Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When there is a list of most popular film franchises in the history of cinema, I believe there will be a spot for the “Harry Potter” films, based on the book series by J.K. Rowling. The first film, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” was a triumph—I even called it a “classic.” And though I give the sequel—the film based on the second book of the series—the same star-rating as I gave its predecessor (four stars), I have to say that this film—entitled “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”—is even better than the first. The first film had a great deal of imagination in its visuals and in its storytelling and this second film has an even greater deal if you can believe it. It is, however, rather dark, just as “The Empire Strikes Back” was darker than “Star Wars.” Like the first film, “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” is rated PG and has a great deal of terror in many sequences. About the first film, I wrote in my review that it’s scary but not too scary. However, some moments in this film should have qualified the film for a PG-13 rating—those said moments might give some children nightmares, but delight others.

We’ve already gotten to know the characters in the first film and now we care even more about what they go through here. We again meet young Harry Potter, a year older with a deeper voice and on the brink of adolescence, as you can tell. Then, we again meet his friends Ron and Hermione. They haven’t seen each other in a while—and neither have we, for that matter. Their personalities remain the same, with a few touches put into them. One of the great things about this movie is watching these characters grow in this sequel. And then we again meet those wonderful teachers at Hogwarts School—headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris, in his last role), gentle giant and gamekeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), always-mysterious Snape (Alan Rickman), and professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith). But there are new characters brought into this sequel—there is a teacher who explains of mandrakes (played by Miriam Margoyles), bully Draco Malfoy’s (Tom Felton) even-slimier father (Jason Issacs), and a celebrity wizard named Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh) whose incredible resume (he wrote an autobiography called “Magical Me” as well a few other books about himself) brings him to Hogwarts to teach the class of defense against the dark arts. He’s more worried about feisty blue pixies messing up his self-portrait.

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is better-treated by his Muggle relatives (if you recall, “Muggle” is the term for humans), but that’s not saying much. He has his own room, as long he stays inside while the relatives throw a party. While he is in his room to keep from interrupting a similar party downstairs, he is visited by a house elf named Dobby—a special-effects creature that punishes himself by beating himself up—who warns Harry not to return to Hogwarts, lest he put himself in danger. It turns out that there is danger. The mysterious Chamber of Secrets, said to be the home of a monster, has been opened and many students (as well as a cat and a ghost) have been petrified by the sight of the monster. There are many questions to be answered and Harry, Ron, and Hermione are the ones who stand alone to find out what is really happening. They band together to find clues and answers to all of the questions that need them. Eventually, Harry finds a diary by a Tom Marvolo Riddle that provides clues in ghostly handwriting and allows Harry to travel back 50 years into the past to find some answers. The kids also encounter a swarm of giant spiders, change into Draco Malfoy’s friends to question Malfoy, and more.

This film is more than well-made with Chris Columbus’ direction—it’s alive. It’s about something. The computer animation is no distraction at all because it makes the movie as visually interesting as the cast and the sets. They blend in very convincingly. Even the Quidditch game is put on a larger scale than in the first film and that’s a great accomplishment—it’s also even more exciting because Harry has to outrun a runaway ball called a Bludger while also trying to catch the Golden Snitch and win the game.

I love how all of the plot elements draw together and how everything is cleared in the end. This film also doesn’t set up for the next Harry Potter adventure. It doesn’t have to. If these two films were the only films in the Harry Potter film series, it wouldn’t make much of a difference. “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” was the setup and “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” is the payoff. The characters we’ve grown to love are brought into intriguing action sequences, brilliant sets, and a powerful action climax in the third half of the film. There is more than action to be found here—there is a heart and most importantly, a brain. “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” is a highly satisfactory sequel.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Who can be truly trusted in Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of Stephen King’s novel “The Shining?” There are three central characters taking up the screen most of the time and they all seem to be going crazy, even though two of them end up running from another one who is wielding an axe. Those two aren’t exploited as possibly losing their sanities but when the movie is over, you really have to think about it. Did we see what we really saw? Did we hear what we really heard? Did we rely on the right central character?

“The Shining” could be considered a ghost story. It features a creepy hotel that appears to be haunted. We get glimpses of ghostly twin sisters and a whole party in the hotel bar that was supposed to be closed for the winter. I wouldn’t call it a ghost story because of what is never quite explained. But there are many elements of a ghost story within “The Shining,” and a lot more to it than that so that I wouldn’t call it a ghost story. What it is, however, is downright frightening.

