"The Social Reckoning" - Like and share.

My favorite thing about writer/director Aaron Sorkin is his ability to frame complicated topics in ways that are easily understood. Whether it's A Few Good Men, Charlie Wilson's War, The Social Network, The Trial of the Chicago 7, or any episode of The West Wing, you will understand whatever you just watched when the credits roll. As an added bonus, Sorkin's writing makes for very engrossing viewing, no matter the topic. He made Moneyball a riveting watch about baseball statistics. Think about that act of wizardry for a moment (and I say this as a pathological baseball fan). His latest film, The Social Reckoning is no different.

Since I know you're wondering, The Social Reckoning is not a sequel to the The Social Network. Yes, Sorkin wrote both films. Yes, they are both about Facebook. Yes, both feature a portrayal of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a loathsome sack of shit. But that's the end of the connection. Reckoning doesn't pick up where Network left off. Reckoning doesn't try to tell us what's happened in the sixteen years between films. Reckoning doesn't even keep Zuckerberg as its main character. Reckoning is about an algorithm. And you thought baseball statistics were mundane.

More specifically, The Social Reckoning is about the impact of Facebook's algorithm on Facebook's users. To frame this topic, Sorkin focuses on two things. One is the investigation by a journalist and whistleblower that led to the Wall Street Journal's appropriately titled series published in 2021 - The Facebook Files: A Wall Street Journal Investigation. The other is Zuckerberg being prepped by his assistants for an upcoming congressional testimony. The investigation took place from 2019 to 2021 and Zuckerberg's prep occurs on January 6, 2021. So, the film jumps back and forth between the two as they progress to their respective climaxes. To avoid any confusion, the film shows a timeline on the screen every time one of these transitions occurs. I told you - easy to understand.

Before you start watching this movie, you should know that it will make you mad at several points. Well, probably make you mad. Depends on how you feel about a drunk asshole verbally accosting two cops for the sin of stopping to check on the asshole because the asshole's car was belching a ton of smoke from its engine. Especially when that drunk asshole veers her assault into some wildly virulent racism. And if my repeated use of the word asshole upsets you, you really, really shouldn't see this movie. Because asshole is the nicest word I can think of to describe her and it's not the toughest scene in the movie to watch. Also, this scene is how the movie opens.

It's an important scene for so many reasons, but its primary purpose is to establish a motivation for the whistleblower, Facebook employee Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison). Frances is a real person who worked in Facebook's civic integrity team to combat misinformation spread by Facebook posts. The opening scene includes the asshole recording her encounter and posting the video online. Frances recognizes the asshole as a past friend and is alarmed at how radicalized that friend had become, knowing that much of it had to do with her former friend's online presence. Being a data scientist, Frances does some digging through internal Facebook files and comes up with some very alarming statistics.

Around the same time, investigative journalist Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White) takes an assignment to cover Facebook. His intuition tells him something is terribly wrong with Facebook (and social media in general), so he starts digging. Eventually, Frances contacts him and the two develop a working relationship over several months. And by working relationship, I mean she drips information to him in very small parts because she really believes in Facebook's mission (connecting people) and doesn't want to get fired (or worse). As the investigation develops, we can see how Sorkin uses it to explain the issue in simple terms. Horwitz has the technical acumen of a marble and Frances continually reminds him (and us) about it. This allows the movie to explain things like algorithms and MSI (meaningful social interactions) in very simple terms and in an organic manner while not interrupting the flow of the film. And it does the same thing in the opposite direction, with Horwitz constantly trying to explain how journalism and reporting really works.

The same thing goes for the Zuckerberg scenes. In those scenes, he (Jeremy Strong) is constantly displaying an aura of "I'm smarter than everyone" vibe, if not outright saying it. Conversely, an old friend-turned-critic, Charlie Garrigan (Bill Burr), spars with Zuckerberg while Zuckerberg is trying to answer questions they expect Congress to ask. Garrigan keeps explaining to Zuckerberg what he is missing or ignoring by, among other things, refusing to stop platforming political ads containing misinformation and lies. Like with Horwitz and Haugen, we have two people with very different knowledge backgrounds, but this time it's both a political discussion (Garrigan explaining to Zuckerberg) and business discussion (Zuckerberg explaining to Garrigan). And again, everything is spoken in very clear terms so that the audience doesn't get lost in all of the dialogue.

Of course there is a lot of dialogue - this is a Sorkin piece. He's the exact opposite of the man of few words. But it's always a good thing, especially because Sorkin (and his associates) always seems to find the perfect actors for his screenplays. No matter how good his writing is, it only works with good performances. And this film is packed with great performances. Madison turns in a layered performance that makes her Haugen sympathetic, frustrating, strong, and meek all at the same time. In other words, a very, very human performance. White gives us a reporter who we definitely want to see succeed. He's kind, understanding, very direct with his intentions, and never makes you think he has motives other than to help people through his journalism. Strong is excellent as well; all the proof you need being that you want to punch his Zuckerberg's stupid, condescending, greedy face. Just like the actual Zuckerberg. And then there's Burr, who is so good that you'll forget he made his name as a stand-up comedian. Like John Leguizamo in The Odyssey, Burr deserves a lot of consideration for a best-supporting actor Oscar.

