Summer Fest 5 (Day One): The Astounding She Monster

 To kick off Summer Fest, I decided it would be fun to continue in the vein of Bad Movie Night favorite She Devil and present another sci-fi / horror hybrid from the 1950s about the inherent danger of femininity. Why? Because in the mid-twentieth century, B-movie filmmakers were obsessed with it, and none of them seemed to be able to make a decent picture out of it. Which is not to say they couldn't make an entertaining picture: it just wasn't the type of entertainment they planned on.

 To wit: The Astounding She Monster shovels expository narration to us for the first ten minutes, to the point that one could suggest that there was no usable dialogue to accompany the image, and then abruptly shifts tone, meanders for a bit, reaches Abbott and Costello-like proportions in the construction of its "chase" scenes, and slaps everything together with the kind of preachy ending that only really worked in The Day the Earth Stood Still. It doesn't help that the ending directly contradicts the opening narration, but before I get ahead of myself, a few observations on the "plot":

 The Astounding She Monster, after a long explanation of other planets that fear the "danger" that Earth poses and how they've determined to "destroy us before we destroy them" then shifts to a fairly mundane kidnapping story told in the least sensible way possible. After a "socialite" leaves her house (one that I'd swear is the same location used for She Devil), two gangsters immediately run her off of the road and force her into their car, leaving hers abandoned in the road for the police to find.

 So that's suspenseful, if seemingly unconnected, but it's worth noting that they then pull into the driveway that she just pulled out of, where her house is. They kidnap her and drive her home, presumably so that somewhere between when the police find her car and when we next see them, the socialite can change her coat and the gangsters can pick up a drunken tag-along. Why? It's never entirely clear, but it makes splitting them up later possible.

 Meanwhile, a geologist who lives in the woods with his dog sees a meteorite land not far from their secluded cabin. The narrator explains he's the "innocent bystander" in this story, which I suppose is true. We don't see him again until after the Astounding She Monster starts wandering around, scaring animals and causing the camera to go all "drunk cam."

 She / It eventually wanders into the road, causing the kidnappers to crash their car (at least, I think that's what happened). Fortunately, this is a contingency in their precision plan, so they head up a road into the woods and eventually end up at a secluded (albeit spacious) cabin. I wonder who might live there?

 Just in case you weren't already convinced that the cast and crew were making it up as they went along, our geologist responds to one of the hoodlums taking the keys to his Jeep by telling him it "isn't safe" to drive at night and that they should stay with him until morning. I'm not exaggerating this at all - he actually advises a man holding him at gunpoint NOT to leave, and this is before he knows about their hostage.

 As you can imagine, the tense situation in the cabin between heroes and villains is only compounded when the Astounding She Monster (sporting proto-Romulan eye makeup) shuffles on up to the cabin and kills one of the gangsters (and the poor dog, who for no apparent reason had to go outside to help fix the Jeep). After running in and out and in and out of the cabin to the point of absurdity, the geologist discovers she's protected by a thin layer of radioactive metal and they concoct a way to kill the Astounding She Monster, only to reveal the film's great twist about why she was actually on Earth.

 If nothing else, I will give the film credit for making good on its promise of the Black Bear the geologist constantly warns of being outside. Aside from that, pretty much everything that happens in The Astounding She Monster is because that's what has to happen to pad out the running time to 67 minutes. If you can imagine a Mad Magazine spoof of an episode of The Twilight Zone adapted by Ed Wood, you're in the ball park of The Astounding She Monster.

 That said, the film is (unintentionally) hilarious - whether struggling to apply logic to the early section of the movie, where nobody but the narrator is speaking (including when the gangsters turn on the radio and the narrator is explaining that the police are closing in on them) to determining exactly how a geologist who lives alone in the woods is going to explain having the missing socialite and a dead body in his bedroom to the police when they arrive, it's a constant source of laughter. While I sincerely doubt director Richard V. Ashcroft (who only made two other movies after this) intended that to be the case, there's something to be said for the accidental end result.