Who else but Stanley Kubrick would want to make this movie? He always wants to take chances and with “The Shining,” he takes the chance of changing King’s original novel into a story with no reliable narrator and that really makes wonder. But his biggest strength is his direction, which is great here. We get long hallways inside this hotel, long panning shots in which the camera follows one character from one room to another seemingly from the wall rather than behind the character, nicely done steadycam shots (the best of which features a little boy named Danny riding a tricycle through a long hallway—that scene alone is creepy, especially when he goes around corners because we think he might see something disturbing around that particular corner or the next one, and also when the wheels make a rumbling sound on the hardwood floor but is muffled when riding on a carpet), and a great sense of isolation. This is a hotel high up in the mountains. It is closed for the winter. Novelist Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) is hired as the caretaker while it is closed. He brings along his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and five-year-old son Danny (Danny Lloyd).

The first scene of “The Shining,” in which Jack is interviewed, recalls some great formality in the dialogue. Jack and his employer make some small talk but then unexpectedly, the employer tells Jack about the original caretaker of the same hotel—he went insane with cabin fever and chopped his family into little pieces. Jack takes this rather well, “That’s not going to happen to me.”

We then learn that Jack is a recovering alcoholic and seems like a nice enough person to his wife and son. Wendy is rather meek and follows her husband wherever. Danny, on the other hand, is a special case. He has an imaginary friend named Tony, who is described by Danny as “the little boy who lives in my mouth.” Is Tony real? Well, even when Danny is alone, he uses his finger for Tony to talk. And Tony shows Danny visions of what could happen at the hotel. These visions are terrifying, one of which features what appears to be blood filling up an entire hallway. The most disturbing is a shot of two men huddled together near the end of a bed (one of which is wearing a bear suit—huh???) Later on, those visions prove accurate…

There is another person that shares Danny’s gift called “shining.” This character is probably the only trustworthy character in the movie—the hotel’s original cook Dick Hallorann (Scatman Crothers). He is away from the hotel but there are small scenes in which he grows concerned about the family being all alone in that hotel.

He has reason to be concerned. Things go wrong as the family spends months at the hotel. Jack starts to get grumpy and Danny is seeing terrifying visions of ghosts and past events. Wendy is just trying to adjust and keep the family together but when she notices Jack’s odd behavior, she can’t help but be concerned. What can she do to help? Later through the movie, Jack’s grumpiness turns to insanity as he talks to ghosts in the hotel bar. The cabin fever has certainly gotten the better of him. Much later, it becomes clear that Wendy and Danny’s lives are in jeopardy, beginning in the movie’s most shocking revelation in which Wendy discovers how long Jack has been going crazy—by finding out what he’s written, as a novelist, in the past few months they’ve been at the hotel (I will not give it away). But when you think about what these characters are seeing, you start to wonder if Wendy and Danny are going crazy as well. If that’s the case, who can we rely on in this story? There’s a revealing twist at the end that I would dare to give away but it really made me question the entire movie, which is very frightening.

Jack Nicholson is one of the best actors…period. He is phenomenal as Jack, calm with his assuring voice, grumpy when possible, and absolutely crazy and powerful in the second half of the movie. Shelley Duvall is doing what she is supposed to be doing—sane in the first half, hysteric in the second. I believed her when she was scared practically to death.

I believe I should also mention the long hedge maze near the hotel. The way Kubrick directs characters walking through this giant maze is fantastic, really giving us fear and a sense of entrapment.

“The Shining” needs to be watched and then interpreted. Take every plot element piece by piece and try to come up with your own analysis. I can’t say I “enjoyed” “The Shining.” But I definitely can’t forget it either.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Guillermo del Toro’s “Pan’s Labyrinth” is a fairy-tale fantasy that does two things different with the fairy-tale element in its story. 1) It blends it with reality in a way that what goes on with the protagonist in the real world is somewhat related to the fantasy world. 2) It gives, without exaggeration, the darkest fantasy ever depicted on film (and yes, I’ve seen “Heavenly Creatures”). This movie deserves its hard R rating—it is not for children, by any means. Don’t be fooled by the poster that shows a plucky little girl venturing into the fantasy world—this movie is hard on all levels. It is also one of the best fantasies in the history of cinema—touching, thrilling, well-executed, powerfully-acted, and dark. Very dark.

