The Social Network review

How does one make interesting the dull story of the creation of a website that has in many ways defined a generation? Some would say lie, but others might say you need not but re-analyze the truth. "The Social Network" isn't so much about facebook as much as it's about it's introverted, egotistical founder Mark Zuckerberg and his various relationships he had with people around the time of the sites creation and rise to fame. It is a 120 minute dramatic, funny, intelligent and sometimes tense ride through the modern business world as seen through the eyes of college kids. And it may also be David Fincher's best film to date. I'm not 100% on that as I do strongly LOVE "Zodiac", but this is a damn fine piece of work that deserves all the acclaim it's gathering currently.

Interestingly enough though still so many people write off the film simply as 'that facebook movie' and so on. Can I call you closed minded? I'll call you closed minded, but perhaps it isn't your fault. For all I know you could have some... issue or brain dysfunction that impairs you from putting the various pieces together that this isn't something that simple. This isn't a movie of the week, here now gone tomorrow. The point isn't simply to tell us of the creation of a website that has for better or for worse changed the internet. I don't feel like I'm spinning wheels here either. Realize that facebook is such a giant that it is used as a contact more often than just people exchanging numbers. Business' will create profiles on there to easily reach out to the consumer and let them 'feel' like they're part of something special by getting online exclusive offers that otherwise they might have never know about. You can nearly skip entire conversations and avoid bringing up the wrong subjects just by paying attention to someones listed interests, their status updates and so on. Hell the only way you might know about this review is through fucking facebook (or possibly twitter and tumblr). It is the dominating social networking site.

Now onto the flick. Jesse Eisenberg has been doing the small, indie scene for sometime, but had a big mainstream hit last fall with "Zombieland". Basically he can play the awkward teen much like Michael Cera, but with a little more cockiness to him. Much like Cera in "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" however Eisenberg steps up his game A LOT as Zuckerberg. Is he awkward? Yes, but not in the conventional movie terms. His version of Zuckerberg (or Citizen Zuck as he's been renamed) appears to have more a disorder than simple shyness. He's cocky in his own way, smart and unfortunately knows it, but appears uncomfortable around large groups and even after a while close friends. He seems like an asshole and honestly probably is one. You can youtube some of his real life interviews and make your own assessment as well. Andrew Garfield (who has been getting some killer work lately) plays Eduardo Saverin, Mark's best friend, co-founder of facebook and later on someone who would sue him for everything. Garfield plays Saverin with a careful ease. It's not as playful of a type of character like Zuck, but one built more off of his diction and manners. Of course having a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin doesn't hurt you either.

Sorkin (who also has a brief cameo in the film) in my mind may have clinched a Best Adapted Screenplay victory with this. It is occasionally showy diolouge in the David Mamet way, but it's delivered with a careful flow that is perfection to listen to. You know when you hear film speak and it's just like beautiful music? This is it. Speaking of music we have something interesting and damn near the best score I've heard all year. Now... yes I AM a Nine Inch Nails fan and thus do already like Trent Reznor and all, but as a stand alone piece of work, he and Atticus Ross (who also did a great job scoring 'The Book of Eli') have made a score that perfectly compliments the visuals, enhances them at times, has fun with them at times and as a musical piece apart from that is also beautiful and emotional. In fact there isn't much of anything I didn't enjoy in "The Social Network".

From the opening scene between Eisenberg and Rooney Mara you see the pace and the tone of the entire picture. It's serious, but funny. It's fast, but methodical. It's got whimsy, but it's pretty damn dark. When we start getting into the flash editing between the Harvard days and his court cases with him against Eduardo and with him against Cameron & Tyler Winklevoss and Divya Narendra (who claimed Mark stole the idea of facebook from them) we see the dark humor and the dramatics coming out in spades. When we're introduced to Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) the darkness sets in more and more and there's this added foreboding to entire situation that was there for a while, but never this quietly intense. There are a number of scenes that might include humor and other emotions that still maintain a subtle intensity due to the acting, music and directing.

