The Artist

The Artist has the opportunity to alienate a lot of people before anyone even steps up to the ticket counter. The movie is done in black and white, it is mostly a silent movie, and there is little chance you will recognize either lead actor. While this may deter some people from seeing it I encourage you not to be one of them. The Artist is a beautifully crafted movie, and within a couple months may be declared the best movie of the year.

The Artist is a silent movie about the silent movie era. It follows two different careers and how they intersect while the industry transitions to the talkie era. These two actors could very well be right out of the 1920's. It stars Jean Dujardin as George Valentine, the king of Hollywood during the silent film era. After his most recent premiere he bumps into Peppy Miller played by Berenice Bejo. You may not know their names now, but I'm sure the Academy does, these two play to the era perfectly and look the part to boot. While on camera they are able to capture the era by hamming it up, but when the characters are alone they play down their parts. They display every thought perfectly to the audience, who needs words when you already know exactly what’s been said.

It isn't exactly a silent movie though, not only is there a scant bit of dialogue but there are also some perfectly placed sound effects to accentuate the moment. Also throughout the movie is a beautifully made soundtrack done by Ludovic Bource. While far more elaborate than any orchestra would play at the time; the score keeps a modern audience engaged throughout the many mood swings of the story. Listen closely and you may also hear pieces of Bernard Herrmann's score from Vertigo. Actually they pretty much lift the piece entirely, along with the breakfast table scene from Citizen Kane. No matter though, they fit the piece perfectly.

While all about the Hollywood era this isn't like one of the movies that the studios would look to crank out by Thursday. It looks more like an early French film than early Hollywood which would make sense because while it was shot in LA this is a French movie. Although you would never notice it as there are plenty of American actors and no French accents. The moments that give away the film’s origin are on screen in the director's artistic choices that very few American directors would even attempt. Contemporary directors would have a hard time getting support to make a silent, black and white film in this era. Making it all the more impressive that Michel Hazanavivius wrote and directed such a beautifully crafted film, in a 1.33 aspect ratio no less.

While careful to detail some aspects of the time the production crew are quick to abandon others. Gone are the soft focus close ups of the time, replaced with a clearer image more prevalent today. More important to the filmmakers are capturing the mood, energy, and emotional appeal. A direct tribute may have kept more people away; capturing moments using techniques from across the first half of the century will get more people inside the movie house. This isn't a movie done in the times, so much as a tribute to times gone by.

The movie has it all and captures almost every genre from comedy to melodrama to romance; it is as silly as it is serious. The plot is probably as predictable as any goodhearted movie of the era. Part of the charm of the movie is they are playing with old Hollywood clichés especially in the first half. While it comes off as corny at times we allow this trespass to occur because despite knowing what is coming we want to see how.

The technique of The Artist is grand but it is the performances of the artists that capture the audience. Every look and movement by these two actors brings to life an era that reflects a modern life of things constantly being left behind. They are able to be cheesy when showing off for the camera, but also capture a soft sincere look that will melt your heart. This is a beautifully done movie that will have you smiling long after you leave the theater. A

War Horse

While talking to my friend about War Horse, he told me that he initially thought there was some deeper meaning to the title; it wasn’t until later that he found out that the movie is literally about a horse in a war. Any kind of serious discussion about the movie from that point on was impossible. This makes the review all that more difficult to write because Steven Spielberg takes his story very seriously. You know the one about a horse, in a war.

Steven Spielberg takes us back to just before the start to The Great War. It opens on a young Albert Narracott, played by newcomer Jeremy Irvine, who takes his first look at the pony which he will one day own named Joey. The beginning 45-minutes of the movie not only set up the bond between the horse and his owner but set the tone of being over romanticized and overly-dramatic. With sweeping landscapes and a beautiful setting it is tough not to be taken in by the beauty of the movie. The music though is too on the nose to be taken completely seriously. John Williams, who composes the score, goes full throttle trying to bring the weepies out of the viewing audience. The sentiment these two frequent partners in crime are trying to get off is clear, it is never more noticeable than this segment of the film but the tone carries on the rest of the way.

