Super 8 (2011)

*This review contains spoilers*

J.J. Abrams, the writer and director of the new summer blockbuster Super 8, should be praised for putting what is likely to be the only original movie this summer (meaning there is no prior existing source material or it is not a sequel). How disappointing, then, that this movie lacks the inspiration that audiences need in this day and age to remind them that good, original filmmaking is worth fighting for. That there can be a heart to a film, not just loud explosions throughout.

Abrams more or less succeeds at this noble goal in the first hour of the film, in which the only major action set pieces are a ridiculously huge train crash, and a scary gas station attack. It is in this first hour that we are introduced to the child cast, lead by Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) and auteur Charles (Riley Griffith). There are other various stereotypes that make up the group, including a pyromaniac and two anxious nerds. A love interest is introduced in the form of Alice (Elle Fanning), who agrees to act in the super 8 film these kids are making, and tender scenes between her and Joe abound. They really are well done.

But then the monster is introduced, and it is here that the movie unravels. The scenes where the monster attacks are well done and thrilling, but the film takes a complete 180 at the end as it is discovered this beast really just wants to go home. You can tell Abrams wants you to feel sorry for this creature, but after watching an hour of this thing viciously kill dozens of innocent people, the moment Joe and the beast have at the end borders on the ludicrous and as the movie imitates E.T.'s ending, you are filled with tears of disappointment for what this movie could have been.

Abrams effectively establishes his characters but seems to have no idea how to make their character arcs more organic. Both Joe and Alice have daddy issues which are neatly resolved inexplicably by the end. Things come to happy yet unsatisfying conclusion.

And the real problem is that damn monster, a stranded alien from outer space. Spielberg made aliens lovable and friendly with Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and E.T. (1982), and Abrams clearly is modeling his film after both of these. Yet in Close Encounters people are abducted, but no one is harmed and everyone is returned safely at the end. And E.T. is as harmless as can be. I don't mind Abrams wanting to have the alien monster be a savage killer, but the creature needs to be introduced to us as more sympathetic then this movie's lousy excuse. King Kong shepherds Anne around the whole movie, never intending on harming her, and we see his gentle side and feel sympathy when the nasty humans take him. This monster doesn't even have a memorable design.

Abrams is a skilled director, but he's more a craftsman then an artist. Star Trek is essentially a lot of action scenes, and its a well done film, but it lacks heart. Super 8 sows the seeds of Abrams injecting real emotion into a story, but in the end, he's just a kid with a big budget looking to make his monster movie.

End note: stay for the end credits, the Super 8 film shown is better then the movie you just saw.

The Social Network (2010)

When David Fincher's latest film (and quite possibly his best) ends, you may wonder what was it about this film that you loved? I find it almost indescribable to tell you what was so wonderful about the film, but let me try and explain.

The movie concerns the invention of the social networking site, Facebook. It is about Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), his friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), and the various other members who take part in this revolutionary invention. When it was announced two years ago that they were making a Facebook movie, many of us (including myself) scoffed at the notion. How could they make a movie about Facebook? Then when Fincher was signed to direct and Aaron Sorkin, creator and writer of the West Wing, signed to pen the script, many of us breathed a collective sigh.

And they have delivered. I think the film benefits more from Sorkin then from Fincher; his memorable dialogue is what drives every scene, and I would be surprised if this didn't win for Best Adapted Screenplay at this year's Oscars. Of course, Sorkin's dialogue would be nothing if he didn't have a fine cast to embody those words and make their own. And I am not diminishing Fincher's role in all of this; it was his sure hand that guided them through it all to the very finish.

Besides telling the story of how Saverin, Zuckerberg's only real friend, came to sue him for $600 million, the movie meditates on how Facebook has infiltrated our very lives. What made it appealing and different from MySpace or Friendster? Exclusivity. The site was founded solely for Harvard students, then expanded to Cambridge, Yale, and Stanford, and eventually across two continents and farther. When I first joined Facebook four years back, I had to be invited to join (I was only in High School), and it felt like I was being admitted into an exclusive club (I believe it had only recently be opened up to email invitation). Now to sign up is as simple as couple clicks, but then, it was something special.

The movie also does an excellent job of balancing between the invention and meteoric rise of Facebook, and the two depositions, one for Saverin, the other for three Harvard men who had an idea for a site called The Harvard Connection, which Zuckerberg essentially took and made better. These three men, two of the brothers, have a legitimate case, as does Saverin. In fact, from the very first scene, Zuckerberg isn't entirely likable. And I think that's what is amazing about this movie.

We've had unlikable protagonists before, but I think Zuckerberg's portrayal is so poignant because it proves that success and glamour don't go hand in hand, as people would like to believe. Before he invents Facebook, Zuckerberg is nobody, just a computer hacker and programmer (and an excellent one). But after, he gets groupies, and he suddenly becomes the person everyone wants to be friends with. If they spent time getting to know him, they might not like the person they see. The film opens with Zuckerberg on a date with Erica Albright (Rooney Mara, who will play Lisbeth in Fincher's remake of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), and she says, "You are going to be a successful programmer, and you are going to spend your whole thinking girls won't date you because you are a nerd. And I tell you, from the bottom of my heart, that that is not true. It's because you're an asshole."

