Movie Review: "Red"

It's not too surprising to find Helen Mirren, John Malkovich and Brian Cox co-starring in a film released in the awards season. These are respected actors who usually promote prestige projects this time of year.

It might be more surprising to discover that the film in question, "Red," features Malkovich toting a stuffed pig filled with guns, Cox hamming it up as a former Russian spy and Mirren, dressed in combat boots and a ball gown, firing a submachine gun with all the class and poise she displayed in "The Queen."

It goes without saying that Bruce Willis is the star.

Willis is Frank Moses, a retiree who spends his days working out and flirting over the phone with Sarah (Mary Louise-Parker), the clerk who sends out his pension checks. Moses has a bit of a crush on this girl, who encourages him to grow plants and tells him about the wonderfully trashy romance novels she reads at night. The two playfully chat over the phone and Moses suggests coming out to Kansas City to see her.

The film's opening 10 minutes have a playful sweetness to them, setting up what looks like a nice romantic comedy. It's perhaps a bit jarring when a team of assassins converges on Frank's house, quickly dispatched by the spry old man.

Frank, it turns out, is a former CIA assassin, classified as "Retired: Extremely Dangerous," or RED. Fearing that the men who tried to kill him will track his phone records and head for Sarah, Frank hightails it to Kansas City and forces her to come with him as he connects with his former CIA cohorts to figure out who wants him dead. This is not the first date she had in mind.

By the end of "Red's" two-hour runtime, I couldn't tell you exactly why the government was trying to kill Frank or who exactly was pulling all the strings. Based on a graphic novel by DC Comics, "Red's" plot is only an excuse to string together over-the-top action sequences, and scenes of Moses and his gang reminiscing about the good old days, when espionage was a "gentleman's game."

"Red" would likely be another disposable action-comedy were it not for the cast - surprising not for how out of place such esteemed actors appear, but for how comfortably they fit right into their roles. Malkovich, in particular, seems to be having the time of his life as an unhinged, paranoid former assassin who believes the government is trying to kill him to cover up for mind-control experiments they conducted - he has right to be paranoid, as the government did dose him with heavy amounts of LSD for years. Few actors play unstable as well as Malkovich, who sells every tic and outburst with hilarious flair, but also gets a few scenes to show just why he could be considered just as dangerous as Moses.

Mirren never phones in a role, and it's scary how comfortable she looks behind an automatic weapon with her steely eyes and hint of a smirk. Cox sells both menace and charm as Moses' former adversary who now is so weary of the game that he realizes he has more in common with his enemy than with most of his friends. Richard Dreyfuss is suitably slimy as a corporate villain and even Ernest Borgnine shows up, looking happy just to be along for the ride. The film's best scenes involve all of these characters chatting together, suggesting old histories, rivalries and romances that give the movie an unexpected sweetness. Only Morgan Freeman gets short shrift as Moses' best friend and fellow RED, showing up from time to time to crack a few jokes and help at a crucial moment.

The supporting cast is so good, in fact, that it's possible to forget that Willis is the film's star. It's tempting to say he's just playing the calm and collected hero role he's been doing for years. But there's a glint in his eye and a sense of humor that's been missing in his recent action work. When he's not invested in a role, his laconic nature can weigh down the film (see this year's "Cop Out"), but when he's having fun, it gives him a cool, dangerous edge (see his brief scene in this year's "Expendables"). In "Red," Willis brings more humor and style to the character than he did his last time out as John McClane, and he seems to relish the chance to have some romantic banter with Parker, who brings a comic jolt to a character that could easily be grating. It's funny to watch Sarah first be annoyed by the situation and then turned on by the adventure in which she finds herself. Wills also finds a suitable foil in Karl Urban ("Lord of the Rings"), the CIA agent tracking them down whose arc takes a few surprising and refreshing turns.

Director Robert Schwentke ("Flightplan") helms the action with one foot squarely in absurdity, particularly a sequence in a shipping yard where Malkovich literally hits a grenade like a baseball to save himself. The multiple car chases, shootouts and fist fights pack the adrenaline, but never become gratuitous or graphic because they're delivered with tongue fully planted in cheek, similar to this summer's "The A-Team" or "The Losers." "Red" is the better of those films, however, because of the joy these veterans are obviously having pulling off stunts that are usually left to the younger generation. "Red" is a slick B-movie usually reserved for summer, delivered with an A-list awards season cast. The combination is a great deal of fun.

"Red" likely won't be mentioned when these actors collect awards for, admittedly, higher-class projects in the future. I doubt it will be on a highlight reel at the Oscars. It's a solid and exciting action-comedy that hits the right notes in service of nothing more than entertainment. But if you've ever wanted to see the same woman who played the Queen of England take a shot at the vice president, here's your chance.

