Please welcome your hosts... James Franco and Anne Hathaway?

Finally I get to know who will host next year's Oscars. After so much predicting we finally get these two people: James Franco and Anne Hathaway.

First found out when I searched IMDB and news came in telling us that both actors are doing their duties hosting next year's Oscars.

Which had me asking:
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!?!?!?!?!

These two actors have something in common. Hathaway and Franco hosted Saturday Night Live, both appeared in great comedies (Hathaway was in The Devil Wears Prada while Franco was in Pineapple Express) and had a head start on their character as type characters (she was a children's actor, Franco was somewhat a fanboy's actor in the Spiderman movies) and they're both attractive people on the outside and the inside

But these actors are the wrong people to be negotiated with. This is the worst decision the Academy had ever made since snubbing WALL-E at the Oscars two years ago. You could have known a more accurate detail of both actors instead of knowing who they are from the gossip magazines

• Firstly, Hathaway had never had a great movie since Rachel Getting Married. That movie is still part of my favourite movies of all time. The movie had resulted her an Oscar nomination for Best Actress. But the latest film might have been a lambast. 'Love and Other Drugs' was released out of massive marketing particularly when there was details about her taking it off with Jake Gylenhaal. It was a flop debuting at sixth place with negative word-of-mouth. While Franco. Never seen his films before except the Spiderman films. But I'm not quite sure if he's a good actor and how did he deserved to be the most influential man of 2010 in many magazines (Askmen, GQ)? 

• Secondly, this is an excuse to get a boost in the ratings instead of the reason the Academy is putting behind. Choosing these actors as hosts is because the Academy believed they are 'icons of their generation'. Seriously you could have chosen Robert Downey Jr or Natalie Portman for the roles because they are great actors of their generation. Downey's in X, Portman's Y.  But because they (Franco, Hathaway) are well known to people my age, they (the Academy) choose them. It's also add to the fact that in theory, if you have an actor hosting and nominated at the Oscars at the same time, it would've a milestone. Given how Franco is a possible nominee for Best Actor for Danny Boyle's 127 Hours, it would have matched the theory.

• I think these two actors have absolutely no experience in hosting. Hosting the Oscars is a big job. It's not your average presentation night. They're not like Steve Martin, Billy Crystal who once ruled the Oscars and had us recognising movies like American Beauty, Gladiator, Lost In Translation and the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. But if these actors are hosting well they wanted us to know about great movies we have watched this year like Inception, The Social Network or Toy Story 3. But I predict that Franco and Hathaway despite their comedic routine (if they have one) would force us to look at movies we never heard or watched like Winter's Bone or Animal Kingdom or any movie that are only known to people who avoids the mainstream. Even if they had hosted Saturday Night Live, their ability to host would be limited. These people would tell us jokes that couldn't grab a laugh or such. 

• There are more choices for Academy Award hosting. You could've chose Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart or maybe Paul Giamatti or Jack Black. They all have great comic timing and had gave a great impact in our lives. For Hathaway and Franco they're only funny ONLY for their respective genres. Franco more into stoner jokes, Hathaway can only go for rom-com.

• More weirdly, I'm quite sure that it would be that moment where Hathaway would show off her dress on stage. Maybe from Versace, or Tom Hardy. Best dressed at every show. Great fashion sense, but what has it got to do with the main points of the Oscars (which is movies?)

When I watched the Oscars almost nine months ago, it was a pity to see that Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin had done the worst job into becoming the worst duos with no timing. We wanted to see the moment where Hugh Jackman last year had entertained us with an opening monologue turned to a funny musical (featuring Hathaway, although it was unintended).

But I wouldn't care about the hosts. I would care about the quality of the Oscars. For 3 years, a Hollywood studio had never had a movie winning Best Picture. The last movie to win Best Picture and it was produced by Hollywood was Martin Scorsese's The Departed. But because of the recent decisions by the Academy (like nominating ten movies for Best Picture, choosing actors since they are known in their generation), these days, the Oscars has lost its mainstream look and can only focus on arthouse and indie movies (Precious, An Education, No Country for Old Men to list a few). Now the appeal feels so boring as we are watching a two hour speech fest.

For a quick outlook on which movies I think shoud be nominated for Best Picture here are a few posters. But these movies can be overlooked.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Announcement

Since my blog has stuff that is about things outside movie reviews, for instance the Kanye West thing is music and my opinion on movies and the world today.

