Predictions: Best Films of Second Quarter 2011

Well, the first quarter of 2011 has come to a close. Looking back, my first list of predictions was rather unsuccessful, seeing as so many of the movies were rescheduled. At least I was right about Sucker Punch. Anyway, I am going to continue my promise and predict the best movies of the year's second quarter. Consider viewing these in the upcoming months.

Also, I want to address the fact that I did not forget The Tree of Life comes out in this time-slot and I am not against it: I just think these 5 movies are going to be better.

5. Rubber

April 14

As a comic book geek, my first instinct was to put Thor in this spot; however after recalling the original Iron Man and the cliches many of these comic book movies have fallen into I decided this spot should go to th

e far more unique picture Rubber. Released on the very first day of the second quarter, Rubber is a bizarre horror-comedy about a killer tire. In fact, according to the film's poster, it is

the best killer tire movie you have yet seen.

I challenge you to watch this movie's trailer and not laugh in shock. The instant I saw the original teaser trailer I knew this was something to look out for. All that has been shown in the trailers, mind you, is that the tir

e can make anything explode. You know what? I think I don't need any more reason to see this film.

Rubber is written and directed by Quentin Dupieux, director of Steak, who is also known as the French musician Mr. Oizo.

4. The Beaver

May 6

I originally had this movie on my list of predictions for the year's first quarter, but its release was postponed to May. My hopes for the film have risen further when its early screenings met with positive response. Written by Kyle Killen and directed by Jodie Foster, The Beaver centers around a depressed middle-aged man (Mel Gibson) who develops an alternate personality that expresses itself through a beaver puppet. Half-comedy and half-drama, this picture has the potential for something great.

3. Cars 2

June 24

Sure there is a lot of fear that this movie could be a dud (there has not been anything in the advertisements suggesting otherwise), but it is imperative to keep in mind this is Pixar. Sure, the first Cars is not the studio's best; still, it is cute and touching. Furthermore, every Pixar movie following it w

ere quite exceptional, and I anticipate this movie will be better than the original.

The sequel features all-star race car Lightning McQueen and jolly tow-truck Mater in a European race that happens to be targeted by a sinister organization forcing MI6 automobiles (and airplanes) to intervenes. It is said to add James Bond elements to the story. I find it disappointing there are no American spies mentioned, but I can cope.

2. Kung Fu Panda 2: The Kaboom of Doom

May 26

Kung Fu Pa

nda is one of my favorite animated films of all time. I think it is the best thing Dreamworks made and better than half of Pixar's works. It is a

modern fairy tale--funny but with sincere values. And, of course, there is kung fu.

Dreamworks Animation has worked hard in recent years in giving more serious movies, but it is true there track record is not as good as Pixar. This is a studio that is far swifter to churn out a hastily made sequel just for the money (no studio is above this; Dreamworks is just pretty blunt about it). Still, I think this good source material could be reason enough for people to really knock themselves out to create a worthy legatee.

Most of Panda 1's team is gone, but Glenn Berger, a critical writer of the original, returns for as both a writer and a producer. Jennifer Yuh (Nelson) is new to the job of director, but did artistic consulting on the original, Spirit: The Stallion of Cimarron, and Dark City. That should count for something.

Guillermo del Torro executive produces.

1. Super 8

June 10

J.J. Abrams and Matt Reeves are both talented filmmakers. Abrams directed Star Trek, which is clever and fun and far better than anyone expected it to be. Reeves's most recent picture was Let Me In, which was a powerful horror-fantasy and took my second place spot for 2010's cinematic best. When they teamed up (Reeves as director, Abrams as producer) we got the now-classic monster movie Cloverfield. Now, with the roles reversed and their Star Trek and Cloverfield collaborator Bryan Burk in the mix, this duo is creating a 60s-set alien thriller that is said to be reminiscent of that era's sci-fi films. While I actually don't like Close Encounters of the Third Kind I am a huge fa

n of the genre--as are most sane cinephiles.

