of it over the course of the film, and I found myself becoming increasingly agitated with every hateful word he spewed out. You would think that that helps invest you in the movie, but to be honest, it felt a little... cheap. And until it was made clear that in the movie's universe the Five Points Church co-exists with the Westboro Baptist Church, I was certain that Kevin Smith was merely exaggerating the "danger" that Westboro poses. Nope, Five Points is just batshit insane. Branch Davidian insane. Waco siege insane.

And then we come to the issue of what exactly the movie was trying to say.

Just what was it saying?

By the end of the film, I sat there in stunned silence trying to process what I had just seen. Kevin Smith managed to fuse together the ideology of Westboro with the trigger-happy Branch Davidians, and what resulted was not a particularly cheerful movie. I'm all for depressing movies, I just want them to say something. Red State feels like a misguided attempt at warning us about the dangerous combination of religious fervor and guns.

I'm uneasy in labeling Red State a horror movie even though that's what Kevin Smith calls it. I can see where he's getting that from but by no means is Red State a conventional horror film. The movie does a good job of making you feel uneasy (almost similar to maybe something you'd see in Saw or Hostel, but to a lesser degree) but it's not really something I think you'd pull out on Halloween. More than anything, Red State tries to make you uncomfortable and make you think, but it fails simply because the movies seems designed to shock rather than give you food for thought.

Final word: Red State is a strange film that has some good ideas contained within, but poor execution and a lack of emotional connection with the audience leaves you wondering why you're watching a movie that re-enacts the Branch Davidian Waco siege in a shorter span of time.

[REC] (2007), [REC]² (2009)

[REC] (2007)
Directors: Jaume Belagueró and Paco Plaza
Screenplay: Jaume Belagueró, Luis A. Berdejo and Paco Plaza
Starring: Manuela Velasco, Pablo Rosso, Ferrán Terraza, Jorge-Yaman Serrano

One-sentence summary: A reporter and her cameraman end up quarantined in an apartment building where a deadly infection similar to rabies has begun to spread.

[REC]² (2009)
Directors: Jaume Belagueró and Paco Plaza
Screenplay: Jaume Belagueró, Manu Díaz and Paco Plaza
Starring: Jonathan Mellor, Pablo Rosso, Óscar Sanchez Zafra, Ariel Casas, Alejandro Casaseca, Àlex Batllori, Pau Poch, Andrea Ros, Manuela Velasco

One-sentence summary: An official from the Ministry of Health is escorted into the quarantined apartment building to retrieve a blood sample from the Medeiros girl, but the situation soon becomes more complex than anyone had imagined.








Review: It's difficult to reinvent zombies, particularly when you consider that what now passes for the "modern zombie" was started by George A. Romero through his use of zombies as social commentary. When you think about zombies like that, they become pretty boring. The whole rising-from-the-dead and flesh-eating bits are common staples, and more often than not we see some sort of virus as an explanation for the creation of zombies. When you see a zombie movie, you usually know what you're going to get.

[REC] and [REC]² are not your typical zombie movies.

Adopting the cinéma vérité style and applying it to a horror film about zombies wasn't quite that original when [REC] came along (Romero's Diary of the Dead predates [REC] by about a year or so) but that doesn't diminish the experience of watching [REC]. The acting doesn't feel like acting, due in part to Belagueró and Plaza not being completely up-front with the actors about what was going on the day of the shoot. It's loose and reactionary, and that was the key element in making [REC] stand out. It feels authentic.

Boy, does it feel authentic.

I've said before how I hate jump scares. They're cheap if not done well. [REC] and [REC]² don't have any sort of score to speak of, and that makes the jump scares genuinely thrilling. You don't have crescendoing violins letting you know when you should be scared; it's exactly like what would happen in real life if someone creeped up on you. [REC] is likely the only film I've seen where I actually screamed. You're on edge for most of the films because there's no score to let you know when to be scared, and you're never quite sure what might be around the corner when the camera turns. It's brilliant.

[REC] only hints at what might be the cause of the viral outbreak. [REC]² explores it more, and to be honest, it's probably the only reason why [REC]² exists. I won't spoil it because it's pretty original, in my opinion, and leads to a fantastic final act in [REC]² that had me genuinely excited for what Belagueró and Plaza have in store for [REC]³ Genesis and [REC]⁴ Apocalypse. (And hopefully we can avoid stupid characters like the teenagers in [REC]². If there were any stereotypical horror film archetypes in either movie, it would be those kids.)

I'd like to mention one last thing: the zombies in [REC]²? They're the infected cast members from the first movie. If that's not an example of treating the audience like they're smart, I don't know what is. Bravo, directors. Bravo.

Final word: [REC] is a genuinely brilliant horror film sure to give you plenty of scares. [REC]² is a little less off-the-cuff and a little less unique than its predecessor, but it opens up the "mythology" very well and has a damn awesome final act.

The Social Network (2010)

The Social Network (2010)
Director: David Fincher
Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer, Josh Pence, Max Minghella, Justin Timberlake, Brenda Song, Rooney Mara, Rashida Jones

One-sentence summary: This is the story of how Mark Zuckerberg came to create Facebook.

Review: "Every creation myth needs a devil."

That line is spoken by Marilyn Delpy (Rashida Jones) in the final scene of the movie. If The Social Network is the creation myth of Facebook, then who is the devil? The obvious answer is Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), of course, but I don't think it's so cut and dry.

And that is why I love The Social Network.

Facebook is a MacGuffin when it comes to the film. The real story is not the intricacies of Facebook or how it grew into the site that it is today. What the movie focuses on are the people surrounding Facebook, and how creating a site ostensibly about social networking and staying in contact destroyed a friendship. It's a tragedy, but no one dies. It's Shakespearean, but no one is reciting lines of poetry. (Though they are saying the brilliantly-written lines from Aaron Sorkin. "Winklevi" is genius.) To call it "that Facebook movie" does it a disservice.

For a good part of the movie, Mark Zuckerberg is an asshole genius. The movie does a good job of explaining why, though: Erica Albright (Rooney Mara) is one reason. Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) is another. Erica is The Girl Who Got Away, the one Mark lost because he couldn't understand that he didn't have to act like an asshole to get people to respect him. Eduardo is the guy Mark wishes he could be, so to "destroy" him he slowly starts cutting Eduardo out of more and more of the decision-making when it comes to Facebook to the point where Eduardo's shares in Facebook get diluted to less than 1%. Mark betrays Eduardo in the truest sense, and all because the devil slipped in in the form of Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake). Sean comes around with his silver tongue and flashy know-how of the ins and outs of Silicon Valley and pushes Mark to betray Eduardo. Mark knows he made a mistake when Sean gets caught up in legal trouble, but by then it's too late. You can't un-betray someone.

Those involved with the movie--and those with first-hand knowledge of what really happened during Facebook's inception--say that the film isn't 100% accurate, and I think it's okay that it's not what really happened. As succinctly summarized in the quote above, The Social Network is a creation myth, it's a larger-than-life retelling. And it's the one everyone will know because it makes for good entertainment. So everything isn't true, that's okay, the core of it is. Mark Zuckerberg probably did step on more toes than he should've when he created Facebook. He's now one of the world's youngest billionaires, and that's an awesome achievement. But then the final frame of the movie leads you to wonder: was it worth it?

It's up to you to decide what lessons this creation myth contains. It is, in true Facebook fashion, generated by the userviewer.

Final word: The Social Network is a brilliantly-crafted film in the vein of a classical tragedy that is less about Facebook's creation and more about how human relationships are broken in the quest for the top of the dogpile.