In Theaters: "The Social Network"

The trailers:

"Red" - This would look subpar, but Helen Mirren stars in the ensemble. She's a fantastic actress and she's done plenty of eccentric roles before, so it might be worth the price of admission just to see her kicking some ass. The trailer didn't wow me, but it's a neat concept so I really hope it turns out well.

"Never Let Me Go" - I'm surprised how little Keira Knightley is advertised for this one since she's arguably the bigger star. Carey Mulligan has been in more recent films and might be the better actress. Or at least she's been in better roles. It also stars Andrew Garfield, who has a lead role in "The Social Network." I'm still not entirely clear on the premise of this movie, but it has three great leads so it's up to the writers and director to screw that one up.

"Unstoppable" - I saw a poster for this one walking into the theater and wondered what Chris Pine's next post-"Star Trek" vehicle would be. Apparently it's about a runaway train and the people trying to stop it. Denzel Washington and Pine are incredibly likeable actors, but I have a feeling the concept could produce either a brilliant movie or a painfully stupid one.

The film: "The Social Network" is the Facebook movie. It takes its subject very seriously though, which doesn't seem so strange when you get into the nitty gritty of the lawsuits that came out of its birth. If you've read a single other review of this movie, you've probably read plenty of praise for it. The professional critics are completely gaga over it; last I checked, it had a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm not prefacing with this statement because I'm going to bash the film. In fact, it was a really good movie. But it falls short of greatness with some characterization problems. The directing is great and the screenplay is whip-smart. What else would you expect from David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin? But the problem with that Sorkin dialogue is that, while it is quick and witty, it's not entirely realistic. The first ten minutes of the film introduce you to his style really well and you immediately get the picture that you have to pay attention to catch it all.

Jesse Eisenberg's dialogue as Mark Zuckerberg is the quickest and that serves to show what a genius he is but it also feeds into his characterization problems. Among an otherwise excellent cast, Eisenberg is the weak link. Not because he's bad in it, but because he's just not given much in the way of development. You really do only scratch the surface of his character which isn't very good for a movie about him. It chronicles what he does, but not all of why he does it. Is he really an asshole? Is he a sad, misunderstood kid with social issues? I know that's probably intentional to leave it open to interpretation, but his character didn't ring as true as the others did. Eisenberg does the best he can, but the flaws are in the writing, not the acting. There are moments where he truly does seem concerned for his friends, and they're touching, but the moments quickly pass and he goes back to being a mostly one-dimensional jerk. While the real people behind the film might be upset by the film's representation of Zuckerberg, they shouldn't worry since you don't forget for a moment that this is a fictional character. I don't think the real Zuckerberg is anywhere near as bitter, introverted, or socially inept as the fictional Zuckerberg.

The rest of the cast is great, including Justin Timberlake. I didn't know who Andrew Garfield was before this movie, except that he was cast as the next Spiderman. Now I can say wholeheartedly that I would love to see him as Peter Parker since I loved him in this movie as Eduardo Savarin, Zuckerberg's friend and co-founder of Facebook. His excellent portrayal unfortunately underscored how unrealistic Eisenberg's character was, but it was still a delight to watch Garfield since he is the second biggest role in the film. My favorite part was the climax where Eduardo and Zuckerberg finally separate as Eduardo is pushed out of the company. It was interesting to see how Eduardo went from his best friend to his legal enemy in just one scene, especially opposite the ongoing Winklevoss twins' storyline about trying to get to legal action for almost the whole movie. Speaking of, Armie Hammer was also great playing the twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss. They weren't portrayed as black-and-white as I was expecting. I thought they'd be the douchebag rich WASPs that the Ivy League is apparently full of. While they are Children of Privilege and Entitlement, they are also two hard-working, honest young men who get screwed over and are rightfully pissed off about it. The don't get nearly as screwed over as Eduardo in the powerful climax scene, but they don't grate on the nerves like I thought they would.

As for the women in the movie, they are mostly relegated to background roles. And I don't mean that as a slam, but as a statement of fact. I've seen too many articles that slam the film for its depiction of women but they really don't have a leg to stand on. But it's an easy story to grab onto where you can make an issue out of the simple fact that the leads are all men and the women involved are mainly their prizes for fame and fortune. Basically any film that doesn't equally proportion men and women is sexist for some people. Mostly women is fine, but mostly men is not. I hate these arguments, because sometimes you just don't have a lot of female roles. This is based on true events and real people, and most of the people involved were men. They weren't intentionally excluding females, they just weren't awkwardly adding any. The few women in the film are models and shallow party girls. Do these professional critics not remember college? Just like it's unfair to portray a whole gender in a negative light, it's equally unfair to portray a whole gender in an entirely positive light when that's just not accurate. There are tons of college girls like this, especially in the environments the lead men are in, who latch onto the hot guys who look like they're going places or just want to party in the prime of their lives. Rooney Mara's character Erica, Zuckerberg's girlfriend in the beginning of the movie, shows that Sorkin doesn't just hate women here. She's intelligent and even-headed and she's the one woman Zuckerberg can't get out of his mind even while sexy bimbos are all over the place. Also, most of the females in this movie are young girls, not thirtysomething women. You have to look at the setting and the context of a movie. When a lot of it is set in happening clubs and raging college parties through the perspective of some young, arrogant men, you shouldn't be surprised when all the females around aren't perfect ideals of womanhood.

To step back down from my soapbox, I'd like to conclude my review by saying that this is a very good movie and well worth seeing. It's slightly different than you may anticipate, though. The darker tone might throw some for a loop who were expecting a light drama about college kids making a website. This movie is much less about the social experience of young people and what it means to put that online or why Facebook became integral to our lives and more about the founding of a major website and the ensuing legal problems. I was hoping for more of the former, especially amidst all the praise for the film for being a great comment on my generation, but it's still a compelling movie.

My grade: B