This alone was exciting enough. There is more though. The master of this type of picture (and probably any type, now that I think of it) is also on a producer. Yes, the one and only: Steven Spielberg.

See you at these movies!

Battle: Los Angeles (B+)

I would not describe Battle: Los Angeles as particularly original, but it definitely avoids the unoriginality of your average alien action flick. This makes for a pleasant movie-going experience.

A senior Marine officer disliked and depressed from an unsuccessful mission that resulted in many deaths, Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) is getting ready to retire when the world is attacked by hordes of aliens and he must reenter battle to rescue civilians from a soon to be bombed Los Angeles. Adding to the trouble is the fact that a lower ranking soldier (Cory Hardrict) is the brother of one of the men KIA on Nantz’s last mission.

It is quite rare that a modern action movie—especially one involving soldiers—refrains from blaming the government for every problem that is facing the soldiers. It has gotten to the point where audiences just expect their action flick to remind us that any disaster encountered onscreen (and, in implication, in the real world too) is directly related to the authorities, be it alien invasion, Mayan apocalypse, or unfortunate break-up.

The CIA created Alzhiemer’s in order to steal oil from the Na’vi.

Writer Christopher Bertolini (The General’s Daughter) and Director Jonathan Liebesman (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning; The Killing Room) manage to make a movie that portrays the military as neither pirates nor misguided drones, but brave warriors fighting for what they believe in. Without having to take time to explain why the CIA wants to have Los Angeles get an alien infestation, the movie is able to put in some nice themes on taking action and being heroic. It leaves you with a good feeling afterwards, and hints that maybe it isn’t all about violence.

That, of course, is not to say there isn’t fighting. Liebesman at first uses smoke and shakicam to build suspense, showing the confusing setting of entering a battle zone. Then, when the real action begins, it does not stop for the movie’s two hour run time. It lacks variety (just a constant back-and-forth of gunfire), but it is still great fun if you enjoy that sort of thing. Being a teenage guy, I had great fun.

There is one negative aspect to the story, and one that should not be undermined. In a brief scene, a seventeen year old guzzles down alcohol as his slightly older companions cheer him on. The action is not portrayed as particularly wise (he vomits afterwards), but not as a bad choice nor an illegal one. Hopefully no one gets the wrong idea from a scene like this; it is less of a problem than other movies with drinking for the reasons that it is portrayed as something immature, that it is shown for only a moment, and he is a soldier knowing that he will shortly be departing for Afghanistan.

Battle: Los Angeles manages to avoid the most obnoxious clichés and thus is able to be an enjoyable action flick.

The Roommate (F)

