Only in February and I've already undertaken my third double feature at the cinema. Yep, time for another current movie review, with the second to follow later this week. But what did I see first? Well, since Shame and My Week With Marilyn both are in limited release (see my second blog from last week for my thoughts on that development), I went with my back-up option. That doesn't mean I thought this movie was going to suck, or else I wouldn't have seen it, it just wasn't something I was hyped for. If I didn't think it was worth watching on the big screen, I'd have held off until DVD (like I will for Man On A Ledge, which is really more of a space filler in case I fail to reach 50 releases in 2012, which is my goal. If I don't have to see it this year, no big loss. If I do, I'll wait until I can get it cheap).
Anyway, let's get right into The Descendants, based on the book written by Kaui Hart Hemmings.
Matt King (George Clooney) has a lot on his mind: he is the trustee of a huge amount of land that has belonged to his family for generations and needs to sell it, due to a law dealing with perpetuities, and faces huge pressure from his family to go a certain way. But he has a more pressing matter, with his wife, Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie), in a coma that she will not wake up from (that is NOT a spoiler, you find out within the first twenty minutes) and he has to figure out how to tell his two kids, little Scottie (Amara Miller) and teenage wild child Alexandra (Shailene Woodley), as well as deal with the revelation that she was having an affair.
I understand that this film is quite the critical darling and is up for several Academy Awards. So, I have to ask: is there something I'm not seeing? I mean, it's not a bad film, it has a few things in its favour but is this really Best Picture material? Why? Because it's based on a book? Because of the shots of Hawaii? Can someone please tell me why?!
But I'm getting ahead of myself. There are good aspects to this film, the stuff that perhaps lead to the nominations. George Clooney's never been a favourite actor of mine, mostly due to Batman And Robin and how people gush over his looks. While that last part may not have anything to do with his acting ability, it overshadows everything else he has to offer. Same goes for Brad Pitt but not for Johnny Depp because he defies the fanbase that constantly raves about “he is so hot” and such and chooses better roles to help solidify his credibility. Clooney, for a while, couldn't do that. There's an episode of American Dad! Called “Tears Of A Clooney”, which, for a while, captured my feelings accurately. I won't go into a recap here since that would just stretch the blog out a little more but I will say even after seeing more of Clooney's work and my opinion of him changing, it's still one of my absolute favourite episodes of the series.
But anyway, what I'm trying to say is, in the right hands, he's capable of toning down the smugness and being really good. The movies he's done with Coen brothers, for example, show what happens when he applies himself. And in this movie, you can actually relate to his character, somewhat. Often looking disheveled and struggling to juggle everything, there's no falling back on his “killer good looks” here. He hits the right emotive spots, and his anger is especially believable. Despite calling himself the “back-up parent”, he's not comically out of touch with his kids, or incredibly stupid, just astounded by how the kids of today act (that's how I relate to him, anyway. I swear I'm a rocking chair away from telling kids to get off lawns and talking about how music was better in my day). He is the best thing about this movie, so at least I can see why he got nominated for Best Actor for this film.
Another good point: the soundtrack is nice and lovely, fits in well with the Hawaiian setting. Considering the shots of the islands and dialogue about the people of Hawaii, the music goes hand in hand. Having anything else would seem jarring.
But... the film has two big problems. Since one is a spoiler, we'll save that till later. The first big problem comes with the supporting cast and some of the main characters. I will say that some actors and actresses are deserving of praise (Judy Greer, Matthew Lillard, Robert Forster), some don't do much but they do well with little they have (Beau Bridges), some are passable (Amara Miller, Shailene Woodley in the second half) and some... why are they here? I speak mostly of Nick Krause as Sid, Alexandra's useless friend/boyfriend. I don't know what he was like in the book (if he was even in the book) but I hated him from the first time he spoke, since he had the whole “Whoa, dude, I'm like a California surfer!” style of speech. He almost always has a dopey grin on his face and he says whatever's on his mind, without tact or much thought at all. Some of the best moments in the film are when people insult him or when Forster's character punches him. I was WAITING for someone to do that and I cheered when it happened. At one point, he's listing off what he thinks are his best traits and he says something like “And I always have good weed”. Oh that explains so much about you, twit. And why does Matt still let him hang around his 17 year old daughter after Sid mentions the weed like it's an accomplishment on par with medical training?
And early on, Alexandra's not easy to like either, being a typical “wah, my parents don't love me so I'll drink and do drugs and I've probably had sex by now” brat. I hate kids like that. You ever stop and think that maybe they did love you but if they ever truly stopped, it was BECAUSE of how you were acting? It's not that their lack of love causes your behaviour, it's your behaviour destroying their love. And that's not even true in her case, things are just tense. She grows a little, though, but it's still a little hard to like her at first.