This movie was made in Spain, and Spanish is the language heard throughout. Yes, this is a foreign film and it shouldn’t be a problem unless you can’t read the English subtitles.

The setting is Spain, 1944. A young girl named Ofelia (Ivana Banquero, in her acting debut) travels with her pregnant mother, whose pregnancy is killing her, to a house in the forest. There, she meets her stepfather-to-be, Captain Vidal (Sergi Lopez), a vile man who runs an old mill and commands a fascist outpost.

Near the house is a stone labyrinth that is easy to get lost into. But it turns out this labyrinth is enchanted and visited by fairies and a faun (presumably the “Pan” in the title, but no one refers to him by name). The faun believes that Ofelia is a lost princess from his world of enchantment and tests her skills by giving her three tasks. If she succeeds for all three, she gets invited to stay in the fantasy world, free from the trouble that is life and away from her the cruel Captain Vidal. One of her tasks involves a run-in with a scary pale man with pale and decomposing skin all over his body (oh, and he has eyeballs in the palms of both his hands). He chases her because she breaks the rules of the task—that’s an easy life lesson for kids who do wind up seeing this movie.

In the way that these fantasy sequences are intertwined with the reality of the story with Ofelia’s mother and cruel stepfather, there are many times in which we can hardly tell if what she’s only dreaming these strange events in this bizarre world. This is very effective because in some ways, the creatures she encounters are even more frightening than Captain Vidal and we do fear for her life. This is not handled predictably. In the meantime, we get plenty of scenes involving Captain Vidal and his men looking for the enemy in the woods and a subplot involving Ofelia’s secret that she knows the maid Mercedes (a great performance by Maribel Verdu) is assisting their enemies as well. It’s interesting how fantasy and reality are both involved in this movie.

Director Guillermo del Toro reportedly did not want Hollywood to help him with this movie. I bet if they did, most of the shots that make many scenes even more powerful would have been omitted or not even filmed in the first place. They also would’ve asked for the story to be toned down to a PG rating. (At least, that’s what I think.) There are a lot of great visual shots in this movie—one shot in particular doesn’t even take place inside the labyrinth, but inside Ofelia’s mother’s womb, where we see the fetus of the unborn baby. This shot is unsettling, but very inventive and haunting. Also, the visual style here is amazing—especially in the adventures Ofelia has in the fantasy world—and the makeup, for the faun and the pale man, is ultimately effective and impressive. This faun, played by Doug Jones (not a Spanish actor, by the way), is probably going to give children nightmares based on his look, as well as his speech. This creature is really creepy. But the sight of the pale man with eyeballs in his hands may do even worse effect. This movie is not intended for kids, by any means.

Oh, and I should also mention the mandrake root that Ofelia hides under her sick mother’s bed. It becomes what is probably more creepy-looking than the faun or the pale man. It looks like a half-baby made from elements of the earth.

“Pan’s Labyrinth” is visually stunning—every creature looks about as real as you could get and we fear them; they are nightmare fodders for sure—and the direction by Del Toro is amazing. There is one shot in which we follow a strange insect (a mantis-type creature) as it flies all around the forest until it finds its way to our heroine for the first time. But what really makes “Pan’s Labyrinth” an extraordinary fantasy, as well as its look, is the grimness and great power of the storyline. Let me remind parents—it is R-rated. If you want your children to watch the “Wizard of Oz” of the 21^st century, this is not it (there are many “Harry Potter” movies for that, maybe). But adults (and maybe teenagers) are going to find the movie powerful, scary, fantastic, and, once again, very grim.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When filmmakers adapt novels to films, there is that danger of being too far from the spirit of the source material. And then, there is also the “danger” (I use quotations because I don’t believe in it personally) of being too faithful to the source material. In any case, they try to please the half of the film’s audience who has read the novel the film was based on already. But I don’t know if I can find anyone who wouldn’t like “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,” based on the first novel (though in some countries, it’s known as “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”) in a best-selling book series by British author J.K. Rowling. The “Harry Potter” book series gives great depth, emotion, magic, and intensely vivid imagination to readers young and old. This film adaptation of the first book is most likely to be liked by anyone who enjoys great fantasy/adventure films and those who have read the book before seeing the movie in the first place.