SO Analyse This And That will be a culture blog. it's still a film blog, but film is part of it. I will tell you about my music, books and what is people today.

When I was doing the blog I was thinking about having more range. I would still do movie reviews though, but not all the blog.

At the end of the month (or possibly at the end of December) I will make lists of the best ten of 2010:

• Best movies of 2010
• Best songs of 2010
• Most interesting people of 2010
• Moments in 2010 

That said and I am looking forward to 2011.

Yours truly

Neutral3/Jesus of Suburbia :)

Kanye West: The 21st Century Pariah

A lot of rappers had never made controversy these days, in their lifetimes. We see Eminem releasing Recovery which had him back to the very top people think they deserved. But we never seen Drake arrested in an average drug bust. But Lil Wayne and T.I. are both rappers who are currently serving their time in prison. Yet Wayne still makes a lot of money with his latest album 'I am Not a Human Being' whilst serving an eight-month sentence for illegal weapon possession... oh I found that he had served his time out. But T.I. is still in prison and unlike Wayne had never given us new material.

But these rappers never made a lot of fuss. Because the media doesn't care thankfully. And yet I never cared about any of their music. I liked Eminem but his old stuff was greater than his recent material which Eminem basically complain about everything in his life. His kids is overly alluded so was his ex-wife and these totally untrue stories about domestic violence ('Love The Way You Lie"). He's sounding like a whiny b#@ch.

 But what do people cared was Kanye West. His latest album My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy had just arrived in stores and believe it or not, it's possible that West's career would be certain for a revival... unless he'd say anything stupid.

The latest from West was that he broke his silence about Taylor Swift commenting on how he used that MTV Awards incident to boost his career (it is also rumored that Swift had used famous people she would date with to grab fame). He said that he never been defended by her in every interview she is in and said that he is incidently responsible for her own good. Chances would be very slim.

Read more at:
Kanye West launches into ANOTHER tirade about Taylor Swift and ...

This was one of the controversies he had caused this year. The last thing he did was to cancel a Today Show Interview because of what's mentioned above.

West now has PR issues. No matter what he says, the media would use his comments as an interpretation of his arrogant behaviour. But I still have faith on this guy because I feel sorry for him that he had to be treated by a totally biased media and society. To me he's like Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network. He has similar qualities as him and most of all he's a stingy zeigeist where like him we are the narcissists of the public. (and about Taylor Swift, she gets too much attention. Sorry)

But an album that was getting rave reviews (some of the reviews considered this his best album yet) would likely to ressurect him back from the dead. Listening to West's latest material is like a form of art. West's album had turned hip hop into a portrait of ourselves.

It's interesting to say that nobody would allow West to have his opinion on anything in life. You can actually follow his opinions on Twitter which the site had made him so resilient. Opinions that Taylor Swift is not a great singer is almost uncalled for and even saying how good Kanye West is in the music universe is almost blasphemy.

West would have never made these comments if his mother never died. This was one of those myths about Kanye. Everything that turned him into a Sid Vicious was because of his mother Donna who died from cosmetic surgery implications. West would have honoured her mother if he had raised awareness about the dangers of plastic surgery.

The best thing about West and his controversies was that he got the balls to stand up and say how bewildered you are and how shocking it is. I mean no matter what he say about an issue whether it was about an American President, which music video was the best of all time, whether he should win an award, it's his own opinion. Believe it or not, I actually support his views. Beyonce would've won Best Female Video for Single Ladies because it was so clever while Swift's video of You Belong WIth Me is almost predictable as it is. Girl sees boy, boy get stuck with skank and girl and boy fall in love.

I actually thought that when Kanye said that George Bush doesn't care about black people during America's effort for Hurricane Katrina victims, he's reffering to Bush not working enough for Katrina not refering to Bush as a racist. But Kanye also refers to the majority of New Orleans is African American. So what's the big fuss. it's just an euphemism West had made to comment about Bush's worst moment in his presidency. Five years later, Bush had admit that it was the worst moment he'd experienced during his time.

I'm a huge fan of this guy. Every album he had recorded (College Dropout, Late Registration and even My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy) are masterpieces. It shows and deliver really abstract emotion. But despite this, the albums are also considered to be the killers of hip hop. You got to be serious. You can still hear hip hop even though there are no baggy pants or iradical lyrics about the gangster lifestyle. Why do you think rapping is dead. But what makes rapping almost dead was the autotuning. Jay Z's song DOA (Death Of Autotune) try to spread the message across but never worked. However I don't think that hip hop is extinct. It's just like saying rock music is dead.