Let us close our eyes for a minute and imagine I am a Hollywood producer. I am sitting at my desk playing Farmville, which is really my way of getting into “the zone” so I can come up with an idea for a great movie.
I am thumbing through everything I think would be most terrifying to a high school or college horror fan. English papers, break-ups… My raspberries are 93% ready and I just fed my mom’s chickens when I realize the thing that is both new, uncontrollable, and dreadful to anyone who realizes their dream college doesn’t let them choose who to bunk with. A roommate! You might luck out and get someone who volunteers to do the laundry, but there is always the fear you will walk into your room late one night and step in a two-day old nacho or can’t finish your chemistry paper because someone “borrowed” your flashdrive to reccord their band’s album.
Okay, so maybe I need something a little more intimidating. Let me think. Oh, I got it: The roommate is crazy and violent and is probably gonna kill you. Now all I have to do is fill in the details. They are crazy because they are bipolar/schizophrenic (those are the same thing, right?). The first sign they are nuts is when they don’t go to parties and they say they are studying! To keep everything realistic I will put in all the alcohol fueled sex I dreamed of—er, remember—from college. Then I add in a shower fight scene, so my director can showcase his versatility and originality in setting. This is sounding pretty awesome!
Still, I have that nagging little feeling in the back of my head that something is missing. I’m probably just a perfectionist, but no harm in overrachieving. The crucial part of a horror story is a genuinely intimidating villain (you know an an…an…antagonist; that’s the word!). I need my audience to cower in terror at the monster who came out of their worst nightmare. What can I give to this evil roommate that makes her more terrifying than your everyday chainsaw wielding hockey goalie? I exert my brain. Sweat pours down my brow. I realize my crops are ready to harvest, but I can barely click the mouse my hand is trembling so much. The seconds turn into minutes, the minutes into… more minutes.
And then it comes. The lightbulb flashes on; the angels sing. I dance with glee at the triumphant speech I will give to my distributor when they ask about my idea. I know the most horrifying thing that your roommate—or for that matter, anyone in your dorm—could be. I will...(pause for suspense) make the evil roommate a lesbian!
Thus follows the train of thought behind one of the most bigoted films as well as a particularly bad one.
Though it took a team of people to come up with something this terrible, one of the main culprits behind the abominable Roommate is Sonny Mallhi (an executive producer from The Strangers), who’s writing/producing bases the best of the alleged “horror” scenes on the concept that he is the only person who every knew Alfred Hitchcock existed and the worst that since he is only the hundredth person to write about a screaming girl dangling from a window he isn’t directly plagiarizing an idea that was stupid to being with. Joining him for the insurmmountable task of making the next Borat without the express purpose of shock humor is Director Christian E. Christiansen, a director of Life Hits and award-winning short film At Night. The fact that the minds behind this garbage have not always been so inept at filmmaking or respectful social intercourse suggests that this is another case of a studio so big it encourages itself to put in minimum effort. Whatver the reason, Christiansen succeeds in making the audience squirm, though not from fear as much from anguish at the not-really-PG-13 violence and nudity that tries to make us forget the whole ordeal was supposed to have a story.
I do not have a problem with a movie being unoriginal—I have a problem with a movie that goes through the motions of following the formula without actually trying. To enjoy The Roommate you have to deliberatly accept that every scene is a crude stereotype of an overused pattern. If you are paying attention to the story, the suspense is lost because you no longer have any investment in it.
The only think in the movie that is not absolutely terrible is the acting. Minka Kelly as the dislikable protagonist, Alyson Michkala as her partying friend, and Leighton Meester as the sinister roommate are all decent. Billy Zane is genuinely likable despite playing a character who’s romantic and charming nature is displayed by having him—no joke—spike his crush’s drink and then bluntly proposing they have sex before remembering to blurt out his name. Still, when the script barely goes through the motions of a plot the best acting in the world could not save it.
As funny as it can be to watch the stereotypes and rip-offs pretending to be filmmaking, it is not without its sad points. Some people who choose to not think about the terrible repercussions of the movie’s idealogies could actually end up having subconcious prejudices about those with mental illness or homosexuality reaffirmed. Likewise, many will probably take the carefree attitude toward alcohol abuse as a reason to ignore their suspicions that perhaps it is not something everyone does, or should do. Obviously there are people out there who genuinely believe the horrible things this movie is saying: The filmmakers. That of course is the saddest point of all. When 10% of the US is unemployed and most people are struggling to make by at honest jobs, a group of producers were able to get money for something with substandard effort condoning destructive decisions and trumpeting obscene bigotry. These people have likely lived a life with little diversity; they know nothing about what real mental illness is like. They can live their lives spreading misguided beliefs and never know the truth.
The Roommate is based in ignorance. Ignorance of good filmmaking, but more disturbingly ignorance of anyone different.