This is VERY much a David Fincher film. You get some visual echos of past Fincher films like "Se7en" and "Fight Club", but you also get that newer and more matured simplification of style that we saw in "Zodiac" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". These are strong characters and there are strong themes that run throughout the entire film. They aren't messing around when they say things about it's elements being as old as storytelling itself; they're right. These are strong and basic themes that make stories interesting and here they are so fucking interesting that I could hardly believe it. Furthermore it works as a tech movie by filling you up with shit you have no idea about (or at least I didn't), but making not the words important, but the meanings and emotions behind them. It's very similar to Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" films in that sense. I don't know much of anything about the stock market and yet those film are FILLED with stock jargon and even though we don't know all the definitions we still care about what happens. It's the driving emotion.

Simply put I can't tell you how much I honestly love this film. I've been finding some really good and some great stuff lately, but hands down this exceeded my exceptions. Sure I thought I'd like or love the movie, but I wasn't sure quite how much. When I watched "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and reviewed it I remember writing that it was my least favorite of Fincher's great films. I imagined loving that film to no end, but that simply wasn't the case. Here though I might have found the best movie I've seen all year and possibly the best from Fincher. But I don't know fully just yet. Rest assured I will be watching it again soon and might even offer further insights and thoughts on it. However for nearly four in the morning on a Friday I'll have to leave it by saying that this is a great, entertaining film and also a very important one.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps review

A great performance drama is as exciting, entralling and flat out entertaining as any action movie or genre film. Sometimes all you need is just the right combination of performers and creators to have find pure, unfiltered cinematic enjoyment. "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" does it proper from square one and keeps it's tempo all the way through the closing credits with the Talking Heads melody. It's an important film because it does tell of the inner secret thoughts of wall street fat cats come the time of the market crash in 08' and it's an Oliver Stone film because it gleefully plays with the humanity of it's characters through moral and logical dilemmas.

If you're an avid reader of this (which is to assume I have avid readers, pft!) or simply know my tastes then you know that Stone ranks among my favorite filmmakers and that's heavily thanks to "JFK"; which I saw at a young age and I can honestly say changed my life to a certain extent. Beyond that however are a number of other greats by him ('Platoon', 'Born on the Fourth of July', 'Nixon', 'Natural Born Killers', 'The Doors', 'Any Given Sunday', 'W.' and of course the original 'Wall Street'), but they all enjoyed playing with their characters moral compass. Interestingly it's something that got Stone criticized back then, as he allowed for a lot of emotion to overrun logic in his characters. However something we all know is that human beings aren't particularly logical by and large and when put under hard situations become even less logical. But hey those films were also angry as hell. That was his angry phase; now Stone appears to be in his older, more centered, somewhat more forgiving, but not forgetting phase. It's a nice evolution where it never feels quite like he's delivering a lighter package to us, but simply a different one angled to effect you slightly differently.

With the new 'Wall Street' the rules have changed much since the 80's, but the objective is still the same. Get more money than somebody else and do it the best way you can without getting caught. Michael Douglas' Gordon Gekko (the character for which won him his Oscar) is released from prison and into the new world where he's seen the writing on the wall and knows where the market is heading. So he writes an explosive book prophesying a new market crash soon and starts in up doing college tours. At the same time Shia LaBeouf is young stock trader Jacob Moore who's just made his first million and is preparing to marry Gekko's daughter Winnie (Carry Mulligan... who apparently can do no wrong). As the market crash nears Jake's company takes some major hits and is refused any help by the other company heads which leads to it's founder and Jake's mentor (played by Frank Langella) to commit suicide. Jake believes it was caused by Britten James (Josh Brolin), who has had it out for them since the early 2000's. And wouldn't you just know it, but Gekko believes that James might also have ratted him out to the feds back in the 80's. And thus the stagings for a wall street revenge plot are erected.