As for me, West's mistakes and personality had reflected on who I am. West's barraging on the stage and saying what he thinks is like how I think about the world's music today. His spirit shows that when you have caused a scene, it still makes you sane.

For whatever complaints there is about Kanye West, the good thing about him now is that he could have been the columnist of a music magazine if the pressure is too much for him. But West may have scored a comeback and learned his mistakes and try to move on. But the media couldn't give a damn about it and even if he tries to recover from being a social outcast, they still going to remind him about that incident because Taylor Swift is more popular than she was in her 'Fearless' years.

West should be known to make the proverb 'Ignorance is Bliss' greater. But he's more prone to making that quote into the portrait of ourselves

Ever tried walking out of a movie? I almost did.

When I walked into the cinema to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the majority of the entire audience were kids as young as 6 and teenagers as old as 17. I'm 16 and was part of the majority and when I am at the theatre I really wanted to have a good time watching the movie just for pure escapism. We usually escape to the movies to get out of the exhausting routine of work and school. Or if it's just a reward.

But I felt that I had a bad time not because of the movie (if you haven't read my review, you wouldn't know what's going on) but because of the kids in the cinema. They were so noisy while there were two teenage girls in the front that had using their phones that were taking pictures and were talking loudly. These two girls and most of the audience had ruined it. Don't blame me for blaming them because they're "just kids". Other parents had also felt the same experience at the same cinema. The cinema I was in was left unsupervised because there were many kids who was unaccompanied by an adult and that the ushers checked them once. it was more unsupervised than a freakin' Justin Bieber concert... if you know what I mean. This was high school all over again.

It was a major point where I wanted to walk out of the movie where I've never done that when I'm watching movies. Well I was so disgusted by what was happening. Kids were unsettled and there were girls ruining it. This proves my point that teenagers not only don't go with orders at the movies, but that they do not respect any aspect of movies. I was then given a free pass because of what's been happening.

I never wanted to walk out of a movie, but if I've been to movies where I wanted to do the walk, I would.

Let me give you a little secret: I had walked out of The Last Song, a movie based on a Nicholas Sparks novel starring Miley Cyrus. I was watching it with my sister because she's into that Disney stuff that Miley would belong to. I was so agitated and thought this movie was so terrible that I finally walked out when most of the audience (girls between 12 and 17) were saying how good this movie was. I just can't believe it when it was such bullshit. If I just stayed until the end, I would end up angry and each time a girl say how great was that movie, I would want to yell at them.

The the best part about walking out is that you can feel good when you don't want to watch a movie that would have been stupid. But the worst part about that is that you would have missed out a part that would have saved a movie from Dumbtown.

When walking out of movie would you give it a zero star rating or are you going to just rant about how a group from the audience like promiscious teenagers and Disney obsessed tweens are the terrorists of modern cinema. Because these kinds of moviegoers are more demanding and will hate you for watching a really good movie like The Social Network when they would think it was the most boring movie ever seen or debagging Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen when it was actually bad, but these goers will mentally kill you for saying that.

Unless you're a film critic, you are allowed to walk out of the movie whenever you want.

Here's the question. Have you ever walked out of a movie? If you did then why. The movie was bad. The audience was mucking around. Or was it some other reason. Discuss here.

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (Part I)

C+ (5.1)

(Warning - may contain spoilers)

Today we are talking about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as we anticipate the grand finale for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in 7 months. But let me tell you something else: Kids.

When I walked into the theatre, at matinee daylight every seatwas taken by kids so young as 10 and teenagers so old as 18. I myself was one of the age majority of the audience and for once I wanted to walk out not because the movie was bad but because of the audience mucking around.

But anyway that was my short rant of how I feel about kids and movies these days and here's the full review.

After the death of Dumbledore the rest of the world (including the Muggles (non-wizards)) are threatened by Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and his death eaters. But the one threatened is obviously Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) who had just turned 17 where he is allowed to conduct spells anytime he want to. (well he has too so he can defend himself from Lord Voldemort's minions himself). But when two people had died, Harry, Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) must find Horcruxes (personal possessions of Lord Voldemort) and destroy them so he can get ready for the FINAL BATTLE!

