Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[St. Francisco]

Hey Dell, I know you're probably backlogged...where does Ink stand on your to-do list?

 

[SOS4Prez]

Hey dell, you ever see In the Company of Men?

 

[FirstTimer]

Waiting For Guffman

Almost Famous

NOW!

 

[dell71]

Hey Dell, I know you're probably backlogged...where does Ink stand on your to-do list?

TBH, it might be a little while, but its definitely on my radar.

Hey dell, you ever see In the Company of Men?

Not yet. Thanks for the reminder, been meaning to watch this for awhile.

Waiting For Guffman

Almost Famous

NOW!

Haven't seen <em>Waiting for Guffman</em>, have to find it.

I liked <em>Almost Famous</em> very much. As soon as I can dig up the review, I'll post it.

 

[dell71]

The Social Network
<strong>Directed by David Fincher.</strong>
<em>2010. Rated PG-13, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Jesse Eisenberg
Andrew Garfield
Justin Timberlake
Armie Hammer
Brenda Song
Bryan Barter
Rooney Mara
Rashida Jones
Joseph Mazzello</em>​

“If you could’ve invented Facebook then, you would’ve invented Facebook,” Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) coldly says to one of the people suing him for allegedly stealing their idea. That statement is at the heart of all matters in <em>The Social Network.</em>. The movie never doubts Zuckerberg’s genius. It never suggest that Facebook could ever have come into existence without him. The question becomes how much did others contribute to making his vision a reality and whether or not they should be compensated.

Technically, the entire movie takes place inside a hearing room where three sides battle back and forth with flashbacks fleshing out the proceedings. Of course, there’s Zuckerberg. Then there is his former best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Garfield) suing Mark for pretty much muscling him out of the company. Finally, there’s the Winklevoss twins (Hammer in a dual role) who claim to have come up with the idea for Facebook.

Through it all, we see Zuckerberg’s not-so-humble beginnings as a drunken young man, bitter about just being dumped, venomously blogging about his now ex-girl while simultaneously hacking into much of the school’s online network to create an instant rate-a-girl site called FaceSmash. Eventually, we arrive at the point where Facebook is a worldwide phenomenon and Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world. We already know that. Many of you reading this not only have a Facebook page, but have children, parents and even grandparents that their own Facebook pages. This more about trust and what people do with it when they’ve earnied it. Trust is abused so often, we eventualyy have decide when that abuse is justified and when it is not.

<em>TSN</em> is also about the decade we’ve just lived through. It’s about how technology in general, and Facebook in particular, alters our world in increasingly rapid ways. It’s about how prepared or unprepared we are for those instantaneous changes. Can anyone really be prepared to go from average joe to king of all he surveys in just a few years? Strangely enough, though Zuckerberg is the focal point, the movie is not necessarily on his side. Through an excellent performance by Eisenberg he comes across as arrogant, aloof, vindictive, selfish and overly envious of others. He’s the modern day mad scientist who has succeeded in taking over the world, but found it’s not all its cracked up to be. We don’t root for him.

The person we root for is Eduardo Saverin, who put up the initial $1000 to fund the site’s development. We like him. His position seems undeniable so we sympathize with him. We desperately want Zuckerberg to come down from Mount Olympus and show gratitude to the little person that helped him get there.

This movie works because no matter how unlikeable our protagonist might be, we can see his side on a lot of things. Simultaneously, we can understand other viewpoints, as well. This keeps us locked in along with sharp dialogue in which characters rarely mince words. What also engages us is how relationships disintegrate. We’re intrigued to see if anything can be salvaged. However, the winds of sudden success has wreaked havoc on these people. Essentially, we’re watching a divorce procedure. At stake, the custody of their 500 million “kids” worldwide.

