A 'Limitless' Supply of Entertainment

by Brett Parker

Whenever our country faces hard times of economical depression, movies about rags-to-riches stories tend to thrive in their popularity. We can always obtain a great fulfillment fantasy from watching ordinary Joes having fame and fortune dropped into their laps. And even if they are threatened to lose it all, important humanist values come shining through in the end, helping us to realize that theres more to life than fame and fortune. Limitless more or less follows this mold, except for the typical moralistic ending. Instead of renouncing fame and fortune, here’s a film that curiously defends it. The hero of this story resorts to preposterously shrewd methods to avoid the repercussions of his actions, commenting deliciously on the relentless ambitions of our culture today.

Bradley Cooper stars as Eddie Morra, a down-on-his-luck struggling writer. With the appearance of a shaggy vagabond, Eddie can’t seem to overcome his writer’s block, financial woes, and the fact that his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish) just dumped him due to his laziness. Things, however, take a whopping turnaround the day Eddie bumps into his ex-brother-in-law, Vernon (Johnny Whitworth), on the streets of New York. Vernon is a former drug-dealer turned big business consultant who tells Eddie that he has a magic pill that can cure all his ills. If humans can only access 20% of their brains, then this pill can help you access all of it, bringing you to extreme heights of awareness and intelligence thats almost superhuman. Figuring things can’t get any worse, Eddie decides to take the pill.

Almost instantly after ingesting it, Eddie’s brain lights up like a pinball machine and he transforms into a super genius. He finishes his book in record time, he learns to play instruments and speak foreign languages in a matter of days, and he uses new-found mathematical skills to rack up millions in the stock market. Of course these millions help turn Eddie from a broke sap into a suave, dapperly-dressed, good-life-living smoothie, the kind that even wins back Lindy.

Yet going from zero-to-hero overnight is bound to bring an awful lot of attention with it, something Eddie hopelessly draws on himself with dangerous consequences. A financial big shot (Robert DeNiro) grows anxious to find out Eddie’s secrets-to-success, a scary loan shark (Andrew Howard) discovers Eddie’s secret drug and demands more, and Vernon isn’t able to reveal the source of the pill, making Eddie’s supply limited. Not only will Eddie lose all of his intelligence and insights when the drug runs out, but he learns that deadly things can happen to people who’ve abused this pill before.

Limitless is not only a dizzying entertainment but also comments on the way we live now in very peculiar ways. Through Eddie, we can identify with an American need to seek fame and fortune instantly without putting in any of the apparent hard work. Most of us would probably swallow that pill, consequences be damned, faster than Eddie would. Even as it becomes blatantly clear that Eddie’s success and drug-use can cause deadly repercussions for himself and others, his chief concern appears to be the loss of his fortune and entitlement. The obsessive lengths Eddie goes to to protect his lavish lifestyle eerily reflects the relentless American need to protect our egos and assets by any means necessary. Out of the desperation of poverty comes a Machiavellian need to achieve the ultimate success and keep it.

Eddie’s behavior also mirrors modern day people’s mentality of justifying their bad habits. Limitless appears to be one of the few, if only, films that “justifies” drug abuse. From the outset, the film appears to be a zany play on the structure of a “drug addiction” film, for Eddie gets hooked on a pill, is marveled by the way it makes him feel, and crashes into the dark abyss most drugs takes its users. Yet instead of halting to a tragic ending, Eddie finds ways to beat the drug’s side effects and ultimately ends up with a “if you don’t abuse it too hard, it can’t kill you” argument. A drug abuser’s justification fantasy is just one of the loony things lurking within this busy plot.

Despite the dark and despairing depths the film flirts with, director Neil Burger (The Illusionist) plays everything as if it were an energetic hoot, which it more or less is. I admire the way he pushes for visual creativity to express the fireworks show going on inside Eddie’s brain. We’re treated to elaborate zooms that cover a spectacular amount of area, animated numbers and letters that bounce around the screen, and jumps in Eddie’s memory that appear to make the screen bounce. Since Eddie’s brain is whirling with an overload of information and adrenaline, Burger makes the film appear in the same vein. It can feel a bit messy at times, but its never boring and certainly generates some excitement.

It’s good that Bradley Cooper can convey a natural likable quality, for it helps sell us on Eddie even when he's doing unlikeable things. Cooper has a gift for making preening narcissists appear to have a charming soul (something he employed superbly in The Hangover and The A-Team), and he teleports a great deal of sympathy as we go about Eddie’s journey. The big disappointment here is Robert DeNiro’s performance, which is completely phoned-in and half-asleep. DeNiro appears to be coasting on just memorizing his lines and doesn’t even bother giving his character any sinister sizzle, or even any energy. He may be growing older, but there are plenty of aging pros who could relish such a part (I think of the way Michael Douglass kept the juiciness going in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps). As for Abbie Cornish, she brings as much sweetness as she can to her small role, in spite of the fact that Eddie treats her more like one of his capitalist trophies instead of true love.

Limitless is one of those enjoyable entertainments that asks you “What Would You Do?” The film gets its big kick from the fact that most Americans probably would do it just like Eddie did it. There are endless subplots popping up all over the place to keep you on the edge of your seat, and the script actually finds devious ways to tie everything up. Plus, it’s a true testament to Bradley Cooper that while Eddie isn’t the most admirable of characters, you certainly don’t mind spending two hours on the big screen with him.

A 'Lawyer' Worth Hiring

by Brett Parker

Crime procedurals are a dime a dozen on TV land these days. The big homework assignment of one that finds its way to the silver screen is to be cinematic enough to distinguish itself from just another prime-time episode. The Lincoln Lawyer passes that test mainly due to the intricate plotting and colorful characterizations of Michael Connelly, the author of the source novel, and from the leading man wattage of Matthew McConaughey, a born charmer whose stabs at prestige and fun with fluff shouldn’t skewer the true-blue movie star he is.

The film stars McConaughey as Mick Haller, a California lawyer who specializes in representing the sleaze and low-lifes caught up in their seedy ways. Due to a DUI incident and a need to save on office fees, Haller conducts business out of the backseat of his Lincoln town car while the trusty Earl (Laurence Mason) chauffeurs him around. Haller’s chief clients appear to be bikers and drug-abusers until the day Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillipe) is brought to his attention. Roulet is the son of a wealthy family whose been accused of raping and beating a prostitute after a night of clubbing. Roulet proclaims to Haller that he’s innocent and that it’s all a set-up to extort money from him.

Haller decides to take on the case even though he suspects not everything is what it seems. An old private investigator friend (William H. Macy) reveals that Roulet’s story is full of holes. Haller’s own suspicions leads him to believe that Roulet is lying to him about something. He digs deeper only to find a large web of deceit filled with bending twists and turns. This web not only challenges Haller’s well-being but gets the people around him caught up in elaborate gambits to seek true justice.

Author Michael Connelly has become a hot property with his potboiler legal thrillers, putting him in the same stratosphere of popularity as John Grisham. If his stories are even half as appealing as The Lincoln Lawyer’s big-screen adaptation, then I can certainly see why. This story covers an ocean of compelling characters basked in the California sun, challenging the moralities of low-level players and the lack there-of within the higher class. The Lincoln Lawyer doesn’t get its kicks from big courtroom scenes, but the chess game that happens outside of the legal system, where the heroes’ economy of wacky and valuable acquaintances aids him in elaborate schemes to beat the system and deliver justice in bizarrely existential ways. It’s a testament to screenwriter John Romano (Intolerable Cruelty) that the script gives affectionate time to each of the fun characters while still giving apt attention to the carefully calculated plot, sometimes before we even realize it.

Director Brad Furman (The Take) may not have mastered expert-handling of the camera, but he knows how to make this delicious story pop and sizzle. The weakest thing about the film is the shaky-cam style most of the scenes are basked in, hopelessly stamping the film with the shooting style of gritty-television dramas. It also doesn’t help matters that flashback scenes are filmed like the ones on CSI. Television shows can be dizzying and crude, but movies should be wonderfully shrewd with the camera to create a strong sense of atmosphere and tone. Still, Furman knows enough when to let the camera sit back and regard the behavior of the characters. I’m thankful for the patient observations within this busy plot, and I also loved the soulful r & b soundtrack which helps convey how Haller is a man of the streets, something he cheerfully agrees to. And wouldn’t you know it, Furman even treats us to some good old-fashioned movie sex!

