200 Movies, 1 Woman, 1 Blog

The King’s Speech, 2010, UK/Australia/USA

I finally saw it. After being stuck inside all day yesterday, I was desperate to get out today and see it. So that’s what I did.

And it was wonderful. So wonderful. Yesterday, I was commenting about how bleak many of the Oscar nominated movies are. So bleak, that I cannot bear seeing them again. Imagine my joy after seeing this movie. It’s a genuine feel good movie. And it’s entertaining as hell, too. I know many people don’t see how a period piece about a British royal with a speech impediment can be entertaining, but I assure you, it’s very entertaining.

Prince Albert (Colin Firth) has a stutter and dreads public speaking. His concerned wife (Helena Bonham Carter) takes him to specialist after specialist and he never improves. Naturally, Albert is frustrated and gives up. She drags him to one more specialist – Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel insists on treating Albert at his office, and refers to him as “Bertie”, much to Albert’s chagrin. But Lionel makes it clear that they are equals and won’t let Albert treat him as anything less.

The movie takes place during the abdication crisis when King Edward VIII (played by Guy Pierce) abdicates the throne to marry Wallis Simpson (Eve Best). As a result, we get to see Albert’s deepest anxieties on screen, and Lionel’s reaction to them.

The best parts of the movie were the scenes between Firth and Rush. Both actors were outstanding and I genuinely hope they win Oscars for their roles. They had great chemistry, and both brought great heart to their roles. I felt anxiety as I saw Albert struggle to speak. The scenes they share are often very humourous. I didn’t quite expect the humour to be honest with you. I didn’t think “humour” when I went to see a movie about British royalty. But it’s a very funny movie at times.

After Toy Story 3, this movie is my favourite of the year. I feel like I could watch it again and again. I feel that either The King’s Speech or The Social Network will win Best Picture at the Oscars. I sincerely hope it’s The King’s Speech. It was by far the better movie. I know that The King’s Speech is the more “typical” Oscar movie, which may actually work against it. The Academy members may decide to award the more “modern” movie, particularly because it is not the type of movie that usually wins these awards. Plus, it would help the Oscars garner a “younger” audience of people who wouldn’t necessarily watch them. This is something that’s been attempted in the last few years, and they haven’t been successful yet. With The Social Network, they may find success. Nevertheless, I’m rooting for The King’s Speech.

Winter’s Bone, 2010, USA

Recommended by: Chris

I’m trying to watch as many of the Oscar nominated movies as possible. My original plan was to go see The King’s Speech tonight but the blizzard kind of killed those plans. So I did the second best thing and rented Winter’s Bone.

I didn’t know much about the movie, but I did know that it is being called “the little movie that could” based on its low budget. In some ways, the movie feels like a low budget movie, but the amazing cinematography makes it look far more expensive than it actually was. The movie uses very limited music, which adds to the gritty feel of the movie. It’s amazing how silence can add horror to a scene – often more than “scary-sounding” music can.

Jennifer Lawrence is Ree, a young teenager who is struggling to keep her younger siblings and her mother alive. They have no money and often rely on the charity of their neighbours. Ree finds out that her father, who ran a meth lab, put their house up as bail and if he doesn’t show up for his court hearing, they’ll lose the house. Ree takes it upon herself to find her father in order to save their home.

John Hawkes plays Teardrop, Ree’s uncle. He wasn’t in the movie very much, but he’s a memorable character. He received a Best Supporting Actor nomination for the role, and I’d say he deserves it. The star of the film is Lawrence, though. She was amazing. The Best Actress category is very strong this year, and she definitely deserves her nomination. If she were nominated in a weaker year, she’d win.

The movie is very bleak, as anyone can tell based on the subject matter. I don’t want to say much more about it, because I think it’s best to go in knowing as little as possible. Everything I knew about it was based on a summary I received several months ago. It’s a depressing movie and very difficult to watch at times. I kept thinking about Ree’s age, and about how I wouldn’t have had the strength to do the things she did when I was 17. Not many people would.

I’ve noticed that this year, maybe more than other years, movies are relying on really horrible, difficult to watch moments. 127 Hours and Black Swan are two of this year’s nominated movies that I know I won’t be able to watch again. I’d probably add Winter’s Bone to that list. A movie can definitely be horrifying and have great replay value, but I haven’t been able to find that in these three movies. That being said, they were all very good. If you can, watch all three.