But what bugs me the most is what I got from the ending. As such, I will do a new paragraph so that if you want to get to the final thoughts, skip these upcoming spoilers (if you can call them that).
As the life support for Elizabeth is being shut off (per her wishes), the wife of the man she had an affair with (Judy Greer playing the wife) comes to see her on behalf of her husband as a sense of closure and says she forgives Elizabeth for what has transpired. That's fine, she's been dealt this major revelation and she needs to stay strong for her family, even though she doesn't know what the future holds from there. Matt also seems forgiving of her transgressions and kisses her on the forehead, saying nothing but sweet things.
Here's my problem: never mind how angry he was about the affair and the fact that she was going to ask for a divorce, the fact that he's at peace by the end just kind of pisses me off. Yes, I know that he's come to terms with things and he's had time to process, but among his last words to her, he says “My joy”. Except that she was going to leave him. So, you mean to say you've forgiven her? But you don't know how long she's been planning to leave you. How do you know she's been happy all that time? Maybe she's been faking it, for the sake of happy families. And when you look at that, wouldn't it put all your memories into question? Some of them are probably tainted now, its like one of those TV shows or movies with someone falling for someone or pretending to fall for someone for some plan, and when it's all revealed, the other person asks “Was it all a lie?” Actually, an episode of Prison Break's second season had a character ask another that question, or at least the opposite of “Was any of it real?” (OK, the answer in that case was along the lines of “Yes, it was all real”).
My point is, how much of that joy she brought you was real and how much was for the masquerade? To forgive her after all that just doesn't ring true. I don't care if they're your final moments with her, she has denied you the truth. You will always be wondering what was going through her head. Her final acts have brought nothing but anger and depression. She should not have been forgiven so easily.
I'm sorry but after going through something similar myself, maybe I'm just blinded by my own rage on the subject. But even so, doesn't change the fact that the questions linger, with the answers always eluding Matt.
Despite all that, it is a good film but over-hyped. I give it 3/5. Though, one last thing: what's with the title? I mean, we're all someone's descendants. That's like saying “The Children Of People Who Owned Some Land”. I mean, In Good Company's not called “The Boss' Daughter With Some Guy”, just as Wonder Boys isn't “Old Professor Muses On Life With Other People”. I know I'm saturating the point but the title is lacking. Even if I know what its referring to, it bares little to know relevance with the main story and with that “The”, it makes it sound definitive, like there's something ominous about the whole thing. If I were to come up with another title, what about “All The Money In The World”, which would reflect on how even with how rich Matt is, he can't buy anything that will bring his wife out of her coma or buy closure to anything the movie throws at him.
OK, may not be the best choice but it's still something. And “The Back-Up Parent” sounds more like a wacky comedy, so that's out. The search continues...
Showing posts with label movies of 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies of 2012. Show all posts
Monday, 20 February 2012
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Have You No Shame?
It should be no secret that I love movies (WHOA! That's a shock right there! I'd better leave you all to recover!) and I also love going to the cinema. The atmosphere, the grandeur of the big screen, the prospect of things to come in the movie world, good stuff. In the past two years, I've found myself going to the cinema more and more. Compared to between 2007-2009, when I only saw literally five movies each year (2007- Wild Hogs, Ghost Rider, Transformers, Spider-Man 3 and The Simpsons Movie; 2008- Juno, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street, Iron Man, Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade and The Dark Knight; 2009- Watchmen, Angels And Demons, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince and Saw 6), my film horizons have expanded. 2010 saw a little over double that and 2011 was a huge improvement on that, with 2012 looking to be even bigger still, with it being only February and I've seen seven movies in the cinema, with another two planned for this weekend (which I will be blogging about, expect them early next week).
But where am I going with this? Well, despite the year holding many promising films still to come, some of which will go straight to DVD but I still highly anticipate, there have been several films that I have had a strong desire to see, but my local cinema has decided to forgo them. And before the question is raised, no nearby cinema had screenings either. In fact, through one big cinema chain (one branch being my local cinema, about a fifteen minute drive from where I live), only three of their cinemas were showing each of the films I wanted to see. So far, there have been four films I have been denied: Young Adult, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Shame and now My Week With Marilyn, which was due this week down here.
Now, another question that may be raised is “why can't you go to one of those few cinemas playing if you want to see the movie so much?” Here's why: I work six nights a week, and in the later half of the week, I often come home at erratic times. Driving to an unfamiliar location, not knowing how long it will take, not even knowing if I'll make the movie and then having to account for the time coming back, it makes it hard to do. Even on my night off, when I don't have to worry about getting back in time to get some sleep before work, it's a hassle. So, I pretty much have the one cinema. But with these four films bypassing my local cinema, I'm annoyed. Yes, I know they'll be on DVD before the year's end but I fear this is the start of a trend.
