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 Author Stieg Larsson left his trilogy unpublished, it wasn’t until after his death that the books hit the shelves and became a worldwide phenomenon.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

A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas

To really enjoy A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas might I suggest one of two things. Go in feeling the Christmas spirit or go in extremely high. While not necessarily requirements to enjoy the movie it will no doubt make the experience a better one. The franchise that started at White Castle has grown up and has lost a step or two. Harold and Kumar return to their drug induced states for their Christmas movie and you just might want to do the same.

It’s not that the movie isn't funny, it's just not all that hilarious but I believe that may be because I didn't see this 3D movie, the way it was intended to be seen, high. I saw it in 3D and there are all kinds of things flying at you from smoke to show to confetti to cocaine. At one point they may actually throw a kitchen sink at the audience. While they acknowledge that the whole 3D thing has "jumped the shark" it doesn't stop them from doing it, which may actually be worse. But there are also bright lights and clay-mation at work which would leave any stoned mind enchanted. Plus all the bright lights may keep you distracted from the writing.

The creative team behind the movie look to offend every minority out there, but my objection isn't the ethnic bashing it’s the lack of laughs. Once again this may all depend on your state of mind, you may be laughing out loud throughout the whole movie, or only chuckling a few times. Most of these laughs are in the first half of the movie, and if you are anything like me you may look at the clock and be unable to believe the movie was 90 minutes when it felt like two hours.

The success of the movie though is entirely in the hands of aging stoners Harold and Kumar played by John Cho and Kal Penn respectively. The plot of the movie revolves around Harold growing up and becoming a member of Wall Street while Kumar has stayed stagnant and remains baked in his bachelor pad. They have drifted apart since escaping from Guantanamo Bay but a mysterious package has brought them together. This plot seems fitting as these two actors seem to have outgrown the roles that launched them to stardom. Both have moved onto more serious work and now seem a step behind if not a little pathetic being in their mid thirties and still acting like this. The actors still have their charm though and have much more convincing delivery than the first movie but they still just seem out of place and the roles just don't come as easily as they did seven years ago.

Brief encounters take place by all sorts of co-stars and may be the best parts of the movie. Patton Oswald plays Santa, Danny Trejo plays Harold's father in law, Eddie Kaye Thomas and David Krumholtz return as their stoner buddies and of course NPH rises from the dead to play Neil Patrick Harris which helped to re-start his career. All these roles add to the movie and they are in and out just in time for each actor to grab a couple laughs.

The movie is funny; the actors are good there just isn’t anything spectacular or innovative about the third movie in the series. There is plenty of spirit to the movie along with nods to holiday movies of the past, which is why those who love the season may love this movie as well. But bear in mind lovers of eggnog, there are also a bunch of penis shots as well. While I can’t prove that they were injecting marijuana smoke into the theater I do know I bought an entire pizza afterwards. C

In Time

The movie begins with a decent enough premises for the sci-fi universe and definitely has enough potential to feel like it could be something special. It was written and directed by Andrew Niccol who also wrote Gattaca and The Truman Show so the man is no stranger to the bizarre. Niccol’s future enjoys a very glossy look with a vintage touch; he has also envisioned a future full of attractive people. It is all very fitting because In Time concerns itself more with style than substance because it offers very little beyond a cool concept.

In Time takes place in what is supposed to be a very near future, yet in this very near future somehow a few rich elite have convinced the world to shift the currency from money to time. None of this is explained mind you, how or why it happened, or how they were able to attach a glowing clock to everyone’s arm. If you are able to get past that, all you need to understand is everything is now charged in time from 4 minutes for a cup of coffee to 2 months from a hotel suite. There is still a significant difference between the rich who have the potential to live for eons and the poor who only have enough time to survive day by day.

The plot devices and situations are set clearly and are easy enough to understand that you can look past the unmentioned history, which a sci-fi is never obligated to explain instead just hope the audience can accept it and move on. The best thing Niccol does is lay the premise on thick, his problem though is that he lays everything on thick. There are so many different time puns that if I were to write them all out I don’t think I would be able to finish the review In Time. See what I did there, and if you found that annoying than get ready because this movie is stocked full of them for two hours. While the beginning of the movie is laid out very clearly it loses the momentum it may have garnered in the first half hour and loses any sense of pacing or tension. They have people running for their lives, watching their clocks tick down to zero and still it is tough to feel anything for the characters.

The lack of connection may be due to the delivery more than the writing. Justin Timberlake takes his first shot at headlining an action movie. He plays Will, who lives in the ghetto but after inheriting over a century looks to move up in the world. He plays the part just fine but he still seems too cool to be considered any kind of a bad ass or credible action hero. Amanda Seyfried plays the love interest that falls for the boy from the other side of the tracks. Niccol knows she brings very little to the part which may be why he wrote in scenes for skinny dipping and strip poker. One would expect that Pete Camball would be good at playing a little slime ball executive, but for some reason he just comes off as bland, his character on Mad Men must really benefit from Matthew Weiner’s writing. The only character who gives a convincing performance is Cillian Murphy who you may recognize from various Christopher Nolan movies. He plays a time cop who looks to uphold the society they live in and stays hot on Will’s trail.