Chrisicisms: Catching Up

Wow, I'm behind in my reviews. Pretty much everything I've written for the paper is posted on here but there's a lot I've caught up with on my own both in theaters and on DVD/On Demand that I haven't had a chance to write about. I'm hoping to be better about that as we go on, but for right now I really just need to get the reviews out of of the way so we can be up to date. So they're going to be quick, bulleted reviews. The only movie I've seen that I'm hoping to write up a full review on later is Mark Romanek's "Never Let Me Go," which deserves to be dealt with in its own separate entry. But this should bring us full circle and ready for the future.

Let's jump in:

• For many people, Rob Reiner's cameo on this week's "30 Rock" was as funny as he's been in years. Part of that is because the director of "This Is Spinal Tap," "The Princess Bride" and "When Harry Met Sally" has spent recent years directing swill like "North," "Rumor Has It" and "The Bucket List." But another part is because the majority of people didn't get the chance to see his charming coming-of-age comedy Flipped, which was dumped unceremoniously in theaters at the end of the summer. A he said/she said teenage romance about a young boy (Callan McAuliffe) and girl (Madeleine Carroll) who have a love/hate relationship in the early 1960s, "Flipped" is a gentle, kind-hearted love story that remembers more innocent times, when the biggest scandal was throwing out a neighbor's gift and the biggest tensions involved matters of the heart. It doesn't reinvent the genre, but by playing with perspective and telling the story from both protagonists' points of view, it feels fresher than it probably has any right to. Carroll is the refreshingly smart and energetic girl next door and steals the film and I also loved how the adults in the film--most notably John Mahoney as the boy's grandfather--showcase the role parents play in how their children develop their personalities and temperaments. It's a sweet, clean and funny movie, worth a look for those wanting something to put a smile on their face.
• It took more than twenty years, but Gordon Gekko is back in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. Oliver Stone revisits the world of corporate trading and professional greed with this timely drama, following a young broker (Shia LaBeouf) as he navigates the corporate world in the time just before the recent financial collapse. LaBeouf has his first truly grown-up role in the film, looking to exact financial vengeance on the trader (Josh Brolin) who ruined his mentor (an excellent as always Frank Langella). Michael Douglas is as winningly slimy as ever as Gekko, fresh out of prison and hoping to reconnect with his daughter (Carey Mulligan), who is engaged to LaBeouf's character. The masterstroke with Douglas here is that Stone keeps us in the dark for most of the movie as to whether Gekko has truly reformed or if he has ulterior motives. The director's anger over the recent financial disaster is palpable and, as always, Stone doesn't hide his rage. He throws a number of flashy effects at the screen and presents the film with all the subtlety of the sledgehammer...he all but has Brolin twirl a mustache to show how evil he is. Still, the film largely works because we're just as angry as Stone is and it's a bit invigorating to see Wall Street's greedy honchos get lambasted for our entertainment. It's not the great, slick drama that the 1988 original was, but it's great fun to revisit Gekko again. Stone missteps at the ending though, with his anger seemingly replaced by a defanged climax that throws up its hands and goes soft instead of jabbing us in the gut like Stone has promised all movie long.
• You can count me as one of the people who was angered at the mere mention of an American remake of the brilliant Swedish vampire film Let the Right One In. I was convinced that an American director would take everything beautiful, edgy and disturbing about this friendship between two children--one of whom's a vampire--and turn it into another "Twilight"-type disaster. But Matt Reeves ("Cloverfield") has proven me wrong with Let Me In, possibly the best horror movie to hit theaters since "The Descent." "The Road's" Kodi Smit-Mcphee and "Kick Ass'" Chloe Moretz deliver solid, devastating performances as a bullied boy and a vampire girl who befriend each other on a snowy Los Alamos playground. Reeves makes the story his own, giving increased richness to the boy's isolation and a sadness to the relationship between Moretz and her caretaker (a fantastic Richard Jenkins). The film keeps the themes of loneliness, identity and a world without adult supervision that made the Swedish film so haunting and adds in a gripping subplot about a detective (Elias Koteas) investigating a grim series of murders that connects back to the children. Haunting, beautiful and poetic, "Let Me In" is a worthy take on the material and just as gripping. Unfortunately, it also joins "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World" as the best movie that audiences chose to ignore this year.
• As Halloween approaches, so does my love for great horror movies. I recently had the chance to rent Adam Green's Frozen On Demand and can highly recommend it for those planning to never go skiing again. In the same vein as "Open Water" and "The Blair Witch Project," it's one of those great never-go-into-nature-because-it-will-kill-you movies. Three friends go away on a skiing trip and manage to finagle themselves onto one last run before the weekend's over. Thanks to a series of carefully explained events, the three find themselves left on the ski lift when the resort closes for the weekend. It's Sunday night. It's cold and there's an ice storm coming. There are wolves below. And no one's coming until Friday. Despite some implausibilities (I doubt that many wolves would congregate near a ski resort), the film is sickeningly suspenseful and terrifying. The three leads are believable and Green milks just as much suspense from their internal conflicts as he does the life-threatening situation they find themselves in. It's one of those movies that ask the audience to think what they would do in a similar situation...and then takes each one of those solutions and shows just how horribly it could go. Grim, taut and gripping, it's worth a look for those who love their horror without a supernatural bent.
• I was one of the millions caught up in Steig Larsson's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, which I read over the summer. I'm excited to see what David Fincher does with his version of the story, but in the mean time Niel Opley's Swedish take on the material will suffice. The film follows the first novel fairly closely, as Mikael Blomkvist (Neil Nyqvist) investigates the 40 year old disappearance of a teenager girl on an isolated island. Opley makes the investigation--which involves much use of computer databases and photos--surprisingly watchable and cuts enough fat--such as the backstage intrigue with Blomkvist's magazine--out of the film to streamline the story, although I feel that he shortshrifts all the rich history of the Vanger family that made the mystery so resonant in the novel. Still, it works for a 2.5 hour thriller, and Noomi Rapace is utterly perfect as the troubled but brilliant hacker Lisbeth Salander. Newcomers will appreciate the suspenseful and beautifully-photographed thrillers but I think fans of Larsson's trilogy may find it a tad too abridged to fully embrace.
• This weekend while I had some time to myself I also finally caught up with David Gordon Green's All the Real Girls, a quiet little romance he made a few years back. The story of a womanizer (Paul Schneider) who falls for his best friend's virginal sister (Zooey Deschanel), the movie is a quiet, deliberately-paced drama about growing up, maturing and navigating this whole labyrinth of love and relationships. I still have trouble reconciling that the same director who made this and the meditative "George Washington" and "Snow Angels" is the man who went on to helm "Pineapple Express" and some of the raunchier episodes of "Eastbound and Down." But Green's direction here is just as delicate as in his best films, capturing the slow rhythms of life in a small town and the gentleness with which we live alongside each other. The story is minor but beautiful and Schneider and Deschanel ably capture the insecurity, fear, thrill and danger of falling in love. Definitely a beautiful little movie.