 A note on the poster: it's a great example of selling a product more titillating than the finished result. While one of the gangsters refers to the She Monster as "nude," it's fairly evident she's wearing a body suit and there's nothing "sexy" at all about her in the movie. She shambles about, often unsure what to do with her arms, leaving the end result more comical than sensual, if that was even the goal.

 Up next: Roger Corman presents a movie that is not at all a knock-off of Star Wars - the coincidentally titled Star Crash!

Blogorium Review: The Social Network

This review arrives too late for the party, and for that I apologize. My decision to stick strictly with horror for the month of October meant that The Social Network, which I saw on October 3rd, was going to have to wait another four weeks before it could go up. The good news, as I see it, is that my two cents weren't necessary to keep people going to see what is, in fact, an excellent film; The Social Network has consistently appeared in the top ten Box Office performers since it was released, enjoys a 97% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an 8.4 rating on IMDB. This makes me happy, for reasons I'll discuss momentarily, but in order to justify reviewing The Social Network, the Cap'n will direct my comments to regular readers of this blog, many of whom I know haven't seen the film.

When I mentioned having seen The Social Network to friends of mine, there were invariably two reactions: 1) "Oh, I hear that's really good!" or 2) "Really? The 'Facebook' movie?" By now, most of them (and you reading) already know the background information - the film is based on how (and why) Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) created Facebook, how he, with the help of Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), effectively screwed Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) out of co-ownership of the company, and how Divya Nirendra (Max Minghella) and Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer) accused Zuckerberg of ripping off their idea.

You also probably have had someone bend your ear about how the Winklevoss twins (or, as Mark calls them, the Winklevi) are actually played by Armie Hammer and Josh Pence, who provides the body for Tyler with Hemmer's face digitally mapped over Pence's. You may have heard about the score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, or you may simply know the film from its (in my opinion, effective) trailers, utilizing a cover of Radiohead's "Creep" and Kanye West's "Power." At the very least, everyone I've talked to knows that David Fincher directed the film, and some are aware it was written by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing, Charlie Wilson's War). There are, however, also a few misconceptions about the film I've noticed.

The first seems to be tied to a strange backlash on David Fincher, based solely on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - which almost nobody saw, but apparently everyone seems to hate. It can't be residual hate from Panic Room, because people don't seem to remember Panic Room, and most of the people I talked about The Social Network to either really like or love Alien 3, Seven, The Game, Fight Club, and Zodiac. Since I didn't hate The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (it's not great, and probably wasn't an Oscar contender, but it's not the disaster everybody painted it as) I must confess that carrying this over to The Social Network seems a little harsh.

If the problem is Fincher's typical underlit, visually acrobatic aesthetic, then I feel the need to point out that The Social Network is anchored by that other force, namely Sorkin's script. For those not familiar with Aaron Sorkin, he writes dialogue that goes on for pages, filled with the kind of effortlessly clever banter you wish you had come up with but know isn't within you. Sorkin's gift is that he can fill a series (or a film) with nothing but characters who do that and still keep you emotionally invested. The Social Network is set up as a series of flashbacks, told during Zuckerberg's dual depositions with the Winkelvoss and Saverin legal teams. There's a lot of verbal jousting, and Fincher doesn't indulge in many crazy camera tricks, although it would be unfair to say the film is uncharacteristic Fincher. I'd refer you to Zodiac, which is also based on a true story.

Speaking of which, many of the people who call it "The 'Facebook' movie" have also expressed disinterest to me because they feel they already know the story: socially awkward geek creates social network - isn't it ironic, don't ya think? That's maybe the kernel of the story, but Eisenberg's Mark Zuckerberg is so far from interested in "fitting in" once the film gets rolling that you're invested in him, Saverin, the Winklevoss twins, and (to a degree) Parker that the levels of subterfuge, betrayal, and shades of gray on everyone's part become fascinating.