The Eagle (A+)

A+

With morals and plot devices that have been sadly lacking in cinema for the past ten years, The Eagle is a true epic.
The movie takes place about ten years after the (real) event titled the "Lost Legion," where an entire legion of Roman troops in the post-Christianity era (117 AD) "vanished" after marching into unfriendly terrain in Northern England. Marcus Alquilas (now we are talking fiction) is the son of the Roman general who commanded the legion at the time of their demise(?); and he is distraught over the loss of his father, respect for his family, and the honor of Rome. Brave and intelligent (if nearly-mad with his obsession), Alquilas rises through the military ranks and is offered a variety of posts throughout the empire--not surprisingly, he chooses the northernmost fort to Hadrian's Wall, a barrier built to block off the upper half of England after the events of his father's command. After an injury, Alquilas needs an aid for recovering. His kindly uncle then gives him Esca, a slave Alquilas rescued from a lopsided gladiatorial combat. Recovering, Alquilas decides he will depart to the uncharted area on the other side of the wall. With Esca as his guide, Alquilas steadfastly pursues his goal of finding the Eagle of the Ninth, a treasured golden standard of the Lost Legion shaped like a chicken. No, actually it looks like an eagle.
While I understand Focus Features' reasoning, it is sad that a movie with this merit and talent behind it got released with little fanfare in a time of year not associated with great films. No one who watched the trailer would know this is from Jeremy Brock and Kevin Macdonald, the writer-director team behind Oscar-nominee The Last King of Scotland. The book it is based on (Rosemary Suttcliff's The Eagle of the Ninth) is considered critically acclaimed classic. Channing Tatum (G.I. Joe, Dear John), a very underrated actor, plays Marcus, while BAFTA nominee Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot, Hallam Foe) plays Esca. Also worth noting is that The Eagle''s cinematographer is Anthony Dod Mantle, who did the Oscar-winning work on Slumdog Millionaire.
All the talent comes to good use. The movie is surprisingly old-fashioned--promoting honor and nationalism over liberty and personal-gain. It also deals with many dark issues without becoming unnecessarily grim. This is probably much due to the fact that the book is from the 50s; it is still impressive, though, that a 2011 film about ancient Rome managed not to be anarchistic. Even better, the movie has powerful morals which (while probably not discussable in a spoiler-free review) definitely make this better than most Academy Award-nominees.
The movie's action scenes are slightly disjointed, probably due to the fact that the movie seems to really not want its PG-13 rating. Still, there are so many fight sequences (the movie keeps away from any tacked-on romantic subplots) I am sure that the action crowd will be pleased if they attend. Best of all, though, is the fact that this is not mere popcorn-fare: The Eagle is a moving epic in the vein of Ben Hur.
Powerful morals, an exciting plot, and a well-crafted story make this cinematic experience exceptional.

Marcus Aquilas gives the movie a thumbs up too!

Best of 2010

Out of the 123 I saw...

20. Daybreakers--Creative and exciting, this is a notable entry in the vampire genre and a great film for most teen and adult audiences.

19. The Last Exorcism—It’s a little abrupt at times; but this fauxumentary horror is riveting, thought-provoking, and original.
18. Extraordinary Measures--Artistically this medical drama may struggle; but it is still an exciting story of what is justifiable when saving lives. It does not appear that the combining of several different characters truly upset anyone, seeing as they changed the name and events.
17. Iron Man 2--The second installment in the blockbuster super-hero genre; Iron Man 2 improves on the atrocious original by effective retconning, better themes, and faithfulness to the comic. In other words, they added War Machine.
16. The Winning Season--While its tone shifts a bit too much, this story of an alcoholic coach (Sam Rockwell) of a high school girls basketball team becomes a touching and down-to-earth sports dramady.
15. The Warrior's Way--The nice themes provide a great bonus to the artistically magical action extravaganza featuring ninjas fighting cowboys. Ninjas vs. Cowboys!
14. Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole--Zack Snyder's beautiful animated fantasy epic manages to make talking owls perform legendary action in a fool-proof (if predictable) story that delights the post-five-year-old kids as well as anyone fortunate enough to check it out.
13. City Island--This hilarious darkish comedy manages to bring along a nice message on family.
12. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader--It may be far inferior to its predecessors as well as far too tame, but the third (and probably last) installment in the big screen adaptations of C.S. Lewis's fantasy epics keeps much of the book's powerful messages and is entertaining to boot. I really give the creators of this film my appreciation for not editing out the movie's powerful spiritual themes.
11. It's Kind of a Funny Story--This dramady of a boy who checks himself into a psychiatric hospital is touching, funny, moving, and enlightening.