With all the different styles of movie acting out there, it seems we have a shortage nowadays in the Paul Newman department. You know, genuine leading men in the classical mold who ooze with effortless charm and charisma. The kind who seduce the audience with their abilities to smooth-talk the ladies and tough-talk the baddies. The kind who could teach a master class in how to work your way around the barroom and the bedroom. At this point in his career, Matthew McConaughey has proven to be that kind-of-actor. The Mick Haller character gives him the perfect opportunity to show off his rascally charm, likable ease, and tact intensity, and we should all be thankful for a character that allows a movie star to hit on all cylinders. Haller is a man who goes from roguish schemer to moral crusader, and sometimes these traits blend in nicely with each other. Watching McConaughey infuse such a character with his laid-back smoothness is great fun to relish. I hope this character shows up in many more movies.

In the old Studio days, big stars were given great assists by a supporting cast of invaluable character actors who stole the occasional scene or two. The Lincoln Lawyer follows that tradition by employing seasoned pros to make up the compelling characters in Haller’s life. Ryan Phillipe brings a nice ambiguity to a spoiled rich kid, William H. Macy conveys a great lived-in scrappiness as a private investigator, Michael Pena hits very intense bases as one of Haller’s wrongly-imprisoned clients, Josh Lucas wisely ditches pretentious smarminess as a prosecuting attorney, and Marisa Tomei brings such warmth and sunniness to her role as Haller’s ex-wife that you wonder why they even bothered getting a divorce in the first place. From a biker gang to sleazy rich people, Haller is surrounded by a motley gallery of characters, and these experienced actors help bring heart and dimensions to each person we see. We care about these seemingly disposable characters, even when the plot begins to make us realize that they aren’t disposable at all.

The Lincoln Lawyer arrives at the same moral musings as countless other thrillers in this genre and in the end, it can’t transcend its pulp trappings. Still, Connelly’s elaborate plotting and McConaughey’s electricity make this one more fun than most others. The Mick Haller character has appeared in two other Connelly novels I haven’t read, but judging by the enjoyment I obtained from his first big-screen outing, I hope to see Haller’s other adventures find their way to the silver screen. This lovable rascal and the craziness he gets himself involved in would help bring jolts of fun to a tired genre.

The Top 10 Movies of 2010

by Brett Parker

2010 was a year in which people created great optimistic views of the way the world could improve upon itself, in spite of the fact that the very problems plaguing our society in recent years are still very much present. Everyday people, seemingly rooted in either Democratic or Republicans viewpoints, have been vigorously holding onto idealistic visions of a greatly improved world in spite of the way it clashes with the harsh realities of how the world must actually deal with its problems. While it’s great to see people wholly dedicate themselves to ideas full of hope and vision, it was rather unpleasant to see them defend them in an aggressive, uncivil manner towards any that opposed their views as the absolute way. Instead of being greatly empathetic towards others standpoints, we found comfort and justification by staying in our fantasy worlds.

The cinema of 2010 perhaps strongly reflected this societal concept, for a consistent theme throughout the films of the year was an idea of rooting one’s self in a fantasy world while the problems of the real world fester relentlessly outside of it. On the big screen, we saw a thief stuck in a vivid-dream landscape who refuses to wake up to reality, a teenager imagining his life as a comic/video game adventure to put-off a self-analysis of his inadequacies and faults, a detective caught in a feverish charade meant to combat tragic truths from his past, a bank robber caught up in ideas of a quiet family life in spite of his violent criminal environment, a movie star who bought into the trappings of fame in spite of the emotional void it brings along with it, and a boxer who must overcome his family’s grand delusions of athletic glory to become a champion himself. If the cinema is a place where everyday people can go to dream, then it was rather surreal to watch movie characters perhaps dream too big.

But in these characters’ carefully-constructed delusions came a catharsis of hope, for as their fantasy worlds dissolved and washed away, overwhelming realizations of awareness and humanist values came shining through. While some characters found triumph and others got stuck with tragedy, each one found a world of truth that allowed them to discover what really matters and how they can function properly in their realities. If this is, in fact, the inevitable end to such a trajectory, then perhaps we can take comfort in the fact that through all the craziness going on in our society right now, a grand moment of clarity is on its way for everyone. So, with that in mind, let’s examine my top ten choices for the best movies of 2010. If some of these movies weren’t the greatest evocation of this concept just explained, then, if nothing else, they were executed to perfection and entertained greatly:

1) INCEPTION

Christopher Nolan is a filmmaker who likes to create cinematic games that deeply challenge the psyche of the characters that play them. Inception is his most elaborate and creative play on this cinematic theme yet. In crafting the tale of thieves who can enter dreams to steal, and plant, people’s ideas, Nolan has proven that breathless big-screen action and complex, challenging ideas can walk hand-in-hand superbly. It’s hard not to get intoxicated by the elaborate universe Nolan has constructed with intense detail, a universe that overlaps between dreams and reality in a beautifully vibrant manner. Inception may not be the deepest film about the world of dreaming, but it’s certainly one of the most adventurous and exciting movies on the subject ever made.

2) SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD

When most men recall the stories of their lives, they most likely cast themselves as the hero and all those opposed to them and their goals as villains. It’s also probably true that young men of this generation will allow the music, movies, comic books, and video games they cherish to help write the history of their stories. No film has a greater understanding of this than Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, a sight and sound extravaganza that takes emotional matters of everyday life and heightens them to the level of a breathless comic adventure. As youthful hipster Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) imagines his quest to win the heart of beauty Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as a comic book journey, we lay witness to a sublime live-action video game, a cockeyed love letter to modern hipster culture, and a laugh-a-minute comic masterpiece that doesn’t let up with the laughs for one single second. This film proves that director Edgar Wright is a new-age master of screwball comedy and that pop culture is a worthy tool to unearth the emotional needs of today’s youth. For all its fantastical and hallucinatory elements, what so surprising about Wright’s work is that it’s one of the most accurate portraits of youthful yearnings and emotions in recent memory.

3) THE SOCIAL NETWORK

It’s been generally acknowledged that the Facebook era spawned a public escalation in social narcissism, self-importance, defamation, isolation, and pure nonsense. What makes The Social Network so fascinating is its argument that the very creation of Facebook was rooted in the same kinds of troubling traits. In telling the story of how a Harvard student named Mark Zuckerberg (brilliantly played by Jesse Eisenberg) created the online phenomenon, with all the backstabbing that allegedly entailed, director David Fincher has found an unlikely fit into his themes regarding the peculiar obsessions of young men and how they clash with a claustrophobic society. While the creation of a web site and the lawsuits that followed it may not sound like the most exciting movie, Fincher employs expert cinematography, editing, musical scoring, and casting to make a seemingly dull story thrive with electricity. By capturing the heat and dizziness of the real life story, Fincher allows us to reflect on the startling truth that the cut-off isolation of an angry nerd may have caused the cut-off isolation of the modern internet age.

4) SHUTTER ISLAND

The ideals of a Martin Scorsese protagonist can take on a wild reality of their own, in constant threat from the morals and formalities of normal society. Shutter Island could very well be Scorsese’s most deranged and unsettling exploration of this theme, and that’s saying something for the guy who made Taxi Driver. For all the things he has presented throughout his legendary career, this is his first plunge into classical macabre (although his Cape Fear remake held tinges of it), and the result is a deliciously startling display of his most burning obsessions. As a Detective (a wickedly riled-up Leonardo DiCaprio) fights through hallucinations to find a missing woman on an island insane asylum, Scorsese crafts a disturbing clashing between the uneasy evolution of modern psychology and post-World War II Trauma and Paranoia, sprinkled with his usual themes of sin and guilt. The story may flirt with the preposterous, yet Scorsese gives it a disturbing resonance with slow-burn creepiness. Any director can evoke things that go bump in the night, but when a filmmaker like Scorsese roots those bumps in the scariest recesses of the human mind, the result is guaranteed to shake you.