It's also important to point out that, in The Social Network at least, Zuckerberg is ultimately less interested in the actual networking than he is the programming and potential of Facebook as a concept. There is one shot of Mark adding a "friend," tied directly to an argument he has with his girlfriend at the beginning of the film, Erica Albright (Rooney Mara), the only thread in the film which I found problematic. It does make it possible for the easy characterization of The Social Network, and in some ways it undermines the original argument in the first place.

Albright and Zuckerberg are having a conversation where the two of them are operating on different levels, and the inability to bring those threads together is what splits them up. But that's not because Mark is awkward and Erica isn't; it's because what they want out of Harvard are at odds with each other. When she leaves him, Albright says "You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole," which is at the center of almost every conflict that Mark has during the film. Does he use the Winklevoss twins? Does he betray Saverin? Does he put Parker's connections above his business partners? Yes, but there are moments in the film where Eisenberg plays regret and betrayal at the flip side of those questions.

Let's move on to the acting, briefly, because I do want to talk about the film itself and not simply defend it from generalizations. Slowly and quietly over the last few years, Jesse Eisenberg has become an actor to keep an eye out. The first time I saw him, in Noah Baumbach's The Squid and the Whale, I hated him (by virtue of the character he played), and during the rise of Michael Cera after Arrested Development, comparisons seemed to be everywhere. Honestly, I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim (or many of Cera's movies), but I think I'll take Eisenberg. If nothing else, he's more versatile and takes the "asshole" in Mark Zuckerberg, complete with Sorkin zingers, and invests you in his story. Zuckerberg could easily be the villain of The Social Network (and a lot of people argue that he is), but Eisenberg shifts that distaste halfway through one of the Saverin depositions.

Andrew Garfield has a very similar track record with the Cap'n, in that I disliked his character so much in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus that the news he would be the new Spider-Man gave me no sense of interest whatsoever. I'm actually much more on board with Garfield because of his Eduardo Saverin, who has the "put-upon friend" role and is saddled with one of the worst Facebook related scenes in the film (the dreaded "relationship status update"), and gives him life and depth. Eduardo puts a lot on hold because of Zuckerberg, and his abandonment doesn't make much sense to either of them.

It happens because of Justin Timberlake's Sean Parker, the creator of Napster and a character that seems to be more of a huckster at first. What's so impressive about Timberlake is that he never overplays the dubious side of Parker (which would be very easy considering where Parker ends up in the story of Facebook) and for a while, you genuinely believe his enthusiasm for Zuckerberg's idea is altruistic. And, as Sorkin writes it, it is. He's just also has paranoid delusions and has a bad habit of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

This review is getting long, and I haven't even scratched the surface; the fantastic Armie Hammer, who plays Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss so distinctly that you never doubt that both of them exist on-screen; Rooney Mara, who has a lasting impression on the film that almost erases the bad taste she left in my mouth after A Nightmare on Elm Street; the crackerjack deposition scenes; Fincher's use of light to punctuate the typical "dark, fluorescent" visual palette of his other films; the way Sorkin's screenplay slowly doles out information that would change impressions of earlier scenes.

I was very impressed by The Social Network, in just about every respect. Yes, there are one or two things that don't quite work, and there's definitely a slightly misogynistic undertone to the film, but I don't feel that it's fair to characterize The Social Network as just "the 'Facebook' movie." It's like saying Zodiac is just "the 'serial killer' movie," which it's not; it's the backdrop of a far more interesting character study. That is, by the way, an absolutely fair comparison, because each one is very much a David Fincher film. None of you jumped on Fincher for the pre-millenial angst of Fight Club, which is as (arguably) on the nose as making a film that takes place seven years ago, as The Social Network does. So go against those gut instincts to avoid the film; I really do think you're going to be surprised, even if you go in with pre-conceived notions. Well written, acted, and directed films can have that effect on you*.