<strong>MY SCORE: 9/10</strong>​

 

[St. Francisco]

Strangely enough, though Zuckerberg is the focal point, the movie is not necessarily on his side. Through an excellent performance by Eisenberg he comes across as arrogant, aloof, vindictive, selfish and overly envious of others. He’s the modern day mad scientist who has succeeded in taking over the world, but found it’s not all its cracked up to be. We don’t root for him.

The person we root for is Eduardo Saverin, who put up the initial $1000 to fund the site’s development. We like him. His position seems undeniable so we sympathize with him. We desperately want Zuckerberg to come down from Mount Olympus and show gratitude to the little person that helped him get there.

That's because the movie is based off the book The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich, which is essentially Saverin's side of the story, painting Zuckerberg as the ultimate monster will making Saverin the martyr. I'm not saying that's not how it went down, but it's probable grossly exaggerated.

Still, great movie, I watched it last night.

 

[KillaK]

I just couldn't get that excited about the Social Network as everyone else did. The first time I watched it nothing really stood out and the 2nd time I thought it was good but I didn't get why people were freaking out over it so much. I guess its just not my thing.

You should watch The Parking Lot Movie. Its this documentary about these people who work at a parking lot and its surprisingly good.

 

[stevsta]

just saw an old WW2 movie called "A Midnight Clear" ever seen it

it was pretty good had gary sinese, kevin dillon, and ethan hawke

 

[dell71]

I just couldn't get that excited about the Social Network as everyone else did. The first time I watched it nothing really stood out and the 2nd time I thought it was good but I didn't get why people were freaking out over it so much. I guess its just not my thing.

You should watch The Parking Lot Movie. Its this documentary about these people who work at a parking lot and its surprisingly good.

Hmmm...never heard of The Parking Lot Movie. Have to add that to the list.

just saw an old WW2 movie called "A Midnight Clear" ever seen it

it was pretty good had gary sinese, kevin dillon, and ethan hawke

Haven't...also adding to the list. Keep 'em coming.

 

[dell71]

Predators
<strong>Directed by Nimród Antal.</strong>
<em>2010. Rated R, 107 minutes.
Cast:
Adrien Brody
Alice Braga
Topher Grace
Laurence Fishburne
Danny Trejo
Louis Ozawa Changchien
Walton Goggins
Oleg Taktarov
Mahershalalhashbaz Ali
Derek Mears</em>​

The tough guy (Brody), as he’s called most of the time, wakes up in the middle of free-falling from thousands of feet. I hate when that happens. Thankfully, he does have a parachute on, but has some trouble with it. It opens nearly too late. After surviving that little ordeal, he picks up his big gun…wait a minute…I didn’t see an assault rifle when he was falling. Anyhoo, he soon discovers a bunch of other have also dropped into this strange jungle. Most of them have really big guns, too. None of them know where they are or how they came to be suddenly falling from the sky. For the record, we never really find out.

Shortly, it becomes apparent our uneasily formed team of badasses is on another planet and that they’re being hunted. I was just telling someone the other day how much that sucks. It sucks even more when you realize the hunters are no Elmer Fudds but, as the title suggests, those nasty creatures we’ve come to know as Predators from way too many movies. Our crew getting picked off one by one while trying to figure out how to get home ensues.

We largely stick to the formula of the Arnold Schwarzenegger original. The major differences being our setting, a jungle on their planet, and the number of predators. The former adds to the sense of futility while the latter ramps up the danger. This keeps the movie on the narrow path fans of the franchise expect. In other words, they didn’t try to reinvent the wheel. Things are kept simple and it works. It is exactly what it wants to be.

Trying to dissect a movie like this is pointless. I can explore some of the gaping plotholes, the cheesy dialogue, the absolute waste of the good fortune to have both Adrien Brody and Laurence Fishburne in the cast and the predictability. None of these things really matters. The franchise has built up an immunity to such criticisms. Fans want to see Predators kill people while people try to survive and occasionally kill Predators. Mission accomplished.

