The Social Network (2010) and The King's Speech (2010)

© The Weinstein Company

There's talk in some parts that The Social Network's triumph over The King's Speech at the Golden Globes is some kind of referendum on the middlebrow melodrama. When I first started cooking up The Underrated List, "middlebrow melodrama" was my initial M. While I wouldn't go back and change my entry now, they -- specifically historical* ones -- hold a special place in my movie going heart.

That said, The Social Network is a better movie than The King's Speech. It's already gone through two backlashes (1. that it's not factual, which I addressed here; 2. that it's sexist, which I would argue is true of the characters but not the filmmakers) and continued apace, surely a noteworthy fact. But the thing that really sets The Social Network apart from The King's Speech is every element is brilliant.

It seems kind of unnecessary at this point to sing the praises of the movie, given the acclaim it's received since its October 1 release, but I'm going to anyway. Most of it should go to Jesse Eisenberg, who I had previously written off as Michael Cera-lite. Confidential to Jesse: I couldn't have been more wrong. I had no idea that you had the depth of character or the talent to play a sympathetic asshole. In your care, Mark Zuckerberg is borderline autistic in his inability to foresee the impact he has on those closest to him, but he's also a ruthless genius who's deeply, deeply sad. And, thanks to Aaron Sorkin, quite quippy.

© Columbia Pictures

Of course, it helps that he's drowning in talent, whether it's Andrew Garfield's Eduardo Saverin (the closest the movie comes to having a moral centre, he's presented as more short-sighted than anything else), Armie Hammer (whose ability to come play the the physically-imposing twins as separate and distinct is a sight to be cherished), and Justin Timberlake's Sean Parker. Up until I saw this movie, I had no real interest in JT, especially as an actor, but now . . . let me quote: "early Facebook President Sean Parker, devastatingly portrayed by Justin Timberlake as a narcissistic clown." That is so true!

Again, though the combination of noted internet hater Aaron Sorkin + David Fincher + Facebook sounds like a recipe for disaster, it's anything but. Fincher's dark Harvard hallways add verve to Sorkin's trademark snappy dialogue, and Trent Reznor's buzzy score elevates the movie to a place that feels raw and modern, edgy in the season of being on the edge of something. Bracing, even. I was going to say that Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter's editing is the only stuff that could give Inception a run for its money come Oscar time, but, since Inception wasn't even nominated (wtf?!), I guess I'll just keep that to myself.

So why does all that make The Social Network better than The King's Speech? Because TKS, for all it's fantastic performances, is nothing more than that: a collection of fantastic performances. Certainly, if Colin Firth doesn't win every award ever I am going to throw a fit, but after that . . . there's nothing spectacular about Tom Hooper's direction or David Seidler's script and, the less said about Alexandre Desplat's score, the better. The Social Network, A; The King's Speech, B+.

*Confession: As I just learned what period piece means last week, I intentionally did not use it here. Turns out that term is reserved for pieces that were written during the period in which they are set. Did you realize that? I thought it was just an alliterative way to call something historical.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

My Book vs. Film came out today, but it's not one of my long, detailed ones (phew?). It's more in line with Time Traveler's Wife, under a 1000 words because I have so little to say. When the credits rolled, I remarked to one of my viewing companions that I felt like I saw half a movie.

I wonder how I would feel if I wasn't familiar with and attached to the source material. I read it years ago during a period of unemployment when I was devouring books. Best of all, all I knew about the book was that it was popular and well liked by a handful of my peers. I knew nothing about the plot, and, since I'm not much of a book jacket reader either, I was completely surprised and shocked by what followed. Moreover, there are bits that have stuck with me over the years: Lindsey borrows something from Susie's closet to wear to the memorial service, but it was something that Susie had borrowed from her best friend Clarissa, who opens her mouth to say something but decides against it. There are other, more germane to the plot elements of the book that I remember as well (including the metaphysical WTF that appears late in the story), but things like that -- the details that don't need to be included -- are what make books memorable and reading worthwhile.

I mentioned in the book vs. film Mark Wahlberg's hyper-earnest performance, which is a drag, but not Stanley Tucci's, which is so over the top that I briefly wondered if it were a joke. To be honest, there's not a lot of sense and coherence behind the casting of the adult characters. Rachel Weisz is underused (I really feel like she could sell me on why Abigail leaves, but the movie doesn't give her a voice), and Grandma Lynn is so reduced that Susan Sarandon (great though she is) comes off as misplaced.

Saoirse Ronan, on the other hand, is so expressive and available as an actress that it's impossible to imagine anyone else in a role once she inhabits it. She's funny and beautiful as Susie, and you just want to give her a hug long before anything happens to her. If the entire movie were Ronan, the quietly strong Rose McIver, the sensitive Carolyn Dando, and the impossibly adorable Reece Ritchie, it might have been something. The rare moments of emotional impact (Susie's attack, Lindsey's break-in) are so few and far between and the rest of the movie so fussed over, that it doesn't live up to the promise of its star. C

Pop Culture Round Up: January 9 - 15

“Oh, I’m chasing this guy? No, he’s chasing me.” 34 essential uses of voiceover in film
Knowing my opinion of voiceovers, this list contains a few of my favourites.

U.K. Unveils First-Ever Double Prince Portrait!
So cute!

Marilyn Manson has proposed to his actress girlfriend Evan Rachel Wood
WTF? What happened the last summer's rumour that she was banging the Viking?

Watching TV shortens life span, study finds
I'm effed.

Spider-Man 4 Unravels as Franchise Moves On Without Tobey Maguire, Sam Raimi
At first I was annoyed, but I've started to come up with some pretty cool reboot ideas.

UseMyAccent Helps Actors Talk Like an Egyptian

Mystery at the Philharmonic: Who Was That Clarinetist?

Jeff Bridges's 10 greatest performances
Everyone's going to pick The Dude, but what about Seabiscuit?

Depp gets life-sized statue in Serbia

Anxious or sexually competitive? Try God

James Cameron rejects claims Avatar epic borrows from Russians' sci-fi novels
But what about Pocahontas?

I am a Kraken from the sea!

Harry Hamlin does rock, but does anyone else see a similarity here? First, watch this. Then, take a look at the close up here. The Cloverfield monster is like the Kraken only Hulk-ier. Knowing that they (possibly) ripped off Clash of the Titans makes the whole thing less scary, right?

Stephen and Jon are still figuring out what they're going to do on Monday night's show.

Thanks, Comedy Central spokesman Tony Fox. But between you, me, and USA Today, I can't imagine what could possibly happen on tonight's new shows. Stewart and Colbert are members of the WGA, for pete's sake. Why, why, why are they doing this? Why come back at all without writers?

This strike is getting so weird.