The plot grows much more personalized throughout as it deals heavily with Gordon and Winnie very estranged relationship and also how far Jacob gets into this backstabbing, cut throat world. Through this the film sheds some of it's docudrama feel as well as some of it's general spite towards wall street. Overall though I can it was for a reason and I suppose a rather nice one. Who is Gordon Gekko in the year 2008? Has prison changed him or made him worse? It's worth finding out for yourself. But Douglas does play him with less edge and subtle villainy and I'll say that's what makes the final act work so well. You generally like him this time. Shia LaBeouf has had to deal with the oh so shitty public backlash pretty much since Indy 4. I don't think he was the problem with the film so much as the lackluster script. Generally I really like the dude. I've seen him and read him in interviews and he comes off as a hard worker and someone who's down to earth rather than obsessed with making a name for himself or being a celebrity. Here he gives probably his best performance and more than holds his own next to Douglas, Mulligan, Brolin, Sarandon and Langella. I mean seriously despite liking the dude even I thought he was outmatched, but damn if Stone isn't able to bring out a full fledged performance.

The film is completely structured to give even the smallest character bits just the right amount of screen time and just the right amount of info to know where they lay in the world at that time. This helps keep the tempo fresh and moving along without too much lag time. Even cameos by Stone and Charlie Sheen are paced out in a brisk, but never rushed fashion. We also get a great piece of Stone film editing the day of the market crash. I won't say what the scene looks like or how it's set up, but if you've seen his films then you'll know what I'm talking about. It's a bit piece, but one that definitely made me crack a smile.

"Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" is and isn't a sequel. Yes we get some of those characters from the original and all, but it never feels like a return so much as us viewing a new world that playing the same old games. Generally we don't get a lot of in depth looks at wall street anymore sans for documentaries here and there or the news. The downside of there is that 99% of docs are going to give one perspective to that world and more than likely it's negative. This cuts down the interviews and dampens the reception you might get when you come knocking and wanting things from the people you're calling white collar thieves. When it comes to the glorious world of fake movies however... people are a little more forthcoming. They don't always know how they'll be portrayed thus they might be willing to chat just a bit longer or let you poke around the business floor a few minutes more. Dramatizing certain events also makes it easier to explain complex and bad events without naming the real criminals or victims personally. Yes Wall Street is all about the money, but that's not always evil. The morality (or lack there of) is in what you do with it. It's can also be about who's the better liar, but really that's a lot like general life too. That's just how this human chess game works I guess. This is one of the most entertaining dramas I've seen all year and one made through it's ability to keep us constantly interested while watching it. Whether it be from rich man excess, business jargon or a character's emotional break down, we're right there and with it all the way.

The Town review

I still say that Ben Affleck's directorial debut "Gone Baby Gone" is one of the best from an actor turned director. If you've never seen it, seek out ASAP. It's a great crime drama that's also set in the gritty Boston streets, but for as much blood and bruises that are in it there is also a lot of soul and terrific performances. Affleck's "The Town" isn't as strong, but it's still very damn good. Don't walk in looking for a straight away cops and robbers heist picture as there isn't quite as much emphasis on that as there is on the characters of Doug (Affleck) and Claire (Rebecca Hall). The opening is a fast paced and well executed bank robbery in which Doug and his crew including long time friend James (played perfectly by Jeremy Renner) take the money and run out the back, but also take a hostage as a just-in-case situation which happens to be Claire. They let her go, but James takes her drivers license and the next day informs the rest of the crew that the Claire he notices that she lives about four block away from them and could possibly rat them out to the FBI.

Doug decides to take a job tailing her just to make sure that doesn't happen and in the course of things meets and begins seeing her socially. Doug isn't the usual simple hard nosed bad ass robber thug like his buddies; he does have a heart and a brain although throughout the movie to two rarely agree. On the bank robbers tail is FBI agent Frawley (Jon Hamm) who is a by the book, but harder to shake than most cops. And almost just as dangerous as him to Doug is the mystery man behind the gang known as 'The Florist' played by Pete Postlethwaite. It's not a large role, but damn does he make it count. Actually the same can be said of Blake Lively who plays Krista, Doug's ex. Lively mixes trashy sex appeal with actually care. It's an underused character, but she does exceedingly well each time she gets her shot. In the end though all performances were thoroughly fantastic and Affleck has again assembled great talents and pulled from them some fine, fine work including himself.