* Although I have to admit that I feel somewhat hesitant to include this review as a "Status Update" on Facebook.

Hey, it's possible!

Greetings folks! The Cap'n is back after doing some more crazy homework related junk with another journey into the supernatural Blogorium.

I thought you might find this image taken at a local Best Buy amusing. What you're looking at is the Super Rare, Hard to Find, One of a Kind Double Priced Special Edition of Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino. What's so special about it, you ask? Does it come with four extra discs with bonus content and a cd of Eastwood growling through the title song?

Perhaps the Blu-Ray disc was dipped in pure platinum, which renders it unplayable but sure looks cool, or maybe Eastwood personally pressed the disc. That has to be it, right?

Nope. The $29.99 price of Gran Torino was magically doubled by Gremlins living inside of the Best Buy pricing gun. That, or what's inside is actually the super secret Blu-Ray of THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE. I'll leave it up to you to decide what that movie is, but the correct answer is Blood Car. For $60 dollars you can have Blood Car on Blu-Ray, disguised as Gran Torino! Fool your friends and confound your enemies!



I'm such a mean prankster...

Land of Confusion

The Cap'n has been trying all day to decide if there's enough I want to say about Monsters vs. Aliens to merit a full review, and to be honest with you folks I'm not sure that I have much to add. It's a fun enough movie; a considerably better version of what Igor was trying to do. Igor tried very hard to be a kid-friendly movie set in the world of Universal Classic Monsters and ended up being a mostly stillborn affair. Monsters vs. Aliens is operating on the Classic Science Fiction template, and to be sure it succeeds in putting together variations of The Fly, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, Godzilla/Mothra, the Blob, and the 50 foot Woman together to fight alien invaders and giant robots. Throw in a riff on Dr. Strangelove and you have some idea of what to expect, which they reasonably succeed at.

As computer animated films go, Monsters vs. Aliens looks very good, and it has a nice cast. The theme is a tried and true kiddie-trope: an "ugly duckling" variation about learning to accept that you're okay the way you are, and on top of that what you wanted to be may not be so great after all. The movie is amusing and is hampered only with a few truly groan-inducing pop culture references (the ones that spring to mind involve "Axel F" and Dance Dance Revolution), and I guess I had fun watching it.

That being said, I didn't really want to proclaim from the mountain tops that everyone should see Monsters vs. Aliens. It's a perfectly agreeable film from Dreamworks Animation, sitting comfortably between the instantly dated Shrek films and the considerably better Kung Fu Panda. And that's about what I have to say.

---

Speaking of "having nothing to say", I keep thinking that I want to weigh in on the NBC Jay Leno / Conan O'Brien situation, or the Spider-man 4 debacle, or even the wildly varying reactions to The Lovely Bones or The Book of Eli, but when it comes to putting pen to paper (or the digital equivalent thereof), I really don't. All of these situations are fascinating to watch and read about as they develop, but there's not much to bring to the table that every other blogger hasn't with greater aplomb. Since those aren't hard to find, I suggest you seek them out, especially if you haven't heard that Sony is re-booting the Spider-Man series after three films (without Sam Raimi), or for some reason don't watch any late night television.

---

A final update, one with as much bearing on your lives as anything else today: Moon still hasn't arrived, and according to the UPS tracking code that's because the Blu-Ray was either stolen or irreparably damaged the day they tried to deliver it. I've heard nothing from Amazon (or UPS, for that matter), but since I paid for the movie, it would be nice if there was some indication that another copy would be shipped in the near future.

Okay, I'm off to finish a "personal narrative" for Boston University which is, appropriately, a narrative of my life with film. While I think there are some very good pieces, it's not the kind of thing that makes for Blogorium reading, so if you'd like to be one of proof/quality testers, please provide me with an email address and I'll happily send you the finished draft tomorrow.

Cheers.