In my opinion, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” is a classic—one of the best fantasy films I’ve ever seen, with no doubt in my mind. It is magical and enchanting, but it is also dark, gruesome, and with some creepy atmosphere. This film is rated PG and it, as well as the books, are more targeted at children and young adults than adults (who enjoy the books just as well as they). There are scenes of menace and fright assisted by special effects—there is a three-headed dog, a dark wizard feasting on a dead unicorn, a back story involving the young hero’s parents’ deaths, and a pit of tendrils called the Devil’s Snare. They are scary, but not too scary. Besides, if some of the special effects creatures don’t frighten the younger kids, they will instead delight them because they’re having fun. And there is more fun to be had with the whole idea of terrific, colorful characters in a world of supernatural adventure and terror.

Daniel Radcliffe plays the titular, bespectacled 11-year-old Harry Potter and I highly doubt anyone would dislike his casting—he looks exactly right for the part, but most importantly, he feels right. He’s a likable hero—brave, honest, and true. Left on the doorstep of his hateful aunt and uncle as a baby, he has been raised as more of a charity. His young life seems empty until he receives many strange letters and a visit from a gentle giant named Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane). Harry has been accepted to a boarding school for young wizards and witches who learn to develop their magical powers.

And what a place it is—Hogwarts, as the school is called, was created with a set and by computers. With the right sort of technology, anything can seem real. Hogwarts is no exception. It looks as real as anything. Harry is bewildered by this school, and we are too. The staircases move, the paintings come alive as people pass by, there are friendly ghosts lounging about in the common room, ceilings that change whatever the mood, and then there are the classes in which the kids learn to use their magic using wands. They make things float, they learn to fly on broomsticks, and more.

Harry makes two friends at his new home—enthusiastic Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and bookish Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). He meets many colorful, eccentric teachers—one is the mysterious, glaring potions teacher Snape (Alan Rickman, excellent casting), another is Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) who can shape-shift into a cat, and then there’s the bearded headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris).

But there is a story to be told here—Harry, Ron, and Hermione stumble upon a secret within the school. While getting through their classes, as well as a rough game of Quidditch (more on that in a bit), they move into further adventure and danger in the meantime. They encounter a three-headed dog named Fluffy who seems to be guarding something under a trapdoor. They battle a giant troll that seems to be have been brought in by a teacher, whom they suspect is attempting to steal what is hidden in that trapdoor. They fall into that pit of tendrils called the Devil’s Snare. They play a life-size game of Wizard Chess, in which gigantic chess pieces come alive and shatter their opponents. And so on. Computers make these sequences look plausible, and they do a great job, as well as the actors who make us root for them during each of these sequences. These scenes have atmosphere, gravity, and (dare I say) credibility.

Fans of the book who saw the movie were most likely thrilled by the exciting game of Quidditch, a sporting event played midway through the film in which two teams (each member on a broomstick) chase after multiple balls to get through their opponents’ hoops. Harry is good with a broomstick for a wizard his age, so he is made the seeker, which means he has to catch a small, fast, golden ball with wings—this is called the Golden Snitch. This game would be near impossible to film, but even then, the filmmakers take their chances and create an excellent sequence in which everyone is flying, struggling, and going for the win. It looks more or less like I imagined it, anyway.

The director Chris Columbus (best known for his directorial work in “Home Alone” and “Mrs. Doubtfire,” as well as writing the menacing and also PG-rated “Gremlins” and “The Goonies”) has directed a classic in the fantasy genre. The actors—the three young unknowns and the high-profile adult British actors—are first-rate in their performances, hitting just the right notes for this movie. The action is exciting, the set pieces are outstanding, there are many scenes that bring true magic to viewers, and the very best thing about the whole movie is that it doesn’t just set up for the sequel—it could work as a stand-alone film. But we all know that the sequels are worth seeing and that this series of books is a possible successful fantasy/adventure film franchise.

“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’s” running time is 152 minutes—there was not a single moment when I was checking for the time. I was entertained, moved, or enchanted by just about every scene in this film.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Back to the Future” is an enjoyable, well-crafted, fantastic movie that has probably one of the best screenplays ever executed to film. Written by Robert Zemeckis (who also directs the film) and Bob Gale, I can just watch this movie and imagine what it would have been like for these two to write this script. They must’ve had a great time—I see beers and snacks all around, with chuckling, laughing out loud, and collaborating on new ideas and nodding in agreement. Or maybe I’m just being too positive. But what they delivered is a screenplay that, directed by Zemeckis, makes for a fun, entertaining, very well-written, even deep-at-some-points movie.

