Running Scared

Remember a few weeks ago, when Ben Affleck was named as the new Bruce Wayne in the upcoming Batman vs Superman? How half the fanboys on planet Earth convulsed in unison and proclaimed that it was the worst casting choice in existence, referencing decade-old schlock fests Gigli and Daredevil as proof? Well, Runner Runner just did its best to prove those internet doubters correct. Despite taking one of Hollywood's most improved actors - along with Affleck's directorial credits for The Town and Argo - and teaming him up with an already-impressive feature director (The Lincoln Lawyer's Brad Furman), the result ought to have been something special. So why does this film have the reek of disappointment from beginning to end?

Desperate to succeed at Princeton, Richie Furst (Justin Timberlake) attempts to make up the difference between his life savings and what school will actually cost by gambling online, using his talents at math and probability to excel in the early goings. But when faceless cheats hack the software and rob him electronically, he embarks on a journey to Costa Rica, where he plans to confront the gambling web site's mogul Ivan Block (Ben Affleck) about the burglary. Ivan assures Richie that the theft was due to rogue programmers who had written a backdoor into the system for their own gains, and not only does he reimburse Richie his losses, but offers Princeton's star pupil a spot in his organization. Looking to rebound from old failures, Richie accepts, but the more he learns about Ivan Block and his less-than-ethical business practices, the less sure he is that he should stick around for the long term.

It was just the beginning... of the end.

As I mentioned before, under the tutelage of Furman, Runner Runner should have been much, MUCH better than the shrug-inducing "thriller" we were delivered. So what went wrong? Well, while the story does involve some unique aspects - most notably online poker and the exotic Costa Rican setting - very little is actually done with those items beyond background noise. As a result we get a run-of-the-mill suspense film, disappointing as the screenplay came from Brian Koppelman and David Levien, the duo behind crime thrillers Rounders, Runaway Jury and Oceans Thirteen. It's also a shocker for Furman, whose excessive editing and lack of balanced storytelling keeps the plot from being as engaging as it could have possibly been.

If this man is your star, you've got serious problems.

But the biggest problems for Runner Runner (besides the fact that hardly anybody would realize the meaning of the title) are easily on the casting front. The fact of the matter is, nobody should be handing leading man jobs to Justin Timberlake. The former 'N Sync frontman does have some talent as a performer thanks to his natural charisma, but with a lack of any other acting skills, he's better suited to supporting roles (like his part in The Social Network), where he doesn't have to be ON 100% of the time. Even getting past the part where he doesn't look nearly young enough to pass for a college student (not even the grad school student the film tries to say he is) is the excessive gesturing and facial expressions he expresses that a good movie actor does his best to tone down; Timberlake meanwhile shows more frenetic energy than Shia LeBoeuf on caffeine. Others come off slightly better; despite what could have been an over-the-top farce, Affleck does a good enough job in the antagonist role to sort-of make up for Timberlake's mistakes. As acting jobs go, tt's still a step down from his more recent roles, but that may have more to do with the material Affleck was given, and not an actual dip in his talent. The side characters range from cliched to ridiculous, however, with most of Gemma Arterton's pay going towards tanning lotion, and Anthony Mackie frustrating as he continues to play one-note characters after his 2009 breakout The Hurt Locker. Weak dialogue doesn't help any of them, and at least energy is put into their performances, but rarely this year has such a potentially-strong cast been misused so badly and to such detriment to the movie.

So THAT'S how Bruce Wayne made his billions!

So yes, Runner Runner is a poorly-named, terribly-paced disappointment. You could go in for a brainless diversion, I suppose, but there are already more than enough alternatives in theaters that are a lot better in execution than Furman's film could hope to have achieved. Go see Don Jon. Go see Riddick. DEFINITELY go see Gravity. Heck, go see Machete Kills (review forthcoming) if you're so inclined. But there's really no reason to waste your time here. It's just not worth the time, and the Batman of the future deserved better.

"Trouble" with the Curve

You see what I did there? How I used quotation marks to emphasize the one word in the title of the movie that actually describes its execution? Wasn't that clever? What? It wasn't? Well, Clint Eastwood has made a career out of making similar unsubtle statements in his films he directs. No, it hasn't always been a deal killer; he has built movies wonderful (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby), awful (Letters from Iwo Jima, Hereafter) and everywhere in between (Mystic River, J. Edgar). But anyone who contends that he is a great director has obviously been swayed by his long acting career and forgiven many of the cliched storytelling elements he includes in his pictures, ones that most truly talented filmmakers would never use in this day and age.