Twelve Monkeys, 1995, USA

I’d heard people rave about this movie many years ago and never got around to the movie until tonight. For some reason I was expecting more of an action movie. I suppose that’s because I think of Bruce Willis as an action star. But it was a science fiction drama and contained relatively little action.

Willis plays James Cole, a prisoner who lives in a futuristic underground society. Humanity was forced underground after a virus wiped out 99 per cent of the human population. He is offered his freedom if he goes back in time to get a sample of the virus. Along the way, he meets Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt) at a mental hospital. Goines is a crazy anti-consumerist and animal rights activist. He also meets and eventually kidnaps Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe), his psychiatrist at the mental hospital.

I really love science fiction and I’ve lamented the fact that I haven’t watched much of it over the course of this project. I particularly love post-apocalyptic science fiction. I like the examination of humanity. I think our existence is a very fragile thing, and that we must be able to retain our humanity, even in the face of destruction. I’ve argued with people on that point and I’ve been called an idealist because of this belief. But, I think it’s important to be a good person, even if nobody else is around to see it (as in, nobody exists to see it). I argued this point after watching The Road, which was my favourite movie of 2009. In 12 Monkeys, humanity is retained to some extent, but it is implied that the government has taken on a totalitarian tone.

I’ve actually written some over the course of my life, including an entire novella. I’m sure I still have it somewhere. I wrote it when I was 16 so it isn’t anything great, but the idea is halfway decent. It served as a commentary of extremist political beliefs. If I were to ever rewrite it, I’d change some aspects of the plot to further develop that theme.

Twelve Monkeys is also a commentary on political extremism, but it also looks at the impact of memory on the human mind. As we all know, memory isn’t exactly a reliable thing. I really loved the movie. It did drag on at times, and a good ten or fifteen minutes could have been cut, but it was excellent. Unlike many other science fiction movies, this one doesn’t rely on faux-scientific explanations. James goes back in time, presumably using a technology that hasn’t been discovered yet in our “modern” world. It’s not important HOW it happens, just that it happens. I enjoy both approaches, and I think it just depends on what works for a particular movie.

One thing I can’t decide is whether I liked Pitt’s performance or not. He got nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars and won a Golden Globe for the performance. Something about his performance irked me, though. I cringed every time he was on screen. I guess it just seemed exaggerated and fake to me. But I also understand that I don’t particularly like Pitt. What does everyone think of his performance in this movie? Did they like it or did they dislike it?

I’m thinking of watching Philadelphia tomorrow. I almost watched it tonight, but I was in more of a science fiction mood. Should I watch it tomorrow?

Ordinary People, 1980, USA

Recommended by: Ken/Rob/ Tammy

I’ve been wanting to see this movie for months and I was finally able to get my hands on a copy of it. It was extraordinarily sad and difficult to watch.

Conrad (Timothy Hutton) has recently returned home after four months in a psychiatric hospital. He attempted suicide following the death of his brother in a sailing accident. At home, his parents (Donald Sutherland and Mary Tyler Moore) are struggling in their own ways to cope following the accident. Beth is trying to pretend nothing happened, while Calvin is trying to reach out to his surviving son. Conrad begins to see a therapist (Judd Hirsch), who tries to help him cope with his survivor’s guilt and depression.

The movie looks at communication and how people cope with traumatic incidents. The family has a serious communication problem, which creates quite a bit of tension. Beth is cold and very critical towards her son, and it’s clear that she felt closer to Buck, the son that she lost. Conrad feels rejected by his mother and feels a great deal of guilt regarding the death of his brother and the pain it has caused his entire family.

As I said, this movie is difficult to watch. The movie made me think of myself when I was a teenager. Many of the things Conrad felt throughout the movie made me think of things that I felt at that time. It made me very emotional. There was one scene in particular that was very difficult for me to watch. Anyone who has seen the movie will probably know which one it is. It hit very close to home, but it made me thankful that I no longer hurt the way Conrad did in that scene.

Hutton’s performance really blew me away. He had me completely convinced that he was Conrad. He won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the role and he deserved it. He was young when the movie was made, but he has a very natural talent.