The story for “Back to the Future” takes place in 1985 (when this movie was made). Why do I bring this up? You’ll find out—though most of you reading this will already know why.

The hero is a California teenager named Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox). He plays lead guitar for a garage band and has a nice, attractive girlfriend, but his home life is an embarrassment. His older brother and sister are underachievers, his mother is a chronic drunk, and his father is such a nerdy wimp that he still lets his high school bully push him around.

Marty’s zany scientist friend Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) is excited about his newest creation and asks Marty to come to the local mall and document by video camera the experimental testing. The invention is a DeLorean vehicle that turns out to be a time machine. Doc has remodeled it with all sorts of gadgets to make it possible, and it turns out to work like a charm. But for complicated reasons, Marty winds up in the car/time machine and accidentally sends himself thirty years into the past.

It’s the year 1955. It’s the same town, same school, and same neighborhood…but the twist is that he’s now the same age as his parents. This is where the story really gets interesting and very funny—Marty’s relationships with his parents, who of course don’t know who he really is. Marty befriends his father George (Crispin Glover), who is still as nerdy now/then as he was then/now and letting the school bully Biff (Thomas F. Wilson) pick on him. His mother-to-be Lorraine (Lea Thompson), who in the future became a skeptical, slightly-ugly, overly protective mother, is a beautiful, popular girl who cheats on school exams and follows boys around. These two are supposed to meet an upcoming school dance and fall in love. But Marty accidentally interferes with their meeting for the first time and Lorraine, his own mother-to-be—get this—is infatuated by him. This means that Marty has to undo the mess he made and set up the date with George and Lorraine himself, so they’ll meet, fall in love, and have children…or he’ll be erased from existence.

Marty never would have thought that his mother used to act this way or that his father was always as wimpy as he is. But something that just every person thinks of their parents, or at least every kid or teenager, is that their parents were never young. They were always the cynical, uptight beings that their kids see them as. Maybe the adults think they’re never as old as they really are, I don’t know. But “Back to the Future” has a pleasant fantasy spin to that. It answers the question of how a teenager would react if he saw his or her parents as teenagers.

Anyway, a few circuits on the time machine have been fried and as he convinces the 1955 version of Doc Brown that he’ll create this contraption, it turns out that the best thing to start it back up is with a bolt of lightning. But luckily, Marty knows when lightning will strike the town’s central clock tower and they have a week to prepare for it and get Marty back to the future. In the meantime, of course, Marty must settle things with his parents if they are still to become his parents.

This is great stuff! “Back to the Future” is full of neat ideas, it’s played for laughs (though there are some serious moments in the mix), its characters are memorable, and it constantly pleases with surprise after surprise. Everything has a setup and it all pays off by the time the movie is over—even the little details that you notice the second or third time watching it. There’s a great sense of comic timing along with its charming, lighthearted feel that you love watching this movie, even if the best parts haven’t occurred yet.

Some of the funniest bits involve the “fish-out-of-water” story with Marty interacting with a different place—or in his case, the past. For example, everyone mistakes his down jacket for a life jacket, and he can break the handles off of a scooter and use the board as a skateboard to escape from Biff and his cohorts. My favorite bit is how everyone reacts when he performs guitar at the dance and plays his solo a little too wildly. What really should be noted is the set design for the town, recreating a 1980s small town to show certain similarities and differences for the ‘50s version. It’s very well-done and quite creative.

With the wrong actor to play Marty, the character wouldn’t have gained our sympathies with him and since a lot rides on him, we wouldn’t have cared that much for the movie. This shows that a great screenplay doesn’t just make a movie—execution is probably the most important detail, and that includes casting and acting. But Michael J. Fox is perfect as Marty—he’s cocky, frantic, and wisecracking, but he’s also friendly, bright, and has an unforced, natural charm that makes us like Marty and root for him to work everything out.