Movie Review: "Waiting for Superman"

Davis Guggenheim's "Waiting for Superman" is a documentary, not a comic book film. But for many parents, I have a feeling it may play like a horror movie.

The film details the utter failure of the American public school system, in which inner city schools are called "drop out factories," bad teachers are impossible to fire, and the country's students place 26th in reading and science.The bright side? Their confidence is high: Nearly every student polled thinks Americans place No. 1 in those areas.

Guggenheim ("An Inconvenient Truth") knows audiences are well aware of the problems that have faced the education system for decades. We've heard stories of classrooms that have run out of supplies, teachers who sit back and do nothing, and idealistic educators constantly thwarted by district bureaucracy and governmental politics. He plainly states that in the inner cities, many middle schools fail to properly prepare kids for high school. In many urban high schools, freshmen start five years behind and half are guaranteed to drop out, ending up on the streets or in prison. Conventional wisdom, Guggenheim states, has always believed that bad cities were to blame for bad schools. However, he reports that just the opposite may be true.

I'd imagine that an entire Ken Burns documentary could be prepared detailing the myriad things that derailed the public education system. But Guggenheim places the lion's share of the blame at the feet of teacher unions that wield enormous political power and make it nearly impossible to fire teachers once they receive tenure, which can often happen in as few as two years. In some states, such as Illinois, the film posits that it is actually easier for a doctor to lose his license or a lawyer to be disbarred than to fire a tenured teacher. In many districts, bad teachers are simply transferred from school to school in a game known as "pass the lemon." In New York, disciplined teachers sit in an office building reading newspapers while awaiting hearings; they receive full salary and they can wait as long as eight years before their cases are called.

It's sobering, even for this critic without children in school. Bright students who are eager to learn can have that potential snuffed out by teachers who don't care or districts that don't allow them to flourish. While many suburban parents can send their children to private schools, many lower-income parents don't have that luxury and are at the mercy of their districts, watching as their children are sent off to buildings where the odds are stacked against them.

The film would likely still be shocking if it were just a parade of these grim statistics and district snapshots. But Guggenheim engages the audience by following five inner city students from around the country as their parents worry about the future awaiting them in the classrooms. Statistics are sobering, but it's even harder to take when they're placed with names and faces. His subjects - Francisco, Anthony, Bianca, Daisy and Emily - are bright, precocious children who want to become veterinarians, surgeons and teachers. They're young and excited about learning, even if they have their own struggles in the classroom. Seeing their optimism and also their awareness that a tough road awaits them is sobering, and creates an emotional bond to the problem.

There seems to be hope, Guggenheim states. There are idealistic, innovative teachers across the country interested in education reform. We meet Michelle Lhee, the Washington, D.C., superintendent who came in and fired underperforming principals and teachers, and came up with a proposal to do away with tenure and offer teachers merit increases - a proposal that could have doubled teachers' salaries if they performed well ... and was shot down when the union deemed it too threatening.