I've noticed that all four of these films could be considered arthouse or films for a more select crowd. That's what I believe the problem to be. That the films don't hold enough “mainstream” appeal to be shown at every cinema. And I get that these films need to make money, obviously, and that appealing to niche markets instead of a more general audience isn't something that brings the consumers en masse. But if the films are limited to such a small number of cinemas, well, that's WHY they lose money. You're kind of screwing yourself over if you keep these things small.
Also, let's take a look and see what aspects of these films that the “mainstream” (I'm not putting the word in air quotes to be pretentious, it's just hard to pin down exactly what the mainstream is so it's kind of an undefinable term) audiences would be attracted to.
Young Adult is directed by Jason Reitman, written by Diablo Cody and stars Charlize Thereon. Jason and Diablo previously worked together on Juno, Jason has also directed Thank You For Smoking and Up In The Air and Diablo created The United States Of Tara and wrote Jennifer's Body. So... you're telling me THIS lacks “mainstream” appeal? Hell, it has Charlize Thereon and it's a romantic comedy with dramatic elements, isn't that what studio suits love to hear?
Martha May Marcy Marlene, that I can understand. The director and cast are relatively unknown and the plot isn't something that screams “date night” or “fun for the family” (it deals with a woman who escapes the clutches of a cult and her attempts to live a normal life). Doesn't mean it should be shunted, though.
Shame, much like the above film, has a plot that might seem confrontational (sex addict has a sister that comes to live with him, and that's being very brief and not doing it any service), but since it stars Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan, I thought that might have been enough to warrant some attention.
And now, My Week With Marilyn. It's a film about Marilyn Monroe during the filming of The Prince And The Showgirl, starring Michelle Williams, Kenneth Branagh and Emma Watson. I'm sorry, where's the factor that would keep most audiences from seeing this? Marilyn Monroe is well known to even the younger crowd (surprising, seeing as how kids these days hate anything that was created before them) and it's a biopic, which don't tend to do too badly (except maybe J. Edgar, I don't know how well it's going).
Without trying to come off as pretentious, it saddens me that cinemas will fall over themselves to get endless Chipmunk sequels and in the case of my country, any old crap we'll make (Any Questions For Ben? Yeah, I have a question: why does you suck?) but we won't broaden our horizons and try to cater to markets looking for something new?
That's not to say I'll shun anything “commercial”, I'm on the edge of my seat for The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers and Skyfall. Hell, I've seen all seven Police Academy movies, I own them in a collector pack and I actually like all of them (well, six of them and I tolerate Mission To Moscow. Just barely), so I'm the last person to turn to for higher culture. I'm as dumb as they come, ask anyone I know. My criteria for film isn't based on being an indie or being the summer blockbuster. It basically goes “What's it about and does it have anyone in it that would make me want to jump out a window after setting myself on fire?” I believe it was Roger Ebert who said, and I may be paraphrasing slightly “A film's not about what its about, its how it goes about it”. That's all I need from my movies. I can sit there and watch comedy capers like Rat Race and Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines, but I can also appreciate deep and thought provoking fair like Memento and One Hour Photo. All I want is to be allowed to see these films daring to be different.
And is that too much to ask?
But where am I going with this? Well, despite the year holding many promising films still to come, some of which will go straight to DVD but I still highly anticipate, there have been several films that I have had a strong desire to see, but my local cinema has decided to forgo them. And before the question is raised, no nearby cinema had screenings either. In fact, through one big cinema chain (one branch being my local cinema, about a fifteen minute drive from where I live), only three of their cinemas were showing each of the films I wanted to see. So far, there have been four films I have been denied: Young Adult, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Shame and now My Week With Marilyn, which was due this week down here.
Now, another question that may be raised is “why can't you go to one of those few cinemas playing if you want to see the movie so much?” Here's why: I work six nights a week, and in the later half of the week, I often come home at erratic times. Driving to an unfamiliar location, not knowing how long it will take, not even knowing if I'll make the movie and then having to account for the time coming back, it makes it hard to do. Even on my night off, when I don't have to worry about getting back in time to get some sleep before work, it's a hassle. So, I pretty much have the one cinema. But with these four films bypassing my local cinema, I'm annoyed. Yes, I know they'll be on DVD before the year's end but I fear this is the start of a trend.
I've noticed that all four of these films could be considered arthouse or films for a more select crowd. That's what I believe the problem to be. That the films don't hold enough “mainstream” appeal to be shown at every cinema. And I get that these films need to make money, obviously, and that appealing to niche markets instead of a more general audience isn't something that brings the consumers en masse. But if the films are limited to such a small number of cinemas, well, that's WHY they lose money. You're kind of screwing yourself over if you keep these things small.