Now the reason (right now) I don't feel it's quite great is due to it's pacing and conventions. Some of the "The Town" drags a bit and gets dry. Mainly it's when the FBI is playing catch up while will slowly see Doug and Claire's more than likely doom relationship blossom more and more. However... I will say that the final act in my opinion fully elevates the entire picture. "The Town" is a world we've seen and often times seen done a bit better, but how it all pans out in it's novel fashion is lovely, strong and completely convincing. In addition to the great performances Affleck gets out of this cast he also crafts a strong, ear blasting shoot out near the end that is almost at Michael Mann level. There seems to have been a lot of attention places into the bigger pieces of the movie to make them feel authentic, dramatic and visceral as opposed to just being cool. Affleck's pacing sometimes even feels like work done in the 70's by Lumet or Friedkin in the crime genre.

Really "The Town" is really terrific thriller that I may come to fully love down the line. There's a lot of strong work on the screen here that ought to get some awards attention. Despite the weird backlash that Ben Affleck endured in the early 2000's I think it's safe to say it's over. Here is proves to not just be a terrific writer, but also a director and actor. He goes full Boston southie and never turns back once. Oscar nominee Jeremy Renner, who I actually thought DID deserve the Best Actor win for "The Hurt Locker" does the same and does the kind of character work similar to Joe Pesci in "Goodfellas". The difference is how feelings about his character change from beginning to end and the impact he has. I do intend to sit down and re-watch this soon to see how it suits me then, but for know all I can say is if you're looking a for a conventional crime drama that's still got the goods, the action, the emotion and the characters then look no further than "The Town".

Devil review

Here's a film that was pretty much killed before it even hit theaters. I'm sure you've been in a packed theater when the "Devil" trailer played and the words "from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan" appears and boos and laughs cue up. Indeed it is based on a story by Shyamalan however not written or directed by him. So what difference does that make? Quite a bit actually.


While the concept is something feeling like a short story, it's execution is equal to that of a really entertaining episode of "The Twilight Zone", but with more blood and cussing. What you see from the trailer is indeed what the movie is all about. One of the five people pictured above is the devil and have come to kill. That's it. But with the addition of a depressed, faithless and recovering alcoholic detective (Chris Messina), some clever, twisty and fun writing by Brian Nelson it's made a lot more interesting. What the film attempts and accomplishes is to never give you too many classic movie hints to who might be the devil. Everyone has a thing about them that very well could make them the devil or just an innocent person stuck in a terrible situation. Fernando Velazquez's score cues punctuates the situation and the suspense in great manner and helps add to the tense atmosphere.

Our elevator passengers include an old woman, a young woman, a security guard, a salesman and a mechanic. All are in this office building for different purposes and with different destinations, but if Shyamalan's thought process has taught anything over the years it's that everything has a purpose. And when that elevator stops we begin to learn how it all comes together or mostly comes together. "Devil" has got some little holes riddled in it's side, but doesn't take away from the fun they have with it all. Director of photography, the great Tak Fujimoto paints the movie well and helps director John Erik Dowdle make the suspense in a tiny area work with very well set up shots and nice lighting that's never too moody, but great for the moment. It all works out well which actually makes me quite pleased.

Personally I have VERY mixed feelings about Shyamalan. I perfectly understand why he's getting the flack for his past couple of works right now. I don't get why other guys like Paul W.S. Anderson don't get it too, but I can see what people aren't digging from him. At the same time he's still somebody I that feel can do good again and regain at least some of his cred. Going into producing is tricky as hell as I said when I reviewed "The Last Exorcism" there's not many thriller or horror that end up producing even passable genre films (look at Wes Craven, Sam Raimi and John Carpenter for examples). His work here with "Devil" is good. It's damn sure not great, but it's a workable, entertaining and a fun thriller that feels like it embraces the right amount of suspense, character and goofiness much like "The Twilight Zone"; which from what I understand is what his Night Chronicles set of films is supposed to feel like.