In fact, I was impressed with all of the performances in the movie. Moore and Sutherland were very good as well. Moore received an Oscar nomination but Sutherland didn’t, which seems like a crime to me. In less capable hands, Moore’s character could have been made into a villain. But Moore gave Beth immense complexity and we’re made to understand that she’s a devastated mother who is struggling with grief. She’s a broken human being. We feel sympathy for her, even when she makes poor decisions. I’m not overly familiar with her other work, but I was very impressed with her performance in the movie.

I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to watch the movie again. I highly recommend it, because it’s a complex, emotional family drama, but it is a bit of a downer. But the story is very good, and the performances are outstanding. In fact, the performances of the ensemble cast may be among the best of any of the movies I’ve watched over the course of this project.

Black Swan, 2010, USA

Another brilliant movie that I never want to see again. The Oscar season is full of them this year. Honestly, I think this was probably the most disturbing movie I’ve ever seen, at least on a personal level. I never thought a movie about ballet would be as tense as this one.

Nina (Natalie Portman) is a very talented ballet dancer, but receives criticism from her teacher, Thomas (Vincent Cassel), who feels that her technique is too stifled. He tells her that she needs to “lose control”, and points to Lily (Mila Kunis) as an example of a passionate and seductive dancer. Nevertheless, Thomas casts her as the Swan Princess in his vision of Swan Lake. Nina struggles with the role, and her own demons and slowly becomes paranoid of everyone around her, including her overbearing mother (Barbara Hershey).

The cinematography was fantastic. At times the camera moves with the dancer, giving the viewer a sense that they are dancing as well. I know how difficult it is to make shots like that work, so I was extremely impressed. It was beautifully shot, and I’d say it has a good chance of winning an Oscar for cinematography.

Another Oscar lock is Portman. I’m certain she will with the Best Actress Oscar. In fact, I’ll be angry if she doesn’t. She was amazing. She felt very real throughout, and she’s also a very gifted dancer. One scene, early in the movie, really drove home just how gifted she is. She was happy, and she cried tears of joy. The scene moved me, because it made me think about my own successes in school, and how I’ve definitely been nearly moved to tears over things I’ve achieved. Her character must have been an extremely difficult one to play.

The movie also made me think about the pressure that is put on artists. There is an enormous pressure to reach the height of glory in your chosen medium (be it acting, dancing, etc).  I know I’ve felt immense pressure to succeed over the course of my education. But, as a ballerina, one fall can end a career. Thinking about that really put things into perspective for me. People must have a lot of passion for their career to willingly choose to live under that kind of pressure. I know I couldn’t do it. Watching this movie was upsetting enough; I can’t imagine living it.

This movie will certainly be one of the major players at the Oscars this year, and I’m glad to have seen it. It’s very different from the “standard” movie that draws Oscar attention. Psychological thrillers tend to be ignored, for the most part. But, when they’re done well, they’re thrilling, thought-provoking movies. This one was done very well. You will leave the theatre feeling very uncomfortable, but in the best way possible.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, 1975, USA

This book is an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Ken Kesey. I read it a number of years ago, and actually didn’t like it very much. There were many aspects that I did like, but, ultimately it didn’t really stick with me. I certainly recognized it’s brilliance, though. I knew that would be an obstacle going into the movie. But I also knew that, in many cases, I’d read books that didn’t impress me, and ultimately loved the film adaptations. Three examples would be The English Patient, Stardust (which is actually one of my favourite movies, the plot changes that the filmmakers made it a far more compelling story), and A Very Long Engagement. With The English Patient and Stardust, the problems were related to style. I didn’t especially like the way The English Patient was written, and A Very Long Engagement was awkwardly translated.

I thought the movie was very well done, especially in terms of characterization, but, like the novel, I didn’t love it. I guess the storyline just isn’t something that moves me. I actually found the novel and the movie to be a very interesting look at a fictional mental health facility, but I just never got much out of the story.

R.P. McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) pretends to be mentally ill in order to serve his prison sentence in a mental hospital. While everyone he encounters is skeptical about the state of his mental health, they allow him to remain in the hospital. There, he befriends a group of mentally ill men, and aggravates Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher) for his own amusement. Ratched is a cruel, authoritarian woman, and upon realizing this, McMurphy rallies his fellow patients and actively rebels against her.