Also, let's take a look and see what aspects of these films that the “mainstream” (I'm not putting the word in air quotes to be pretentious, it's just hard to pin down exactly what the mainstream is so it's kind of an undefinable term) audiences would be attracted to.
Young Adult is directed by Jason Reitman, written by Diablo Cody and stars Charlize Thereon. Jason and Diablo previously worked together on Juno, Jason has also directed Thank You For Smoking and Up In The Air and Diablo created The United States Of Tara and wrote Jennifer's Body. So... you're telling me THIS lacks “mainstream” appeal? Hell, it has Charlize Thereon and it's a romantic comedy with dramatic elements, isn't that what studio suits love to hear?
Martha May Marcy Marlene, that I can understand. The director and cast are relatively unknown and the plot isn't something that screams “date night” or “fun for the family” (it deals with a woman who escapes the clutches of a cult and her attempts to live a normal life). Doesn't mean it should be shunted, though.
Shame, much like the above film, has a plot that might seem confrontational (sex addict has a sister that comes to live with him, and that's being very brief and not doing it any service), but since it stars Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan, I thought that might have been enough to warrant some attention.
And now, My Week With Marilyn. It's a film about Marilyn Monroe during the filming of The Prince And The Showgirl, starring Michelle Williams, Kenneth Branagh and Emma Watson. I'm sorry, where's the factor that would keep most audiences from seeing this? Marilyn Monroe is well known to even the younger crowd (surprising, seeing as how kids these days hate anything that was created before them) and it's a biopic, which don't tend to do too badly (except maybe J. Edgar, I don't know how well it's going).
Without trying to come off as pretentious, it saddens me that cinemas will fall over themselves to get endless Chipmunk sequels and in the case of my country, any old crap we'll make (Any Questions For Ben? Yeah, I have a question: why does you suck?) but we won't broaden our horizons and try to cater to markets looking for something new?
That's not to say I'll shun anything “commercial”, I'm on the edge of my seat for The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers and Skyfall. Hell, I've seen all seven Police Academy movies, I own them in a collector pack and I actually like all of them (well, six of them and I tolerate Mission To Moscow. Just barely), so I'm the last person to turn to for higher culture. I'm as dumb as they come, ask anyone I know. My criteria for film isn't based on being an indie or being the summer blockbuster. It basically goes “What's it about and does it have anyone in it that would make me want to jump out a window after setting myself on fire?” I believe it was Roger Ebert who said, and I may be paraphrasing slightly “A film's not about what its about, its how it goes about it”. That's all I need from my movies. I can sit there and watch comedy capers like Rat Race and Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines, but I can also appreciate deep and thought provoking fair like Memento and One Hour Photo. All I want is to be allowed to see these films daring to be different.
And is that too much to ask?
Friday, 3 February 2012
It's All Fun And Games Until Someone Gets Struck By Lightning
And to close out the week, I have been provided with yet another cinema offering to blog about. This time, it's the found footage-style film, Chronicle.
Andrew (Dane DeHaan), Steve (Michael B. Jordan) and Matt (Alex Russell) encounter a strange glowing object underground, after attending a rave. After blacking out while around the object, they awaken to discover they have gained powers and abilities beyond those of mere mortal men. Using Andrew's camera, they document their experimentation with their powers and bond over their discoveries. But things take a darker turn, leading to great abuse of the power provided...
For those unsure of what found footage films are, think of The Blair Witch Project (or don't, it's crap, and that's being nice to that atrocious garbage), Cloverfield (this, on the other hand, is outstanding and the pinnacle of the found footage genre) or the Paranormal Activity films (which I find to be rather average, but hilarious. If that's not intentional, well, the movies have a problem but still, I have fun laughing at them). Basically, it's a film made up of footage from cameras, like the person in the movie is filming the events for their own reasons. Andrew's reason is... well, he just decided to. And later on, it serves to document the boys testing their powers like invulnerability, telekinesis and flight.
However, his is not the only camera that footage is garnered from. Footage is utilized from different cameras, including Casey, a blogger who often films things as material for her blog and from police cameras. It's really clever, offers different viewpoints from the supporting cast/random bystanders and keeps the flow going, rather than taking a break out to show things off-camera, if that makes sense.
Some of the film's best scenes are, unfortunately, the ones seen in the trailer, in which the teens test their new-found powers by pulling pranks and simple tests. It is the bonding between the teens that makes these scenes work, as all of them become ecstatic when they make new discoveries (see the scene in which they take flight for the first time, they're all completely amazed. And it's hilarious, too, seeing Matt try and not quite get it the first few times and keep falling) and praise each other when they do something the others haven't yet or aren't quite up to speed with (Andrew's telekinesis is much stronger than Matt's and Steve's, as shown when he constructs a Lego tower with it, whereas Matt can barely hold two blocks in the air). Naturally, these scenes are early on and they do the best job of building the relationship with the characters, even though Matt and Andrew are cousins and thus, already have a pre-existing relationship. Despite being from different cliques in school (Andrew's the “weird, lonely, picked-on kid” and remember that, it will be important later; Matt's the everyman, the guy who may not be THE most popular guy but he's got friends and he's generally well-respected; and Steve is one of the most popular guys in school, even in the running for class president), even before they get their powers, they all treat each other with respect, even though they rag on each other at times. But then, that's what teens do, don't they?