The movie cites this incident as Zuckerberg's initial creation of Facebook. If you search Erica Albright Real on Google, you'll return articles contemplating whether this character actually exists or not. In fact, Zuckerberg said the movie plays out a lot like fiction, some of it weighed in fact, of course, but certain events dramatized or invented for the filmmakers benefit.

And I say good for them. My favorite biopic (which this essentially is) ever made is Amadeus (1984), but that movie makes a rivalry between Salieri and Mozart that didn't actually exist in real life. But do I care? No, because the movie plays out with terrific drama and is one of the best movies I have ever seen. If you want straight fact, go find a biography (which I'm sure we'll see one soon about the ACTUAL Zuckerberg story).

Fincher and Sorkin and everyone involved have crafted one of the year's best pictures, and one I eagerly await seeing again. It's a film about our times, about lives. It is also the story of how to skillfully screw your friend out of a business. Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), the founder of Napster, exclaims to Zuckerberg "This is our time!" Indeed it is.

A Serious Man (2009)

Dark is a word you could use to describe this film; cynical is another. Comedic, maybe. They are all appropriate expressions of probably what is the Coen's most curious recent work to date. It's not fanciful like Raising Arizona (1987) or The Big Lebowski (1998), but its less cynical then No Country For Old Men (2007) and less comedic then Fargo (1996).

The movie is, at its bare bones, an adaptation of the Book of Job, and if you don't know that story, read it and find out what horrible things God will do to you to make you prove your fate. Much the same happens here, as Larry Gobnik's (Michael Stuhlbarg) life begins to spiral out of control, beginning with his wife asking for a divorce, and the incessant arrogance of everyone around him. He seeks help from three rabbis, who offer some interesting, but useless, insight.

You'll leave the movie with mixed emotions on it, I guarantee it, but this movie is meticulously and somewhat ingeniously constructed so that a single viewing, I think, may not be enough to really take in and understand all the movie has to offer and is trying to say. Most of the Coen's movies are about people who get in bad situations and things deteriorate until it ends badly for them. In Fargo, Jerry Lundegaard (a decidedly unsympathetic character) sinks deeper and deeper into a quagmire of his ransom, and in No Country For Old Men (2007), Llewelyn Moss continues playing his cat-and-mouse game with the unstoppable Anton Chigurh.

Here, however, is a man who you assume has done the best with his life and who really doesn't deserve to undergo the unraveling chaos his life is hurled into. Larry is the kind of man who doesn't stand up for himself, who lets others wash over him, as his wife begins discussing marrying an older man, Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed). Sy is the kind of man much akin to Peter Sarsgaard's character in An Education (2009); though not good looking, he is charming and reassuring, while being a complete slimebag underneath it all.

You almost forget there is a ten-minute opening sequence which tells the story of a Jewish man and his wife on a cold winter night encounter what she believes to be a Dybbuk, which, Wikipedia helpfully explains, is a soul that possesses someone's body, a soul that did not fulfill their life's purpose. Though the question is left unanswered: was this man really a Dybbuk?

I will not pretend to know what the opening is supposed to mean, but I have my theory: it lays out the rest of the movie to come, and the movie's eventual sudden ending. But maybe I'm completely off base on this one, and will delve into the many theories other's may have on IMDb or other message boards (sometimes IMDb message boards can be enlightening, sometimes they can be a sad example of what our country has come to).

The technical aspects of this movie are superb, from Roger Deakins' Cinematography to Roderick Jaynes' editing. The movie constructs a few terrific intercut sequences, paralleling either a doctor check-up and a Yiddish lesson, or two simultaneous car crashes, to the movie's powerful and sudden ending.

I really look forward to seeing this movie again. I think it is a fair step up from Joel & Ethan's previous venture, Burn After Reading (2008) which I feel is just an excuse for a slideshow of big stars to be in the same movie, doing ridiculous things. No, this movie is not gut-bustingly funny, but it lingers with you, and is a movie you will enjoy discussing and pondering. I really look forward to seeing it again.

Se7en (1995)

The following review contains spoilers.  You have been warned.

"Ernest Hemingway once said the world is a fine place, and worth fighting for.  I agree with the second part."

- Det. William Sommerset

So says Det. Sommerset (Morgan Freeman), in voice over, at the conclusion of Se7en, a film that is one of the most gruesome pieces of filmmaking I have ever seen, yet is surprisingly graphic only in the details of the crime scenes.  Had this movie been made today, where we have been desensitized by Saw and Hostel, we might have gotten scenes of the killer actually carrying out these acts of torture, instead of the intelligent mystery that is wrapped around the reason for these killings.