What impressed me most were the performances in the movie. One of the things I respected so much about the book was the characterization. Both McMurphy and Ratched were memorable characters. Ratched was terrifying. Nicholson and Fletcher were both amazing in their roles. Fletched perfectly embodies the terror Ratched had in the book. She is cold, manipulative, and very cruel. She is one of the best villains I’ve ever seen, and certainly the best female villain I’ve ever seen in a movie. Both of them won Oscars for their performances and they were well deserved. This movie is also the second movie ever to receive Oscars in all five major categories (Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director and Screenplay).

I respected this movie quite a bit. I respect the story and the acting. Therefore, despite the fact that I didn’t especially care for it, I highly recommend it. It’s one of those situations where I see the brilliance, but for whatever reason, I just can’t enjoy the story of the movie. Has anyone else seen a movie that they respect, but cannot enjoy, for one reason or another?

127 Hours, 2010, USA/UK

As I’ve stated before, I’m trying to watch as many of the potential award-nominated movies this year and early next year. I’d heard a ton of positive buzz about James Franco’s performance in the movie, so there was no way I was going to miss it. Even if I had to go by myself. And have my dad drive me there, because I had no vehicle to get to the theatre (thanks dad!).

This was a very hard movie for me to watch. For starters, I’m a little bit claustrophobic. I don’t particularly like being in tight spaces, so it makes me feel nervous when I see a movie character in a tight space. I’m also super squeamish, which became a major issue during the movie.

127 Hours is about Aron Ralston’s escape from a canyon. In 2003, Ralston was hiking in a canyon when a boulder pinned his arm to the canyon wall. He couldn’t dislodge it, and the area he was in was remote, so he was unable to yell for help. Eventually, he cuts his own arm off in order to escape.

This movie shouldn’t have worked. Franco is on-screen, by himself, for about 90 per cent of the movie. That’s a huge amount of pressure on one actor. It made me think of Cast Away, which had a similar premise. Franco gives a magnificent performance, and deserves an Oscar nomination, at the very least. I felt fear, anguish, and joy at many times throughout the movie, and it was because of the wide range of emotion and depth that Franco portrays. See the movie for his performance.

The movie was also beautifully shot. A variety of different types of cameras were used. Franco used a handheld camera to shoot video diaries, so much of the footage has a grainy look to it, but it works well. I noticed that the movie breaks all of the standard shooting “rules” that I learned about in TV class. Zoom shots are used throughout. But it works, because it emphasizes just how little space Aron had to move. I actually thought about how awkward it must have been for Franco to shoot the movie. He was in a very tight, enclosed space for hours every day, and he had a camera in his face for much of that time. It must have been very uncomfortable.

I first heard about Ralston’s story many years ago. I was young at the time, and couldn’t imagine cutting my own arm off to survive. I thought that I would rather die than do such a thing. But I don’t think I truly appreciated the power of human will. It would be extraordinarily difficult to just stay there…waiting to die. If you’re going to die anyway, why not do whatever you can in order to survive? After all, pain can’t last forever. I’m sure it must have hurt like hell, and I’m sure the days he was trapped in the canyon were the worst of his life, but at least he’s alive and able to grow old with his family.

That being said, I never want to have to find out if I’m able to cut my own arm off.

I loved the movie, but I don’t think I’d be able to watch it again. It’s a very uncomfortable, painful experience, but it’s rewarding and inspiring. It’s worth seeing, even if you only ever want to see it once. It’s a movie you’ll remember for the rest of your life. Check it out!

The Kids Are All Right, 2010, USA

I’d hoped to see this in the theatres, but it didn’t play here for long, and I was busy around the time it opened. But I’d read the good reviews, and heard good word of mouth, so when I saw that it had been released on DVD, I rushed out to rent it.

It was worth the wait. I enjoyed the fact that it wasn’t a black and white sort of movie – every character was fully fleshed out and quite complicated. There are no “bad guys”, only bad decisions. Another thing I appreciated was the fact that the movie portrayed human sexuality as being a complicated thing. It bothers me when sexuality is portrayed as being very black and white, so the realism shown in the movie was a great thing.

Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore) are a lesbian couple raising two children, Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Josh Hutcherson). They were both conceived using a sperm donor. Joni has recently turned 18, and gets into contact with her biological father, Paul (Mark Ruffalo). Nic is upset by why she sees as Paul’s intrusion, and begins behaving strangely. Jules, who has felt neglected for quite awhile, begins an affair with Paul.