The story has now been told through the written word, on stage, and now takes to the screen. This may be hard to understand but of the three versions, the one with a real horse may be the least believable. The story comes from the 1982 novel where the horse is the narrator of the story. It then took to the stage where it won a TONY for best play by using wonderfully crafted puppetry reminiscent of what “The Lion King” has been doing in front of packed houses for over a decade now. Spielberg decided to use a real animal and let the people around him do the narration and allow the horse to be perceived as it normally would be. The animal truly is beautiful and after viewing the movie, it is impressive just what they were able to train this animal to do. But one thing it can’t give you is a reaction shot as the horse is just going to look at the camera no matter how many close-ups of its face you give it, and there were a lot. In the other two mediums there was a level of mysticism behind the story telling because the animal wasn’t real so you allowed yourself to be taken away by the emotional plight of the character. Here it looks almost like they are trying to make up for what they lost by being over-romanticized and the outcome just makes it look cheesy.

Once the actual war begins the director creates more genuine moment. One of the most memorable come from the horse’s war time owner Captain Nicholls played by Tom Hiddleston as we witness first hand one of the most notable moments in wartime history in the transition of fighting styles to automatic weapons. One other moment comes towards the end of the movie; feel free to jump to the next paragraph as there are SPOILERS AHEAD. But not really as this is the moment before the climax of the film, I’ll do my best to be vague. It features two soldiers coming out of their respective trenches to aid the horse which was stuck in barbed wire in no man’s land. While coming off initially corny I appreciate the filmmaker referencing a little known moment in history called the Christmas Truce that took place across the Western Front between the warring sides. It is no surprise that Spielberg is able to properly capture these moments of war as he has had so much experience in the past creating them.

One of the most talented filmmakers of our time, Speirberg takes his expertise in both action packed war movies and childhood films and is able to create quite the hybrid that is getting a lot of award talk. The accolades the movie has received may be more attributed to the source material, the timing, and the man behind the project than the film itself. He does create a movie that can be viewed by audiences of all ages and that is something rarely seen in movie making anymore. B-

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

It has been tough to escape the Millennium trilogy for the past three years. Author Stieg Larsson left his trilogy unpublished, it wasn’t until after his death that the books hit the shelves and became a worldwide phenomenon. It then became a movie made in Sweden which did not shine away from the darker parts of the story with European audiences unafraid to deal with such issues. When trying to make an American version of the film the studios called on none other than David Fincher who previously worked on Se7en and Zodiac. With an expertise in sadistic storytelling Fincher gives his telling of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo an American touch.

In case you were unaware that David Fincher was directing the movie, the opening sequence should give it away. Two bodies cased in oil and covered in flame become one with Trent Rezner’s cover of "The Immigrant Song", the story hasn’t even started yet and his style comes screaming at you already. The concept behind this project plays perfectly into what Fincher is known for and is truly a perfect pairing. While there is little he can add to the overall story in fear of alienating fans, his biggest addition to the film is a glossy touch. For fans of the book and the Swedish movie, available on Netflix streaming, some of you may be surprised what he kept in the movie if you were anything like me who believed the American version was going to be softer. Fincher is still able to soften up the material through with some deadpan delivery from his leading lady. It is tough to tell whether some of the laughs were intended or accidental considering what’s going on.

Past the opening sequence, and for those of you unaware the movie opens on Mikael Blomkvist, played by Daniel Craig, leaving the courtroom having just been convicted of libel after going after the head of a major corporation. He probably should not have gone to print with material from one anonymous source. Either way with free time after stepping down from his magazine he accepts a job to investigate a 40-year-old murder of a young girl. While this is going on a brash young female rolls into the parking lot on her motorcycle, hair dyed black and still in a mohawk once she removes the helmet. Lisbeth Salander played by Rooney Mara has just completed her own investigation through different means, which some may call illegal, but now finds herself in trouble in her personal life. With the two different characters come the two completely different style of story, until the midway point where their paths cross and Fincher combines the tones into the one main arc. They almost seem as they could be two different movies, once they converge on each other Fincher allows the two to blend together till they are on the same beat.