The Harry Potter films. They never polarized people, but this movie polarized me. The five movies were fantastic. They had heaps of time for the main characters to develop and had brought fun into our lives with magical fantasies and a huge interest of Harry Potter, the character himself. (read: milking the cow)

But the last two movies all directed by David Yates and written by Steve Kloves had turned more darker as usual. The Order of the Phoenix was ok, but they left out important bits out of the novel. As well as the Half Blood Prince it reduced its dark tone, but replaced the bits with unwanted humour and a huge subplot of Harry, Hermione and Ron's hormones raging upon girls. This left the last two seemed joyless.

The Deathly Hallows however went about too far. The tone goes too dark despite Kloves followed half of the book into his screenplay which is like copying from an instruction manual.

The lighting and the cinematography is brilliant. But the tone has its cons. As the Harry Potter franchise aims at a mass audience (readers and non readers alike), it's shot like if it were a horror film. There are too many close ups of a snake as if it was shot in 3D in which the studio had abandoned these plans. Then there's a scene where Emma Watson get tortured. And I was wondering this scene was appropriate for kids as there were many kids in the audience.

There was a great animated scene where it look like it had been left out from a Henry Selleck movie or a Neil Gaiman novel. That was the great thing about this film. The action scenes were pro as it is handled so well and there was a car chase and foot chase. But I was wondering why do they need a car sequence with cars crashing.

Klove's screenplay goes to great length into getting everything from the novel ion. However for non readers, the dialogue gets so complicated as we know little detail of what's was there. For instance there are five Horcruxes. It doesn't tell you what is a Horcrux and you have to wait to find out all of the Horcruxes. Even the plot can get so confusing it's not like watching Inception.

Emma Watson was most seen in the movie as if she was a current sex symbol. Even though Hermione was the most interesting character of the trio, each shot with only her seems sentimental as she plays a Sally Sobstory. A scene featuring a naked Daniel Radcliffe and Watson even a dance sequence look laughable and cheap. Rupert Grint looks like he's not enjoying himself while Radcliffe never gets the chance of being developed.

There's a great cameo of Bill Nighy and a cast of British veterans are nice including a seemingly splendid yet sinister act from Imelda Stauton who plays Dolores Umbridge from the Order of the Phoenix.

Why do you need to bring in Dobby. He's only there for cheap laughs because of his speech similar to Elmo.

I thought that bringing two volumes of the movie is an excuse for profiting studios (that's what people felt when they were watching Kill Bill). So I might have to wait until Part II comes out on July... in 3D!

The Deathly Hallows is an improvement from the Half Blood Prince. Unfortunately it is still a disappointment and watching the first part and onto the next one where it feels like watching The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions all over again. But everything about The Matrix is parallel to the two part instalment where Harry Potter is the One.

But as a fan who read all of the books, I hope this can improve. But else like many other franchises, every film especially this one is strictly for fans to enjoy.

The Best Cityscapes in Science Fiction cinema

If there was anything about science fiction that I would wish to experience in real life it would be the location. Science fiction wouldn't be just aliens, laser guns and evil empires if it were boosted with reality and imagination. The thing that builds imagination in the genre is the art direction. It makes everything about the movie look good and inspiring, that we want to live in these places on our day off. IT can be anything. It can be futuristic with skyscrapers or a city on a floating block of a distant planet.

Given that Skyline and Repo Men had f*@ked the setting of science fiction. So here are the best ever architectures/art directions in science fiction history

Inception (2010)

Name Of City:
Unknown

Setting:

Paris, France

Type of Cityscape:

Dreamscape/virtual reality

Significance:

After Repo Men and before Skyline, there was two memorable scenes [in Inception] where part of Paris begins folding and where Leonardo Dicaprio and Ellen Page can actually stand on the folded area sideways. And then the markets explode when Ellen Page couldn't control the dream on her first time. Besides Page is the architect of this great city that she could actually create any kind of city for a person's dream.

Blade Runner (1984)

Name of City:
Los Angeles

Setting shot:

Los Angeles, USA

Type Of Cityscape:

Futuristic

Significance:

If this was it in nineteen years time, then I would be happy living there. Flying cars rising buildings and skyscrapers almost fill our imaginations of this magnificent science fiction film noir. It is almost a modern landscape filled with globalisastion, slavery and big chunks of product placements and advertising. One thing great about LA in Blade Runner is that the city relies heavily on industry, it totally ignored about the danger of our green environment. Didn't I mention that there is a huge migration of Asians?