I was worried at first that this style would be the problem with Trouble with the Curve, which is also Eastwood's first acting gig since people say he was snubbed for a Best Actor nomination in 2008's Gran Torino. Surprisingly, while there are a few cliched moments (parent releasing child's hand to show abandonment, a few lingering shots expressing a character's loneliness), Trouble was not the technical abomination I had been expecting. I found out in the closing credits for the reason for this; turns out the film wasn't directed by Eastwood at all. Instead it was filmed by Robert Lorenz, who had been an assistant director on over twenty films. While Lorenz certainly learned a bit from working with Eastwood on Bloodwork, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby, it's obvious he also developed his style from working with other directors, making for a thankfully more adept movie than I was expecting.

Timberlake gets directing tips from Eastwood.

It's a shame that my expectations had been so low, as a movie featuring baseball, Eastwood, Amy Adams and BASEBALL should have been one of my more highly expected theatrical releases. It was, but more for potential than what I actually thought I would see. Eastwood plays longtime baseball scout Gus Lobel; an employee of the Atlanta Braves, Gus is as old-fashioned a talent scout as you can get, completely eschewing the modern computer age and relying exclusively on what he can see in a player. This hasn't endeared him to his superiors in Atlanta, who want him to check out a highly-touted player in the Carolinas as their potential top pick in the upcoming draft. The expectation is that if Gus fails, they can simply let his swiftly-expiring contract run out. When his longtime friend and superior Pete (John Goodman) worries about his diminishing health, he calls Gus' daughter Mickey (Adams) to join him to see if there is anything she can do. With relations already strained between Gus and Mickey, all they can do try to communicate with one another while bonding over the one thing they both seem to love; baseball.

"OMG JT is SOOO HOT"

Unfortunately, just because it's not directed by its star doesn't mean that it's automatically better. This is the first ever published screenplay by Randy Brown, and it definitely shows in the overly-simple rendition of what should be deep emotional themes. There doesn't seem to be any consistency in the routes the characters take, with the relationship between Gus and Mickey especially jumpy in between scenes. One scene they seem fine, the next they're at each others' throats. There are reasons for that, and the film does its best to lay them all out, but I never felt as though any middle ground between those two points was explored. Adams is nevertheless wonderful, her naturally bubbly persona taking a backseat to a serious, dramatic side that gets her attention and awards. Eastwood however tends to rest on his laurels, with only a few scenes making him reach as a performer. His role is fine, as is that of Justin Timberlake as a former player turned scout (turned love interest for Mickey) for the Boston Red Sox, but both are limited to performances that are high on levity and short on storytelling.

Standing around waiting for something to happen; just like the real game!

Worse is the cliched junk that seems tossed in as filler. Of COURSE there's an "evil scout" who relies solely on computer data (Matthew Lillard) who actually seems to want Gus fired. Of COURSE the player Gus is asked to scout is a complete asshole. Of COURSE he has a fatal flaw which is not apparent at the college level but that Gus knows will prevent him from being successful in the big leagues. Of COURSE the answer to everyone's dreams is telegraphed a mile away. Of COURSE Gus is losing the ONE THING (his eyesight) which would prevent him from excelling at his job. Of COURSE they use a Dirty Harry scene for a flashback. Okay, that last one was a bit out of left field. The point is that for every decent or genuinely good thing Trouble pitches us, it lobs more than a few stinkers that undermine the quality of the film. A script rewrite should have been in order, and the lack of one indicates that Eastwood was more in charge than we were led to believe.

"Wait, he gave us a bad review?"

Trouble with the Curve came out with a LOT of potential. Baseball may not be that popular sport, but it has inspired more great stories in film and print than just about any other game, even the all-powerful sport of football. For a baseball story to appear so hollow and disingenuous is certainly a disappointment, especially when it gathers such a solid blend of acting talent as its foundation. Still, Curve disappoints, especially considering its fighting the scout/computer battle has been more or less settled in the years following the publication of Moneyball. Like Eastwood, Curve is a story out of time, not exactly sure where we are today, and both scared and angry about it.

Time's Up

Sometimes a good hook is all a film really needs to capture its audience. When the majority of popular films out there are remakes or stories so derivative that they might as well be, anything that stands apart from the norm can, and more often than not will, excite and draw a real audience. That hook allows you to tell any story you wish, and if you do a good enough job, those people will turn to their friends afterward and tell them all about your movie, expanding your viewership at the next showing. That catchy, original idea is exactly the kind of film In Time aspires to be. When I first saw the trailer for this sci-fi thriller, it didn't matter that it starred two actors who don't do a lot for me (Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried). It didn't matter that the supporting cast sported a variety of not-quite-there names including Cillian Murphy, Olivia Wilde, Vincent Kartheiser and Johnny Galecki. It didn't matter that director Andrew Niccol's previous works interested me not one whit. What did matter was the concept; a society where time is currency and the rich live forever, while the poor constantly check their chronometers to see their last minutes ticking away. Sure it's an obvious analogy to the state of inequality in the world and especially the United States today, but that single element is what drove people to the theater this past weekend. All that was left was for the director to tell his story, and hope that it's good enough for repeat performances next time around.