We also meet educators like Geoffrey Canada, who opened a charter school in inner city Harlem where teachers are involved in the education process literally from a students' infanthood. Naysayers told Canada that opening a school in Harlem was a lost cause; years after opening, however, his students are scoring higher on tests than students from even the best areas. The implication is clear: When good teachers are allowed to teach and engage students, students can succeed. When education is more focused on protecting employment or watching the bottom line, students fail.

Charter schools - public schools that operate outside of the district policies - seem to be an attractive option, one that offers students a greater chance at success. But the limited availability and high number of applicants mean students are accepted through lotteries. In the film's tense and heartbreaking final 20 minutes, we watch as each student Guggenheim's followed sits in on lotteries and basically has their educational future determined by chance. It's one of the most sobering and devastating moments I've seen on screen this year.

At the screening I attended, there were several angry and frustrated outbursts with every setback or new statistic. Guggenheim, as he did with global warming in "An Inconvenient Truth," is able to take complex statistical information, and make it immediate and relatable. Is it a bit manipulative to parade children in front of to hammer home a point? Perhaps. But Guggenheim's work never feels overly manipulative and the point of the matter is this - this is about children's futures. When you see how schools are failing and the impact it has on children's lives, outrage is the only emotion to feel.

But as with "An Inconvenient Truth," Guggenheim closes with an appeal for involvement, asking audiences to text if they want to help. I can't imagine anyone who hears about the nightmarish state of America's schools will want to stay passive as they walk out of the theater. Parents, educators and anyone concerned about the future of the nation will want to pay attention to this movie, and it's the rare film that could spur people to action and make a difference.

Or, as the title suggests, we could sit back and wait for someone to come in and fix it for us. But, as Canada reminds audiences early in the film, Superman does not exist, and he's not going to come and save the day.

Originally published in the Oct. 10 edition of The Source.

Chrisicisms: Waiting for Zack Snyder's "Superman"

So, in the interest of keeping this blog more active, I want to start adding in some new features. A few looks at older movies, maybe some capsule length reviews of movies I've watched and not reviewed for the paper. But a big component I want to introduce is "Chrisicisms," in which I talk about some recent news, trends or other opinions in film. Sometimes it will be a bullet list of some items that I've stumbled across during the week. Other times, such as this week, it's just my viewpoint on something I've been mulling over. Hope it's enjoyable!

The big news this week is that Zack Snyder has been chosen to helm the Christopher Nolan-produced reboot of "Superman" for Warner Bros. for a 2012 release.

I've seen quite a bit of reaction on both sides about this news. There are some who feel Snyder is a perfect fit for such an iconic character, as the "300" director has fueled his career by putting together some particularly dazzling images. Others feel that Snyder's reliance on slow motion and green screen (which, to be fair, was only with "300") make him the wrong person to tackle the Man of Steel.

It's kind of a silly game to play. After all, whether we like it or not, WB has made their decision. Unless there's some kind of behind-the-scenes fiasco, Snyder is going to make the next Superman movie. It might be best just to take a breath, let him choose his Clark Kent and make the final judgement once we've seen the final work.

But it's Superman. And fans of Superman movies are likely going to have opinions on this matter.

I wasn't much of a comic book reader as a child--a few Batmans and Ninja Turtles as they grew in popularity, but not much more. But when I was in Middle School, DC Comics presented the "Death of Superman" storyline and, like many of my friends, I was hooked. I read every issue of that arc, riveted to the page and shocked that in the end I actually saw Superman bloodied, beaten and dying in the arms of Lois Lane (I was still young enough to not know what "publicity stunt" meant and be surprised when Supes was resurrected just about a year later).

My grandfather bought us a VHS of the old Max Fleischer Superman cartoons when I was young. I loved every one of those and can still hear the theme song in my head. I loved the Christopher Reeve films (although even as a kid I knew Nuclear Man in Part IV was pretty lame). Superman was always the ideal hero to me--a bona fide good guy, fighting for good causes and without the dark, questionable morality of Batman. I still think Richard Donner's "Superman" is one of the greatest comic book movies ever made and I have a soft spot for "Superman II" as well. While I understand why some people didn't care much for Singer's "Superman Returns," I think it's a worthy follow up to Donner's film and Brandon Routh is fantastic as the Man of Steel.

Superman's a tricky property to get right, though. There's a balance of optimism, hope and Americana that is a large part of who the character is. Superman has been derisively called a Boy Scout, but I have never understood why that's a criticism--there's something pure and admirable about Superman, a character who always does the right thing and stands up for justice. When you can get it right on film, as Donner does in the first 2/3 of the first "Superman," you can make something joyful, inspiring and memorable. But if you go too far in the wrong direction, the character can be cheesy, cliche and campy.