The twist that occurs isn't entirely unforeseeable, but it's unveiling is nicely done in it's subtly. Again the tech side plays well with the overall tone of the story and makes it feel like a well put together package of B-thriller goodness. It does heavily involve faith and religion (as often is the case with his stories) and some of it does have a cheese factor, but in the end there is a rather stronger message behind some of it that kind of elevates it a tad just for the general bravery to take it in that direction. I won't say what it is, but most movies would probably go the darker and more cynical route (as is usually the case), but it's refreshing to see it go the other way for a change. This is a step in the right direction for Shyamalan and hopefully one that might spark some change in his own written and directed work. I'm interested to see if they can build off of this with the next in the Night Chronicles series and actually create an interesting and fun set of mid-level thrillers using young talents.

Resident Evil: Afterlife review

It's said that when a movie franchise hits #4 you've gotta be giving this audience a reason to come back. Usually the trilogy does the trick. The "Resident Evil" films are... well hell... shit. In fact the only one that (for me) comes close to working as a movie is "Resident Evil: Apocalypse", which is by many considered the worst of the bunch. I HIGHLY disagree. The difference between these shit burgers and movies like "Machete" or "Piranha 3D" is that these take themselves VERY seriously. Sometimes unbearably serious to where you can't believe that none of these characters are commenting on why fucking ridiculous it all is. What writer/director/producer Paul W.S. Anderson has done is basically taken various things from these games and put them in the movie while making some other shit up that he probably feels fits right in. This is no longer a zombie story, it's a bad sci-fi story of the "Battlefield Earth" persuasion.

This fourth and nearly unwatchable installment opens with Alice and dozens of her clones breaking into an Umbrella Corporation underground compound in an attempt to kill what appears to be the head baddie, Albert Wesker. Wesker is basically a blond, weak and often hilarious rip off of Hugo Weaving's Agent Smith character from 'The Matrix' films. Speaking of that little set of movies it's ripped off about a dozen and half times here, which is funny since the movie is over TEN YEARS OLD NOW. And yet with all the updated technology we have manages to cheapen the look of the effects despite having more money than Wachowski's did back in 99' . No easy feet I'm sure. Anyways the first massive and crippling logical flaw occurs after Wesker escapes and Alice goes in for her close kill when he injects her with something that is said to have destroyed the T-virus cells in her body that made her super human. Because it made sense in all the other movies that the same thing that turns people in the zombies turns her into Supergirl. Milla Jovovich delivers a terrible line thanking him for making her human again and the plane crashes into a mountain with a CGI freeze frame that looks like it's from a PS2 game. And then she walks away from the crash unharmed and no other explanation is given.

That piece pretty much should kill the movie outright and yet hey... it continues to Alaska and later to a burned out L.A. where a group of survivors took up refuge in a prison from thousands of zombies that just upon Alice and old friend Claire's (Ali Later) arrival have gained the strength and knowledge to dig under the prison and burst up through thick concrete to gain entrance to the shower room... which still works. You'll find out why later. In the prison there's about seven characters, but the only important one is Chris Redfield (Claire's brother) who they think is a prisoner and keep him locked up. Ok, so after all that truly boring bullshit involving piss poor characters, plot holes, plot craters and weak CGI we get to the truly terrible action scenes.

The shower sequence involving giant axe/hammer man ought to go down as one of the dumbest action set pieces in modern cinema. Basically the entire scene is in slow motion and plays out like dumb geek action movie porn, but lacks any real action to appeal to people who might know a thing or two about action movies. So what you're left with is Ali and Milla soaked, brooding and basically ninja warrior women(with the use of wire work of course). As I said earlier if this shit didn't take itself so seriously this might all work (well to a point), instead we're forced to believed a lot of incredibly stupid shit without much reasoning. Like per-say why in a world of zombies is there a 9-foot tall man in with leather skin, a sack mask and a giant hammer axe? Where the fuck was he at when shit went down? How come when we first see Alice and Claire they're both dirty as can be and next when they're flying to L.A. they are completely clean and NOTICEABLY wearing make up? But Anderson doesn't provide answers just more stuff happening that he apparently thinks is cool.