If there is one gripe that might stick, it is with the ending. After more than an hour and a half, it’s like nothing is accomplished, except the passing of time. It seems that after a certain amount of time has passed, the director just got tired of making it. I can see Mr. Antal yelling “Cut!” and then saying “That’s enough, I’m done.” I can’t tell if it’s supposed to be a hopeful or hopeless ending. Either way, it feels lazy. Then again, does it matter? Predators kill people. People kill Predators. Stuff blowed up real good.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[Cody]

Nice read, I really didn't enjoy the movie that much.

 

[stevsta]

​

is it just me or does the predator helmet look like a huge helmet on an actors body rather than an advanced alien race with a helmet that would be made to fit snugly​

 

[NAHSTE]

Waiting For Guffman

Almost Famous

NOW!

Thanked for Waiting for Guffman. It absolutely nails community theater. Definitely one of the best from that series of mockumentaries.

(Almost Famous is a classic too.)


Dell, great write up on The Social Network. I thought the writing and directing was top notch, but the performance of Eisenberg (and Garfield too for that matter) put it over the top. Such a well made movie from top to bottom.

 

[Palooza]

Thanked for Waiting for Guffman. It absolutely nails community theater. Definitely one of the best from that series of mockumentaries.

(Almost Famous is a classic too.)


Dell, great write up on The Social Network. I thought the writing and directing was top notch, but the performance of Eisenberg (and Gafrield too for that matter) put it over the top. Such a well made movie from top to bottom.

Trent Reznor's score is unbelievable, too. Such an unlikely guy, but he did an amazing job. After seeing what he did on this, he was a perfect choice for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

 

[SOS4Prez]

^Agreed. Hand Covers Bruise is one of the most simple, yet powerful pieces of music ever. It captures the entire tone of movie.

 

[dell71]

Mother
<strong>Directed by Joon-Ho Bong.</strong>
<em>2009. Rated R, 128 minutes, Korean.
Cast:
Hye-ja Kim
Bin Won
Ku Jin
Je-mun Yun
Mi-sun Jun
Sae-Byeok Song
Gin-goo Kim</em>​

A young woman with a tawdry reputation turns up dead and draped over the edge of a building’s roof. In very short order, the police decide that Do-Joon (Won) is the guilty party. Since we’ve already met him, we don’t think he’s capable of such a thing. He has some undefined mental disability which severely hampers his memory. It also renders him socially immature. Autism, maybe? He appears to be fairly harmless. His mother (Hye-ja Kim), whom he lives with, agrees with this assessment and takes to the streets to do what O. J. Simpson vowed so many years ago: find the real killer.

Mom soon finds herself in all sorts of dangerous positions, dealing with shady characters and getting no cooperation from the cops who insist they have the right person. Regardless of the risks she must take or the potential futility of her quest, she drives on, undeterred.

This sounds like a pretty typical murder mystery where someone close to the accused takes up their cause and tries to find who’s really responsible. It’s more than that. In fact, by the time we reach the end, the crime’s perpertrator is of secondary importance. Of primary concern is the unfolding of a mother’s relationship with her son. A revelation late in the movie surprises, possibly even upsets us. Though its something she already knew, how this is brought to the surface surprises and upsets her, also. An action she takes later not only gives herself those same feelings, it irrevocably changes her. For us, our perception of her changes with the revelation. The question then becomes does the action change it back, or worsen? In answering that question, the movie leads us to an interesting debate. Knowing what we’ve just witnessed, would we be proud to say she were our mother?

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Runaways
<strong>Directed by Floria Sigismondi.</strong>
<em>2010. Rated R, 106 minutes.
Cast:
Dakota Fanning
Kristen Stewart
Michael Shannon
Riley Keough
Scout Taylor-Compton
Stella Maeve
Alia Shawkat
Tatum O’Neal</em>​

In 1975, the first all-girl, all-teen rock band named The Runaways took the world by storm. It was anchored by lead guitarist and future rock icon Joan Jett (Stewart). However, the biggest star in the group at that time was lead singer Cherie Currie (Fanning). This story starts with the days just before this wild ride started and ends just after the ride does, a little more than two years later. Of central concern is how this affected these two young ladies.