5) THE TOWN

Ben Affleck pulled effective drama from the Boston underworld in Gone Baby Gone and he returns to that landscape with The Town, a more exciting follow-up to his last crime endeavor that is an expertly-crafted heist flick with a killer hook and near-flawless execution. Yet what allows the film to resonate strongly is the yearning for a stable family life and purity through love that Affleck makes present within each of his main criminal characters. Affleck casts himself as Doug MacRay, a career thief who falls for Claire (Rebecca Hall), the manager of a bank he recently robbed. Doug lost his mother at a young age and feels Claire can fill a great void in his heart while offering him a better life. Affleck also goes to expert length to show how Doug’s best friend (a pitch-perfect Jeremy Renner) and jailed father (Chris Cooper) also have suffered from a lack of feminine nurturing and family values. It are these observations that gives The Town its strength, for Affleck penetrates deep to find the wounded children within hardened criminal archetypes.

6) SOMEWHERE

Sofia Coppola once again follows a privileged character facing a great emotional void amidst a lively environment of grand offerings in Somewhere, a film that examines the lifestyle of a Hollywood movie star with the straight-forward attentiveness of a wildlife documentary. Coppola employs her subtle, observant tone to capture the emptiness of an actor named Johnny Marco (a wonderful Stephen Dorff) as he mulls about aimlessly in the famous Chateau Marmont of California until the day his lovely daughter Cleo (a charming Elle Fanning) brightens things up. Through this tale of a Hollywood player and his daughter enjoying the good life, perhaps we are seeing shades of Coppola’s own relationship with her legendary father, Francis Ford Coppola, making this film a sublime love letter to the joys and complexities of their relationship. The film’s messages may not herald brand new revelations-fame may be lacking spiritual fulfillment, life is better with company-but Coppola uses wonderful images, enjoyable pop music, and surprising warmth to bring her emotional tale to life.

7) NOWHERE BOY

Before he became a Beatle, a revolutionary, and a rock legend, John Lennon was once a scared and defenseless Liverpool teenager who felt lost in the world, plagued by self-doubt, and in search of his own identity. Sam Taylor-Wood’s Nowhere Boy examines these early years in Lennon’s life, revealing the personal turmoil and turbulent family life that embedded in him the personality traits that would make him a legend. It isn’t so much interested in his literal path to eventual fame but his emotional path to creative genius, rooted in both contagious joy and unsettling torment. Through the acting revelation that is Aaron Johnson, we see Lennon develop the famous traits- wit, exuberance, irreverence, resourcefulness, and insight- that would catapult him from awkward teenager to vibrant musical artist. As we witness him finding his long-lost mother (Anne Marie-Duff) and forming his first rock band with Paul McCartney (Thomas Sangster), we find ourselves wrapped up in the utter-fascination of seeing one of the great personas in rock history being molded through primal emotions. Taylor-Wood employs an expert tact and power as she allows us to peak into the turmoil, creativity, and exuberance that lied within Lennon’s heart.

8) 127 HOURS

Aron Ralston is a real-life hiker who had his arm trapped under a gigantic boulder while hiking in an isolated canyon in Utah. He was stuck under the boulder for nearly six days, as his resources and chances for survival were quickly running out. The one thing he never ran out of was hope, and it eventually led to a grisly tactic that finally set him free. It’s easy to see how this story could’ve been made into a straight-forward survival tale of economic grittiness, yet Oscar-Winner Danny Boyle heats things up towards a wildly-unique cinematic experience. Boyle decides to tell Ralston’s story with an intense focus to detail, employing his usual tastes for frantic editing, peculiar musical choices, youthful intensity, fantastical visualizations, and existential musings. Boyle keeps things completely rooted in Ralston’s predicament, yet going the extra mile to show the hallucinations and fantasies in his head that both tormented and encouraged him. It’s a surprisingly entertaining experience that employs Boyle’s theme of young people searching for their place in the universe only to discover that human connectedness is the way to go. Of course none of this would be as nearly effective without the wonderful performance from James Franco, who brings an unlikely humor and grace to Ralston’s predicament, making his search for hope a truly unique cinematic triumph.

9) THE FIGHTER

On the surface, The Fighter appears to hold all the trappings of a typical sports-underdog tale, yet director David O. Russell brings such richness to the broken dreams and wildly hopeful spirits of the characters that the film takes on a unique life all its own, filled with lively kicks that’s hard to resist. Russell once again shows us how the peculiarities and eccentricities of a group dynamic can create a fantastical situation with the story of Mickey Ward (a superbly-focused Mark Wahlberg), a quiet young man who was always forced to follow in the footsteps of his troubled, crack-addict brother Dickie (a remarkable Christian Bale) by becoming a boxer. Mickey has reservations about his family’s boxing dreams, but once Dickie is humiliated in an HBO Documentary about Crack Addiction, Mickey sets out on a touching quest to restore the family name through boxing glory. Russell shows great honesty in Mickey’s athletic journey and gives the underdog formula a heartfelt jolt with strong ideas of family loyalty, neighborhood pride, and brotherly love. The tears Dickie sheds for his brother’s success in the film’s final moment makes the entire experience worth it.

10) THE KING’S SPEECH

The King’s Speech does so many things in such an expertly executed manner that it’s easy to miss just how unique it is on the first viewing. In telling the story of how King George VI of Britain (Colin Firth, in top form) overcame a stuttering problem with the help of an unconventional speech therapist named Lionel Logue (a wily and resourceful Geoffrey Rush), director Tom Hooper takes a conventional genre and turns it on its ear. With a fascinating true story in place, Hooper uses visual creativity, wonderfully atmospheric photography, and sharp dialogue to tell one of the most unlikely tales of middle-aged masculine friendship to ever grace the big screen. Yet the film isn’t just a juicy historical account, but has real uplift to spare. For its truly inspiring to know that even Royalty has their human vulnerabilities, that a working-class man can help do great things for great people, and that anyone can overcome any handicap or obstacle standing in their way. Why these may sound like typical messages, Hooper and his actors bring them a heart and freshness that’s impossible to resist.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

-Black Swan

-Easy A

-Solitary Man

-Toy Story 3　

Those 'Fockers' Stole My Money!

by Brett Parker

There are certain movies that leave room for sequels to be made and others that leave moviegoers scratching their heads as to how their premise could possibly live on from its self-contained state. Back in 2000, no one could’ve possibly guessed that a sequel could be made to the hit romp Meet the Parents. It was a likeable enough comedy, one that played upon anxieties and awkward feelings over meeting a loved one’s family. As the neurotic nurse Ben Stiller clashed with Robert De Niro in the form of his sweet girlfriend’s totalitarian father, madcap hijinks and manic slapstick put domestic formalities through the ringer. Yet the film had an undeniable American appeal, for almost every American can relate to the tension and peculiarities of interacting with another suburban family. It was a slight comedy, but cherished for its poppy and light-hearted appeal. It rung every laugh it possibly could out of its clever social angle.

The film’s shrewd use of Stiller’s awkwardness and De Niro’s self-kidding seriousness generated big bucks at the box office, leading Studio Executives to demand a sequel, creative juices be damned! This eventually led to Meet the Fockers, an inferior yet engaging sequel that threw De Niro in the whimsical and zany clutches of Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand as Stiller’s oddball parents. It almost goes without saying that the sequel was less-than-inspired from the first time around, but our attention was sustained from the quirky jolts Hoffman and Streisand added to their roles. Not only was Fockers another hit, but it also became surprisingly cherished in hindsight from the moviegoing public. Countless suburbanites could relate to the plights of in-laws co-mingling and trying to function as one dysfunctional unit. The Meet the Parents series had emerged as a fun-house mirror of comic release anxiety for domestic anxieties.

Fockers box office run also hit the jackpot, leading to the announcement of yet another sequel. This announcement not only caused intelligent moviegoers to groan with dread but even the Fockers most devoted fans to scratch their heads. How could you possibly squeeze any more comic juice out of a worn-down premise? Are there any more stories to tell? Any gags that might’ve gone overlooked? When the title of the new film was revealed to be Little Fockers, it became instantly assumed that the film would deal with Stiller and De Niro tackling the world of child rearing. A little bit of hope was sensed, for Stiller and De Niro clashing over parenting methods was bound to produce….something.