Most of the other action scenes are merely set ups to make his wife (Milla Jovovich... who by the way could do better) look cool in super slow motion out running a poor looking explosions. Sadly it doesn't work either as often she just looks kind of goofy. All this crap builds up to an enormously idiotic fight with Wesker in a giant white room under a ship in the ocean. How does it all end up? How it always does in these films. Now... why do I loathe this one, but actually somewhat enjoy the second and often considered worst installment? "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" was directed by Alexander Witt, a well known and impressive second unit director and cinematographer. You can see much of his work in Ridley Scott films with "Body of Lies" providing his best photographic work to date in my opinion. Witt seems to be the only one who might think these movies don't need to be as serious as Anderson wants. So basically he fills the movie with a good number of impressive physical stunts, over the top supporting characters and actually utilizes his R-rating for more than two fucks and a couple head shots. But what makes it all more funny and entertaining is that the zombie stuff is pretty cheap looking and he shoots it more like a parody of a zombie action movie. Witt might just get the joke, but Anderson sure as hell doesn't.

To him these movies are something else that I cannot begin to understand. The 3D (which apparently uses the same cameras as "Avatar") is very weak as are the effects and the action pieces. Furthermore Anderson can't have gone over this script hard enough to figure out it didn't make a lick of sense after the opening and worse yet neither did the actors. It's been a while since I've hated a sci-fi movie as much as this and yet people will eat it up like it's going out of style. Why? There are TONS of better films about girls kicking ass and looking good. There are TONS of better zombie movies, sci-fi movies and action movies out right now. I imagine in a few years there will be another "Resident Evil" and I imagine it will be pretty bad too... but honestly I can't imagine how Anderson or anybody else could come in and deliver a worst movie. "Resident Evil: Afterlife" has actually taken Anderson down in my mind to the level of Uwe Boll now.

The Girl Who Played With Fire review

Something that can kill any thriller or mystery for me is a lack of style or suspense. Earlier this year I reviewed part 1 of the Millennium trilogy "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", which was being beefed up as a major deal. While I did really enjoy the stylish, sleuth picture I was never fully in love with it all. Now with the "The Girl Who Played with Fire" I'm kind of on the fence about how much I really care this whole story ends.

Like I stated above a huge killer for these sort of movies is a lack of style and suspense and that's the biggest issue here. Director Niels Arden Oplev stepped away and Daniel Alfredson took over for the last two movies. Apparently this was a fucking mistake. Oplev did a great job of creating a gloomy and grim world that our heroin Lisbeth Salander existed in, Alfredson however works to remind us that this movie series is based on books and also a tv show by displaying dull stylization and throwing as much random narrative at us as possible and seeing what sticks. Basically this is a mystery, in a mystery, about another mystery and none of it is made particularly interesting.

Noomi Rapace is Lisbeth, the gothy, hacker with a knack for getting to the bottom of tough cases. We meet up with her a year after the last film as she's preparing to head back to home after noticing some emails on her parole officers computer that she wasn't too fond of. (That makes a lot more sense if you've seen the first movie) On the flip side is friend and journalist Mikael Bloomkvist who's working on a new story with a new reporter involving sex trafficking. When the the new reporter and his author wife are found dead and the murder weapon has Lisbeth's finger prints on it... then something is thought to be... amiss by Bloomkvist and Lisbeth has to decide how she's going to clear her name and find out who's behind it all.

There's more to it all, but nothing too note worthy since none of it works to full capacity. The main yarn is that of a suspenseful expose' story. Really our main character this time out isn't Lisbeth, but instead Mikael; who follows up leads and attempt to figure out who the mystery man behind it all is other than the codename: Zala. Some of his poking and prodding lead to intrigue, but most to boredom. Lisbeth occasionally comes out of her hiding place to strong arm some nasty men into getting answers, but really doesn't do too much until the final act which is... somewhat interesting, but never too thrilling or suspenseful. The revelation of who's behind it all isn't particularly startling either. I question is it the direction or just the story that makes it all so weak. It's very much a bridge plot that appears to lead up directly to part III ('The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest'), but still I feel like with better writing and direction it's a movie that could've been at the least entertaining.