Of course, we don't live in the same innocent world that embraced Superman before. We prefer our characters to be dark and edgy, haunted by inner demons. It's why Batman endures--he does the right thing, but goes to dark places to do it. And perhaps the failure of Snyder's "Superman Returns" was that it was a little too innocent and earnest for current audiences, especially those who had been thrilled by "Batman Begins" only a year prior--a hero reminding the public to fly safely and wearing bright red and blue tights may not have been what they were in the mood for.

But I still think that a warmth and optimism is crucial for getting the character of Superman right. Batman's darkness and edge work because they are a part of the character--the Dark Knight appeals to our darker sides. Superman is the Man of Steel...he's a symbol of hope, fighting for truth, justice and the American way.

Nothing Nolan or Snyder has done have convinced me that they can bring that tone to this story.

Nolan, of course, gets the benefit of the doubt simply because he's a genius. When your filmography includes "Memento," "Insomnia," "Batman Begins," "The Prestige," "The Dark Knight" and "Inception," you've earned a bit of trust. I've enjoyed all of Nolan's films and felt the majority of them are masterpieces. He's an original, a master of both images and narratives. I have no doubt that he has an idea of how to approach Clark Kent/Superman or that he has a fantastically plotted story in mind.

But remember what I said about optimism and hope. Up until now, all of Nolan's films have been dark, possessing a distrust of even their protagonists. The reason Nolan's movies are so resonant is because he deals with broken characters, men who are trying to do the right thing and yet find themselves complicating situations throughout the way. He has a recurring theme of men haunted by their past, trying and failing to do the right thing and often with a habit of sabotaging themselves; it's this interest that has elevated Nolan's Batman films beyond mere superhero movie status to actual art. I'm not saying that he doesn't have an optimistic bone in his body and I trust that he's smart enough to know what sort of theme "Superman" should have...but given the themes he's traditionally tackled and the tone in all of his films, it's just hard to fathom what a Christopher Nolan-produced "Superman" would be.

Snyder's more problematic for me, and not because I'm a hater. As I stated in my "Legend of the Guardians" review last week, I think Snyder knows how to produce gorgeous images. He knows how to deliver a hero shot and he's a master at delivering action sequences--yes, he might overdo it with the slow motion, but you have to admit it always looks good in his hands.

And Snyder's made good movies. A "Dawn of the Dead" remake should have been verboten; Snyder's is surprisingly effective and entertaining. While "300" has not held up well in my experience, I must confess that it was quite the visceral experience when I first viewed it in theaters. He deserves major points for just being bold enough to tackle "Watchmen" and even more for actually making it good, even brilliant in parts (although he also cast Malin Ackerman and oversaw the horrible makeup jobs that marred the film). "Legend of the Guardians" is an interesting children's film and I think his upcoming "Sucker Punch" looks visually amazing.

But all of those films are surface entertainments for the most part--pretty-looking movies that don't have a ton that stick with you. With Superman, he's setting up a franchise and has to be able to take a character that, in the wrong hands, can come off as silly and cheesy, and make him heroic, admirable and intriguing. Nothing Snyder has done has made me confident in his ability to put likable characters on the screen or engage me beyond a visceral level.

And again, look at that filmography. A zombie movie. A bloody gladiator epic. A satire featuring superheroes with neuroses who kill villains with meat cleavers or have awkward sex on the couch. A children's movie in which owls attack each other with metal claws. Snyder's films typically have a darkness and edge to them. He pushes the limits. He's best when he's going beyond what we'd expect in a traditional movie. He has a dark aesthetic and seems to prefer characters that don't apologize for their blood lust. With a little reining in, he might be good for Batman. But I don't see the right tone for Superman in any of his work.

Of course, with the success of "The Dark Knight," WB might be edging towards a darker Superman movie. The other two directors up for the gig were Ben Affleck and Darren Aronofsky--neither of whom is known for their lighthearted fare (although I can't help but dream about what an Aronofsky Superman would look like). After all, before Singer took on the material, the franchise was set for a reboot helmed by Tim Burton with Nicolas Cage as a Superman who dressed in black and didn't fly.

A dark, edgy Superman may be what WB wants. If so, I think it's a mistake and misses out on some of the most essential characteristics of this iconic character. I don't want a dark and edgy Superman...I want a noble, pure and courageous Superman, one who inspires children to deeds of great heroism.

And maybe I'll be wrong. There's nothing more I'd like than to sit back in 2012 and realize that Snyder has made a fantastic Superman movie. I will happily admit it if I'm wrong.

But still...if you've seen what he's done with owls, what do you think he'll do with Supes?

Movie Review: "The Social Network"

Originally published in October 3 edition of the Source.

Ironically, the first thing I did upon walking out of the theater after screening "The Social Network" was check my Facebook.

It's almost a reflex. Since becoming one of the social networking site's 500 million users a few years back, it's become a part of my normal life. Whether through a computer or on my phone, I'm constantly viewing what my friends are up to or updating my status. There is hardly a person I communicate with regularly who is not on Facebook. Even my grandfather has a profile.

