mmckaibab

As one of those who completely fails to appreciate the inherent narcissism that underlies Facebook (as well as its clunky, confusing interface), I was disappointed that Aaron Sorkin completely failed to make me understand why I should have any interest at all in the story he tells. What I saw was a story about a social incompetent who screwed over several people and somehow blundered into something that made him very, very wealthy but, in the end, had no effect whatsoever on who he was as a person.

Classic drama is all about how the central character faces a personal crisis, learns important lessons, and comes away changed in some fundamental way. In this film that just doesn't happen. It's just a story about an unpleasant person who created this "thing" that appeals to people's least interesting characteristics, made a WHOLE lot of money, but came away from it pretty much the same person he was when he went into. Boring. Just like most of what I see on Facebook.

What was really disappointing was that, given Sorkin's powerful work on "The West Wing," I was expecting some profound reflections on what effects this shallow person has had on society. That might have been an interesting film--too bad it didn't get made. Instead, we get a navel- gazing look at someone who made it possible for millions of people to make their navel-gazing public.

Just like Facebook, this was mostly just a major time-suck and I left wishing I'd done something more important with the last two hours of my life.

Here is the ultimate definition of cowardice. Mr. Jarrold apparently wanted to make a period piece but didn't have the courage to actually write his own stuff from scratch, so he stole character names and isolated scenes from Evelyn Waugh's classic, then superimposed his own much less interesting, much more banal story. The crime is that the Waugh estate allowed this piece of tripe to be released under the name "Brideshead Revisited."

How far does this thing go from the original? Well, let's see. Waugh wrote a profound meditation on the power of memory, the inevitable tragedies of life and love, and the mystery of faith. Jarrold gives us a not-very-titillating bisexual love triangle with a pasted on last reel reveal of the main character's shallow motivation. Waugh's characters were rich, multi-layered creations. Jarrold's are plasticine clichés with no depth, no recognizable motivation, and no growth . . . hell, they don't even age. In the 15 or so years in which Jarrold sets his story his characters look EXACTLY the same at the end as they did at the beginning.

One has to wonder what Jarrold was thinking If he didn't want to make something even remotely resembling Waugh's work, why use its title and steal a handful of its scenes? Was it just that he didn't think he could sell "Last Love Triangle in 1920s Venice?"

Maybe I'm just becoming a curmudgeon but this thing and this year's other critical hit, No Country for Old Men, left me cold and wondering "what was the point of that?"

There Will Be Blood is almost 2 hours and 40 minutes of a pretty-much one-dimensional portrait of one really evil guy. There's no depth of character, no character development, and only the feeblest of conflicts. Maybe if the film-makers had made me believe there was actually some real emotional connection between Daniel and his "son" this would have been interesting. But they did everything they could to avoid even that nuance.

After an hour I was checking my watch and asking when something was going to happen. However, because it's nominated for best picture, I sat there. After two hours I was checking my watch and hoping desperately it would end soon. At the end I just wished I hadn't wasted 2 hours and 40 minutes of my life on it.