As it turns out, Little Fockers has little interest in the subject of raising children. Its real aim is to revel in sitcom clichés of the lowest order. It’s a frivolous, laughless trudge in search of any kind of comic inspiration. To call the film’s gags unfunny and mind-numbing would be an understatement. The saddest sight is seeing such a talented cast sleepwalking through tired roles with such low energy. You can literally see them both yearning for and deeply regretting their apparent paydays. If the film does one thing effectively, it’s to demonstrate the epitome of shameless, money-grubbing sequel-making in all its bare essence.

The new sequel further follows the misadventures of the Fockers clan, in which trusty Nurse Greg Focker (Stiller) is trying to raise his own family with his wife Pam (Teri Polo). This time around, they’ve welcomed the addition of twins: the intelligent Samantha (Daisy Tahan) and the goofy Henry (Colin Baiocchi). While trying to raise their youngsters, they are constantly under the watchful eye of Jack Byrnes (De Niro), Pam’s overprotective father who tries to impose his retired CIA tactics on his family life. This time around, Jack’s health appears to be fading and he is hoping Greg fully has what it takes to be the new main patriarch of the family.

Greg wants very much to be a confident leader of his family, but complicated wrenches start to get thrown into his life from all different angles. He tries hard to get his twins into a distinguished boarding school, but Henry’s intelligence doesn’t seem to be up to par. He tries to get his newly-purchased home furnished, but a sneaky contractor (Harvey Keitel) is slow to get the job done. Greg has also been asked to front a new Erectile-Dysfunction drug by a sexy pharmaceutical rep (Jessica Alba) who plagues him with cheating thoughts and erection hijinks. Plus the re-emergence of Pam’s former fiancé, Kevin (Owen Wilson), doesn’t help matters either.

I suppose one could see the potential in a sequel such as this. If the first two films covered courtship and integration, then the only fruitful base left to cover is parenthood. Since raising kids can be a tricky, stressful, and delightful aspect of life that most moviegoers can strongly relate to, then this subject is ripe with comic opportunities. Getting ready for school, dinnertime hijinks, dealing with snooty teachers, teaching youngsters adult ways-all of these aspects could certainly supply big laughs for a suburban sitcom. Yet Little Fockers fails at every turn to find such laughs within its plot. The scary thing is that it doesn’t even appear to try. It seems more content with going through the motions of routine gags we’ve seen done endlessly and more confidently in past films. That the filmmakers think the audience is dumb enough to buy these flat routines is rather unsettling.

Most pointless sequels usually have a desperate need to jump-the-shark once the filmmakers realize there is little originality left to unearth. They typically find preposterous ways to go over-the-top, hoping we don’t notice how far the material has drifted away from the wit and charms of the original film. As Little Fockers begins, things seem grounded enough and there’s hope for a sequel that keeps things down-to-earth and about the characters. Stiller and Alba have a bizarrely sweet moment involving an uncomfortable medical procedure while De Niro and Keitel hold a small, heated argument that faintly recalls Mean Streets. But pretty soon, the plot jumps off the deep-end and we’re hit with a chorus line of stupid gags. There’s vomiting, blood-splattering, sexual nonsense, and, I kid you not, a scene in which Greg injects a shot of adrenaline into Jack’s penis. I’d explain how this comes about, but since there are no laughs or joy to be held from this development, why bother?

As I watched this super-talented cast doggedly go through the motions, desperately wishing they were elsewhere, unsettling thoughts began to creep through my mind: are big Hollywood paychecks really worth it to these actors for enduring crap like this? Can a price truly be placed on an actor’s dignity? For every Greenberg Stiller wants to make, does he also have to make a Little Fockers? In our youthful years, the idealists within us promise to always stick by our morals and tastes while never selling out to a big paycheck. Yet if you grow older, and fame and fortune is thrust upon you, must you compromise those very ideals to upkeep the paychecks and the lifestyle? Is it really worth it to do so? I ask because the Cast obviously could’ve been doing much better work and was obviously doing this strictly for the money (Hoffman tried to resist, but he was swayed by the studio into a minimal amount of screen time). I know this is deep thinking for a disposable sitcom, but so empty is Little Fockers that such troubling thoughts are bound to enter your mind.

So as we throw Little Fockers in the cinematic trash bin, let’s be optimists here. Let’s hope Ben Stiller recovers from this thud and goes on to deliver uproarious comedy as he’s done in the past. Let’s hope Robert De Niro wakes up, reclaims his artistic integrity, and stops sleepwalking through such laughable nonsense. And let’s hope Director Paul Weitz returns to the skill and inspiration he displayed with About A Boy, one of my ten favorite films of all time. And let’s hope and pray that the Focker clan is done once and for all with the big screen.

BY THE WAY: It’s become a thing of legend how dedicated a method actor the young Robert De Niro used to be. In his younger years, he slept in an open grave, mastered the Sicilian language, gained untold amounts of weight, and paid a dentist to mess up his teeth in order to get into various characters. If the younger De Niro had shown up in Little Fockers, he probably would’ve put a syringe in his penis for real! Then again, the younger De Niro would’ve balked at appearing in such dreck in the first place! Oh, the things time does to us!

The 'Soul' of a Misguided Slasher Flick

by Brett Parker

It is Wes Craven who will be remembered in cinematic history as a main maestro of the slasher flick. While most films of this genre can be callow, nihilistic, and uninspired, Craven has demonstrated more thought, creativity, and shock with his endeavors. He first made his mark with the gritty viciousness of The Last House on the Left, shocking audiences into realizing what a horror film could potentially evolve into. His made a name for himself with A Nightmare on Elm Street, creating a juicy fantasy premise to milk all kinds of grotesque horrors never seen before in this subgenre. And Craven wasn’t above putting his own genre through the self-reflexive ringer, brilliantly dissecting its parts in the Scream series and playfully poking fun at it with Cursed.

My Soul to Take is Craven’s first feature-length horror endeavor since 2005’s Red Eye, and on the surface, it appears to hold more thought and creative juice than the mindless slasher flicks haunting the multiplex these days. Yet to endure the film on viewing curiously proves to be a daunting and empty experience. This juicy idea of a blood fest is hopelessly skewered by an over-complicated central plot and seriously misguided performances. It wanders around in a lack of humor, irony, or relevance and it lacks the fun jolts of excitement and terror Craven certainly knows how to dish out.

In the sleepy American town of Riverton, seven teenagers are bound by the fact that they all share the same birthday: there’s the psychologically troubled Bug (Max Thierriot), the quirky Alex (John Magaro), the blind Jerome (Denzel Whitaker), the religious Penelope (Zena Grey), the cruel jock Brandon (Nick Lashaway), the class crush Brittany (Paulina Olszynski), and the…well…average teen Jay (Jeremy Chu). The dreadful fact about the day of their birth was that it was also the day that the Riverton Ripper, a serial killer who preyed on the town, had died. Before his death, the Ripper vowed to one day come back, in some kind of form, and murder each of the seven children born that very night.

The day after their 16^th birthdays, Jay is found brutally murdered under a bridge and it is believed that the legend is, in fact, coming true. Pretty soon, each fateful teens becomes picked off one-by-one, meeting their ends by grisly, blood-soaked deaths. The surviving teens begin to ponder the tangibility of the Ripper himself: did the Ripper truly live on after the supposed night of his death, or does his soul inhabit the body of one of the kids from beyond the grave? A way to unlock this mystery may lie in the mind of Bug, who appears to suffer from schizophrenia and sees disturbing hallucinations related to the ripper. Can Bug find out who the Ripper truly is, or could he perhaps be inhabited by the Ripper’s soul himself?

From everything I just described, it would seem as if My Soul to Take has a distinctive concept that isn’t as mundane as most disposable slasher flicks. Indeed, I noticed that the film spends a lot more time focused on character dialogue than it does on blood-splattering. The problem, however, is that the film spends way too much time discussing its overly-complicated backstory instead of letting the apparent horror of the situation soak in. The film’s plot has more details and set-ups than a Russian novel and we never get a full handle on the Ripper’s legend. Most details come across pretty vague or spelled-out in a casually confusing manner. Craven’s Nightmare on Elm Street may have had an elaborate backstory as well, but the concept of Freddy Krueger was rooted in a simple-enough concept of primal fear to connect with audiences. Freddy Krueger was a simple monster explained in an expertly complicated manner while the Riverton Ripper is a complicated monster explained in too simple of terms.