It's a rare thing to live through a communication revolution like this. Through social networking sites, we have the ability to reconnect with old schoolmates, keep up with our coworkers and learn every little thing about people we barely know in real life.

And if we're to believe "The Social Network," all it cost Facebook's creator to design this online intimacy was every close relationship he had.David Fincher's "The Social Network" is not really about Facebook, even though its creation drives the plot. Digging deeper, Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin examine a culture in which billions can be made by college students with only an idea and the life of a genius for whom technological revolution was a conduit for revenge.

The film opens with Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg, "Zombieland") on a date with Erica (Rooney Mara). In just five short minutes, a cordial date unravels as Mark parades his condescension, impatience and unchecked ambition, ending with Erica delivering a wickedly perfect break up that sets the stage for everything that follows. It's a breathtaking dialogue sequence that spells out everything we need to know about this character and Sorkin's script dares the audience to keep up.

Angry and rejected, Mark returns to his dorm for some drunken blogging. With the help of his roommates, he gets the idea to hack into Harvard's various online photo archives to create a website where users can rate student attractiveness. The site attracts so many hits in such a short time that it crashes Harvard's network. When he's called in front of Harvard administration, Mark simply requests recognition for revealing the network's vulnerabilities.

The incident makes Mark a pariah among the school's females but a hit among the computer elite. Twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss (both played by Armie Hammer) enlist Mark's help in setting up a Harvard-only online dating site. At the same time, Mark and his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Patrick Garfield) are busy setting up a Harvard social networking site called TheFacebook in which users can connect to their friends' profiles and trade information. It's a business venture that ultimately attracts the attention of Napster creator Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake).

The fact that the narrative is filtered through litigation between Zuckerberg and his former friends should tell you that Facebook's start was not without a few bumps. The Winklevosses, not without reason, suspect that Mark has appropriated their idea and we quickly learn that things will not end well for Mark and Eduardo's friendship either.

I first read about Facebook's tumultuous behind-the-scenes drama in a magazine article a few years back. While I found the subject fascinating, I never pictured it as a film. It was a story about computer programming, shady business contracts and legal action - not the most cinematically gripping stuff.

But Sorkin, famous for turning Beltway politics into weekly drama on "The West Wing," finds a human element in presenting Zuckerberg as a socially clueless, wounded and ambitious young man who doesn't seem to get the girls or the attention of the popular clubs. His solution: be better, be cooler and attract more attention ... and then use that attention to shut down everyone who he feels has slighted him. Portrayed with fierce brilliance and aloofness by Eisenberg, however, Zuckerberg doesn't come across as being a true jerk - just an overly prideful young man who doesn't fit in and then lashes out when his feelings get hurt. He's like an unfunny version of "The Big Bang Theory's" Sheldon Cooper.

It's a tough role and Eisenberg, best known for his comedic work, tackles it ably. We don't learn much about Zuckerberg except that he's brilliant and driven - and, perhaps, that's all there is to him. When he gets the idea for Facebook, it consumes him. He moves out to California and dedicates himself to the site. But no matter how popular the site becomes, he's always wrestling with insecurity over the friend picked for the club that neglected him, the slight from other students or the girl who just wasn't impressed with how smart he was. He doesn't know how to navigate social situations and gets irritated when others aren't on the same page as him. Eisenberg perfectly captures the condescending character of a man who sees himself as intellectually superior to everyone in the room, yet he also finds a few quiet moments to showcase Mark as a kid out of his element, afraid at how fast his dream is coming true and not sure how to emotionally react.

Sorkin is the rare writer to make legal and computer jargon crackle off the screen. Like on "The West Wing," his dialogue flies out of characters' mouths, daring the audience to keep up. The writing is whip-smart, gripping and surprisingly funny. Fincher's technique of cutting back and forth in the narrative between depositions and the actual event, coupled with Trent Reznor's propulsive score, give it a momentum that rivets attention to the screen and makes two hours pass in an instant. It's refreshing to see a film that respects audience intelligence enough to expect them to keep up and pay attention.Fincher's ensemble is superb, particularly Garfield. As the film's victim, a level-headed economics student who'd rather see Facebook slowly gain a profit rather than peak early, he presents Saverin well as a business-savvy young kid who wants to proceed cautiously and is ultimately betrayed for his wisdom. Timberlake is perfectly cast as Parker, the rock star of the Internet world, a cocky and brash rebel who talks a big game despite being fueled by paranoia and not having a buck to his name.

Fincher, a visual maestro in "Fight Club" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," has to rein in his tricks here. But still, no one shoots darkness on digital better than him and his creation of life on Harvard has a wonderfully edgy, dark tinge to it, taking place in a world where cultural revolution occurs amidst 3 a.m. frat parties and drunken bouts of brilliance. The director, who made three decades of investigative work intriguing in "Zodiac," ensures that despite the legal mumbo jumbo and massive tech talk the audience never loses site of the character drama at play or becomes lost in a maze of dialogue.