Based on the book <em>Neon Angel: The Cherie Currie Story</em> by the real Currie, it’s understandable the film centers around her. It’s easily the most adult role to date for Dakota Fanning who sheds her creepy pale kid image for drugged up pale starlet. Perhaps symbolizing both the growing up of the character and the actor, the first time we see Currie she’s getting her period for the first time. Unlike most young ladies, there’s no rush to the supermarket or to borrow something from her mom or sister. Instead, she stuffs a wad of toilet paper in her undies. Ewww.

Ickiness aside, that scene symbolizes something else, also. It lets us know we’re not about to watch any dainty debutantes who happen to ply instruments. These are a couple of bawdy broads who don’t quite fit in with regular society and subculture they so desperately want to be a part of may not quite be ready for them. The movie takes on their grit and disdain for perceived normalcy. It depicts rock-n-roll as liberating yet misogynist, hedonist yet dangerous.

Fanning carries the movie with a wonderful performance. She ably facilitates a number of our emotions. We love, hate, are disgusted by and sympathize with her, all at once. As Jett, Kristen Stewart shows considerably more ability than she has in the <em>Twilight</em> movies. She’s not quite the performer Fanning is, but she holds her own. None other than the real Joan Jett has praised her work. By the way, Fanning is horrible in the <em>Twilight</em> flicks, too, but she only has bit parts.

None of this would work without two things. The first seems rather easy. The soundtrack comes ready-made. Songs from the era, mostly by the real Runaways are both played on stage and plugged in at appropriate times during non-performance scenes. If you’re a fan, you’ll want to have the volume cranked to 11 for this one. Look up the reference, I’m too lazy to explain.

The second thing is a villain. To that end, we get Michael Shannon as producer Kim Fowley. His maniacal puppeteer act injects life into the girls even as it threatens to suck it out of them. Eventually, it does. The question is how permanent is the damage? Fowley’s wild-eyed, quick-tongued nuttiness isn’t the only problem, here. The girls are young and impressionable, quick to indulge in whatever feels good at the moment. It’s quite the volatile mix.

The movie is not without flaws. There are too many things on screen we never get a feel for. They’re mostly skimmed over or ignored. The biggest thing is the other girls in the band. They’re just set decorations, more or less. Lita Ford (Taylor-Compton), who went on to become a star in her own right, has one moment where she spazzes out on Currie, but that’s it. Really? There are five girls in the band and three of them are pretty much faceless. Ford, nor the others, even get a blurb at the end explaining what happened to them after the events depicted like Currie, Jett and Fowley. This would’ve been a much better movie had the others been allowed to participate as they must have in real life.

Other things feel left out, as well. How did they come up with the name of the band? Did they care or even know that Jett and Currie were having sex with each other? How does Joan actually learn to play guitar? We see her get one lesson which she storms out of because she doesn’t like her instructors song of choice. How did they come up with the songs? The movie at least attempts to answer the last one as we see how they come up with their hit “Cherry Bomb.” Apparently, the way they came up with the rest is vastly different. However, we find this out way too late and in a way that doesn’t seem tangible to the group.

Regardless of its problems, <em>TR</em> is an enjoyable watch. Excellent acting and a down and dirty tone keep us intrigued. It moves swiftly, never drags. In true seventies fashion, it has fun with all the debauchery on display. In the end, it’s part womens lib, part cautionary tale and all sex, drugs and rock-n-roll.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[Rivers17ncsu]

I may have to check out the Runaways

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

The Runaways was a nice flick for a Friday w/ your girl.

Although, I never want to hear Cherry Bomb again.

 

[SOS4Prez]

Everyone who acted in The Runaways dominated, but Shannon stole the show. Dude's a nut.

Dakota Fanning as Cherie Currie made me feel so god damn dirty.