10. Monsters--The ending is unnecessarily grim and the engaged girl's kiss to another man is, despite the circumstances, a bad message. Why is Monsters a good movie then? Well, there are a lot of reasons. The film is engrossing and the character interactions (between real life couple Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able) are believable. The decision to show a post giant monster attack movie not where everyone is reacting the attack but where the people are still struggling to get by is a new take done in a creative way. The messages on US indifference to Mexican troubles is done so effectively it is not preachy and I believe could get a few people to act. The improvisational dialogue from ordinary people hired by Director Gareth Edwards right off the street makes the movie relatable and disturbingly realistic. The octopus-like aliens are believable and original. And the whole movie was shot for the incredibly low $500,000--an amazing feat. Definitely one to check out!

9. Animal Kingdom--One of the best crime dramas of all time, this film is an excellent representation of what motivates and runs modern gangs. On top of that, it is a powerful story with magnificent performances (especially Jacki Weaver, who has been nominated for an Oscar for her work in this film). A should-be classic, this Australian picture barely touched American theaters, but the DVD is something that should be at the top of every American's wish-list.

8. True Grit--The story is intense and entertaining. The acting is perfect all-round. The cinematography is excellent. The directing (done by the Coen Brothers) is brilliant. Furthermore, there is the awesomeness of a good, straight-forward western coming around when the genre was nearly dried up. But best of all is the fact that the movie does its job of exploring what true grit really is.

7. Toy Story 3--I do not think this is a family movie. I think it is far to intense and emotionally taught for children. I think Toy Story 3 is such a complex, heart-wrenching tale of moving on and the flow of life that it is meant for older audiences and anyone trying to right it off a tear-jerking kid fair should really take a closer look. I am saying this since I doubt anyone has not yet seen it.

6. The Karate Kid--The most fun movie of the year, this is the perfect family film. But it is also a truly great movie with some truly great morals that do not need to be difficult to see. I have never seen an audience laugh more, cheer more, and have a better time than at this movie.

5. The King's Speech--This is a feel-good story, but it is also more. It is about getting treatment for and overcoming one's problems. It blends story and themes with ease. It is something you should definitely see.

4. The Joneses--Both a powerful drama and a bitingly funny dark comedy, The Joneses provides a great metaphor on the commercialization of society and how it secretly affects us.

3. The Book of Eli--I completely agree with the belief that like True Grit this is a great 21st century western. It has some of the year's best action and an exciting plot. But what is more, this post-apocalyptic thriller has powerful messages on God and spirituality. Best of all, it uses them in a story that people really do want to see.

2. Let Me In —I nearly picked this as my top choice, and if I had it would have been very deserving. This is the story of the corruption of innocence; the entry of evil. Make no mistake: It is also an excellent horror fantasy and a true vampire story. The reason it is so incredible, though, is the themes it has to back it up.