The name's Salas. Will Salas. And I don't dance.

Will Salas (Timberlake) is a factory worker just trying to eke out a life in the ghettos of Dayton with his 50-year-old mother Rachel (Wilde). With his wages such that he is literally living a day at a time, Will finds himself faced with perhaps competing in illegal fights (think of them as arm wrestling matches to the death) to earn some time on the side. After he rescues 105-year-old socialite Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) from the wrong side of the tracks, Hamilton tells him that the system in place is there to keep the rich alive and force the little people into short lifespans, for purposes of population control. He also tells Will that he is tired of his empty existence and came to the ghetto because he wanted to die. After determining that Will would not "waste his time", Hamilton passes over a century of time to Will before killing himself. Now Will has enough time on his hands to mingle with the elite of New Greenwich, but Hamilton's death is tagged as suspicious by the Timekeepers, a police force led by Raymond Leon (Murphy). Leon launches a manhunt for Will, who eventually pairs up with a rich magnate's daughter (Seyfried) and the pair become a modern day (or would it be futuristic?) Robin Hood and Maid Marion, robbing Time Banks and redistributing all the time in the world to those who have none.

Silly concept, "stairs"...

While In Time certainly carries a strong message that likely appeals to the "99%", the story itself could have used a lot more work. The action is quick paced and natural, which is why it's so annoying that it takes so long to get to such a point where we are not overly-reliant on plot exposition and dialogue heavy with overtones just to get by. After a largely empty first act, the tale gets truly underway with the escaped couple doing everything they can to screw the man and eventually each other, though in different ways. Actually, the worst thing the film could have done was force a romance between Will and Seyfried's Sylvia, as the two actors have little in the way of chemistry to make such a coupling believable. It's a shame, as the things that Niccol does well as a director (action, a strong message) are almost ruined by his overemphasis on those strengths. The action is almost good to a fault, in which a few moments arise that are beyond his talent as a director and/or beyond the budget of the special effects department. And the message is so obvious that when the film's character's sit down and spell it out so that the audience without a shadow of a doubt "gets it", it's a simple yet exhaustive exercise in frustration to sit there and take it.

Hair has seen multiple technical advancements in the future

At least the silly dialogue and direction is delivered by something akin to a decent array of talent. Seyfried is the lone poor casting choice, as in my eyes she still hasn't done enough to prove that she deserves to be a leading lady. It's clear she has some talent, but so much of her dialogue is so thrown away and flat that you're not sure whether she's just raw or simply isn't trying. I certainly won't deny that she has the looks to be a star, but if she doesn't pick up the pace there are other pretty people would kill to be in her shoes. Timberlake meanwhile has a few dull moments but otherwise puts up one of the more impressive, stripped-down performances of his career. For once, as an actor he puts aside much of his natural charm and actually plays a role that is not a simply-adapted version of himself, and it works wonderfully. Cillian Murphy is as effective as his stone-faced demeanor can carry him, and considering the bluntness of his part that actually goes a long way. As a hard-nosed but honest cop, Murphy is one of the film's villains but not one you can hate, as he's just a working stiff doing his job to the best of his ability. There's almost something admirable about his character, and Murphy plays to that exceptionally well. More villainous but less featured are Mad Men's Vincent Kartheiser as Sylvia's wealthy entrepreneur father who doesn't care about the poor people who suffer under the system and Alex Pettyfer as the leader of a gang who kill people by stealing what time their victims have for themselves.Kartheiser is effective, but the almost seems out of place among all the far more attractive folk around him, ruining my "pretty people with problems" argument before it could even take off. Pettyfer's turn as a bad guy seems like an inspired move considering how poorly his last two films (I Am Number Four and Beastly) have fared with audiences. More likely it's a coincidence, but Pettyfer manages to be charming and snooty all at the same time, and comes off as a natural leader for others to follow. I'd love to see him headline another motion picture, but perhaps he needs more of these solid supporting roles to gain a following before he tries again. Olivia Wilde is wasted in yet another movie, her brief appearance at the film's opening quickly forgotten as the story continues on with her in absentia.

Not a face you want to see at a fancy soiree

Eventually the film comes to an end that is somehow both satisfying and disappointing as once again the glorious message of inequality makes itself known and characters meet their cliched stops. As least the ending itself wasn't predictable, as just enough was juggled to leave the true ending of the heroes in doubt until the film's final moments. Still, closing scenes of triumph hearkened back to earlier scenes of defeat, and the whole thing stunk of bleak writer's cramp stunting what could have been a good film. In Time is a good hook and a great IDEA, but as a story it never grasps what it needs to be most effective, instead relying on its actors to dredge it from the mire like some cheap Jedi mind trick. It almost works, but this film is definitely one that works better in theory than in practice. I enjoyed myself, but I'm not sure I'll be recommending it to my friends, and you can bet there will be others who feel the same. A perfectly okay film that will make for a nice rental or streaming download, but not something that needs to be seen on the big screen.