The Matrix (1999)

Name of City:
MegaCity

Setting shot:

Sydney, Australia

Type of Cityscape:

Virtual Reality

Significance:

Like Inception, The Matrix goes into a parallel universe that does not interfere with reality. Unlike Inception however, the city for the Matrix stays the same. The Matrix's architecture has a purpose and that purpose is to keep humanity stuck by our brainwashed minds of alien machines. If there was any deeper meaning about The Matrix, it's just that urban life is sick.

Dark City (1998)

Setting shot:
Sydney, Australia

Type of Cityscape:
Futuristic

Significance:
Well it seems so realistic to the current state of every city, but now it's more darker. The main message of this city that it's a cause for living in a deranged state of mind. The cityscape had inspired the landscape for Inception and what else. It condescends into every character's psychological moments. It also opens up and revived the sci fi noir.

Back To The Future II (1987)

Name of city:

Hill Valley

Type Of Cityscape:

Futuristic

Significance:

Hill Valley had prospered back from 1985 and had shown greater use of technology we wish we would want to see. Hoverboards, automatic shoes and jackets, flying cars, hologram ads, a small round dough turned into a huge pizza and uh... Michael Jackson as a waiter? That's a bit odd.

Well these are the best cityscapes in science fiction around. I want to live in one of them for peace and quiets but there are many cityscapes that I would've put in the list. Any suggestions? Please comment.

Getting in Character: The Angry Nerd

The Social Network is probably my favourite movie of the year. However it is so hard which is better. That movie or Inception? How the movie about Facebook works is because its screenplay by Aaron Sorkin is so engaging, the direction of David Fincher is wonderful and that the performances were extraordinary especially Jesse Eisenberg who plays Mark Zuckerberg.

Mark Zuckerberg is depicted as this white angry, self centred, deplorable, arrogant person who has a lot of money. He's the youngest billionaire in the world with a revenue of $6.9 billion. How did he does that when Facebook is free to sign up? Well it's beccause of a boost from advertising, large amounts of investments. And advertising can earn a lot.

But in Social Network, Zuckerberg is shown to be the genius here while all of his people around him does the work for him and Zuckerberg would not acknowledge the full cooperation behind Facebook especially with his best friend Eduardo Saverin who would later take him to court in order to gain his full shares since he made his own company along with former Napster CEO Sean Parker who would give Saverin no sympathy for him.

Zuckerberg before had shows no sympathy towards anyone who would not follow his ideas or orders. At the beginning of Network, Zuckerberg discusses Finals Club with his girlfriend Erica Albright and when she talks about Finals Club he makes a big deal out of it. When Erica then dump him, he wrote about how scathing his girlfriend in and then makes a website comparing women in Harvard based on their looks.

So we learn that the result of Facebook was on a girl. And the discussion of Harvard clubs are that Zuckerberg wanted or possibly desperate a spot of social acceptance. There was nothing that showed that Zuckerberg was bullied or let down at college that would make him want to massacre 30 people, but that he is a nerd. One that is put down by society because of their low social skills.

Here is a nerd that are not usually depicted like they wear dull clothes, or are totally strange and at the same time they obsessed with sex which creates really stupid levels of humour like Jim Belushi or Adam Sandler. But the nerd is depicted as a person who is still obsessed with the sciences (math, physics, computers) however they are dead serious and are so angry.

The theory of how these characters are the raging bulls, according to writer Aaron Sorkin is that they are furious if the 'pretty girl still goes out with the star athlete'. Imagine if you had liked a really pretty girl with no attention to her looks, then you would breakeven with her if she goes out with the jock and you would think the jocks are self indulgent and wouldn't treat you better.

Frankly I'm a movie expert and I would get pissed off if people told me off about my music and are horrible. Or if I focused on an actress like Scarlett Johansson rather than Megan Fox. Even i get pissed off if someone yells at me in a shopping centre. These were my experiences and I could possibly relate to Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg seems somehow to have Aspergers, where he is a genious but is not usually socialized. And when someone tells him bad that is a tiny thing, he turns it into a big deal. Well have you watched The Big Bang Theory? Remember the character Sheldon (pictured there) ? People, mostly psychiatrists believed he has Aspergers. HE can't communicate like every body else. Even his friends can't understand him. I've seen The Big Bang Theory and honestly I hated that TV show. Sheldon is shown to have no emotion, speaks for more than ten seconds and such. IF people don't follow what he wants, then he would distance himself like in many other episodes. For example if his friends won't eat Chinese on a Friday, then he will overreact. But the excuse for hating this show is because of that character which I find annoying. Also i don't get the humour of the show.