Fincher takes his time before our two leads meet. Mikael Blomkvist’s story seems pretty straightforward, and he allows Craig to insert his confidence into the role, a confidence not seen in the original. The other half of the story dwells on the darker side. The character starts off visually assaulting, she seems so detached and soft spoken, isolated from the world. It isn’t till we see her investigative prowess where she shows off her skills and fortitude that the audience starts rooting for her. Larsson delves deep into the past and shows what made Lisbeth this way, and continues to do so throughout the story. Noomi Rapace injected herself into Lisbeth, succumbing to the psychosis of the character and entrenching herself in the darkness. Mara allows some light to shine through; her depiction of the character has a confidence to her as well. Not like Craig, who always has a swagger about him, Mara shows her confidence by playing Lisbeth as comfortable in her own skin. Mara doesn’t possess the same dark strength as the Swedish version. No doubt this is the studio telling her to play the psychosis down fearing they may alienate the audience. That darkness is what made Rapace’s portrayal of the character so mesmerizing in the original trilogy and will definitely be seen as lacking by fans of the material.

To not know about this story before this movie comes out probably means you avoided beaches, any major mode of transportation, or friends who enjoy holding it over your head that they actually read in their spare time. For some this may be the third time in the past three years to see a different take on one story. The source material is so strong that there is little doubt that this movie won’t be a success. To attach big names like David Fincher and Daniel Craig to the project only injects more confidence into the film. A confidence that definitely lacked in the Swedish movie, but don’t mistake that as positive. You don’t necessarily want a superhero or a glossy touch when dealing with gruesome murder. Mikael Nyqvist played the lead more straight on with little nuance to the role, but would a reporter really know how to handle torture as well as a James Bond would?

It is tough to not compare the book or the first movie to this new one considering how quickly all three were released. This movie stands well on its own and does a loyal retelling of the book through most of the movie. And short of adding a little gloss to the movie and taking away subtitles the shots aren’t all that different from the Swedish version. There is a lot to like about this movie, but that has more to do with the story than any changes that took place in this version. While it may not have needed a glossy touch, or a retelling as the original movie was done so well. If this is what it takes to get more people to see this story than they put together quite a team to execute with a gripping finished product. B+

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

It was two years ago when Guy Ritchie debuted his take of the famous detective from Baker Street. From the outset it enraged traditionalist fans who did not want Sherlock Holmes to be a gritty street fighter. It was fun to watch as any blockbuster should be and Robert Downey Jr. was in the middle of his resurgence. Since that time Downey has become an A-lister while the original movie grossed $524 million dollars worldwide. So while certainly not a great movie it put butts in the seats and while I thought the franchise would be left for dead with Holmes greatest nemesis waiting in the wings the crew had another chance at the 19th century detective. With more confidence Guy Ritchie returns with Robert Downey and Jude Law to create a much stronger story sure to be enjoyed by many fans this holiday season.

We are several years removed from the original story and Sherlock Holmes is trying to unravel his biggest case to date. He has already thwarted the plans of a master criminal several times, but what all these crimes are building up to is impossible for our hero to deduce. Meanwhile his loyal sidekick John Watson is getting married and moving on beyond this life of danger. Holmes convinces his old partner to help thwart his most worthy adversary in one final adventure.

It is worth noting that while Professor James Moriarty is the villain most notably linked with Sherlock Holmes he only appeared in Sir Author Conan Doyle's last story. Conan Doyle wanted to create a formidable opponent for Holmes to end on so he featured a brilliant scholar who could match wits with the detective. 'The Final Problem' became one of the most famous stories and is why Moriarty is as much a part of Holmes lore as Watson is. In a world of sequels it is easy to tell why Ritchie would save Holmes' most famed nemesis for later.

That being said Jared Harris was an odd choice for the great mastermind. For such a major threat they have chosen a relatively small actor, one that comes nowhere near the level of Robert Downey Jr. It is tough to believe the two characters are equal when the performances are not. Harris has full control over the intellectual portion of the character as exemplified in his work from 'Mad Men' he just doesn't seem believable as an imposing threat. It would have been wonderful to see what an Alan Rickman-esque actor could have done with the character he seems to have the perfect combination of controlled anger at his disposal. Similarly Noomi Rapace does little as our heroes' gypsy ally. Short of her opening action sequence she seldom helps develop the protagonist or the plot. It makes you miss Rachel McAdams as the prominent female lead who did little to nothing extraordinary in the first one except look stunning.