At this point, you probably want to know is if Reckoning is better, as good as, or worse than The Social Network. Honestly, I don’t know. It’s been sixteen years since I saw that movie and I don’t remember much about any more. Just that by the time it was over, I wanted someone to punch Zuckerberg’s (Jesse Eisenberg) stupid face. Still do.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back, no matter what the algorithm says.

"Resident Evil" - Never thought I would see the day.

My first memory of the Resident Evil video game franchise goes all the way back to my college years. I was in a friend's dorm room seeing a Sony PlayStation for the first time. There were half a dozen or so of us and we were there to play Resident Evil 2. We started up the game, shut off the lights, and proceeded to be wildly entertained and more than a little freaked out at what proceeded on the TV. It was awesome. That is the moment I was hooked on both the Resident Evil games and PlayStation in general.

Since that day, there have now been eight Resident Evil films made. In terms of quality, they've ranged from kind-of-not-terrible to oh-dear-god-not-like-that. I'll let you decide which is which. Regardless, I think you'll agree that the expectations going into this second reboot (and eighth film) of the franchise (I had no idea there was a previous reboot attempt until ten seconds ago) are properly set at please-just-don't-suck. And, holy cow did it definitely not suck.

Clearly, director/writer Zach Cregger had a very similar experience with Resident Evil games as I did. I'll admit that my recollection of the previous movies is really fuzzy, but I recall them focusing way too much on the underlying plot. You know, the Umbrella Corporation's genetically modified virus getting out of their labs and turning people into zombies and other assorted monsters. While they got that story mostly right, that isn't why people loved those games. We loved them because they scared us while we played them. We loved the various little puzzles we had to solve to move forward in the game. We loved the blood splatter when dispatching monsters. We even loved how we had to ration ammunition for the weapons our characters found, practically squealing with glee every time we found a box of shotgun shells. And after watching Cregger's Resident Evil film, it's obvious he loved those things as well.

The quickest way to describe this new film is it made me feel like I was in that dorm room again. We're watching a character on the screen trying to solve various little puzzles while dodging or killing zombies and monsters on his way to a final destination. Specifically, Bryan (Austin Abrams) is a courier for hospitals and is assigned with taking a life-saving item to the Raccoon City hospital. That's it. That's the entire plot.

Any fan of the games will recognize this structure. Again, that’s why we liked the games. We’re everyone in the dorm watching the person with the controller get Bryan to the final destination. To get there, Bryan has to go through a farm house, a dark tunnel filled with cars, sewer systems, alleys, and the hospital itself. Bryan has to find ammo for a shotgun, a semi-automatic rifle, and pistol, all guns he discovers along the way. He’ll have run-ins with people who are definitely monsters and a handful of survivors who may not survive much longer. There’s even a typewriter. Did Bryan ever find an ink ribbon for it so he could save his game? Who cares!?

If it wasn’t enough that Cregger absolutely nailed capturing the feeling of the game, he even managed to weave a perfect amount of comic relief through the film. The biggest mistake earlier films in the franchise made was taking themselves way too seriously. Much like Cregger’s previously film Weapons, Resident Evil has sequences where the tension builds to boiling, then a perfectly timed line or sight gag defuses it just enough to let the audience breathe. And it’s doubly important in Resident Evil because the jump scares are plentiful. I know it’s the most used trope in the horror genre, but I’ll be damned if every single jump scare in Resident Evil works. The crazy thing is they work even when we’re expecting them.

While I’m geeking out over every part of this film, let me recognize how well Abrams carries this entire film. For the vast majority of it, he’s the only person on screen. He delivers exactly the right performance for an every-man just trying to survive the night. Well done, good sir. Now find that ink ribbon so you don’t lose your progress.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back. Not only is it the best Resident Evil movie, it’s one of the best movies of the year.

"Practical Magic 2" - An embarrassment of witches.

I very recently learned that Practical Magic might be a cult favorite. At first, I thought this was a preposterous notion. I have never heard anybody wax poetic about the genius of Practical Magic or rave about how much fun they had at a midnight showing filled with a bunch of drunk fans cosplaying as witches. Come to think of it, I've never heard of midnight showings of that movie ever. But then I attended the advanced screening of Practical Magic 2 and, I swear to you, the majority of the audience was cosplaying as witches. Mind you, I don't mean pointy hats, warts, or broomsticks. I mean black dresses with see-through lace accessories and lots of cleavage. Maybe it is a cult classic. Also, maybe the entire cult was attending this not-full screening.