The cast offers up the usual archetypes of the high school slasher hierarchy, but they suffer mostly from miscasting or clunky characterizations. Lashaway is too much of a stick-thin creep to be an intimidating bully while Olszynski is too baby-faced and innocent to be a carnal sexpot. Grey looks her part and tries to flow with conviction, but her character is inflated to too many caricature extremes. Same goes for Emily Meade as Fang (Yeah…seriously! You tell me!), Bug’s bad-girl little sister. To say her angry beating of her older brother is overwrought would be a tremendous understatement. As for Bug himself, Thierriot seems like a fresh-faced and sincere-enough actor, but he lacks the eccentric angles that could make his looney character really come to life. Perhaps a more brooding and dangerous actor was needed to breathe authenticity into an inauthentic character.

While most slasher flicks of today are handed over to cheap and inexperienced directors, the good news here is that Craven has developed a tact and skill through his experience that at least shows in the film’s look and feel. The film’s look, from Director of Photography Petra Korner (The Wackness, The Informers) demonstrates a texture and sense of atmosphere most slasher flicks don’t even bother with. And while most of the film’s plot is hokey nonsense, Craven at least tries to make it vibrate with a sense of dread and urgency. Too bad the acting and writing isn’t there to back him up. Perhaps if Craven had more experienced actors and a more biting, whip-smart script (two things he had with Scream), we could see ourselves caring about his latest outing.

Wes Craven has delivered many pivotal things to this genre and I believe he still has it in him to make a few more gems (Scream 4 is on the horizon…that promises to be interesting), but My Soul to Take proves to be an instantly forgettable entry into his filmography. I love the Halloween season and I always relish a good horror movie during this time, but the real terror is the fact that I can’t get my money or time back from this dud.

The 'Boy' Who Would Be John Lennon

by Brett Parker

In the 1950s, a young Liverpool teen named John asks his mother, “why couldn’t God have made me Elvis?” Her answer: “he was saving you for John Lennon!” And what a wonderful thing being John Lennon would turn out to be! He gets to be the lead singer of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed rock band in musical history. He gets to be one of the most seminal songwriters of all time, forever revolutionizing pop and rock. He gets to be a champion to free spirits everywhere, who celebrate his eternal message of “love is all you need.” He gets to be a rock legend, an icon, a force of nature.

But there was a time when John Lennon was not fully aware of the important man he would one day become. There was a time when he was just a defenseless and confused teenager like so many are. There was a time when he was lost in the world, plagued by self-doubt and in search of his own identity. Nowhere Boy is a fascinating new film that examines these early years in Lennon’s life, revealing the personal turmoil and turbulent family life that embedded in him the personality traits that would make him a legend. It isn’t so much interested in his literal path to eventual fame but his emotional path to creative genius, rooted in both contagious joy and unsettling torment.

We first meet Lennon (Aaron Johnson) as a playful yet guarded teenager growing up in the Liverpool home of his Aunt Mimi (Kristin Scott Thomas) and Uncle George (David Threlfall). When he isn’t skipping school and pulling hijinks with his friend, Pete (Josh Bolt), John enjoys fun activities with his Uncle George, who is a wily joker compared with the no-nonsense Mimi. One night, tragedy strikes and George drops dead of a heart attack. At the funeral, John spots a noticeable woman at the funeral. This woman may or may not be his birth mother. After some inter-family investigating, John not only discovers that the woman is, in fact, his mother, but lives only a few blocks away in the same neighborhood.

John is completely floored by this revelation, but decides to finally seek her out anyways. Soon enough, he’s at the doorstep of Julia (Anne-Marie Duff), the childlike sister of Mimi who gave up her son for ambiguous reasons. Despite the ocean of unresolved tension between them, John and Julia lovingly embrace each other and soon enough spend every afternoon together living it up. The bouncy and free-spirited Julia even introduces John to the sexual and dangerous allure of rock and roll (once he lays eyes on Elvis Presley, he’s hooked). Although Mimi voices serious concerns over this maternal interaction, John has found a lively new outlet in life; there’s no turning back.

Caught in a whirlwind of confusing and liberating emotions, John decides the best way to channel his energy is by forming a rock and roll band. A great confidence is instilled in him after Julia gives him extensive musical lessons in piano and guitar. He rounds up a group of eager youths like himself and forms The Quarrymen, a rock band that mostly covers the tunes of Elvis, Buddy Holly, and other groups from the era. A crucial meeting occurs when he meets Paul (Thomas Sangster), another talented young guitarist. Despite their personality differences, they are united by their inner-wounds and songwriting talents. As The Quarrymen have a jolly good time taking off, family drama threatens to undo Lennon. Not only does Mimi and Julia’s maternal rivalry heat up, but shocking revelations about Julia’s abandonment of John resurface that forever leave a mark on his heart.

Even if you aren’t much of a fan of The Beatles, Nowhere Boy still works as a careful character drama depicting the effects a turbulent family life can have on the shaping of an adolescent and how those effects can fuel an artistic outlet with great relish. However, if you’re a Beatles maniac like I am, you’ll be completely enthralled by witnessing the young Lennon transforming from awkward teenager to vibrant artist. As he bounces between the conflicting throes of Mimi and Julia, we can see the famous Lennon persona beginning to take shape: he inhabits Julia’s zestful free-spirit and rock and roll energy while also absorbing Mimi’s brutal bluntness and headstrong logic. Director Sam Taylor-Wood wisely doesn’t pound us over the head with these significant changes in Lennon’s life but allows the tactful subtlety of the performances to implicate how one of the great personas in rock history was formed by the heat of primal emotions.

Of course there’s great delight in watching the Young John Lennon forming his legendary partnership with a Young Paul McCartney; the film hints exquisitely at the ying-yang tensions that helped spark the creativity of one of the greatest songwriting duos in history. Paul is the clean-cut sweetie to Lennon’s brash wild card, but they were linked by parental voids and the emotional catharsis of songwriting. The young actors playing them may not terribly resemble them closely, but they vibrate with the distinction of their souls and its great fun watching them foreshadow the greatness they will one day embody. If the film has one big misstep, it’s in the casting of Sam Bell as George Harrison, the other crucial member of The Quarrymen. Bell completely lacks the look, demeanor, and personality of Harrison that was so distinctive to true fans. Harrison just happens to be my favorite Beatle, and Mr. Bell, you are no George Harrison!

The film would indeed implode if it weren’t for the brilliant and revelatory performance from Aaron Johnson. Johnson may not resemble the Lennon we all remember, but it would be wrong for this film if he did. Johnson wisely imagines an early Lennon in the midst of discovering his gifts and its quite remarkable how his performance slowly picks up on each trait that made the man so fascinating and unforgettable. Armed with his long-faced sincerity, Johnson starts off wounded and internalized until he slowly develops the wit, exuberance, irreverence, resourcefulness, and insight that would launch Lennon towards legendary status. What’s most impressive is how Johnson burns with the creative waves that forever crashed within Lennon’s heart. There’s a wonderful scene towards the end where The Quarrymen are in a studio recording the song “In Spite of All the Danger.” As he sings the song, Lennon’s face and voice vibrate with such emotion and yearning that it elevates the tune. The inner-wounds it hints at is spellbinding.

I’m so fascinated by stories such as Nowhere Boy, stories within the “Boy-Who-Would-Be-King” Mode. We get to witness a young man on his journey towards greatness, only he doesn’t realize it yet. He will one day become an important man who will change the world, but in the meantime, he is plagued by the same inadequacies and confusion as everyday people, not realizing how important his actions and relationships will serve him in the future. Such was the story of the young John Lennon, who had to go through crippling heartbreak before liberating himself towards legendary creativity. The final scene shows Mimi asking about the new name of The Quarrymen. “Do you care?” asks Lennon. We don’t care. We already know what it is. We already know how big they will become. The fact that Lennon doesn’t quite know yet demonstrates the beauty of this film.

'It's Kind of a Funny' Movie

by Brett Parker

It’s tricky business to make a dramedy regarding mental patients at a mental hospital. If you make the patients too broad of goofy comic caricatures, then you risk dealing a great insult to those actually suffering mental disorders. If you make things too deadly serious, then you risk basking the audience in a gloomy downer. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest pretty much wrote the book on how this balancing act is done. Now comes It’s Kind of a Funny Story, a film that pulls off this balancing act so carefully that it doesn’t even try to go for the jugular. It tiptoes between depression and hilarity while attempting to dish out a strong cinematic dose of optimism. That we’re able to accept this dose without dismissing it cynically demonstrates the effect of the film.