Steve is probably my favourite of the characters, mostly because he doesn't seem too concerned with the politics of the school system and is more casual and easygoing, but when he and Andrew start hanging out more, he sincerely wants to help Andrew get out of his shell more, culminating in Andrew entering a talent show (using his powers, of course) and him winning the crowd over and becoming the man of the hour.
Matt takes a bit to warm up to, it doesn't seem like he has a whole lot of respect for Andrew, acting like an older brother who has to scold his little brother and set him right. Once the powers kick in, he starts seeing Andrew as someone capable of providing great things to the world. Again, like an older brother. However, as the film goes on, his better traits do shine through and he's a lot more noble and selfless than expected.
Andrew, however, is the odd man out (and here there will be spoilers, and this will be long, so it might be best to skip ahead).
Andrew's problem is two-fold: in the way he's written and the way he's portrayed. Well, maybe not so much written, but more in the backstory itself. This will probably be branded a superhero film, since, well, the kids have powers. And by the end, you can see that happening. But if that's the case, if you haven't seen the trailer, you'll guess that Andrew is the most likely to go evil and abuse his power. Why? Well, here are the factors: he has a deadbeat, alcoholic father who loves to beat the crap out of his son and berate him (and this we learn within the first five minutes, with only his voice to go on, so already we're supposed to hate him. And I hated him as soon as I heard him speak his first line); his loving mother is dying of cancer (gee, that's not going to end badly is it?); as mentioned before, he's not popular in school, constantly being beaten up and belittled; and he's had no luck with girls. When you add it all up, you're really stacking it against the kid aren't you? You might as well put a big neon sign above his head saying “Future supervillain right here!” The trailer even hints at it, the scene in which he crushes a car, with a scowl on his face.
The problem is, as a supervillain origin story, it's not exactly original. Father's an abusive loser, only family member you love dies, your peers can't stand you. You know who pops into my head when I write that? Doctor Octopus. Seriously, take out the glowing object, replace it with science and age him up, it's Doc Ock. Hell, the Riddler had the abusive father angle too. And look at Harry frickin' Osborn, his father's a psycho! The Penguin avoids the abusive father angle (if I recall correctly) by having his father die early but Penguin does have the “picked on by kids his own age” schtick going for him, based on his appearance and the fact that he carried an umbrella everywhere (at his mother's insistence) .
And after all the crap he has to endure, including the quick loss of his new popularity, is it any shock that he goes on a rampage and basically becomes what Carrie would have been if she had lived?
If it were me, I'd have changed things slightly: I'd have written the father out, made him slightly less of a weird loner and maybe not even have it set in high school, maybe they've just graduated or starting college, and have his start of darkness be based on the fact that even with all his powers, he can't stop his mother from dying, and he turns to crime as the means of making her better (which he does do in the movie but not for long, as its towards the end of the movie and we have the final showdown to get through), with his full blown villainy erupting because he sees himself as a failure for not being able to do anything for her, even though, in his mind, he's on the verge of godhood. Not only would it be slightly more original, he'd be more sympathetic and he could be more mature when talking to his friends, and not lashing out.
This brings me to the next part of the problem: now, Dane DeHaan does a really good job with the role, for the most part, but more often than not, regardless of the situation, he sounds like he's about to cry or whimper or moan. In some cases, like when he's beaten at the rave in the beginning, of course that's natural. But in everyday conversation? OK, I get it, you're being bullied at school. You're not alone, dude. I went through something similar and I hated high school. Those who say they enjoyed it were usually the ones who tormented the ones who didn't. But I never took my abuse out on anyone who DID want to help me, and I always appreciated it and eventually, I moved on with my life. Yes I still hate it, but I hate a lot of things people do, you just have to find new ways of dealing with it. Hell, I had more balls than you in school and I couldn't bloody fly!
So, really, what it boils down to is, he's not as likable as the other two because of inconsistent characterization and a telegraphed origin story. That's not to say he doesn't have his good moments, like when he experiments with his powers or the talent show, which was a delight. Just that early on, it's hard to like him.