Sheldon and Zuckerberg are all prime examples of what the nerd is today. They have a huge amount of anxiety and seem to feel like a total creep. The don't understand how do people feel. Instead they would think about themselves.

So today nerds are filled with grunge-soaked angst because nobody likes them, but here's a good thing about them. They are controlling how we live. Look at Zuckerberg today, he made Facebook which is part of our everyday lives. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are making gadgets and computers that almost 96% of the world will have access to. These guys have reached where they have became influential of their works.

They are also unique like I am. Obviously it's my tastes in movies and life that makes me different. As a teenager, I talk words 16 year olds never speak like 'emphasized', I like different tastes of music like Radiohead and Arcade Fire. And yet people won't appreciate it and refuse to listen because of their prejudiced and biased impression.

But as Willy Wonka had quoted 'we are the music makers. And we are the dreamers of dreams', it's proof that whatever we are making of ourselves, we are certain to be the narcissists of our society

The Social Network Review

A (9.6)

I don't remember the time when Hollywood announced they're making a movie about Facebook but I've initially heard of it because I was googling the band Radiohead and there was a trailer where a cover version of their song Creep was used. But then as the summer had got to a departure, The Social Network then become a box office hit in the US as well as here in Australia because of a strong word-of-mouth the kind of marketing where audiences spread how good a movie is. So The Social Network was one movie I wanted to watch because I thought a movie about Facebook would be interesting.

I haven't seen this film from the opening weekend because I was studying for my final exams. But today after I've finished my exams, I've finally got a chance to see it. And when I was sitting in the cinema, there was no one there because it was a school day and i was allowed to have a rest day after the exams.

In The Social Network or as I call it ' The Facebook Movie', Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) was discussing finals clubs at Harvard to his girlfriend Erica Albright (Rooney Mara) at a noisy bar filled with music from The White Stripes. Minutes later it turned icy where at the end of the scene, Albright dumps him for being too arrogant and obsessed about clubs and called an asshole. Zuckerberg hits back by calling her a 'bitch' on his LiveJournal blog and then along with with his dorm mate Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) started a website rating girls at Harvard based on their hotness.

Zuckerberg gets in trouble with the admins, but then attracts the attention of the Winklevoss twins Tyler and Cameron (Armie Hammer) and their business partner Divya Narendra (Max Minghella). There they offered him a job to monitor a Harvard social network called ConnectU. Zuckerberg then works on his own and created a similar website called Facebook.

Wherever he create a website he would attract any attention to businessmen associated with the net. And that was Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), former founder of the torrent site Napster. But when the Winklevoss twins found out, they would sue him in Federal Court. Even joining them was Saverin who wants to get his share of the investment where it was suggested that Zuckerberg's best friend has no role in the website.

The Social Network is almost cream of the crop. It is directed by David Fincher who made Fight Club, Seven, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button and Zodiac. Fincher's style of filmmaking would be controversial because sometimes it involves analysing the egos of the male, especially the testoterone fueled greed of Man. This was done in Fight Club where Brad Pitt's character and himself is turned into a role model for all males. In The Social Network, the ego is also explored but for a younger generation. He know how dark the movie should be and you may recognised the tone of the minimum lighting and cinematography.

The screenplay is terrific as it is written by Aaron Sorkin (he wrote A Few Good Men, Charlie Wilson's War and created the great TV show The West Wing). Sorkin's main gift in screenwriting is that he use the Walk and Talk method. The dialogue is almost at bullet-speed when it comes to how the dialogue is used. Sorkin usually adds politics in his screenplays where characters had almost come into aiming for power. Even if the film lacks quotes that would have been memorable, the dialogue has full on ambition and engaging and entertaining.

The cast is almost wonderful. Jesse Einseberg who come from any film ending with 'land' and The Squid And The Whale executes the irony of Mark Zuckerberg sublimely. His character is more narcissistic, white angry and almost self-centred that he cares for nobody. This makes Zuckerberg (probably the real person himself) more hated but then as the film progresses, Zuckerberg fills himself with regret for what he made for himself making him a tragic hero. What makes his character more engaging was the soundtrack from Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nails. It almost similar to the industrial music NIN had did. It is more informing of how Zuckerberg becomes almost into an annilator.