1. Winter’s Bone—I had a very, very hard to pick my top choice and I only just decided on this movie. On first viewing Bone is very good, but it is only months later that you realize the true impact it has. There are, of course, the deep explorations of family and drug addictions—themes which in and of themselves make for a great story. Deeper, though, there are the ideas of responsibility and the little amount of control we have in life. Ironically, this movie is a great contrast to my favorite film from last year, The Brothers Bloom. While Bloom cheerily showed how in many ways we have far greater control over our destinies than we think, Bone grimly depicts the ways in which we should not fight the path we are on. There is hope, though, in its story. Ree, the teenage protagonist who is raising her siblings in a dark and dangerous area of the rural Ozarks, sees that she is always bound to the Ozarks and her family (including the violent extended relatives). There is a hint, though, that this does not have to be something to despair over—that everyone, like Ree, always has the choice to do everything we know we should and then spend the rest of our time simply viewing in wonder at the rest. The last scene in Winter’s Bone explores these ideas so deeply, ties everything together so well, and has such a profound impact months later that when you think back on that moment it is clear just how amazing this movie is.

Black Swan (B-)

Many a time in the past year I have cringed at some graphically sexual moments in film and sayid “That was totally not necessary.” That is not the case in Black Swan. Every moment in this brilliantly crafted horror-thriller builds to its deep exploration of the makings of insanity. Still, I think everyone should all ask themselves if it is really worth it.
Black Swan centralizes around a ballerina named Nina’s quest for perfection that brings her deep into insanity. There is little else to the plot for writers Andreas Heinz and John McLaughlin focus much more on story. The audience feels every bit of Nina’s pain, they see the various manifestations of culture in Nina’s shattered psyche, and they can’t help but react. Most will probably just stop there, shuddering at the distinctly unpleasant experience, but I think many (and I am not saying I am one of them) will develop new ideas when the themes of obsession become so apparent in the movie. The film is definitely in the category with Inception as being far more about style than giving a clear message, but something with this much depth cannot help but have something to tell.
Much of the reason Black Swan gives such an impact is through the brilliant directing of Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler) and cinematography of Phone Booth’s Matthew Libatique (though I find it difficult to see why they could get Oscar nominations when the writers do not, seeing as it is their story being told). The lighting and tone are so vivid and intimidating that the viewers truly shake with all the pain Nina feels. Furthermore, Aronofsky and Libatique use CGI frequently but effectively. I do not quite know why watching someone morph into a swan Wolfman-style has a deep impact and conveys something for more powerful than words ever could, but it does. The daring risks taken could have easily looked stupid, but instead it is something great.
While many, many actresses could do the job of playing Nina; Natalie Portman (The Closer, V for Vendetta) still has done a tremendous amount of work in being able to convey so much with her body. There is very little for anyone else to do (it is peculiar Mila Kunis could get awards when Aronofsky chooses to photoshop Portman’s head on her body whenever the scene gets intense); still everyone does everything to the best of their ability.
Black Swan contains graphic content in every sense of the word. In terms of violence, Swan is the year’s most extreme; one agonizingly long moment where Nina compulsively peels the skin of her finger still sticks in my head. The faint of heart should not attend, but I feel this is necessary for the rest of us in being able to feel the story. Equally necessary but more concerning, though, is the sex. Since so much of Swan’s story lies in the sexuality in Nina’s exploration of her darker half, it would not be the same story if we did not see Portman’s body as her character’s confused mind seduces itself. I understand why it is in there and I completely get the message could not be conveyed in quite the same way if it was not.
That should not be an excuse for it. Just because they can does not mean the filmmakers should affect the emotions and—in continuation—actions of their viewers in every way possible. A lot of effort has gone into the film--it is not a cheap trick to get males into the theater. Still, it does the same thing to the audience as any other cheap sex scene and that is not ok.
As crazy as this may seem, we (society) do not know all the affects these kind of images have on us. It is known that they have repercussions far more than we really understand. There is a reason such sights were, up until recently, taboo.
The fact of the matter is art is not a word one can use to justify obscene acts. It is for that reason Black Swan is not a good movie.