As the film opens, we meet Craig (Keir Gilchrist), a young high schooler from New York City in the midst of great emotional anguish. He feels enormous pressure from his father (Jim Gafigan) to get into a great college or be branded a failure. He finds that he’s hopelessly in love with Nia (Zoe Kravitz), the girlfriend of his over-achieving best friend, Aaron (Thomas Mann). He is more or less consumed by the existential angst that puts its grip on most teenagers at some point in their young lives. Feeling extremely anxious, Craig contemplates suicide but suspects that’s not the answer. He decides to turn to a local Brooklyn hospital for help.

Craig is under the impression that the hospital will simply give him extra-strength meds and send him gingerly on his way, yet he is surprised to discover that he must stay in the hospital’s psych ward for a five-day period so he can be properly evaluated. It’s in this kooky ward in which Craig meets a chorus line of colorful eccentrics. His roommate hasn’t left his bed or room for months. A schizophrenic man howls endlessly throughout the building. A drugged-out rabbi begs endlessly to keep the noise down. Craig even finds a mentor of sorts in the form of Bobby (Zach Galifianakis), a shaggy depressive who seems slightly more level-headed than the other patients (not by much).

Bobby decides to show Craig the ropes of the mental ward, which include excitement-free Ping Pong games and dreams of an epic Pizza Party. While in the ward, the patients help Craig discover what a special individual he is. Activities revolved around arts, crafts, and music reveals that he has more hidden talents then he gives himself credit for. He also gains confidence through the affections of Noelle (Emma Roberts), another troubled teenager occupying the ward. They begin a fragile romance based on a kind of wounded sympathy. It’s though her sweetness, and the ward’s offbeat brand of encouragement, that Craig is able to take on his inner-demons.

Writer-Directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (Half Nelson, Sugar) have etched out a name for themselves in the indie-world through raw character studies that showcase complex human types with unflinching honesty. Their work is celebrated for its avoidance of clichés and formulas as it allows the behavior of its subjects to reach their logical conclusions without resorting to melodrama. This time, adapting from a semi-autobiographical novel by Ned Vizzini, they appear to be reveling in formulaic territory to show off a hipster creativity their earlier films were immune to. We know from their earlier work that they are fully capable of making a vivid and authentic portrayal of an actual mental ward, yet they decide to play with some colorful exuberance here, just to show they can do it if they want to. While the scenes in the ward are fairly grounded, Boden and Fleck treat us to some zestful visuals packed with an appealing playfulness. We see an animated cityscape within Craig’s wild imagination as he draws out a map of his own city on paper and, in the film’s most fun sequence, we witness a dream sequence where the patients imagine themselves in a Glammed-Out performance of David Bowie & Queen’s “Under Pressure.” Of course, this material could still work in a down-to-earth, subtle manner, but these wild strokes help flesh out the hidden optimism waiting to burst out of the ward’s inherent dreariness.

Alongside the creative visual strokes, one of the best reasons to see the film is the revelatory performance by new-age goofball, Zach Galifianakis. The key to Galifianakis’ gifts thus far can only be described as a sublime subtlety. He’s one of the few performers who can generate a large response from doing next-to-nothing. To regard his oafish shell and laid-back demeanor point blank is surprisingly appealing. Here Galifianakis uses that gift to hint at the troubled depths of Bobby, a mysterious depressive too deep in his own turmoil to return to the wife and daughter that despair achingly over him. Bobby can be a level-headed voice of reason or a sealed bottle of rage, sometimes within the same moment. Indeed, he has a shocking display of hostility in the ward’s library in which he needs to be restrained by numerous staff members. Galifianakis’ employs his subtlety to convey all of Bobby’s complexities quite superbly. He tones down his goofy shenanigans to a certain degree but connects strongly with the tragic depths lurking just beneath Bobby’s surface. It’s an eye-opening performance, one that suggests Galifianakis could effortlessly handle meatier dramatic roles in the future.

It’s Kind of a Funny Story is essentially a teen angst picture set within the confines of a quirky mental ward. Through the vessel of Keir Gilchrist, who is like Jesse Eisenberg trapped within a young Keanu Reeves, we regard the everyday plights of the teenage emotional experience, which can seem like such devastating travesties as teenagers actually experience them. Craig goes through the usual motions of dealing with parental pressure, romantic yearning, and personal inadequacy before his journey makes him realize that he should learn to believe in himself and the joys of life. Boden and Fleck have both cited a John Hughes influence on this film and indeed employ Hughes’ device of dissecting the roots of a high schooler’s angst and ultimately suggesting that sunny optimism and being true to thy self is the best way to combat it. The film’s sly joke is that a mental ward is a cathartic place to take a break from being an American teenager, a joke that feels more true the more you think about it.

When all is said and done, It’s Kind of a Funny Story feels like more of a slight enterprise then it probably intends to be. Its insights are appreciated, but not highly original. The jokes are charming, if not uproariously hilarious. Plus I was kind of annoyed at the way the narrative condescends the formulaic ending while it embodies it. Yet I couldn’t help but admire the smile-inducing sunshine the filmmakers pulled from what could’ve been a troubling downer. A lot of sunniness packaged in the movies nowadays can come across as transparent and manipulative, so it’s nice to see a movie earn it through effective character development and simple emotional honesty. Like Zach Galifianakis himself, you can’t help but be charmed by the silliness. 　

A 'Social' Revelation

by Brett Parker

It’s been generally acknowledged that the Facebook era spawned a public escalation in social narcissism, self-importance, defamation, isolation, and pure nonsense. What makes The Social Network so fascinating is its argument that the very creation of Facebook was rooted in the same kinds of troubling traits. It all started with a brilliant college student messing around mischievously on his computer, but that soon spiraled into a trail of fierce ambition, questionable back-stabbing, and egotistical claims that all led to the modern Facebook network as we know it.

The film opens with a young Harvard student named Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) being rejected at a bar by a woman named Erica (Rooney Mara). She has grown so tired of Mark’s ramblings about wanting to be part of the Harvard elite that she thinks he is too egotistical to stomach any further. Mark is so oblivious to Erica’s feelings that he feels the reason he was truly rejected is because he’s an unimportant nerd. This causes him to drunkenly write mean-spirited things about her on his blog from his dorm-room computer. During that same night of blogging, Mark’s anger grows tilted towards all of the women at Harvard and he decides to create a website in which you can rate the hotness of various girls on campus. By hacking into the numerous websites of campus housing, Zuckerberg obtains photos of almost all the campus females and creates his sexist website. The site becomes such an on-campus sensation that it gets over 20,000 hits in two hours, crashing the campus servers.

Zuckerberg’s site not only gets him a slap on the wrist from the disciplinary board, but the attention of the Winklevoss Twins (both played by Armie Hammer, thanks to marvelous CGI tricks). The WASP-Y brothers enlist Zuckerberg to help them with an idea they have for a campus website: they want to create an online social network in which students of Harvard can each have their own individual profile pages containing personal information and photos, allowing the other students to check them out. Zuckerberg considers their ideas and grows one himself: why not make a website in which students everywhere can check out each other’s pages. This site would not only deal with college information, but individual likes, dislikes, and relationship statuses. Thanks to the bankroll of his best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), Zuckerberg is able to fund and create the social website that would come to be known as Facebook.

Facebook rapidly becomes a giant hit across colleges everywhere and Zuckerberg can barely keep up with its increasing success. Seeking to expand and capitalize as greatly as he can, Zuckerberg and his cohorts end up in the clutches of Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), the inventor of Napster. Sean is an out-of-work schemer who quickly seduces Zuckerberg with his charisma and convinces him to move his enterprise to Silicon Valley in California. Eduardo sees Sean as nothing but a leach but Zuckerberg decides to make the move to Silicon Valley as Facebook just keeps growing larger and larger. But big trouble brews for Zuckerberg as major law suits flesh out all around him. Eduardo is eventually forced out of the company by Parker’s conniving strategies and sues for co-ownership of Facebook. Meanwhile, the Winklevoss Twins feel there idea was completely stolen by Zuckerberg and they sue to prove that they were the true inventors of Facebook.