The film is peppered with insights that may require a second viewing. It's amusing and a bit sobering to think that the online social network community started by appealing to our attraction to exclusivity and desire meet the opposite sex. There's so much to say about the dangers of online business and intellectual property; the film should be required viewing for anyone thinking of starting a website. But none of this would work without a human story propelling it.

And in "The Social Network," that story is how a young man changed the way we communicate and connect with the people we love, even though it meant his own friends list had no one else on it.

Movie Review: "Legend of the Guardians--The Owls of Ga'Hoole"

With "Legends of the Guardians," Hollywood has finally delivered a movie about anthropomorphic animals that is exciting, visually sumptuous and features nary a poop joke.

Reminiscent of Disney's attempts to deliver more serious fare with "The Black Cauldron" or Don Bluth's "Secret of Nimh" in the 1980s, "Legends of the Guardians" may be about talking owls, but don't mistake it for an avian "Happy Feet." Helmed by director Zack Snyder ("300," "Watchmen"), "Guardians" is, at heart, a fantasy-adventure more interested in high-flying battles than clever pop culture references.

Based on a series of young adult novels, the film follows Soren (Jim Sturgess), a young, idealistic owl who revels in stories about the legendary Guardians of Ga'hoole - warrior owls who fought for the weak. When Soren is kidnapped along with thousands of other owlets and made to labor for a wicked queen (Helen Mirren) bent on overthrowing the owl kingdom, it is up to him to track down the Guardians, led by noble warrior Allomere (Sam Neill), and rescue the enslaved birds.

It's a fairly straightforward adventure, but one of "Guardians'" charms is the way it celebrates cultural myth-making. No one is really sure whether or not the Guardians of Ga'hoole exist; Soren only has heard of them in his father's (Hugo Weaving) tales. But it's the hope that these stories are true that fuel Soren to find rescue. In an age where most children's films rush to ape the latest pop culture fad or a timely gag, it's refreshing to see a film that celebrates our heritage of creating heroic tales to pass down to our children.

The film feels charmingly old-fashioned, right down to the cadre of friends that accompany Soren on his journey, from a lute-playing old bird (Anthony LaPaglia) to a care-taking snake (Miriam Margolyes). It's a charming and funny group, and each character is given a distinctive personality - the crazy old bird, the motherly nanny, the gung-ho best friend. They're the character types seen in earlier animated films and children's stories, crafted with gentleness and whimsy, free of the annoying catchphrase spouting and slapstick shenanigans.

Snyder, whose work has been decidedly aimed at adults for his directorial career, makes the wise decision not to pander. He knows children can handle serious, adventurous fare and treats his audience with respect. He's not afraid to have a story full of shifting alliances, dangerous escapes and scary villains, such as this film's Metal Beak (Joel Edgerton). His cast also treats the material seriously, particularly Mirren, who is wonderful as the film's villainess. The film is pleasantly missing the manic, gag-a-minute noise of recent family fare and could almost be viewed as a gateway into more epic fantasy; once children have handled 'The Guardians,' might Harry Potter or "The Hobbit" be the next logical step?

Snyder's biggest asset has always been his visual flair. "300" and "Watchmen" have their detractors, but few could deny the visual feast Snyder reliably brings to the table. "Guardians'" photo-realistic computer images are breathtaking - every feather, drop of rain or blade of grass is meticulously crafted; only the expressive eyes give away that these are animated characters. The film's numerous flight and battle scenes are some of the most amazingly realized animated sequences I've ever seen. Snyder's love for slow motion is on full display here, but I didn't mind - it gave more time to admire the art on display.

Snyder's refusal to pander to kids, however, should provide a caution to parents. The film's battle sequences are often dark and intense for a PG-rated children's film, and it's likely that many younger viewers will view the movie's final act through their fingers. Then again, kids of the 1980s grew up with "Poltergeist" and "Indiana Jones," so maybe children are more resilient than I like to think.

But an over-reliance of battle sequences keeps the film from presenting any real depth or insight. Soren learns that the Guardians are real, of course, but is never taught to develop any unique skill of his own; his success at the end is to simply fight and defeat Metal Beak. For a film that begins with the intentions to craft an old-fashioned myth, and is filled with such ingenuity and whimsy, ending with a fight seems shallow.

I would love to pronounce "Legend of the Guardians" as a new children's classic, but missteps like that keep it just off that shelf. While the majority of the film is free of pop culture inanity, Snyder does make the mistake of resorting to a pop music montage - made all the more cringe-inducing by the fact that the music is by Owl City (seriously?). Also, the film's 90-minute runtime means the story is rushed at a few points; it's hard to keep some of the main characters straight, and some motivations and intentions are lost in the shuffle.

Still, it's rare to see a children's film showcasing this much heart, charm and ambition. The visuals alone make the film worth a look on the big screen and it's the rare time you'll hear me urge you to see a movie in 3D. Hopefully it's the start of pushing the boundaries of what a family film can actually be, and we'll see more epic fantasies and adventures for children on the big screen.