That aside, maybe Practical Magic did become a cult favorite. I won't say classic because IMDb doesn't list it on their top 100 greatest cult films and that list includes movies like Flesh Gordon and Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers. Yeah, those are real films and Practical Magic hasn't reached those heights yet. Let's just go with calling it a cult film in general, pretend there are more than one hundred people alive who will admit to not only loving the film but can recite every line of dialogue, and move right along. I mean, how else to explain making a sequel to a box office flop that was only generically bad, twenty-eight years later?

Why was I at the screening of the sequel? Good question. Especially when I tell you I never saw the original. I was a freshman in college when that movie came out and my girlfriend at the time was neither a big fan of Sandra Bullock nor of Nicole Kidman, nor was she a wiccan. I decided to see the sequel because I thought it would be interesting - and funny - to see a sequel with no knowledge about the first film beyond "they're witches" and something about bad relationships. And I was correct. It was funny to be one of three lone males watching a romantic drama in a theater full (almost) of women who definitely liked the first movie more than pretty much every other human being.

The movie itself...not so funny. Oh, it tries at times. Bullock and Kidman give, er...performances, that include a bunch of attempts at humor. But those attempts usually fail because the film's tone is all over the place and the premise is taken far too seriously to allow jokes to lighten the mood. The premise, I learned, is that the Owens family are all witches and cursed. If they fall in love, the person they fall in love with dies a horrible death. That's pretty bleak, but you'd think after three centuries of enduring this curse, they'd at least have some gallows humor about it.

To be fair, the movie isn't intended to be a romantic comedy. What it is intended to be is up for interpretation. The film starts with a quick flashback of Sally Owens (Bullock) burying her second husband. In her grief, she extracts a blood promise out of her sister Gillian (Kidman) to never tell Sally's children (Antonia and Kylie) that they are witches. On top of that, Sally casts a spell to make the kids forget what little they do know about witchcraft. Is a blood promise something important in witchcraft? Not in this movie.

Twenty-some years removed from that flashback, Sally's children are grown adults. Antonia (Maisie Williams) is a doctor who is not in love with anyone. Kylie (Joey King) is a college student who is in love with her boyfriend, Gideon (Xolo Mariduena). After Kylie and Gideon express their love for each other for the first time, Gideon is immediately hit by a truck. Literally. A truck hits him and puts him into a coma. When Kylie tells Sally and Gillian, Gillian immediately spills the beans and nothing happens to her. In this movie's version of witchcraft, a blood promise has the same repercussions as a pinkie swear.

Now that Kylie knows about the curse and that witches are real, she grabs a book off her Aunt Jet's (Dianne Weist) desk that might have a way to break the curse, and heads to London. This book is one of the worst parts of this movie. I won't get into how lazy and contrived its introduction is, but we soon find out the book has left-handed magic. We learn from context clues, and the well-known fact that all southpaws are demon spawn, that left-handed magic is bad. Knowing that, why would Aunt Jet and Aunt Frances (Stockard Channing) leave the book just out on a desk where their granddaughters could find it? Granddaughters whom the Aunts blood-swore not to tell about magic and whom the aunts are aware have never been taught how to protect themselves from dark...I mean left-handed magic. Right, right...blood promises are more like suggestions.

If this movie were just about Kylie trying to break the curse, it would be a much better movie. Instead, the three credited screenwriters decided it needed to be much more convoluted. While Kylie thinks she is on the path to discovering how to break the curse, she's being manipulated into a situation where someone wants to steal her powers so he can take revenge on all of the townspeople who made fun of him for his ancestry. Bwaa-ha-lol.

I told you this movie was all over the place. Is it a tragedy? A romantic drama? A fantasy? A farce? You be the judge. I read the synopsis for the original film, which sounded like a confusing mess of nonsense. Somehow, the sequel was more confusing, messier, and nonsensical. And that's not all; the film completely wastes half its cast. Antonia is developed to the point of merely existing, the script sidelining her to watch over Gideon. Aunt Frances hangs out at the hospital with Antonia, occasionally sprinkling salt in the room. And Wiest is straight-up killed off for no other reason than to make sure we know what it means when the death beetle makes its rattle. Lee Pace, playing a professor named Ian who specializes in magic, isn't given much more to do, not even appearing until the second half of the movie. This seems like a good time mention that one of the writers is Akiva Goldman, a man who has managed to win both an Oscar and a Golden Raspberry for screenwriting. It seems Practical Magic 2 got the bat-nipples version of Goldman instead of the A Beautiful Mind version.

Even after sitting through this trainwreck of a sequel, the cultists in the audience applauded. I guess that means they liked it? Or they were drunk because that's how cult films are supposed to be experienced. Does that mean Practical Magic really is a cult favorite? Maybe. But I still say no. At least until it passes that Chainsaw Hookers movie on the cult films list.

Rating: Unless you are a drunk, cult film follower, ask for all of your money back.