The Date Night sequel nobody wanted...

Rom-Com Merry Go Round

Back in January, I reviewed a romantic comedy starring Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman called No Strings Attached. In the film, two friends decide to cast aside the emotional baggage of relationships and focus on the sexual gratification aspect with one another. No matter what happened, they would keep love out of the equation, and remain friends. Well, guess what? It didn't work then and it doesn't work in Friends with Benefits either, to nobody's surprise. Directed by Easy A's Will Gluck, Friends at least looks better than No Strings Attached on paper. While the earlier-released film has arguably the bigger star power (with the eventual Oscar winner Portman leading the charge), the overall production of Friends came off much more nicely in previews. This was thanks not only to the seemingly natural chemistry between stars Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, but hilarious R-rated scenes featuring Woody Harrelson and Patricia Clarkson. Though their themes would seem to be the same, I was expecting a better total film when I walked into the theaters to check out the newest of the new releases this past week. If at its worst it was still better than No String Attached, it could well be considered a success.

The closest Timberlake will ever be to a real woman?

When young headhunter Jamie (Mila Kunis) successfully convinces indie journalist Dylan (Justin Timberlake) to take a groundbreaking job at GQ, the two fast become good friends. With Dylan adjusting to the pressures of leaving his family behind in Los Angeles to endure the rigors of New York City, Jamie becomes his constant anchor. Both are recovering from major relationship breakups, and while they don't want to become boyfriend/girlfriend with the other, they DO miss sexual intercourse. Like, a LOT. So they decide to make a pact; no emotional attachment, no jealousy, just sex. Oh, and no matter what happens, the two remain friends. That lasts for a while, but as things continue, they begin to grow together, and before you can shout that you saw it coming from the opening credits, the two fall in love. But with their relationship history, is this unlikely pairing even possible in the long-term?

Yup, she's helping!

While the story in Friends with Benefits is at least well told, one major misstep is that it ridicules the romantic comedy genre while at the same time committing all its cardinal acts. Characters shouting that true love is a farce pretty much guarantees that true love is what they'll find, and no amount of attempted diversions will make the audience believe otherwise. This is surprising considering how unique and few retread steps adorned director Gluck's last film, Easy A. Other rote rom-com trends include gay best friends, parent-child relationship issues, and one character suffering from an illness that many of us know about but not too many people have to live with. It's depressing how such an up-front idea (casual sex) might have added to the genre had it not merely been made into a set piece, and a poor one at that. There's already been a better casual sex comedy released, but I won't be getting to Crazy, Stupid, Love until next week.

Let the vigorous humping begin

The acting is quite good, but to be honest I wasn't as enamoured with the leading couple as I'd hoped I would be. My criticism with Timberlake is the same as with most of his film roles: all style, no substance. He's portrayed as being just like most of us, a down-to-earth guy who cares about all the right things. The problem with this is that it's not a person, it's a character, and Timberlake doesn't have the acting chops to make it more than that. Sure, he can trade barbs in a charming manner with Kunis, but that's about the highest peak of his prowess in front of the camera thus far. Kunis is by far the better of the main couple, though it would still be a stretch of imagine her as anything other than a slightly older and more mature Jackie Burhart from That 70's Show. It would be obvious that the role was written for her even if the director hadn't admitted to it anyway, and it's too bad, since I think she has some actual talent and hasn't really had an opportunity to showcase it beyond 2010's Black Swan. The duo have some chemistry, but not enough to make the audience stand up and take notice. That's why it's a relief that the supporting cast is much better than the two leads in terms of stealing the spotlight. Woody Harrelson gets the most laughs as GQ's homosexual sports editor who plays the role of romantic advisor to Dylan. Every like he utters is a hoot; it's just a shame they're all in the trailer. Patricia Clarkson is also a joy to see on screen, though it would be fair to say her role here pales in comparison to her part in Easy A. Playing Jamie's sexually-adventurous mother, Clarkson doesn't get nearly as much attention as perhaps she deserves, but does the best with what she can, which includes some truly hilarious and outrageous settings. And Richard Jenkins once again almost steals the show in his scenes as Dylan's father. Honestly, the film could have focused on these three characters and been so much better, but sadly that was not to be.

