
The Social Network (2010)

That was my claim after my theater viewing of Mel Gibson’s (Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ) newest film. I’ve since slept on this, but I should have watched it again. Nonetheless, it doesn’t take away from Gibson’s movie. Hacksaw Ridge was based on a true story, whereas Saving Private Ryan was not. For me, when all else is equal, it nods to the more factual-based one. Saving Private Ryan was a fantastic movie. The Invasion of Normandy Omaha Beach to open the movie was one of the most captivating and memorable action sequences in film history. When I claimed that Hacksaw Ridge was a better movie, I almost inserted the caveat that “outside of the opening 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, Hacksaw Ridge is a better movie.” But that seemed like a copout. I couldn’t spoil it with some condition that limited my case.
99 Homes was a movie I was confident I was going to love. I was wrong. It was good, but not great. It had unavoidable flaws. Even with the most accomplished director, I don’t think it could have avoided some of its pitfalls and still fit in a two-hour time frame. Just like an unusually high number of films that I’ve seen this year, I knew very little about this movie going in. My knowledge of the film was reduced to knowing that it starred Andrew Garfield (The Amazing Spider-Man, The Social Network) and Michael Shannon (Take Shelter, The Harvest), that it was a heavy R-rated drama based on home foreclosures, and that it was scoring a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes at its time of release. I hadn’t seen a single preview of the movie, but what I did know about it was enough for me to see this movie. There was a 100% chance I would see this movie in the theater. While I think this is a pretty good movie, it does not need a theater viewing. It’s not going to win any awards. If you get a chance to see it on Netflix or cable, give it a shot. You may not love it, but I think it’ll grab your attention. While it is predictable and gets in its own way, it is a tense and engrossing film. Furthermore, it continues to showcase Shannon’s dominating screen presence. Love him or hate him, he creates memorable characters.
I think when I first saw the trailers for director Robert Redford’s (Quiz Show, A River Runs Through It) Lions for Lambs, I thought it was a movie I had to see. The previews made the film look exciting, and it was loaded with A-list actors. Well, when the commercials for the movie became 15-second clips after the first week and the movie scored a whopping 27% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, the need to see it quickly waned. The movie earned just $15 million at the box office. Box office earnings don’t necessarily represent the quality of a film, but this movie hoped to garner a lot of money. While the production costs of this movie were low (I’ll explain below), stars like Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise commanded high-dollar figures for their appearances. This wasn’t a little indie movie. MGM produced this movie. On top of a film that was received so poorly by critics was a plot (stories about the war in the Middle East, especially political-driven ones) that had consistently kept moviegoers away back in the early 2000s. Lions for Lambs was a decent movie, but certainly not a great one. And it was by no means as exciting and as drama-filled as the trailers portrayed it to be. Lions for Lambs is a dialogue-driven movie and one that succeeds because it was chalked full of such great actors.
Continue reading Lions for Lambs (2007)