A movie centered around computer programming and lawsuits may not sound like the most exciting picture, but a good filmmaker knows how to make any story feel exciting on the big screen, something David Fincher demonstrates wonderfully here. His masterful camera tricks, along with the rapid-fire heat of Aaron Sorkin’s script, allows the mundane speak of computer talk sparkle with excitement. Like the case theories within Zodiac, Fincher knows how to make speeches of elaborate technical details more compelling than they probably deserve to be. Here Fincher is helped by Cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth (who knows how to make low-level campus lights feel unsettling), Editors Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall (who allow us to match up the film’s events with the deposition testimonies superbly), and Score Composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (who elevate a techno-score away from being a gimmick and towards real art) to make this story a dazzling centerpiece that far exceeds a piece of straight-forward investigative journalism.

There has been much speculation regarding the authenticity of The Social Network’s claims. Fincher says it’s a work of fiction while Sorkin claims it’s rather factual. Zuckerberg has disowned the film while the Winklevoss’ claim its an excellent portrayal of what actually happened. It doesn’t really matter how authentic the film’s claims are, for the real triumph is how Fincher captures the undeniable heat and dizziness that went into the website’s creation and the logical motivations that must’ve been lurking beneath. Fincher is a filmmaker who specializes in the bizarre obsessions of peculiar men and the claustrophobic societies that clash with them, allowing Zuckerberg’s story to fit perfectly into Fincher’s aesthetic mold. We sense how Zuckerberg’s creation spilled out grandly into society the way Tyler Durden’s fight clubs did. Zuckerberg’s fierce need to be recognized as a genius is eerily not to far off from John Doe’s delusions of grandeur from Seven. Plus its obvious that Zuckerberg is bottling up wounded emotions the way Benjamin Button’s condition forced him to. The Social Network could’ve been a happy-cheery movie about an optimistic idealist trying to bring young people together, but Fincher wisely realizes that more unsettling masculine ideals generate this story.

Of course the crackling dialogue wouldn’t pop as well without the sensational performances from the film’s young cast. Andrew Garfield is wonderful in showing us a kid who’s sincerity and niceness quickly made him a victim in this cutthroat world. A teary-eyed moment during a lawsuit deposition in which Eduardo reminds Zuckerberg that he was his only friend truly does strike you in the heart. A real livewire performance comes from Justin Timberlake as Parker, who lights up the film like a pinball machine every time he walks on screen. It’s a layered, inspired performance as Parker is both cool but paranoid, smooth yet reckless. Timberlake shines as this devilish operator, owning the screen and having a ball.

The jewel centerpiece of the film lies in Jesse Eisenberg’s performance as the enigmatic Zuckerberg himself. Eisenberg has etched out a place for himself on the silver screen playing ultra-shy nerds coasting their way through social situations. Here he jazzes up his nerd persona to channel one with supreme arrogance and strict determination. Eisenberg has played nervous and repressed for so long that watching him dish out cold cynicism and intellectual cockiness is truly liberating to watch. A tongue-lashing he dishes out towards the Winklevoss Twins and their lawyer is wickedly delicious. Eisenberg can often wear his soul on his sleeve, but here he keeps Zuckerberg curiously sealed-off, with subtle hints of a nerd’s anger and Asperger’s syndrome. It’s through this performance in which Zuckerberg transcends being a historical figure to become a great enigmatic loner of the silver screen. It holds grand promises of major awards to come.

The small yet crucial performance of Erica, may just be the key to the entire film. In the beginning, Zuckerberg creates to spite her, while in the end, he quietly seeks her approval. Perhaps Zuckerberg really did want to change the way people connect with each other, yet Erica’s presence suggests that the creation of Facebook may be rooted in one nerd’s wounded determination to feel accepted, appreciated, relevant, loved. There is no anger or drive that runs deeper than an outcast who feels scorned or unnoticed by the real world. That ends up being the most haunting revelation within The Social Network: the cut-off isolation of a lonely nerd spawned the cut-off isolation of the Internet Age.

A Return to the 'Street'

by Brett Parker

Many consider the character of Gordon Gekko to be the original Shark of Wall Street and our fascination with him isn’t much different from those aquatic predators themselves. Both are creatures that dominate their domain with the utmost confidence and damn near sparkle in their shiny and sharp exteriors. Their chain of command is reassured with an aura of fear, for all the underlings know when pushed, this creature can become a relentless killing machine, destroying all those around him to remain dominant. Some predators can be undeniably sinister in their nature, but it is the fact that they can know no other demeanor that fascinates us. The same can be said of Gordon Gekko.

Of course it was Michael Douglas’s hypnotically calculating and smooth portrayal of Gekko that was the crown jewel of Oliver Stone’s Wall Street, a penetrating and hellfire-tinged expose of the corruption lurking within the cracks of the New York Stock Trading Game. Through the morally-ambiguous vessel of Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox, we were given an entry point into Gekko’s glamorous and shady world of insider trading and bloodthirsty financial competition. While the film was meant to warn us of the cancerous greed and rotting morals that could flourish in our capitalist system, it’s a sad fact that too many moviegoers were taking by Gekko’s flashiness and confidence, swaying them to become financial pirates themselves. As a colleague of mine once quipped, “no film has done more social damage than Wall Street. Here was a satire of the business world, boasting ‘Greed is Good,’ and all these idiots took it seriously! Now look at the mess we’re in!”

Most of us are fully aware of the current financial mess we’re in, in which Greed proved, in fact, to not be good. The economy is at a devastating low with the real estate and job market at record lows. Because of our capitalist tastes for excess, countless businesses have gone under and millions of Americans are unemployed. There are people in some circles who feel the root of all our current economic problems can be traced back to Gordon Gekko’s popularized philosophies (it’s a dramatic theory, but an existing one nonetheless). With this in mind, Oliver Stone has decided to return to the stocks game in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, a sequel to show us just what Gekko would think of the current situation and how he would conduct himself against the anxiety-ridden brokers who now play the markets in desperate attempts at survival.

The film opens in 2001, with Gekko being released from prison after serving a sentence for insider trading and security fraud. Standing alone with no one to pick him up, Gekko leaves the prison armed with his old suit, giant cellular telephone, and a giant wad of notes, undoubtedly observations regarding the financial world that has grown troubling in Gekko’s wake. Seven years pass by and Gekko becomes the author of a best-selling book entitled Is Greed Good?, a financial expose that accurately predicts the problems that will cause our capitalist economy to collapse beyond prepare. If Gekko was the reptilian tycoon who started economical problems, he is now a wise old prophet here to prepare it.

Gekko’s rehabilitation back into the world continues with his crusade to make amends with his estranged daughter, Winnie (Carey Mulligan). Winnie blames her father with every negative thing that has befallen her family, most particularly her brother’s suicide, and wants nothing to do with him. Gordon thinks he has found a way in with her through Jake (Shia LeBeouf), her ambitious fiancé. Jake is a young stockbroker who hopes to do good in the world by assisting the growth of an Alternative Fuel Plant in California. Both Jake and Winnie are so virtuous and good-natured that they highlight the brewing viciousness around them, which there is plenty of. Jake’s boss and mentor, Louis Zabel (Frank Langella), was forced out of his own company and driven to suicide by the ruthless billionaire Bretton James (Josh Brolin) who has fashioned himself as the top dog of Wall Street. Jake sympathizes with Winnie’s pain, yet he can’t help but realize the financial genius Gordon possesses. Perhaps if Jake can help Gordon reconnect with his daughter, then Gordon can help Jake take revenge on Bretton amidst a collapsing market.

Money Never Sleeps adequately acknowledges the current issues plaguing Wall Street and finds shrewd ways to incorporate Gekko back into this world, yet we never feel the film reaches the hotbed boiling point it needs to. The current economic crisis has induced so much frustration, anxiety, depression, and unease into today’s country that the film’s great failing is that it does not strongly induce those same feelings into a film audience. Oliver Stone is known for a gonzo style of filmmaking that takes no prisoners and induces controversy at the drop of a hat. Yet here he keeps things too subdued, too formal. He curiously displays more hopeful idealism that cynical realism. He acknowledges the current mess and strives for an optimistic future when what we really want him to do is revel feverishly in the mess. If this film had the paranoia of JFK and the sloppy anger of Natural Born Killers, we would’ve really had a scorcher on our hands.