But back to the positives, one of the film's biggest strengths is its breakneck speed. Unlike the telegraphing of the origin story for Andrew, when the film wants to deliver something fast, BAM! The first time the guys fly, it's great and fun and perhaps the highlight of the film but then a plane comes and suddenly we're somewhere else. We can guess what happened but it happened that fast that our minds need to catch up. It's disorienting and we ask questions, but in a good way. It's more of a “Holy crap, did you see that?! What was that?!” kind of way, as opposed to “...What the Hell was that crap?!” Now, I've already spoilt enough, but I will say this: the lightning storm. That gave me such an emotional response and I still didn't fully grasp the situation until a few minutes later. That's just how good that scene was directed, written and acted.
So, when scoring this film, how does it fare? To be honest, it would have been a 4 if not for the high school cliches, the origin story cliches and Andrew's inconsistent characterization. Despite that, the fun of seeing the powers in use and the surprises do make this a very good film and thus, I give it 3.5/5
Andrew (Dane DeHaan), Steve (Michael B. Jordan) and Matt (Alex Russell) encounter a strange glowing object underground, after attending a rave. After blacking out while around the object, they awaken to discover they have gained powers and abilities beyond those of mere mortal men. Using Andrew's camera, they document their experimentation with their powers and bond over their discoveries. But things take a darker turn, leading to great abuse of the power provided...
For those unsure of what found footage films are, think of The Blair Witch Project (or don't, it's crap, and that's being nice to that atrocious garbage), Cloverfield (this, on the other hand, is outstanding and the pinnacle of the found footage genre) or the Paranormal Activity films (which I find to be rather average, but hilarious. If that's not intentional, well, the movies have a problem but still, I have fun laughing at them). Basically, it's a film made up of footage from cameras, like the person in the movie is filming the events for their own reasons. Andrew's reason is... well, he just decided to. And later on, it serves to document the boys testing their powers like invulnerability, telekinesis and flight.
However, his is not the only camera that footage is garnered from. Footage is utilized from different cameras, including Casey, a blogger who often films things as material for her blog and from police cameras. It's really clever, offers different viewpoints from the supporting cast/random bystanders and keeps the flow going, rather than taking a break out to show things off-camera, if that makes sense.
Some of the film's best scenes are, unfortunately, the ones seen in the trailer, in which the teens test their new-found powers by pulling pranks and simple tests. It is the bonding between the teens that makes these scenes work, as all of them become ecstatic when they make new discoveries (see the scene in which they take flight for the first time, they're all completely amazed. And it's hilarious, too, seeing Matt try and not quite get it the first few times and keep falling) and praise each other when they do something the others haven't yet or aren't quite up to speed with (Andrew's telekinesis is much stronger than Matt's and Steve's, as shown when he constructs a Lego tower with it, whereas Matt can barely hold two blocks in the air). Naturally, these scenes are early on and they do the best job of building the relationship with the characters, even though Matt and Andrew are cousins and thus, already have a pre-existing relationship. Despite being from different cliques in school (Andrew's the “weird, lonely, picked-on kid” and remember that, it will be important later; Matt's the everyman, the guy who may not be THE most popular guy but he's got friends and he's generally well-respected; and Steve is one of the most popular guys in school, even in the running for class president), even before they get their powers, they all treat each other with respect, even though they rag on each other at times. But then, that's what teens do, don't they?
Steve is probably my favourite of the characters, mostly because he doesn't seem too concerned with the politics of the school system and is more casual and easygoing, but when he and Andrew start hanging out more, he sincerely wants to help Andrew get out of his shell more, culminating in Andrew entering a talent show (using his powers, of course) and him winning the crowd over and becoming the man of the hour.
Matt takes a bit to warm up to, it doesn't seem like he has a whole lot of respect for Andrew, acting like an older brother who has to scold his little brother and set him right. Once the powers kick in, he starts seeing Andrew as someone capable of providing great things to the world. Again, like an older brother. However, as the film goes on, his better traits do shine through and he's a lot more noble and selfless than expected.
Andrew, however, is the odd man out (and here there will be spoilers, and this will be long, so it might be best to skip ahead).
Andrew's problem is two-fold: in the way he's written and the way he's portrayed. Well, maybe not so much written, but more in the backstory itself. This will probably be branded a superhero film, since, well, the kids have powers. And by the end, you can see that happening. But if that's the case, if you haven't seen the trailer, you'll guess that Andrew is the most likely to go evil and abuse his power. Why? Well, here are the factors: he has a deadbeat, alcoholic father who loves to beat the crap out of his son and berate him (and this we learn within the first five minutes, with only his voice to go on, so already we're supposed to hate him. And I hated him as soon as I heard him speak his first line); his loving mother is dying of cancer (gee, that's not going to end badly is it?); as mentioned before, he's not popular in school, constantly being beaten up and belittled; and he's had no luck with girls. When you add it all up, you're really stacking it against the kid aren't you? You might as well put a big neon sign above his head saying “Future supervillain right here!” The trailer even hints at it, the scene in which he crushes a car, with a scowl on his face.