"Awww" moments are thankfully few and far between

But these acting performances do not save Friends with Benefits from itself. The funniest and best scenes from the film are covered by the trailers, the story has been done to death a billion times before, we really aren't compelled to root for these two lead characters to defy the expectations and get together. Throw in tons of obvious product placement, unfocused and unnecessary use of pop culture references like Olympic snowboarder Shaun White and flash mobs, and the fact that the film quickly becomes the monster it at first decries, and liking this film should not even be an option. Plenty of charm and some good bits do elevate it slightly higher than No Strings Attached, but not by as much as you would think. If you really want to see a sweet, engaging romantic comedy, do yourself a favor and see Crazy, Stupid, Love. Now THERE'S a film worth your hard-earned money.

Bad... Just Bad

Sometimes as a film reviewer I absolutely KNOW when I'm going to hate a movie well before I've purchased a ticket for entry. While some films have surprised me as to the levels of their suckitude, such as Sucker Punch, many more have met expectations well below even baseline standards, their ranks flush with titles like The Eagle, Your Highness, and Red Riding Hood. At a certain point I can only justify so much, and often I go into a theater knowing that I won't emerge pleased with the experience, ready to warn you my readers of crimes against your sensibilities and your wallets. Bad Teacher is another in that growing list of titles in which I knew any preexisting standards would be too high. For one, I can't think of a single film I'VE seen where Cameron Diaz has proven her star status. Sure, she was good in The Mask, but what has she done lately that has been remotely interesting? Secondly, the trailers seemed to rely on vulgarity over anything actually comedic, a sad trend to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Finally, the story that was presented came down to a complete insult to educators in general, portraying the "hero" of the tale as someone who doesn't care at all about her students, only bothering with them when there's something in it for her. As someone who is friends with teachers and holds great respect for the work they do, I couldn't help but feel like this subversive fantasy paints these hard-working sorts in a negative light with little to no redemption on the horizon.

So who's the bigger tool?

Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz) dislikes her chosen profession as a teacher, a career that she for some reason at one point chose. After a failed engagement to a rich sucker ended an early attempt to quit teaching, Elizabeth is forced to return to the classroom she hates. Determined to escape, she tries to gain the attentions of the new substitute teacher Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake), who has a substantial family fortune, and to that end is trying to save up for a super expensive boob job. Elizabeth is confronted on many sides, however; the teacher across the hall, Amy Squirrell (Lucy Punch), suspects the worst in Elizabeth, while gym teacher Russell Gettis (Jason Segel) vies for her affections.

Diaz won this year's "Wrinkled Fish" competition hands down

I'm really not sure where the appeal for this type of film lies. It's certainly not in the storytelling, which is haphazard and all over the place like a drunk driver on New Year's Day. That's an appropriate comparison to Elizabeth, who is so unlikable that it's amazing that she's portrayed as the hero of the tale, not to mention a potential romantic interest for not one but two characters. Is it me, or is the whole notion of the "good guy" being the person who has no compulsion to help her students out of the goodness of her heart while the "bad guy" is one who actually has the interests and well-being of the children in mind completely insane? Not helping matters is the focus of the film. Concentrating on the three least sympathetic characters does Bad Teacher no favors, with the story and dialogue failing to provide amusement through either comedy or commentary. There's nothing here about the rigors, excitement or rewards of being a teacher; students are mere caricatures and the people making up the faculty aren't much better.

The most balls the film can muster

A little bit of humanity wouldn't have hurt, especially distributed among the main cast. What attracted Diaz to this offensive role is in serious question, as she usually chooses more audience-friendly fare in which to be seen, such as the crowd-pleasing Charlie's Angels. I guess she liked the idea of being part in such a foul-mouthed comedy, but there's very little to the character Elizabeth Halsey that is either challenging or deep. Diaz is fine as a uncaring educator, but this is just more proof of a low-ceiling role that Diaz takes to make a buck while neglecting to challenge herself, which is why she's not and will never be a top-flight talent. Timberlake is similarly wasted, as even his trademark charm does him no good with the realization that his character is a brainless tool, deserving of neither Elizabeth's nor our admiration. Unlike last year's Social Network, which utilized near the entirety of Timberlake's charisma, there's no reason this film couldn't have cast a nobody performer; the audience probably wouldn't have noticed the difference. Punch is the best of the three, but of course her character is villainized due solely to her opposing Elizabeth. She does get a few moments to shine, but she's neither a well-known enough actress nor particularly consistent enough to engage us.

No, those aren't Muppets with Segel, but I can see what you're talking about

It's with the secondary characters of Bad Teacher where you can start to see where things could have gone right for the film. Jason Segel is great in his smallish role of the gym teacher with interests in Elizabeth. Segel does a great job with these "nice guy" roles, further evidenced here with a character that is as fun to watch as he is underutilized. This also comes through as the film uses its smaller roles to inflict its best impacts upon the audience, with Modern Family's Eric Stonestreet, The Office's Phyllis Smith, and Reno 911's Thomas Lennon sharing not only the best dialogue and comedic elements, but the film's best overall acting talent with Segel

Why do I suddenly have Fountains of Wayne going through my head?