The brilliance of the original Wall Street was the way Robert Richardson’s cinematography dived right into the water with the Shark’s, giving off a devilish glee as we rubbed elbows with nasty predators. The camera had a head-first, bystander’s view into this world, so we got the experience of being at ground level with these new age pirates. The excessive and shadowy nature of this shiny new world came at us from all sorts of unseen angles and only occasionally stood back to take a breather from the amorality at hand. We were standing in the center of the Lion’s Den with no easy exit, and we were hypnotized by their predatory behavior the entire time.

The cinematography this time around, by the Oscar-nominated Rodrigo Prieto (Brokeback Mountain, Babel, Alexander), keeps things very tidy and formal. The camera has a classical formalism that exposes the crisp shininess of the New York Cityscape but puts a considerable damper on the ominous trouble lurking beneath the Markets. Stone is usually fearless in letting his camera pound relentlessly on the loathsome depths of human nature, but here he keeps things curiously simple, even resorting to old-school Hollywood techniques (perhaps he’s demonstrating that this tale of capitalist greed and falling-from-grace is a timeless one). On a surface level, Stone keeps things moving in a smooth, subtle manner, but let’s face it: we don’t go to an Oliver Stone movie for smoothness and subtlety.

Of course the best thing about the film is the return of Michael Douglas to the Oscar-Winning role that launched a thousand traders. When a famous actor becomes strongly associated with an iconic role, they have a tendency to walk through the performance on revisiting. Not Douglas, he’s just as focused as ever. He plays up his soothing voice and confident precision to show that Gekko is just as intelligent, detached, and calculating as he ever was. The screenplay teases us with the idea that Gekko may be seeking a genuine redemption, but then pulls the rug out from under us when Gekko commits an act that’s astonishingly conniving. It’s only then that we realize that asking Gekko to change his ways is like asking a Shark not to kill another creature ever again. Predators are incapable of changing their natures. It’s that essential fact that haunts this sequel. To stare into the abyss that is Gekko’s soul is to stare into the abyss that caused are financial problems in the first place.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a competent display of Hollywood formalism that spells out the mechanisms of our financial doom and gives us satisfying answers to questions we’ve wondered about Gordon Gekko over the years. It plays with our anxieties half the time, making us wish the film plugged deeper into the hellish fires of our financial nightmares. Much disappointment has been voiced about the film’s upbeat, sentimental ending, but I feel it’s extremely interesting that Oliver Stone, of all people, is showing us a little sentiment. While we always expect Stone to highlight the negative for us, I find it oddly compelling that he’s pointing us towards the positive for a change. He hopes that maybe in this crazy, mixed-up world, two people can learn to favor values such as love and family above financial warfare. And maybe, just maybe, a sinister schemer like Gordon Gekko could grow a heart after all.

Any 'Takers' For A Routine Heist Flick?

by Brett Parker

Takers is a routine heist flick that borrows so heavily from past films that you half-expect it to site its sources out loud, something that one character, in fact, ends up doing. The film strives for both the glamorous flashiness of Ocean’s Eleven and the gritty realism of Heat, yet these two sensibilities weigh down on each other and prevent the film from fleshing out a distinct significance all its own. It’s a heist flick as lightweight as can be, yet if your willing to meet its ladmag swagger and noir-tinged pretensions halfway, you might just be able to enjoy yourself.

The film begins by introducing us to a team of highly-skilled and super-stylish thieves who conduct their crimes in the Los Angeles area. There’s the mastermind Gordon (Idris Elba), point man John (Paul Walker), hardheaded Jake (Michael Ealy), athletic Jesse (Chris Brown), and stone-cold pro A.J. (Hayden Christensen). We first see them robbing a high-rise bank in the downtown L.A. area equipped with machine guns, ski-masks, and a helicopter escape. The job is pulled off with such skill that the no-nonsense detective Jack Welles (Matt Dillon) can’t find the smallest lead to bring the team down. With their hot cars, sexy women, and classy threads, these thieves appear to be living quite the outlaw lifestyle.

That is until the day Ghost (Tip “T.I.” Harris) drops back into their lives. Ghost was a member of the crew until he was shot and jailed during one of their heists. He did five years in jail without ratting out any of his crew members, something he feels deserves payback. His plan: assemble the crew to pull off a highly-dangerous armored car robbery right off the streets of L.A. The crew feels they don’t have the time, or the foresight, to pull off such a tricky heist, yet fearful of Ghost’s betrayal, they decide to go through with it anyways. As motives grow more ambiguous and moves escalate towards danger, Detective Welles works frantically to take down the crew before they pull off yet another extraordinary steal.

Takers shows little trace of originality or dimensions to elevate it from being a routine genre piece. The characters are one-dimensional stock personalities who don’t really have any memorable lines nor contribute any dramatic depths. It shows the players and moves of a crime plot, yet holds no revealing thoughts about the nature of crime itself. While the film tries to emulate the penetrating feel of a Michael Mann crime picture, it forgets that Mann always digs to find the poignancy and suppression within hunter-gatherer stories. Director John Luessenhop keeps things so by-the-numbers that searching for deeper meanings feels irrelevant. If it weren’t for the films pretentious style, perhaps the cast could’ve let loose with some of the ring-a-ding fun of the Ocean’s Eleven pictures. With their Rat Pack activities and dandified confidence, the Takers could’ve displayed the same sense of playfulness and exhilaration as Clooney’s boys if the film’s tone wasn’t so dominantly somber.

Yet deep down, I’m a huge sucker for a heist flick. It’s one of my favorite genres (with Ocean’s Eleven being one of my all-time favorite movies) and I can get so caught up in the hulking fronts, the elegant styles, the confident masculinity, the high-octane heists, and the over-the-top dangers that can be found in these films, especially if its done with a con artist’s smirk. Takers can’t live down the better crime films that have gone before it, but it seems perfectly content with the clichés it revels in. It puts up a front even though we suspect a lack of confidence underneath. The whole enterprise is disposable pulp, but if you can fine tune yourself to all the stylish testosterone and slam-bang trashiness that entails, you might just be able to have the silly good time I had.

Takers has such a shameless need to please that it doesn’t attempt to hide its lifts from earlier films such as Reservoir Dogs, Casino Royale, True Romance, and countless others. Even Ghost fully admits that the film’s climactic heist is a complete rip-off from The Italian Job remake. Yet if you’re willing to forgive the film for its cinematic thievery, a little fun can be had from a few of the action scenes. There’s a silly-cool scene in which the string-bean A.J. pounds mercilessly on gigantic brutes trying to beat him out of money, proving that camera angles and editing can make any skinny guy look tough. Chris Brown lacks a promising future in acting, yet his breathless foot chase through the Los Angeles area holds our attention rather efficiently. My favorite scene shows the Takers showing an amazing display of teamwork as they strategize their way through a frantically deadly hotel room shootout. It’s really the only scene in which gripping danger and the crew’s slickness truly shine.

The film was lucky enough to assemble a varying range of talented pros, yet the script gives them zero room to display any hints of character development. It’s great to see talented character actors Ealy and Elba get time to shine in a Hollywood vehicle, yet their characters have nothing significant to show off. Walker and Christensen have found a nice outlet to show off some cinematic coolness, but they fall victims to diminished screen time. Still, the guys show they can hold it down in a crime piece, displaying smoldering confidence and hulking shells quite nicely. The two meatiest performances come from Dillon, who treads heroically through an ocean of cop role clichés, and Harris, who miscalculates as the sinister Ghost. His character is meant to be a shadowy criminal mastermind, yet Harris’ street thug demeanor feels all wrong for the role. It diminishes the character potential for more authority, complexity, and ambiguity. A more thoughtful actor like Terrance Howard would’ve scored an absolute touchdown in this role.

If you don’t get out much to see many heist films, than Takers will probably work a lot better for you than it will for most. There are countless other films of this genre that are way better and Takers will have a tough time distinguishing itself from the rest. Yet if your in the mood for disposable heist thrills, which entails great suits, tough guy posturing, and outrageous action, Takers just might be able to fill your cinematic sweet tooth for a couple of hours.