The message is laid on extremely thickly. There will be little need to convince anyone who is seeing this movie that there is something wrong with the current situation, and seems more topical than ever with the events taking place in Oakland and Occupy Wall Street. But this movie hurts the very cause they are trying to acknowledge by stealing ten to fifteen dollars from the poor and handing that money over to wealthy movie studios. Seeing this movie is a waste of your time. D

Like Crazy

The movie opens on a young couple beginning their relationship. After their first date he goes to leave her apartment and places his hand on the door, she does likewise as if the artist is attempting to say there will always be something that comes between their love. It becomes immediately obvious at this point that these two people are going to be one of those insufferable couples that everyone else hates. Nailed it. Like Crazy explores the trapping and difficulties involved with a long distance relationship and shows just how annoying watching a couple explore personal moments in public can be for everyone else.

While I did not like the movie that is not to say everyone will hate it. I’m sure there are many people in the audience who will connect with the movie whether they are currently in a long distance relationship, part of a new relationship, just getting out of a relationship, etc. Director Drake Doremus shows an honest and personal look inside almost any relationship from the cutesy moments to the bickering. The reason these moments are so personal is because no one else wants to see it. He shows his two leads being overly affectionate and annoyingly cutesy just as often as he shows the couple fighting in public. As anyone who has seen couples fight, it is an uncomfortable experience that you just hope ends without being dragged into it. Why would you want to pay for an experience that in real life you see almost any Friday night and try desperately to look away from?

The problems begin to stack up after Anna allows her student visa to expire, despite everyone telling her if she left for the summer it would be much easier to gain entry back into the country she decides to forgo that in order to spend a couple extra nights just laying in bed. It seems that most of their problems could be solved with a skype account and a couple extra plane tickets which they can obviously afford since Jacob graduated to become an instant success as a furniture designer and they can afford to make international calls on their cell phones. Many of you may respond that this is young love and everyone makes stupid mistakes at this age or without these problems there probably wouldn’t be a movie. That is all fine and well but it doesn’t mean we need to feel bad for them either. The main characters are completely unsympathetic and get everything they deserve. Besides being completely insufferable to watch they are also quick to betray each other’s trust. The most sympathetic character is Sam played by Jennifer Lawrence whose biggest fault is that she keeps falling for Jacob who keeps ditching her every time Anna becomes available. Which begs the question what is he bringing to the table that he is able to bag two girls like this, is building furniture a really sexy occupation and no one told me? If that is the case well then I have a table from Ikea that I can put together for all the ladies out there. Lawrence is without question the biggest talent in the movie and her performance is mostly tossed to the side in order to show Jacob and Anna in more montages. In fact all of the supporting actors excel in their effort to prop up their leads and are far more likeable characters; from Anna’s whiskey loving parents played by Alex Kingston and Oliver Muirhead to both of their ex’s played by Lawrence and Charlie Bewley.

It is tough to tell how much time passes between each fight but it doesn’t matter, Doremus feels it is more important to show the major moments than showing the timeline of the events and I won’t disagree. In fact Doremus made a lot of stylistic choices throughout the movie whether they match with his artistic vision or due to cost restraints it is tough to tell. They all help the story and help to give an intimate look into the relationship. He provides small moments that any audience member can connect to such as waiting for a reply from a text or sending more than one text in a neurotic hope that you’re special someone isn’t dodging you.

Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones churn out very strong performances, especially considering most of the dialogue was improvised. They really show just how frustrating young love can be, which turns out to be the main reason why this movie is hard to watch. It is just tough to get past how maddening it was to watch these two make up and break up over the smallest trivialities. Where are these character’s friends to tell them to stay away from each other. I imagine they alienated any friends they may have had by being awful to be around.

Without sympathetic lead characters or living in a similar situation it is going to be tough to like this movie. I do suggest that if you are a couple that likes to argue in front of people I think you should see this movie, in order for you to understand how we all feel. D+

Trespass

It is tough to believe that Nicolas Cage's money problems are still this bad. It really is a shame that an Academy Award winning actor now has to do movies like this. But what I can't figure out is why Nicole Kidman is involved. This is a movie that at one point had discussions of going directly to DVD, but due to some big names got a theatrical debut. For whatever the reason Joel Schumacher, who always seems to direct movies this bad yet still get some kind of box office, strikes again as he makes his attempt at the recent brash of home invasion movies.

Allow me to save you some time and tell you Cage plays a diamond investor looking to make a big score for his family who feels alienated from him. Meanwhile thieves bust into his house and want the money and the stones. From there as one can expect Cage loses his shit and refuses to go along with their plan. Then the threats from the thieves come pouring in, making all sorts of demands to get a big pay day. The last two steps repeat themselves for the next HOUR. Literally no difference: Do this or I will kill that, then Cage refuses and the process repeats itself.

I'm sure someone thought to themselves, how are we going to keep raising the tension in this scene? Rather than any character exploration or originality they choose to just move the gun around to different people. For those of you interested in how the writing meetings went my crack detective team was able to record a meeting before a shoot: "Who haven't we threatened yet? We already did all three, well how about we have the thieves threaten each other? We did that too? Fine what’s the running time? We still need 20 more minutes? Damn it! Well threaten them all again but this time with a knife, I'm calling it a day." So with legitimate tension clearly gone from the script the camera man does his best to move the camera back and forth really quickly, I applaud your attempt sir. They also kept trying to insert plot twists throughout the movie, but they aren't twists so much as a step by step following of how every movie like this is done.

By the end of the movie people in my screening were actually laughing about what was going on. This is a great movie if you want something completely over the top and melodramatic and need to turn your brain off for about 90 minutes; you just need to ask yourself if that is worth ten bucks. If all you need is an over the top laughs save your money for your convenience I have posted a video of The Wicker Man below, it has been condensed to its shortest and funniest format which is how I wish Trespass was edited. D-