I could go on for paragraphs about the twisted morality of rooting between the characters of Elizabeth and Amy Squirrell, but I have no interest in giving this film more attention than it deserves. Among the worst that 2011 has so far offered, Bad Teacher could have been more than the obtuse, crude fantasy for the teachers out there who really hate their jobs, but not by much. This is likely the worst from director Jake Kasdan, and since he was responsible for the farce that was Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, that says a lot about what I thought of this Bad Teacher. There are a lot of forgivable crimes in the world of film and Hollywood, but a comedy that isn't funny doesn't get a lot of respect or leniency from me, and it shouldn't from you, either.

More Evil than Originally Predicted

On request of my roommate Danny, I watched Southland Tales recently on DVD. Now that my brain has reconstructed itself from it's emergency shutdown, I'll tell you about it.

Southland Tales claims that the story within is how the world ends: not with a whimper, but with a bang. In it, action star Boxer Santaros (Dwayne Johnson) has been kidnapped and woken up with little to no memory about who he is, including the fact that he's son-in-law to the Republican V.P.-nominee for 2008. Taken under the wing of former porn star and wannabe reality TV star Krysta Now (Sarah Michelle Gellar), Santoros writes a screenplay for a new film that tells a story about the end of the world, and tags along with Officer Roland Taverner (Seann William Scott)  to research the part. Only thing is that Taverner has been kidnapped and replaced by his twin brother Ronald, a member of the local neo-Marxist movement with an agenda against the US government, which has become an overbearing Big Brother and a Goliath war machine after atomic attacks in Texas in 1945. Meanwhile, scientist Baron von Westphalen (Wallace Shawn) has created a new energy source, called Fluid Karma, that promises to save the US Treasury, which has nearly bankrupted itself with worldwide conflicts in which most of the country's young men are drafted and sent to far away places, most never to return.

He's a pimp daddy

It's understandable that so many people would dismiss the film when it came out, first at Cannes in 2006 and when it hit limited theaters the next year. The story has so many parts, and they're so disjointed, that expecting a coherent story to come of it would be like wishing for a true Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. The entire thing is narrated. end-to-end, by Justin Timberlake's Iraqi war veteran Pilot Abeline, who survived friendly fire to return home, and somehow is in a position to uncover and relay the event of the entire story to us. This unfortunate element proves to be necessary as the entire film would be complete unintelligible without the unfocused, revelation-quoting diatribe of a depth-less character to tell us exactly what's happening at any given time. Characters are introduced but never put into context with one another, and yet the people on the screen apparently learn things about one another that are never uttered in their presence. Whether this is simply inane scriptwriting or a side-effect of the post-Cannes re-editing may not be entirely unknown, but what is certain is that director/screenwriter Richard Kelly (known far and wide for a movie I haven't seen, Donnie Darko) had a lot to say but like so many who try to get it all out in one burst, can't quite get it out right.

Dark and soulless, just like his music career

The acting is interesting, if widely scattered in terms of character depth and acting talent. As the lead role of Santaro, the man formerly known as The Rock stretches himself a little thin, though you wouldn't immediately imagine an action movie hero, even one with amnesia, to be that big a difference from his true persona. Actually, the character goes through something of a nervous breakdown, and that's where Johnson becomes unbelievable, as his character goes from swarthy rock god to nervous mess back to rock god over the course of the film, all seemingly on his own. Scott is actually better, though not by much more than his usual output. His twin brothers are often drugged, knocked out or otherwise incapacitated, hearkening back to some of Scott's earlier comedic work. But at least here he's no disappointment, although that may be only in relation to the rest of the cast. Gellar is about as good as you would expect from her, as her character of a porn-star-going-legit runs away from her and she doesn't have the charisma or chops to pull off the role. Timberlake puts on the best performance of his career, though as a poorly-written characterization of damaged soldiers coming home from overseas. He has the opposite problem that Gellar has, as it takes most of his charisma to make the figure remotely interesting.

"So when can I see your gun?"

The film is filled with juicy bits, mostly coming from the supporting cast. Wallace Shawn is delightful as the villain von Westphalen, though no more so than he had been as Vizzini in The Princess Bride or Mr. Hall on Clueless or currently is as Cyrus Rose on Gossip Girl. A song and dance scene featuring Timberlake was enjoyable. A great scene of a staged domestic dispute between underground rebels Amy Poehler and The Wire's Wood Harris is hilarious. Cheri Oteri as a feminist warrior is somewhat predictable but nevertheless funny. And Zelda Rubenstein is perfectly cast as a sidekick to the evil professor. But these parts are largely overshadowed by lameness, such as wasting Miranda Richardson as Santaro's mother-in-law, the head of US-Ident, the government program that spies on US citizens. Mandy Moore is similarly misused as Santaro's wife, a bitchy and spoiled woman who adds nothing to the story. And Bai Ling as a seductress amounts to less than nothing (seriously, besides an episode of Lost, has Ling been in ANYTHING good??). A dreadful final thirty minutes of overlapping, inconsequential madness doesn't help these poor sheep, and these drag the film down farther than could ever be imagined.