Until then, this isn't a bad flight to take.

Movie Review: "The Town"

In 2007, Ben Affleck took many by surprise with his nuanced and gritty directorial debut “Gone Baby Gone.”

The adaptation of Dennis Lehane’s best-selling novel was a tough and twisty examination of crime in a Boston neighborhood. It earned Amy Ryan a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination and convinced several critics that Affleck’s skill behind the camera might be strong enough to put the “Gigli” jokes to rest once and for all.

With his sophomore follow up “The Town,” Affleck may have also earned the right to have “Jersey Girl,” “Paycheck” and the Animal Crackers scene in “Armageddon” stricken from his record. Keeping his eyes on Beantown, Affleck crafts one of the most riveting crime thrillers in years and delivers one of the strongest performances of his career.

The film is set in Boston’s Charlestown neighborhood, an area known for having more bank robberies than any area in the country. Heists are a way of life to Charlestown boys, who seem to inherit it from their fathers the way others take on the family hardware store.

Doug MacRay (Affleck) is one of those boys. His father in prison for a murder-robbery, MacRay is a washed up hockey player and drug addict who now organizes robberies for an Irish crime boss (Pete Postlethwaite). As the film opens, MacRay and his crew commit a brutal bank heist, taking manager Claire (Rebecca Hall) hostage before leaving her stranded by the ocean.

Upon learning that Claire lives only four blocks from the gang, MacRay’s hot-headed partner Jem (Jeremy Renner) suggests silencing the witness. MacRay, hoping to keep the situation from turning violent, offers to follower her and see what she knows. The two strike up a relationship that has Doug beginning to reconsider his criminal ways, all while Jem tries to convince him to take on a big score and an FBI agent (Jon Hamm) pieces together the new string of robberies plaguing Boston.

This is all well-tread territory and Affleck doesn’t try to reinvent the genre. What “The Town” may lack in originality, it makes up for in reliability.

I was one of the reviewers impressed with “Gone Baby Gone,” but Affleck outdoes himself here. The film, beautifully photographed by Robert Elswit (“There Will Be Blood”) is a slick, energetic affair. The action sequences move with an electricity reminiscent of Michael Mann or William Friedkin, particularly a chase through Boston and a blistering climax inside Fenway Park.

It’s easy to crash cars, shoot guns and blow things up, but Affleck also knows how to play out the film’s quieter scenes, knowing just how long to hold a shot and deliver the suspense and emotion the moment calls for. An encounter between Doug, Claire and Jem at an outdoor bistro is fraught with tension, with the entire scene hinging on whether Claire will notice a tattoo on the back of Jem’ neck. The scene plays out with delicious suspense, thanks to both nimble directing and strong performances by Affleck, Renner and Hall.

Despite some unfortunate career choices earlier a few years back, Affleck has always had a strong screen presence, delivering solid performances in films like “Chasing Amy” and “Changing Lanes.” As Doug, Affleck ably captures the weariness of a man born into crime, raised by criminals and proceeding fatefully into the underworld. Claire provides a glimmer of goodness, intelligence and humanity into Doug’s world, forcing him to think that change might be possible. But his convict father (Chris Cooper) and Jem serve as reminders that Doug is a street kid and that leaving behind the crime-ridden Charlestown streets would not be seen as escape, but abandonment. In a way, it’s the anti-“Good Will Hunting.”

Hall is solid as Claire, and Hamm is terrific as the driven as the FBI agent on Doug’s trail whose ethics may be slimier than Doug’s. Cooper, relegated to one scene, still manages to impress and bring a gravity to the film. But it’s Renner, hot off “The Hurt Locker,” who steals the show, taking the cliché “live-wire” character and giving him a sense of misguided honor and a willingness to do anything at all to stay out of jail and keep his friends nearby. It’s a fantastic performance and Renner creates a terrifying character.

Affleck loves his hometown and, as in “Gone Baby Gone,” he makes Boston a central character in the film. His characters are defined by their settings, wearied and beaten-down by family histories that have played out in the city for years. Elswit’s photography captures Beantown in all of its glory; Boston hasn’t looked this good since “The Departed.”

The film balances its action sequences and relationships well, rarely bogging down in exposition and keeping the breakneck scenes plausible and comprehensible. Affleck allows his characters to breathe and grow without sacrificing the film’s pacing. Only in the final moments does the tone slip from his grasp, turning what should have been a hard and gritty ending into something a bit too cheesy and sentimental. As much as I love “The Shawshank Redemption,” that’s the last film I should have been thinking of at the end of “The Town.”

There’s nothing about “The Town” that hasn’t been done before. Where it succeeds, however, is in taking those familiar elements—the robber with one last job, a chance at redemption and a vicious partner—and playing them out with tension, skill and drama. You may have seen it all before, but rarely is it done this well.