Andrew Garfield who will be the next Spiderman takes his character to a point where he has to be treated to a pulp from almost everybody including Zuckerberg as well as his Asian girlfriend. We would feel sympathy as he would lose everything to him and ends up being betrayed by Zuckerberg. Armie Hammer is almost tribulating as the Winklevoss twins. Also tribulating was Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker. He received credit for Alpha Dog, but as Parker, Timberlake is smart and funny as the character who I think looks like an asshole.

Some people who would be offended by this movie would be people who get bored by movies, the people depicted especially Mark Zuckerberg who is still alive and feminists. The misogyny in The Social Network is almost high. Girls are being treated as sex objects. Honestly, I'm not a fan of misogyny in movie but the sexism is there because Sorkin describes how men would be so angry towards women and describes how each character are infuriating if 'the cheerleader still goes out with the quarterback'.

People debated whether this movie was fact or fiction. Well unless you've read at the Facebook article in Wikipedia, you wouldn't believed it was true because most of the plot is the same as the information in the article. But Sorkin explains that he researched the lawsuits regarding Facebook and looked into the depositions of them.

But the one question everybody's asking is why see it? Well I've watched it because I thought a movie about Facebook would be interesting. And I find that Facebook belongs to a generation of gadget users and defines the generation as Facebook is used by 500 million users in their everyday lives. It shows how we are becoming narcissists and that every time we say something harsh to our friends, all of us would feel deeply hurt. The lawsuits involving the Winklevoss twins and Eduardo Savirin is also fascinating.

However one thing you should remember about The Social Network is that Zuckerberg is a character so reflective to almost everyone. Facebook users, schoolyard bullies, intellects and people who have low social skills. These people would have a great hatred towards anyone or everyone if they assume that we are not following their orders and turn their backs.

Honestly I have too much to say about this movie, but the story is amazing as half follows the structure of Greek and Shakesperean tragedy. Funny cos this reminds me of Scarface.

I have a Facebook profile for almost a year now and after watching this, I was impressed. The Social Network may join the ranks of Citizen Kane or There Will Be Blood about men ovulating on about power, but I'm not quite sure if this is a modern classic.

'Like' this cinematic genius.

The Dark Knight

A+ (10.0)


Two years ago, at the beginning of 2008 Heath Ledger had died from a drug overdose and he has just completed The Dark Knight in which he plays the Joker. When the film's initially released, Ledger's performance of the Joker was menacing and heartbroken not to fact that he had died. Several months later he received many accolades for the role especially a posthumous Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. The Dark Knight worked not only because of his performance, but because of the entire film that had worked itself out.

It starts with an amazing opening sequence where band robbers donning clown masks rob a bank with the Joker as one of the robbers. It was a beginnning where the Joker creates chaos for Gotham. For the Joker he wanted Batman to give himself up for the benefit of Gotham city or else people will die. Well that was what Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) had in mind. He wanted to retire as a well known vigilante because Gotham's District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), who's dating Wayne's close friend Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), had more success in fighting off crime when's not the Caped Crusader. But when Joker comes in, he started playing games with people. Dangerous games. Instead of targeting the Batman, he target Dent, Dawes, Gordon and all the authorities of Gotham. With the help of his keeper Alfred Pennysworth (Michael Caine) and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), the Batman would do whatever he can to keep the Joker in hand along with Lieutenant James Gordon (Gary Oldman).

For almost a second, The Dark Knight begins to look terrific. And whenever there's a scene involving the Joker or Batman, it might be the greatest. When the joker comes into a mob's meeting, it's almost pivotal. But the most pivotal moment involving the Joker was either scene where he is confronting Batman when the Joker's interrogated. This confrontation is almost great and robust, there's no way that any other superhero flick with a scene featuring the hero and the villain together could challenge this.

Ledger's performance as the Joker is almost scary. I have to admit, my 7 year old sister was so scared of this movie. The Joker's character had made what Jack Nicholson's character look so old. As you know, Ledger pulls off the greatest comic book villain in style of what Malcolm Mcdowell's character Alex Delarge in A Clockwork Orange had been executed. Ledger also adds in the psychology into the Joker where in two scenes, he explains to himself that his tyrannical past had made him into a psycho. But apparently it's his character that drives him to play tricks on people doing for no logic. Not for money or for power. As Pennyworth explained "he just want to see the world burn".