And now, simply for amusement, this awesome pic from a Lego Black Swan short someone made:

Exploring the Themes of The Social Network

Four months ago I wrote my first review of The Social Network. I think in many ways that review conveyed my point well, but perhaps I was a little too indistinct at times. With the movie winning the Golden Globes and becoming an Oscar contender, I decided now was the time to take a comprehensive look into why it is one of the worst things to mar cinemas. I completely understand that you may not agree with this, but I just want you to understand why someone could object. That way, I hope, you will not let its negative elements affect you. Anyway, this new response is different from my original review in that it contains spoilers (something I generally do not do in my reviews). I doubt there is anyone out there who still cares about such things in regards to this movie, but I'm warning you anyway.

1. Historical Inaccuracies What separates The Social Network from most other historical dramas is that the events it discusses were very recent. That should have been a reason for Writer Aaron Sorkin and Director David Fincher to take extra care in providing as detailed and truthful a look as possible, seeing as their writing is going to affect how living people are seen. Instead, The Social Network lacks any basis in reality. Below are some of the inaccuracies included in the film.
A. Mark Zuckerberg did not blog a lengthy diatribe about his ex describing her breasts and comparing her to animals. All he did was call a classmate who he does not appear to have dated "a b---h." Not a nice or intelligent thing to do, but not anything as sexist and vulgar as what the movie shows.
B. Mark Zuckerberg was not motivated in his creation of Facemash and Facebook by a break-up. This is because the girl the opening scene shows dumping him did not even exist. In fact, the real Zuckerberg spent most of the time shown in the movie in a deep relationship.
C. It is true that Zuckerberg participated in underage drinking. This does not mean that every genius moment he had was fueled by copious amounts of alcohol.
D. There is no evidence to show Mark Zuckerberg's California house had 18-year-olds smoking marijuana at all, especially every noon. In fact, interviews point to the contrary.
E. Eduardo Saverin refused to move to California. At least partially as a result from that, Facebook began to struggle financially.
F. Sean Parker was arrested for cocaine use, but not at the same time or place as the movie portrays, and certainly not for sniffing it off an underage employee's breasts.
G. Mark Zuckerberg doesn't talk like movie-Mark Zuckerberg and he doesn't insult everything that crosses his path. David Fincher encouraged Jessie Eisenberg to do that for artistic reasons, even though they were both aware it was not accurate.
Fincher and Sorkin may be able to admit their film is fiction, but they are bearing a double standard. If they seriously wanted to create a peace of fiction, they would not have "based" it on real events. The fact of the matter is people now think terrible things about Mark Zuckerberg and Sean Parker due to Fincher and Sorkin, who fully new they were making it up.
Furthermore, though The Social Network was billed as non-biased (Fincher said as much in an interview with Time). That is not true. The non-fiction book that Fincher and Sorkin skimmed so they could say they did their research was made with consulting and interviews with non other than Eduardo Saverin. Yup, the guy who sued Mark Zuckerberg and ends up the star of the film. Of course, Fincher and Sorkin did not make the movie in order to expose injustices. They have both said they did it as a work of art--probably a reason for why even Saverin's biased account was so distorted.
This movie is morally wrong. There is no way around that. Making art does not justify slander and libel. The Social Network spreads hurtful lies and it knows it.
2. The Idea that the US Court System is a Popularity Contest It really fits into the flow of everything if at the end Zuckerberg is told he needs to pay Saverin and the Winklevosses because he is just too abrasive to win a trial. That can convey all sorts of meanings, and show a symbol for whatever Fincher and Sorkin think the new American generation is. Unfortunately for the story writers, it is not true.
The whole point of judges and lawyers is to make sure the legal system is not a popularity contest. If a lawyer started giving a speech on Zuckerberg's character or brought up inconsequential evidence they would be told to shut up. If they continued they would be thrown out.
Furthermore, people allowed into juries are checked and educated to use logic instead of opinion. Fincher and Sorkin might think that everyone else is too stupid to judge the facts but they are wrong. People understand what the point of a court case is and they can make good decisions. And even if one jury or judge decided to make their decision based on personal taste the case would just go to a higher court and be retried.