Yes, folks. That's the limit of "The Rock"'s acting ability

Southland Tales's biggest problem is the ideas it introduces. The problem is that the thoughts and interesting things brought into the film are unused, usually scrapped at the earliest convenience for a new, more insane idea, which is then thrown out and so on and so on, until the final product matches little what you expected might happen based on the information provided over the course of the film. By the end of the film, I had to laugh and shout at the TV to keep everything in focus, that this film was in fact a travesty of the potential it could have had. Even it's cooler sci-fi elements are completely glossed over, until they are finally revealed at the end. An end I couldn't wait to arrive.

He was a cop for Halloween

As you can probably guess by now, I absolutely HATED Southland Tales. I thought it was a dreadful piece of pap that took some original and insightful ideas and shat all over them, all in the name of art. That Kelly has been hired to make more movies after this bomb is shocking, even if it was just The Box. After confronting Danny with my opinion of his recommendation, he told me that the first time he watched it, his reaction was somewhat similar. However, upon subsequent viewings he liked it more and more. There are apparently also a series of graphic novels that tell a prequel story that explains the main tale much better. That won't be something I undergo, however. I see too many films these days to bother checking under every nook and cranny for info and additional story to a film unless I REALLY liked the main material.

Southland Tales is not that film.

The Facebook Film

I don't go a day without checking my Facebook page. Several times. In fact, it's safe to say I'm pretty addicted to checking up on the status and info of others. Heck, I'm on Facebook RIGHT NOW, and a good chunk of people who read this blog are those of my friends who click on the links I put on Facebook whenever I put up a new post. To be sure, it's a huge part of my life, and for that matter for millions of people around the globe as well. Isn't it hard to think of a time before Facebook, with the impact it has on society today? And another film I recently posted about, Catfish, was about how Facebook and social networking had influenced affected communication between distant parties. So it was only a matter of time before a movie dedicated to Facebook's impact was released for general consumption.

Would you distrust these faces?

Director David Fincher doesn't want you to call The Social Network "the Facebook movie", and there's actually a good reason for that. Though the film does in fact chronicle Facebook's birth and rise to maturity from "humble" beginnings as an exclusive networking site for Harvard students to the worldwide phenomena we now know it as, it's far from the movie's main focus. That focus is squarely on Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, whose genius birthed this creation and whose relationships between both friends and enemies set the drama for the story. Starting with Zuckerberg's girlfriend breaking up with him due to his ability to be an insensitive asshole (a theme throughout the film), Harvard undergrad Zuckerberg, played by Zombieland's Jesse Eisenberg, goes home, rants about how his ex is a bitch (on LiveJournal; Is that still around?), and on the spot decides to create a program that allows participants to vote between photos of two female Harvard students (hacked from Harvard's multiple limited social networking sites), for the purpose of deciding who was hotter. Shortly after crashing Harvard's limited computer network due to so many people using the program (Harvard, by the way, is portrayed by several school campuses that are NOT Harvard), Zuckerberg is approached by members of one of Harvard's elite cliques with the idea of creating a Harvard-exclusive social networking site that would essentially be an elite dating site for the men of Harvard. The site would eventually be known as ConnectU. Initially taking them up on the offer, Zuckerberg instead uses the idea of an exclusive site to create Thefacebook with best friend and fellow Harvard student Eduardo Saverin (your new Spiderman, Andrew Garfield) providing the financial backing. The film is told in flashbacks, with the current time showing Zuckerberg being sued not only by the ConnectU men who allege that Zuckerberg stole their idea, but also his former best friend Saverin who has been forced out of the management group at what has now become Facebook.

That's the future Lisbeth Salander on the left

The film is helped by the fact that the story is charming to a fault. While one can (and should) question a ton of the "facts" presented here, the story itself is compelling and interesting. It's a shame that it doesn't get into the nitty gritty of the actual program itself, as the scenes that do are some of the best scenes in the film. But the human interaction is the meat and gristle of the story, and thankfully that aspect of the film is masterfully manipulated. The use of the flashbacks from two legal battles to Facebook's founding and rise is excellently done, and sets the pace of the film well. While the product may in fact be less than entirely honest, if those sacrifices were made to create a more interesting film, I'm okay with it.

The mathematical code to attending Harvard? Maybe...