Today, the movie might have opened with John Doe (Kevin Spacey) torturing the gluttony victim, instead of Sommerset and Det. Mills (Brad Pitt) meeting at an unrelated crime scene.  Thankfully David Fincher, who had only been known for Alien 3, defined a very unique style that he would lay out in two other films in which the minds of the insane are explored.  This is still my favorite film he's made, unlike Fight Club (1999), which is entertaining for two viewings, and then becomes overrated with each subsequent observation.

The movie is about a killer who's M.O. is the seven deadly sins as laid out by Dante and observed in many classic books (Canterbury Tales and the Divine Comedies are mentioned frequently).  Sommerset and Mills set-out to try and solve the case: Sommerset is retiring, on his final week, and Mills is new, training to make a difference in the world.

The characters exist in a city that has the look and feel of Los Angeles in the 40s, and the weather of Seattle.  The film bleeds of film noir in every frame, as muted colors, especially blacks and grays, are used throughout the film to establish the somber mood.  Is this movie an allegory of our times, still relevant today?  Definitely.  Sommerset hates living in the city, where petty murders happen a mere four blocks from the police station and are ignored for the higher profile murders of famous lawyers.

The film does a very good job of incorporating the cop buddy cliché into this movie because rarely have we ever seen it used in this setting.  If you think about it, the relationship between the cops isn't any different the relationship between Danny Glover and Mel Gibson in the Lethal Weapon films.  Sommerset is established as very traditional and studious, going to the library to research the seven deadly sins and tying his own ties (a lost art, apparently).  Mills, on the other hand, needs CliffNotes to get through the Divine Comedies, and has all his ties pre-tied for him.  The contrast between the two is very distinct, most obviously in Sommerset's placidity and Mills' yearning to get things done.

A question I kept posing myself throughout the film was why do I like this, and for that matter, why is it so good?  The film is depraved on many levels, but a little depravity probably isn't a bad thing, as long as mature viewers are witnessing it.  But one could argue that the film is merely a slideshow of gruesome acts dressed with classic literature to give it some sense of higher meaning.  The meaning of it all, though, is only evident to John Doe, the crazed mastermind behind it all.

We do enjoy villains who are articulate, who say exactly what they mean to say.  Why else was Hannibal Lecter so appealing?  Kevin Spacey is terrific as the killer, and it is to this movie's credit that he doesn't show up until the last half hour of the film, and that he isn't a raving lunatic.  He is crazy, but like all crazy people he believes he is working for a higher cause, that he was chosen to carry out the acts laid out before him.

"Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say that these were innocent people and keep a straight face.  But that's the point.  We see a deadly sin on every street corner, in every home, and we tolerate it.  We tolerate it because it's common, it's trivial.  We tolerate it morning, noon, and night."  This is how John Doe puts it when asked why he murdered the innocents.  Yes they were imperfect human beings, and so are all of us.  That's John Doe's sermon: our world has gotten so bad that these Seven Deadly Sins are seen by many on a regular, daily basis.  And who can say they haven't experienced gluttony, greed, pride, sloth, lust, envy, or wrath at some point in their lifetime?  I can attest that I have experienced at least gluttony and/or sloth on more then one occasion (those two go together, almost).

As I stated before, there is no real exhibition of actual violence in the film, save one chase scene.  However, the film graphically depicts the violent acts the victims undergo throughout the course of the film, and leaves the actual crime to your imagination.  The crime scenes even help clearly illustrate to you how the crime scene is played out, but the film isn't here for all the gory details.  We don't every see the whore's mangled body, or the disfigured face of the woman, though we do see the fat man, the lawyer, and the drug dealer who has been lying down for a year.

I guess the great irony of the film is that only in a society such as ours could a film like this be considered excellent, a real tapestry of violence and insanity.  Of course, the film is merely an adaptation of the great works of literature it displays in the film.  The Bible is very bloody, as are some of Shakespeare's plays (Merchant of Venice is directly referenced here, and we can thank God John Doe decided not to take note of Titus Andronicus).  Violence has been a natural part of society, from the gladiators to the current spectacle we see depicted on celluloid.

Every year I make a list of top 50 favorite movies I have ever seen, usually to incorporate some new discovery I have made in the past year, or to reorder something I don't particularly agree with now.  On the four lists I have made thus far, I have consistently ranked Se7en as one of my favorites, a couple of times in my top 10.  What makes this movie so sublime, I think, is that every time I watch it I discover something new and yet am able to relive the suspense the first time I saw the movie.  Even though I anticipate that ending, it still makes my jaw drop in horror every time.

Though the final moment of the climax is something I continually agree and disagree with regularly.  The movie has an alternate ending that personally sounds like a better one to me.  Mills has too much time to think about the action he is going to take, and Sommerset just stands there and lets him think about it without physically intervening.  It's a moment that wouldn't happen ever, but as I've said, this movie incorporates the buddy cop formula into a deadly situation.

Ultimately, Se7en is a movie I will always love, despite my minor disagreement with the final moment of the ending.  But it's a film rich with acting, set design, directing, writing, and of course, a killer ass opening credits sequence.  If I ever make a list of the 10 best opening credit sequences of all time, Se7en will definitely be on that list.