The problem is, as a supervillain origin story, it's not exactly original. Father's an abusive loser, only family member you love dies, your peers can't stand you. You know who pops into my head when I write that? Doctor Octopus. Seriously, take out the glowing object, replace it with science and age him up, it's Doc Ock. Hell, the Riddler had the abusive father angle too. And look at Harry frickin' Osborn, his father's a psycho! The Penguin avoids the abusive father angle (if I recall correctly) by having his father die early but Penguin does have the “picked on by kids his own age” schtick going for him, based on his appearance and the fact that he carried an umbrella everywhere (at his mother's insistence) .
And after all the crap he has to endure, including the quick loss of his new popularity, is it any shock that he goes on a rampage and basically becomes what Carrie would have been if she had lived?
If it were me, I'd have changed things slightly: I'd have written the father out, made him slightly less of a weird loner and maybe not even have it set in high school, maybe they've just graduated or starting college, and have his start of darkness be based on the fact that even with all his powers, he can't stop his mother from dying, and he turns to crime as the means of making her better (which he does do in the movie but not for long, as its towards the end of the movie and we have the final showdown to get through), with his full blown villainy erupting because he sees himself as a failure for not being able to do anything for her, even though, in his mind, he's on the verge of godhood. Not only would it be slightly more original, he'd be more sympathetic and he could be more mature when talking to his friends, and not lashing out.
This brings me to the next part of the problem: now, Dane DeHaan does a really good job with the role, for the most part, but more often than not, regardless of the situation, he sounds like he's about to cry or whimper or moan. In some cases, like when he's beaten at the rave in the beginning, of course that's natural. But in everyday conversation? OK, I get it, you're being bullied at school. You're not alone, dude. I went through something similar and I hated high school. Those who say they enjoyed it were usually the ones who tormented the ones who didn't. But I never took my abuse out on anyone who DID want to help me, and I always appreciated it and eventually, I moved on with my life. Yes I still hate it, but I hate a lot of things people do, you just have to find new ways of dealing with it. Hell, I had more balls than you in school and I couldn't bloody fly!
So, really, what it boils down to is, he's not as likable as the other two because of inconsistent characterization and a telegraphed origin story. That's not to say he doesn't have his good moments, like when he experiments with his powers or the talent show, which was a delight. Just that early on, it's hard to like him.
But back to the positives, one of the film's biggest strengths is its breakneck speed. Unlike the telegraphing of the origin story for Andrew, when the film wants to deliver something fast, BAM! The first time the guys fly, it's great and fun and perhaps the highlight of the film but then a plane comes and suddenly we're somewhere else. We can guess what happened but it happened that fast that our minds need to catch up. It's disorienting and we ask questions, but in a good way. It's more of a “Holy crap, did you see that?! What was that?!” kind of way, as opposed to “...What the Hell was that crap?!” Now, I've already spoilt enough, but I will say this: the lightning storm. That gave me such an emotional response and I still didn't fully grasp the situation until a few minutes later. That's just how good that scene was directed, written and acted.
So, when scoring this film, how does it fare? To be honest, it would have been a 4 if not for the high school cliches, the origin story cliches and Andrew's inconsistent characterization. Despite that, the fun of seeing the powers in use and the surprises do make this a very good film and thus, I give it 3.5/5
Monday, 16 January 2012
Should Have Taken Platform Nine-And-Three-Quarters
And to start off a new week, we have another 2012 release (by Australian standards, at least, like the last two movies I've reviewed) that I ventured out to see (still not Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows, and there will probably be a couple more films before that). This time around, I saw the latest Martin Scorsese picture, Hugo.
Hugo is based on the illustrated novel The Invention Of Hugo Cabret, written by Brian Selznick.
Hugo (Ava Butterfield) lives at a railway station in 1930's Paris after the death of his father (Jude Law), maintaining the clocks in secret while avoiding the station inspector, Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen). Hugo strives to complete an automaton that he and his father were working on just before his father's death. This project involves him stealing parts from a local toy booth owner, Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), who is apprehensive and cold towards the boy. His goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), takes an interest in Hugo and together, the two set out to complete the automaton and uncover the secrets within.
Goodfellas. Taxi Driver. Gangs Of New York. Mean Streets. Casino. All works by Scorsese, all about violent people and none of them are definitely for the eyes of youngsters. Even his films like The Age Of Innocence and Kundun aren't really something he had in mind for the little ones. So, it's a huge surprise to see a film like this considering all that's come before. But I can understand wanting a change of scenery. I mean, he's got a daughter who I think is about 12 years old and it's not like she can sit down and watch any of his current filmography.
When I first saw the trailer, I have to admit I wasn't overly impressed. I kind of expected it to be a fantastical, whimsical and magical adventure, not unlike Harry Potter. I mean, it didn't look bad, but it didn't stand out. Having seen it now, I am relieved that the magic comes more from the heart than it does from spells and sorcerers.