If Saverin and the Winklevosses had a case, the movie did not show it. It was just easier to pass off the whole "unfair society" idea legend. But that is wrong. The two reasons Zuckerberg made an out-of-court settlement were either a) he knew he would lose or b) he wanted to keep the press from dragging his name through the mud. I am inclined to go with the latter, but either way it is NOT because the US legal system is run by the characters of Mean Girls.
3. Reckless Behavior Let me make it clear, I have no problem with a movie showing bad things. I loved Winter's Bone despite its dark atmosphere and rampant drug use. I enjoyed The Expendables and all its violence. I laughed at The King's Speech's profanity-laced tirade.
The difference is it is not portraying such things as commonplace and socially acceptable. No one watches Winter's Bone and then goes and takes meth. No one sees The Expendables and then blows up a South American island. No one takes a private talk in The King's Speech to be an argument for using those words at the church picnic.
People will watch The Social Network and think its reckless behavior is commonplace. Many of the film's viewers will go to college and get offered a drink or receive sexual advances from strangers and will think such things is okay. Yes, some people do those things. But the vast majority of us do not spend their Friday nights vomiting beer during their winter strip poker matches. Even in college. And the people who do: It isn't good for them. Some will grow out of it and think back on what they thought was "harmless fun." But many will suffer the affects of alcoholism, mental illness, STDs, college expulsion, or an unplanned pregnancy for the rest of their lives. You shouldn't choose not to get wasted just because you might embarrass yourself--the only reason given by Fincher and Sorkin. You should do it because you understand that there is a strong possibility you will be feeling the consequences ten years later.
4. The Next Generation is Not Lost There are negative consequences of Facebook and electronics. That is not something that should be denied. However it should not be used as a scapegoat either.
If I decide to use Facebook to describe my classmate's breast size I will look like a jerk. I might even end up getting denied from a job because my potential employee found this in a lengthy google search. But you know what? Chances are if I was the kind of person to do that I would have said it to the wrong person and everyone at school will know I'm a jerk regardless of whether I post it. I might even be inspired to do something truly nasty because I don't have a computer to vent on.
Anyway, for the vast majority of us it is a non-issue. Most people figure out not to write stupid things; not to post stupid pictures; not to have their friend videotape their romantic exploits. Most of us use the internet to make connections.
A large moral of The Social Network is that while the internet can provide a reason for people to obsess over their connections is they are really losing them. This is shown by moive-Zuckerberg spending his life getting into the science and logic of relationships without trying to make them. I am sure that is true for some. I could obsess over who has friended and defriended me on Facebook and not talk to my brother or best friend.
I don't though. Most people don't. Most people use Facebook and the internet to meet new friends and improve their existing relations. Fincher and Sorkin may have had such a booming social life in high school and college they fell confidant condescending to those who need the internet for such interactions. I am not like that. After leaving a hospital I spent months lonely and depressed. I was able to get through those times by talking to friends who were far far away over Facebook--people who truly cared about me. And I am not alone. Many of my friends do. Still others use Facebook to find people they met once and would have forgotten, developing beautiful new relations with them. In fact, many people now form lasting marriages over relations forged online.
The Social Network will not destroy the internet. But it will have lasting repercussions. People could stop using Facebook. Too many will associate with a pathetic outlet full of perverts and bullies. Facebook will most likely be phased out for some slightly different social network (likely not as good), and this movie will have a large piece of the blame.
It may seem cool to blame the new generation's existing problems on the internet, and make up new ones to fit that idea. But it is not true. Today's social network is vibrant and innocent, full of people--people who would have been lonely--making friends.

This is why The Social Network is the worst film of 2010 and one of the most destructive of all time. Please don't support it, and if you do at least consider its flaws. Or at least remember that the internet and Facebook are there for you to find friends, share moments, and make connections like never before.

For my original review of The Social Network click here: http://cinetim.blogspot.com/2010/10/social-network-f.html