Christopher Lloyd, as both versions of the Doc (past and future), is memorably wonderful. He plays him like a stereotypical mad scientist (and even sports a lab coat and a fright wig)—brilliant, zany, and constantly exclaiming in excitement. He has some of the best, funniest reaction shots I’ve seen in a movie. The supporting cast is also solid—Lea Thompson and Crispin Glover have fun with their roles, past and present. (Glover, in particular, is wonderful as the nerdy George who just needs to boost his self-respect and self-esteem.) Thomas F. Wilson is cartoonish but very memorable as the bully Biff.

There is so much to enjoy in “Back to the Future” that when it’s over, we feel joyful, energized, and glad to have seen it. I can’t imagine anyone not enjoying this movie—it’s fantastic fun.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

It’s hard to make a good or great movie about networking, but it is possible—I am referencing television networking in that statement. It’s even harder (and seemingly impossible) to make a good or great movie about the creation of a social network via computer. But “The Social Network” amazingly pulls it off—this is a great movie, not just because it knows what it’s talking about when it comes to developing this website, but because it’s so skillfully made and highlights a great cast and a sharp script.

You can see in the TV ads that “The Social Network” is the true story about the creation of Facebook, the social network we all (or most of us, anyway) know and love. But you’d be surprised that this is more about people than about Facebook. Facebook was created by an intelligent young man named Mark Zuckerberg, whose creation made him the youngest billionaire in America in his early 20s. In the movie, Mark is played by Jesse Eisenberg as a Harvard student who thinks he is right all the time. This doesn’t do him well with social situations—in an opening scene, he uses logic with his date Erica (Rooney Mara, soon to be known as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) to the point where she dumps him and calls him an a**hole. Indeed, he is arrogant, persistent, and may be an a**hole, but he’s intelligent and somewhat witty in his own logical arguments.

Mark gets the idea while drunk and blogging that he could develop a site where fellow students could decide which of two Harvard girls is hotter than the other. He hacks into the system with the “facebooks” of students on campus computers, creates the site, and is declared an even bigger a—hole. But this brings the attention of identical twin brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer), both of which are on the university’s rowing team, and their business partner Divya Narendra (Max Minghella). They tell Mark that they want him to help them program a new website called The Harvard Connection. Mark agrees, but goes to his best (and only) friend Eduardo (Andrew Garfield, soon to be known as the next Spider-Man) with the idea of making this idea into something bigger—“Thefacebook,” an online social network to Harvard students, where people can display personal information.

Mark and Eduardo eventually launch the site, which brings them popularity and trouble. The film intersects back and forth between those scenes and scenes involving Mark being sued by both the twins, for stealing their idea, and by Eduardo, for reasons to be explained later in the film. This shows you can be popular with one idea, but an enemy to others. In the storytelling scenes, we see as Facebook develops into a wider network, Eduardo is made CFO and pays thousands of dollars to help program it, and we later meet Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), the founder of two music web startups (Napster and Plaxo). Sean is brought in to give insight on “Thefacebook” (drop the “the,” expand it, create a Wall, etc.). Sean is a manipulative creep who has Mark in his hands and pulls him into the big time. Why expand Facebook—well, why make millions when they can make billions?

The story for “The Social Network” (of which some elements are true, but like most biopics, they add flights of fancy) seems impossible to make into a movie. But the storytelling is amazingly well-developed with an excellent script. This is a great movie to listen to—the dialogue that these bright Harvard students say is on-target and amazing, but never to the point where we’re annoyed. And I love movies that show the whole process of creation—even if the idea of writing or filming how they begin to invent Facebook sounds unfilmable and illiterate, the script still surprises us with spellbinding writing and explanations in ways we can understand. This screenplay, written by Aaron Sorkin, really deserved the Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay (the film is partially based on the book, “The Accidental Billionaires”). It never falters, condescends, or dumb down the material or the characters. It’s amazing how this writer Aaron Sorkin and the film’s director David Fincher is able to tell this story without boring audiences.

Also, the script is excellent in developing the characters. Mark Zuckerberg is a nonsocial smart aleck, Eduardo is reliable but has a breaking point, and Sean is a bigger a**hole than Mark, but tries to cover it with manipulation and charm. The story gets heavier when Mark doesn’t even realize that Sean redrafts the financial arrangements to keep Eduardo out of the picture. All three roles are wonderfully acted and even “wonderfully” is not a strong enough adjective to describe these performances. Jesse Eisenberg deserves an Oscar (or at least a nomination) for his portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg. We all know from “Adventureland” and “Zombieland,” in which he starred as the lead role, that Eisenberg is a great young actor with a dry, highly verbal sense of humor. Here, he gives his best performance—he gives that same personality in this movie, but he gives something more to the character so we understand his arrogance and intelligence. He makes Mark Zuckerberg a living, breathing character rather than the butt of a joke this movie could have become. He has great screen presence, remarkable comic timing, excellent acting range, and is absolutely fantastic in this movie. Other strong performances—Justin Timberlake is memorable as Sean and Andrew Garfield is very good as Eduardo.