However I believe that the whole cast was so underrated. Christian Bale is still good as Batman, as he is still dark and believable as caped anti-hero. More characters from Batman Begins are given some important roles in The Dark Knight as they weren't in the first film. Gary Oldman who I think was there for like half an hour has more screen time in this film where his purpose was to keep things in place in Gotham. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a great replacement for Katie Holmes (who was so bad in Begins) as Rachel Dawes. She's given more to do in here and acknowledges that even though the character has an important role, she's the damsel in distress. But Aaron Eckhart stands out as Harvey Dent who is almost a conflicted character. Most of his relastions with Gordon and Batman are so conflicted it turns him into a dark man. He say his lines very well that I think would be memorable of the film's status. Lines like 'either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself becoming a villain'.

Christopher Nolan was assigned to direct the Batman films after they were so mind null with its toyetic approach (remember Batman & Robin) and in both films, he directed it and wrote the screenplay for both films magnificently. Nolan's style of filmmaking always plays games with people and gives the audience a reason to think in his movies.

Every action is neatly directed. It goes far off from being over-editted or being shot on hand held camera. The explosions are almost neat but kept to the minimum because Nolan wanted to use minimum CGI and more practical effects. Each action sequence are brilliant and almost thrilling. And the best thing about The Dark Knight is its dialogue. It's amazing, it's 0% cheesy and cliche and has such idealism.

The Dark Knight comes to many concepts. You know there is a meaning in this movie. It comes to beliefs of law and order. Many characters are all corrupt people. Police, criminals, lawyers everybody who could be involved in the game. How we are trying to improve from a nasty rate of crime and whether it's right or wrong to take laws into your own hands. As far as Eckhart's character goes it makes us feel sorry for what he is going through that he ends up a changed person.

The Dark Knight is not only a superhero flick or a comic book movie. It's a film noir (as Wikipedia suggested but I agree), it's a real drama and if there is any more I could think of, I would have listed and The Dark Knight had turned a comic book movie into a real fine form of art.

The Knight is at his best and I am looking forward to the next film The Dark Knight Rises released in two years also directed by Nolan.

It is in my DVD collection and this is by far a modern classic

Back To The Future Review

10.0 (A+)


Warning... may contain spoilers!


It's been 25 years since Back To The Future's been a big spender for Generation X, but to many critics, time travelling wannabes and generation X itself, Back to The Future is a modern classic. It launches the career of Michael J Fox in movies, seen a new concept in time travel, had seen Steven Spielberg produced some blockbusters, recognised Robert Zemekis as one of the finest directors in the industry and making Christopher Lloyd's voice second most iconic behind Morgan Freeman.

In Back To The Future, Marty McFly (Michael J Fox) is your average high school slacker with a girlfriend in hand and a really stressful family. He meets up with a mad scientist named Doc (Christopher Lloyd) who would demonstrate time travel to him at midnight near Hill Valley Mall. But when terrorists from Libya murdered Doc after stealing plutonium from them (plutonium was the main source for time travel), Marty escapes from the terrorists and entered the year 1955 where he end up having a sexual encounter with his mom and tries to help his dad to defend himselves from bully Biff Tannen and to make both fall in love but he has to come back to 1985 without creating a hitch in the year.

Back To The Future is a modern classic and people would have fun with this movie because of the clever humour and interesting focus on time travel.

the soundtrack is awesome, the performances are really sublime. Michael J Fox had much fun in this movie out of the whole cast as well as Christopher Lloyd. Much of the time explored in the 50s was almost accurate in a way (there are milk bars around the town, the costumes almost matches what people worn.)

I honestly enjoyed this movie and almost reflect to the movie it's A Wonderful Life where it had the same deal about changing and turning back time.

The whole story is almost a whole climax because you have to know that in Back To The Future there are risks involved into suddenly changing characters. Like never get involved with your mother or don't get involved with the school bully. But every character change prosperously in the end while the main bad guys get their last laugh.

However you should get through all of the movies to really know how the whole trilogy end.

Back To The Future is not just science fiction material, it's a character study of a guy who like Amelie unintendedly try to keep time constant and his parent's relationship more stabilised. It's a comedy. It's almost screwball comedy if Fox had accidently screw up his parents' lives for the worse. It's almost everything that a fanboy would ultimately fantazise.

It's Ronald Reagan's favourite movie and where "there are no roads...", we're going back to the future where everything would be ruined by globalisation, idiotic music and culture and the total hypocrisy of our world where everything we wish we would have would be...

You know what. Never Mind.