I was impressed with the performances in the movie. Bening, Moore and Ruffalo are all talented actors. A few years ago, I had assumed Ruffalo was just a typical romantic lead, because he had appeared in a few romantic comedies. He’s obviously shown that he’s far more than a romantic leading man. He has a ton of range, and, apparently he’ll be the next Hulk in The Avengers. I’m a little disappointed that Edward Norton won’t be returning, as I liked his version of the Hulk, but I understand why he isn’t returning. From what I’ve heard, Norton is notoriously difficult to work with. It isn’t a big issue for me in any case, because I think Ruffalo will do a good job, and I’ve never been a fan of the Hulk anyway. He’s always been the least interesting superhero to me.

When the movie was released, I was hearing some early Oscar buzz. To be honest, that’s part of the reason I was so eager to see this movie. I would like to see all of the big award contenders this year, if possible. Last year, I had very little time, and had only seen a few of the major Oscar contenders. Since I’m doing this project, I’d like to be as informed as possible. Award season will bring about a ton of blogging opportunities for me.

So, in my opinion, will it be a contender? It’s hard to say. I think it’s very possible that it’ll receive nominations in the acting categories. Bening could very well get a nomination, and I think she’d deserve it. I can’t say yet whether it will be nominated for Best Picture. It depends on what else is released. And, of course, how many films are nominated. Will they go back down to five this year, or will it remain at ten? I hope they go back down to five. Last year, ten movies were nominated, and I think it really waters down the honour and prestige of being nominated. I was really disappointed with that decision, because it was all about increasing ratings. But, I get the feeling that it’ll be ten again, unfortunately. If it is, I think it’ll get a Best Picture nomination. The year has been fairly weak so far, so it has a chance.

Hustle & Flow, 2005, USA

I honestly never thought I’d see this movie. I remember reading the very positive review in the Winnipeg Free Press after it was released, and I thought I’d never watch it. It just didn’t sound like my type of movie. But, of course, I’m looking to expand on what I generally watch, which means going out of my “comfort zone”, and watching movies that I wouldn’t necessarily watch under more “normal” circumstances.

Which means it is time to eat my words. I loved this movie. I didn’t think I would. It won the Academy Award for Best Original Song for “It’s Hard out Here for a Pimp” by Three 6 Mafia. I disliked the song back then, and, in fact, I still dislike it, despite listening to it numerous times throughout the movie. But, then again, I don’t generally care for either rap or hip-hop. I can respect the song and what it achieved, but I will never put it on my iPod.

Hustle & Flow is about a pimp, DJay (Terrence Howard), who grows sick of his current lifestyle. He dreams of being a rapper, so, with the help of Key (Anthony Anderson) and Shelby (DJ Qualls), DJay produces a demo tape. He’s also assisted and encouraged by Nola (Taryn Manning), a prostitute DJay calls his “primary investor”, and Shug (Taraji P. Henson), a pregnant prostitute that lives with Nola and him. DJay sees rapping as his way out of his current life, and becomes desperate for success. He firmly believes that everybody has a right to dream, and that the material he’s produced will give him and his friends better lives.

I was very impressed by the acting in the movie. Howard received an Academy Award nomination for his role, and while it’s not a typical role that would be nominated, that doesn’t mean it was any less deserved. He was excellent and made me dislike him, pity him and root for him all at the same time. His character was very complex. He often committed despicable acts, but still manages to remain sympathetic most of the time.

I found the movie to be very interesting. I know next to nothing about the rap and hip hop world, especially “underground” rap/hip-hop. I don’t know what it takes to be a success in the genre. I’ve also never lived in poverty. As a result, I can’t imagine ever having to sell my body to make a living. In many ways, I’ve lived a pretty sheltered life. I’ve never experienced what many hip-hop or rap artists must have experienced when they rap about violence or murder or prostitution. Yes, this movie was fiction, but even a fictional movie can give me an insight into a lifestyle I know nothing about.

Even the language and mannerisms the characters used fascinated me. They used the “n-word” quite liberally and even affectionately. I loathe the word, and refuse to use it, because I think it’s terrible meaning in history lingers, but people in the African American community are trying to “take it back”. It was a bit jarring to hear it used as much as it was.