The acting is also exceptional here. Though it's unlikely any of the actors included will be up for major awards when the season arrives, it seems a shame that none would be recognized for their portrayals of these modern-day giants. Eisenberg was at danger of Zuckerberg being like most of his former nervous and antisocial persona, but while those elements are still in play here there's an aura of insensitivity here and also a tiny bit of humanity, which actually does a great job of rounding out the character. Zuckerberg is never fully vilified in The Social Network, but while he is not put in a generally good light Eisenberg does somehow maintain a bit of in-over-his-head confusion that manages to make the character at least somewhat sympathetic. Garfield is probably the only actor in this troupe who has a shot at some supporting actor nominations come this winter, and that's because he plays the most human character in the cast. As the spurned Facebook co-founder, Garfield has to run the gamut of good friend to reluctant financier to screwed-over former friend in one two-hour film. Garfield is also the one we're supposed to feel most sympathetic for, but there's a problem there that I'll get to later. Garfield certainly earned no demerits, however, and his performance is a revelation for those out there who didn't know he existed before now. And Justin Timberlake is charming as former Napster-founder Sean Parker, who becomes an advisor to Facebook and later it's president. Timberlake is someone who (in my opinion) has made his career in music and acting on the firm basis of his considerable charm and personality, rather than on actual talent. Parker is portrayed as a fast-talking, slick-thinking genius always on the lookout for the next big thing, and one whose extravagance and inflexibility led to being kicked out of two former companies that he founded. The character was practically written for someone of Timberlake's talent set, and Parker also creates the most turmoil in the friendship of Zuckerberg and Saverin that leads to their split as friends and partners through his seemingly-phony charm and obvious personality clash with Saverin.

Revel in your popularity while it lasts, Eisenberg

The film has a few issues, though they are big ones, mainly stemming from the ego of the director. Finch is usually known for his stylistically-shot films like Seven, Fight Club and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but when he directs a biopic like this you would expect that he shouldn't even need CGI to tell this particular tale. Well, he didn't get the memo. In an early scene featuring two characters outside in what's supposed to be twenty-degree weather, it's plainly obvious that the steam coming out when they breath is computer generated, and plainly takes you out of the scene. But the big dereliction of director duties is staggering. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss are twin brothers and Olympic rowers who are the main part of the ConnectU brain trust who sue Zuckerberg for stealing their idea, and are played by Armie Hammer. No, that's not a typo. Using a body stand-in and digital recreation, Fincher had Hammer play two parts while seamlessly inserting him into the scenes to play both parts (and neither twin is seen apart from the other). Hammer does a commendable job (and has the funniest line in the whole film), but Fincher could have saved a ton of trouble by, you know, hiring twins to play the parts. Though Hammer was good, it's not like he wasn't expendable, and it has to be chalked up to Fincher to make the job more difficult than it had to be. Yes, the job was seamless but he did it not because he had to, but because he could. Taking in this film means also taking Fincher's ego trip, sadly not a surprising development.

Sticking it to the Corporate man

The film's biggest problem, however, lies in the audience's inability to really sympathise with the characters. This is no fault of the actors, who all put on award-worthy performances, but instead in the characters they are asked to convey. We're supposed to feel most sorry for Garfield's character, but we're specifically told that Saverin had made $300 thousand dollars the previous summer in oil ventures. Though he's screwed out of major Facebook ownership over the course of the film, it's really hard to feel sorry for him because you know he's smart enough and knows the right people, so he'll be okay. Same with the Winklevoss twins, whose idea is obviously at least partially stolen by Zuckerberg, but who came from a rich background to begin with. In fact, let's face it: most of the characters in this film are in attendance at Harvard, which means that they either come from rich families or their families know influential people (or both). I've never really lacked, and have been both fortunate and lucky to have the support of loving parents and have never gone hungry or without necessities. I firmly believe myself to me middle-to-upper middle class, and have only been to one year at college and acknowledge my shortcomings from not finishing. However, I've also been accused of being or growing up "rich" from those who grew up with less than I did, and so if I can't find much sympathetic with these rich people who fight over stock options and millions of dollars, I can only imagine how true blue-collar audiences would feel about these same people.

The asshole at work... or is he at play?

Which still is not enough to derail what is a VERY good film. Fincher's hits outpace his misses in The Social Network, and while the ego trip and unsympathetic characters drag down the film a bit, it still manages to place #9 on my Top 10 Films list. In closing, I'm reminded of the Tina Fey bit when she showed up on Saturday Night Live in support of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic primary in the 2008 Presidential election. Admitting that Clinton was "a bitch", Fey went on to utter one of the more memorable TV lines of that year: "Bitches get stuff done." For Zuckerberg and others of his ilk, like id Software's John Carmack (creator of legendary games Doom, Quake, and Wolfenstein 3D), the same principle applies. Facebook was created by Zuckerberg because he was the right type of person to create it and he turned to Sean Parker to help expand it because Parker was the same type of person. If assholes get stuff done, I can at least respect them for having the audacity to do it.

It doesn't mean I have to like them, however.