The story though bears its success on the shoulders of our hero and as can be expected Robert Downey Jr. once again does a fantastic job as the movie titular character. He was one of the few bright spots from the original and here he does more of the same with a darker twist to the character reflecting the raised stakes. The character is constantly banged up as his tweaks seem to not only reflect his thought process but the danger he finds himself in. His delivery builds upon the originals strengths as he is quick to lay out a subtle jab. Whether it is a physical or verbal one he does so in prefect deadpan form. Just as important to the character's delivery is his relationship with his lifelong friend John Watson once again played by Jude Law. Still a thankless role as Downey will surely outshine him, if not for the set-up and report provided by Law's portrayal of the character it stands to reason that much of the energy in the movie would fizzle. In the first movie most of their relationship was shown through an angry reluctance, there for each other because their bonds had been built over time. In the second story the relationship seems much more reflective as each understands their partnership is coming to an end. Their bond drives a large part of the movie; it helps to heighten the action sequences and is the main source of entertainment through the down beats as well.

Guy Ritchie seems much more comfortable directing this time, while he still uses most of the techniques that cluttered his first attempt he seems more restrained and allows his style to help tell his story rather than using it to gloss over unpolished sequences. The most notable technique being when Holmes slows down the action to predict his enemies attacks. It was used more for the character last time, here Ritchie uses this sequence and the outcome to provide perspective to the story. The action scenes benefit the most from Ritchie’s first crack at the story while the music of Hans Zimmer really highlight what is going on. The bachelor party, the scene on the train, and the climax all become exponentially more exciting than the action beats from the original. In the same breath though the scenes in between the action tend to drag a little bit and while the two leads do all they can to liven up the scenes it still seems like it takes a while to get to each major plot point.

There are those will argue that this is just another typical Hollywood sequel with more action and less substance. While you can certainly argue the former, the latter seems unfounded. The first movie had no intention of being taken seriously, merely meant to entertain, A Game of Shadows seems much more entertaining than the original in a large part due to the return of the two male leads and the director working hard together to improve their story. As long as you allow yourself to go into the movie with the expectations set from the first movie in the series and not the original stories you should be able to enjoy the movie. It is very much the same type of movie just done a little better. B-

New Year's Eve

From the same people who brought you Valentine's Day, just in case you couldn't tell, Gerry Marshall takes another holiday that is always completely blown out of proportion, slaps together a bunch of A-listers, and creates as many shallow characters with inconsequential plot lines as possible and calls it New Year's Eve. It is the exact same movie.

Want any more proof that this is the exact same movie; they cast some of the same actors and just gave them different names. That's right we are led to believe that in this universe where everyone is three degrees away from everyone else on holidays there are two people who look exactly like Ashton Kutcher and Jessica Biel on both sides of the country. Didn't you learn your lesson from the first movie; I know you didn't do it for the money because Chuck Lorre and CBS are literally throwing money at Ashton to keep their sitcom alive. Maybe it is just a fun movie to do and I assume the schedule is super flexible because they only need you for like two weeks of shooting.

We could go over all of the plot lines but added up I doubt any story gets more than twenty minutes of screen time so there is no way to make any kind of connection to the story which is probably for the better. All of the clichés you can imagine make it into the movie people get stuck in an elevator, running into an ex, first kisses, bucket lists and obviously the New Year’s Ball breaks and there is concern it may not drop on time. It doesn't really matter who stars in which role as you can just throw in any actor to be any character, as they did with Hallie Berry, it is that nondescript. Some of the more ridiculous moments feature a dying Robert De Niro trying to get to the roof of the hospital and Hilary Swank talking on National News about being nicer to people or some shit.

The movie studio involved is Warner Brothers who take a laughable amount of screen time to pimp out their next movie Sherlock Holmes which comes out next week. This movie is also brought to you by the fine people of Nivea. Nivea: Touch and Be Touched. As you can see their product placing skills even made it into my review, well done.

The best part of the movie was the ending, not only because you could finally leave but because there are some actually genuine moments in the outtakes where the actors were allowed to have a little fun on screen. This is the attitude and style the movie should have been made in, not whatever was happening on the screen.

There really is no reason to see this movie, for those of you that saw the first one in theaters you should still be shaking your head at that decision. At its absolute best the movie is hokey and at its worst it is laughably trite. I would say it is a bigger let down than the actual holiday but there was no way the expectations were all that high. F