Don’t be expecting me to come around and start listening to large amounts of hip-hop and rap. I still don’t care for those genres, and I doubt that will ever change.

The Social Network, 2010, USA

I’ll bet most of you reading this are on Facebook. I’ll bet some of you even found a link to my blog on Facebook.

My story

If you can believe it…there was once a time I rejected social media. This was way back before Twitter was on anyone’s mind. Back when MySpace was huge and Facebook was becoming legendary. When I was in high school, I stayed off of social networking sites, and even told one of the school librarians that I’d never get on Facebook. That changed about six months after that conversation, and now I’m Facebook friends with that librarian. I use the site much more than he does. I originally signed up for Facebook in order to view something – I can’t remember what. People started “friending” me, so I’d check in occasionally. I started logging in regularly after “friending” a classmate I had a crush on at the time. It didn’t go anywhere and we are no longer Facebook friends.

Once I got hooked on Facebook, Twitter wasn’t far behind. Nowadays I strongly prefer Twitter to Facebook. I use Twitter as a platform for my (potentially lame) jokes, observations and as a way to dispense interesting information to my followers. In return I get other people’s jokes, observations and interesting information. On Facebook…I tend to get more drama. Countless times, I’ve seen arguments brew up on people’s walls, relationship statuses changing and ill-advised party pictures. They’re two very different environments. Twitter is my open, “professional” social media source, whereas Facebook is very private and kept primarily for friends. That being said, I don’t share much on Facebook anymore. I don’t really go out to parties, so few new photos are uploaded of me, and I rarely feel the need to update my status.

That’s my Facebook story. Now onto the movie.

The movie

The Social Network is the story of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and the subsequent lawsuits he found himself involved in. Mark founded Facebook with his best (and only) friend, Eduardo (Andrew Garfield), who later sues Mark. Mark is also sued by Cameron (Armie Hammer), Tyler (Josh Pence) and Divya (Max Minghella) over allegations he stole the idea for Facebook from them. Justin Timberlake (who was actually really good) also has a role as Sean Parker, creator of Napster and Mark’s advisor.

Zuckerberg is not portrayed in an especially positive light. He is shown to be easily influenced and driven by a desire to create a successful business. But I don’t think he’s a terrible person, nor do I think he was portrayed in the movie as a terrible person. Instead, I got the impression that he was a very young man (he’s only 5 years older than I am; boy, I need to do more with my life) who got in over his head and made a few poor decisions. He made a bunch of great decisions as well, since he’s now the world’s youngest billionaire (according to the end credits). Eisenberg plays him as socially awkward, fast talking, and obnoxious. Facebook is shown to have been expanded during pool parties where there is binge drinking and drug use. I doubt that’s how it really happened. Why would someone work to expand and develop their golden website during a house party?

What I found most interesting about the movie is the perspective the movie takes. The story is told primarily from Eduardo’s perspective, likely because he was a consultant on Ben Mezrich’s book, The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, A Tale of Sex, Money Genius, and Betrayal. The movie was based on the book, so clearly Eduardo’s influence would remain. The movie does shine a very sympathetic light onto Eduardo.

Oscar buzz

The movie is getting near-universal acclaim from critics. This means that there is already a lot of Oscar-buzz surrounding it. When I came home, my dad mentioned that he figured it could get Best Picture, though it is too early to tell. I’m not so sure, to be honest with you. I loved the movie, but it just didn’t have that Oscar “feel” to it. But I could be eating those words come Oscar season. My dad is right, though: it is too early to tell. This movie is the first serious contender for Best Picture to be released (in my opinion), so I’m going to have to see what else is released in the coming months. So far, it has been a pretty weak year for movies, so it could very well win Best Picture. I will say that I am doubtful it will receive any acting nominations, though.

See this movie

Social media has become very important in today’s society. It’s a way of keeping in touch with loved ones (or keep tabs on that bully you really should be “de-friending”), and it’s also a powerful marketing tool. I firmly believe that social media is important in the communications industry, and I hope that my skills will be able to aid a future employer. Facebook allows companies and organizations a way of communicating with their customers or potential customers. There is also advertising potential, of course.

I do think that this movie says a lot about what the internet has become to people, and that it is a very important movie to see. It’s also a very good movie. Check it out.