So now this brings up the whole remake business. David Fincher has officially began shooting of 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' with Rooney Mara ('A Nightmare on Elm Street' and 'The Social Network') as Lisbeth. Fincher's not known to make mistakes so I have no doubt in his ability to craft an interesting if not widely better thriller than the original. But if things come to pass and the whole trilogy is remade I wouldn't mind seeing it done more like 'Red Riding' in which each film has a different director that brings something slightly different to the table. In anycase I feel like most name filmmakers that could be brought up to do this would probably handle it better than it has been.

Machete review

Witness the movie that the summer ought to have had in it. Robert Rodriguez's "Machete" easily works to become one of his most gleefully over the top works and also one of his most fun and ultimately most satisfying. Is there any real surprise to 'Machete'? Maybe yes, maybe no. For me I walked in looking for pure, bloody, grindhousey fun that's played for laughs. And I got just that. The film is everything that the original fake trailer showed us, plus some wonderfully over the top social commentary about illegal immigration reform. I happen to live in Florida where such reform is being heavily talked about. Not being a person of strong political beliefs, I do however attempt to keep up with certain things and educate myself of on them to get a real standing. And let me say that I do think their 'idea' is horse shit. But more on that later.

What Rodriguez and company have really done is made their ultimate mexploitation film. His 'El Mariachi' trilogy is just the foundation of what he's now done. He's made a big, bloody and explosive live action cartoon that's just as insipid as it is strangely brilliant. I mean let's face it this isn't a movie where plot and character development come first as an attempt to relate to the human condition; this is an exploitation film. But within the subtext and social commentary there is a film that's a great parody of modern latino culture and the political climate surrounding the illegal immigration situation. They gleefully play with stereotypes for the fun of the movie, but also making a solid point. In the end though I suppose it's the violent fun that wins out.

Danny Trejo IS Machete. He's been with this character forever and plays him like a classic action movie actor. Somewhere in connecting Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson. He's the quiet strong man that when he opens his mouth the theater goes silent, but when he's swinging around his machete it's a mad house of laughs and cheers. The supporting cast works as well as any of Rodriguez's others. Michelle Rodriguez, who pretty much only plays the 'tough chick' seems to have finally gotten a part where she's allowed to do that and NOT look completely butch at the same time. Steven Seagal plays Torrez a Mexican drug lord and manages to be the odd man out as he always half way tries at the role. Whether it's on purpose or just his inability to act has finally matched his inability to say no to super sizing his Quarter pounder combos is unclear; but it has a silly as shit charm.

The best supporting characters however are Jeff Fahey as Booth, the senator's menacing aid that manages to feel highly sinister despite only speaking in whispers, Cheech Marin as the shotgun touting priest, Don Johnson's evil and racist as shit boarder patrol vigilante Von and yes Mr. De Niro as the two faced, coward, racist senator John McLaughlin. De Niro helps remind us of how fun he can be to watch in films where he really has a character he can play with. Remember the first "Meet the Parents" movie? Something close to that, but with A LOT of his interpretation of Max Cady from "Cape Fear". It's levels out into something hilarious, different and truly fun to watch. Jessica Alba is somewhat mid-ranged as the immigration officer with a heart for her people. Sometimes she can feel just right in the whole mix and other times it feels like there could've been a better casting choice. And let's just say she's no Bill Pullman when it comes to giving rousing speeches. And I do wish there was more with Lindsey Lohan's April character. Granted it wasn't so much acting for her and much as it was a typical Monday morning, but still it was nice seeing her on screen again and the little she does get to do really makes you think that this genre might be a good fit for her as opposed to chick flicks.