With a great cast, sharp direction, and an excellent script, “The Social Network” is, in my opinion, the best film of 2010.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The 40-Year-Old Virgin”—with a title and story idea like that, you would expect a dumb vulgar comedy. But you’d be wrong…because it’s actually a smart vulgar comedy with more to it than its title and idea. This is one of those comedies where you laugh loudly at many scenes, but more importantly, you feel sympathy for the main character when it goes for drama and it works. “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” is a guy movie written and directed by Judd Apatow and I was surprised by how wise, funny, and insightful this movie really is. There is so much to those standards that yes, I am giving the movie four stars.

One of the movie’s best qualities is the lead performance by Steve Carell. Carell, who also co-wrote the movie along with Apatow, plays Andy, a stockroom clerk who is forty years old and a virgin. He lives all by himself in an apartment full of action figures and video games, and he watches “Survivor” with the neighbors upstairs, although he has to bring the TV. He tried to have sex in high school and in college, but everything turned out so wrong that he just stopped trying. During his job, he has kept his virginity a secret from his ten-year-younger co-workers until they invite him to play poker one night and they share their own sex stories. Andy unintentionally gives away his secret when he says that women’s breasts feel like “bags of sand” to him. The buddies ask if he’s a virgin—he is.

So the buddies—wonderfully-played by Seth Rogen as a guy with advice such as “date drunks,” Romany Malco as a ladies’ man who seems to know his way towards women, and Paul Rudd who can’t seem to get over a breakup with his previous girlfriend—decide to work on him. All three guys have major flaws in the ways of seducing women, and they have major problems of their own, but they truly believe that they know what to do. But their plan to fix Andy with somebody special—actually, that’s a lie; they want to set him up with anybody—does not go very well. They set Andy up with wrong women, including a drunken woman (Leslie Mann, Apatow’s wife) who drives Andy home, barely making it alive and hardly making it clean. (You’ll see.) But midway through the film, Andy meets Trish (Catherine Keener), a kind woman who runs a store across the street from the mall, where she takes your stuff and sells it on eBay. She’s about Andy’s age and is probably not a virgin, but she is attractive and kind. And they start to go out on dates…

This is where the serious side of the movie takes place. How Trish coaxes Andy into asking her on a date when Andy is afraid of looking silly is surprisingly charming and well-written. This sets up their relationship through the rest of the movie, which is handled so wonderfully you forget the movie is also a comedy until Andy or the friends screw up again. The relationship between these two is sincere and very beautiful.

Steve Carell is pitch perfect in this role. He has that balance between comic and sincerity. He makes Andy a lovable main character. And he’s joined by many wonderful supporting characters, including the buddies who have brilliant comic timing, and Paula (Jane Lynch), a tall, striking woman who is Andy’s boss and gives him a tip about the term “sex buddy”—I love the scene where she sings him a Guatemalan love song without even stammering. And Catherine Keener is always fantastic one movie after another—she’s one of the best character actresses ever. Her character likes this guy; we know she’s probably going to end his virginity, but she is also very understanding.

Also, the movie has some huge laughs. One sequence in particular shows Andy getting his incredibly hairy chest waxed. That scene is hilarious and the outcome of that scene is even funnier. And then there’s a Bollywood tribute involving the four guys that had me laughing out loud. There are many other scenes like that that made me laugh—I won’t name them all to make the review funnier. In a way, this movie works both ways (quite strange for a movie called “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”). It works well as both a comedy and a romance.

Now, at almost two hours’ running time, this movie does feel a bit too long—that’s one minor criticism to this otherwise sensational comedy/romance. Judd Apatow and Steve Carell must have tried everything they could to make us laugh and cry. They succeed with flying colors. Thanks to clever writing and superior acting, “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” is a great romantic comedy. With a title like that, who would’ve thought?