The Grouchy Editor

It’s hard to imagine anything more terrifying than being buried alive.  It’s a legitimate fear because unlike, say, meeting Freddy Krueger in a bad dream, premature burial is grounded in reality.  According to Wikipedia, George Washington so feared being mistakenly interred that he arranged to have his burial deferred until 12 days after his death.  Over the centuries, this type of horrific error was not uncommon.

Not to miss out on exploiting anything unspeakable, movies and TV are replete with stories depicting premature burial, from The Alfred Hitchcock Hour (“Final Escape,” 1964), to The Vanishing (1988), to Buried, now playing in a theater near you.  And because this Ryan Reynolds showcase takes place in another waking nightmare, the Iraq war zone, Buried plays on even more nerves.

Reynolds portrays Paul Conroy, a truck-driving contractor in Iraq.  After his convoy is ambushed, Conroy wakes up in a wooden box, presumably six feet under.  He learns that he’s been kidnapped (“one of the only functioning businesses over here [Iraq],” we are told) and deposited belowground by terrorists demanding a ransom.  The entire 94-minute movie takes place inside his coffin – and that presents a challenge for director Rodrigo Cortes.  The horror of Conroy’s situation is obvious, but how to generate suspense from the situation?  Through a cell phone, of course.

Cortes builds some tension, but only to a degree.  Aside from one sequence involving an unwelcome “visitor” to Conroy’s tomb, I did not experience what I’d call fear.  Discomfort, yes.   Claustrophobic anxiety, you betcha.  But fear?  Not really.          Grade:  B-

Director:  Rodrigo Cortes  Cast:  Ryan Reynolds  Release:  2010

      Watch Trailers & Clip  (click here)

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Monsters?  What monsters?

When this low-budget sci-fi flick opens in theaters later this month, I predict audiences will fall into one of two categories – and neither group will be happy. Group 1 will comprise viewers upset that the movie fails to live up to its scary title.  The promos for Monsters sure make it look like another War of the Worlds.  It isn’t.

There are aliens in the film, but if you run to the concession stand, you’ll miss them.  There is also suspense in the movie – but the suspense comes from wondering when the suspense will begin.

Monsters is an odd film, but not boring, and its promising beginning had me falling into Group 2:  viewers hoping for an original take on a stale premise (the aliens are here!).  But that promising beginning refuses to end (45 minutes expire before anything “happens”).  Thus, we spend lots of time with the lead characters, Andrew and Samantha, but they aren’t terribly interesting people.   Andrew is a photojournalist who is coerced into escorting the boss’s daughter, Samantha, through a Mexican “infected zone,” an area south of the border where aliens are sequestered by the government.  It is refreshing that – for once – a potential couple in a Hollywood movie is more curious than antagonistic about each other.  But this getting-to-know-you phase is lengthy and has zero suspense.  Maybe, I hoped, Monster’s climax would reward its audience’s patience.  It doesn’t.

With its obvious allusions to illegal immigration – there is an imposing wall keeping the aliens in Mexico, and out of the U.S. – Monsters makes a mild attempt at social commentary.  Says Andrew when the pair first spots The Great Wall of Texas:  “It’s different looking at America from the outside.  When you get home it’s so easy to forget all of this … in our, like, perfect, suburban homes.”  Would the conclusion of Monsters make a profound political statement?  Or might we finally witness all hell breaking loose?

Alas, the movie is what it is, a low-budget (reportedly $15,000) mishmash; part science fiction, part romance, and part social statement.  Of that stew, the only thing that stands out is the budget.  I suppose I could cut newbie director Gareth Edwards some slack for making his film with such limited resources but, hey, a ticket to Monsters cost me the same as a ticket to The Social Network.  So I won’t.   Grade:  C

Director:  Gareth Edwards  Cast:  Whitney Able, Scoot McNairy  Release:  2010

                                      Watch Trailers and Clips  (click here)

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

“This brilliantly entertaining and emotionally wrenching movie,” says The New Yorker’s David Denby, “… is a movie that is absolutely emblematic of its time and place.”

I guess I can agree with the last part of Denby’s appraisal.  The Social Network is nothing if not timely.  No one questions the impact of the Internet in general, and Facebook in particular, on the world as we know it.  But does it necessarily follow that David Fincher’s movie about the rise of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is “brilliantly entertaining and emotionally wrenching”?

The Social Network is never dull; it has that going for it.  If you are 19, in college, and have big-time entrepreneurial dreams, you’ll probably love this movie.  For the rest of us, the film is primarily a voyeuristic character study and an opportunity to judge a big shot.  Who can resist having an opinion on the world’s youngest (26) billionaire?

A recent article in Entertainment Weekly portrays Social Network screenwriter extraordinaire Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) as almost apologetic for his script’s depiction of Zuckerberg.  In the story, Sorkin says, “I feel bad.  I – I wanna buy him [the real Zuckerberg] a beer.”

But despite all the media speculation about Zuckerberg’s reaction (or lack thereof) to his negative portrayal in Social Network, I think Sorkin’s beer money should to go to Zuckerberg antagonists Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss.  As written by Sorkin, these two privileged WASPs are even less sympathetic than the arrogant-but-gutsy Zuckerberg.  When the Winklevoss twins claim “theft of intellectual property,” I had two reactions:  Do these pampered boys know how to spell “intellectual”?  And, will someone please explain how any of these college kids could claim “rights” to a concept that was – wasn’t it? – basically a rip-off of two existing sites, MySpace and Friendster?

None of this power grabbing makes for particularly gripping cinema.  It’s interesting, but no more than that.  It’s natural to be curious about how such a young man became so rich so fast.  And I’ll have to concede that the final shot, in which Zuckerberg the billionaire boy wonder is revealed as no different than the millions of lonely-hearts who frequent Facebook, is touching.  It’s a nod to the finale of Citizen Kane, but a 26-year-old man-child pining for the girl who dumped him is no burning Rosebud.          Grade:  B

Director:  David Fincher  Cast:  Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Brenda Song, Rooney Mara, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella, Dakota Johnson  Release:  2010 

                                       Watch Trailers and Clips  (click here)

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)