Now onto the whole politics of the film. I read and early review for the film it I feel like it sums that whole thing up perfectly by saying (I'm gonna paraphrase) 'Machete' is the left wing equivalent to all the 80's right wing aimed action films like the 'Rambo' movies or 'Red Dawn'. It really is. The reason many people (some of which I know) seem to have no problem with some of the ideas brought by the new immigration reform is because it would never really effect them. They wouldn't get pulled over at 9pm because the police want to see if they're an American citizen because... well... they're white. What do they have to worry about? We complain about mexican workers taking our jobs, but those jobs are the ones we generally don't want and when we get them we tend to half ass it because we hate it so much! And at least it's keeping the jobs in this country, which to me is a bigger issue. Then there's the whole heathcare issue and yadda, yadda, yadda... whatever. The politics of 'Machete' display cartoonish extremism on both sides and anyone taking it seriously is really, truly an idiot. The same goes for people thinking it wants a 'race war'. The movie lampoons the situations in an attempt to kind of show just how ridiculous people CAN be and how some probably are. I for one think that's a great way of beginning a conversation about the issue.

"Machete" is much like "Piranha 3D" as in it gives you what it advertised. You can pop in, turn off your brain for 105 minutes, laugh and have a good time. Or you can walk in with a stick up your ass and complain for that duration about the state of cinema and politics and so on and so forth. Can't imagine how that's helpful to ya, but it's your choice. For me though I loved every stupid, nasty, outrageous and satirical thing about it. I love that Robert Rodriguez has carved his own genre nitch with these sorts of films and has been so successful with it all and I hope that success continues long into the future.

The American review

It's extremely rare for U.S. spy dramas or like-spy dramas to go with a lovely slow pace instead what's become the norm for the genre via the 'Bourne' or 007 movies. "The American" has more in kin with samurai dramas or thrillers of the 70's than it does with the current genre and it's made all the better for it. George Clooney plays Jack or Edward, we're never really sure; an assassin of sorts whose last job involves him hiding out in Italy and crafting a weapon for his successor. Right there is 90% of the film as he mainly walks about the town, occasionally meets and chats with the locals despite his somewhat cold demeanor. He gets close to a prostitute named Clara (Violante Placido) and something more begins to appear in the character. Something like love for her... however not too long after that so does something comes out of him too.

The other 10% of the film deals subtly with paranoia. I say subtly in the form in which Coppola used it in "The Conversation". The entire time you feel like something more is going on, but you can't quite get a grasp on it until it's right in front of you. The entire final act is a well devised tight rope of tension and character emotion that's accomplished through patience and skill. "Control" director Anton Corbijn does what ought to be an award nomination worthy job along with screenwriter Rowan Joffe of making Clooney's mostly silent character likable by the end of the picture; making us fully care what happens in the final minutes. It's also a film that I would call sexy; not a adjective I tend to use when referring to movies, but it is.

I'm not talking just for the nudity or the sex, but generally they've shot this movie in such a beautiful fashion and soaked it in mystery and drama to the point that if this was a person, you'd want to meet em', befriend them, bang them and have a picnic with them the next day. At the same time not everyone will feel as strongly about it all as I do. The one beef I have against it is Focus Features marketing of the film. The first trailer was around 1:30 and played up the drama and romance of the story rather than the action (which is probably the third or fourth important aspect). That trailer aired in theaters probably for a week or two before a 30 second cut came out which utilized Mr. Voice talking of assassins and George Clooney while just showing off the action pieces in the film. Thus several people will walk in expecting an action film where Clooney goes ape shit killing baddies for his final hurray. THIS AIN'T THAT MOVIE. This is a smart, quiet thriller.

"The American" might be considered one of Clooney's awardy type films by some, but I'm not so convinced. I'd love to see this get some real legs and viewers and nods come that time of the year, but it feels more like a film destined to be left behind somewhere in that race. Why,I'm not entirely sure yet. Perhaps it's the heavy European feel that could hurt it. The somber tone that concludes in a rather bleak fashion or the fact that there just isn't a much of money shots in the film. Either way it is a film that deserves viewers. It's one of the best films I've seen all year and also warrants many technical accolades as well.