Scorsese has assembled an impressive cast and a few of the actors and actresses I believe he's working with for the first time, too.
Though, oddly enough, it is the films lead that I find the most polarising. On the one hand, when he needs to emote, the kid can emote. His tears are sincere and when his face fills with wonder, it is such a joy to behold. But at the same time, the character can come off as unresponsive and rude (despite being told later that he has “good manners... for a thief”) as he doesn't say please when asking for things, especially whenever he asks for his notebook back and he doesn't respond immediately. And no, I will not accept “well, the death of his father at such a young age made sure he didn't develop the proper social skills” because whenever we see the flashbacks with his father, he seems a lot more well-adjusted. And yeah, the effects of death manifest in all different forms but it's not like he was raised by wolves when he died, he did have a life before the tragedy. If his father had died when he was an infant, this might make more sense. He does improve in the third act, but for the first two, you kind of understand why Ben Kingsley's character wants nothing to do with the boy.
Speaking of Ben Kingsley, his character is probably my favourite of the whole movie. Throughout the first two acts, he plays the role of a bitter, aged man without making him unsympathetic or hamming it up by bellowing for no reason. And by the third, when you understand his past better, it just makes him that much more a three dimensional character. And (spoiler alert!) knowing that the character is actually someone from real life, it makes the journey (character development-wise and literal) that much more heartwarming. It's not my favourite role of his (that's still his Dr. Watson in Without A Clue, equally tied with Itzhak Stern, and for the record, I have yet to see Gandhi or House Of Sand And Fog and a whole bunch of others).
If Hugo is aloof and serious, Isabelle is his antithesis. Well, she is serious but in the sense that she's mature for her age, not like Hugo who seems to be single minded. Chloe Moretz is delightful as the inquisitive, quick-witted adventure-seeking girl with a vibrant look on life. I actually think she makes a better protagonist than Hugo, which is kind of sad considering it's Hugo's movie.
Also turning in a great performance is Sacha Baron Cohen as the train station inspector. The man is able to come up with new and interesting performances with every project he undertakes and this is no exception. Despite being the closest thing this movie has to an antagonist (another factor I like about the movie, the lack of a conventional villain. I mean, sure, I love villains but if the film doesn't need one, it can make for more interesting viewing sometimes), he is still sympathetic with his own subplot about attracting the attention of a sweet and pretty flower girl (played by Emily Mortimer, who is ever so adorable in this movie. Not that she isn't in others, but especially here) and getting too tongue tied to strike up a conversation with her, not helped by his leg injury from the First World War. While his own backstory is only ever glossed over, it hints at a life not entirely unlike Hugo's and he also gets some of the funniest lines of the movie, like the running gag involving his conversations with another man expecting a baby with his wife, and is unsure if he is the father.
Much like The Muppets was a love letter from a lifelong fan to the entire franchise, so too is this a love letter to... well, movies themselves. The film goes into great detail about the first films ever made and describes how much of an influence they came to be. Hugo and his father loved the movies, and it is this that forms part of the drive for Hugo to complete his father's work. This film is a vessel in which Martin Scorsese is basically saying “For every thing you've allowed me to do and achieve in my career, this is my thank you.” He goes back to the beginning and it's not just the third act and all its revelations, the entire film holds homages to the silent era. A lot of the film relies on the expressions of its actors and scenes lacking dialogue to carry the movie and for the most part, they work. Heck, even the promotional poster of Hugo hanging from a clock is an homage to a film called Safety Last!, starring Harold Lloyd.
It may not be my favourite of Scorsese's filmography, but it is incredibly heartfelt. I give Hugo a 3.5/5.
Hugo is based on the illustrated novel The Invention Of Hugo Cabret, written by Brian Selznick.
Hugo (Ava Butterfield) lives at a railway station in 1930's Paris after the death of his father (Jude Law), maintaining the clocks in secret while avoiding the station inspector, Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen). Hugo strives to complete an automaton that he and his father were working on just before his father's death. This project involves him stealing parts from a local toy booth owner, Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), who is apprehensive and cold towards the boy. His goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), takes an interest in Hugo and together, the two set out to complete the automaton and uncover the secrets within.
Goodfellas. Taxi Driver. Gangs Of New York. Mean Streets. Casino. All works by Scorsese, all about violent people and none of them are definitely for the eyes of youngsters. Even his films like The Age Of Innocence and Kundun aren't really something he had in mind for the little ones. So, it's a huge surprise to see a film like this considering all that's come before. But I can understand wanting a change of scenery. I mean, he's got a daughter who I think is about 12 years old and it's not like she can sit down and watch any of his current filmography.
When I first saw the trailer, I have to admit I wasn't overly impressed. I kind of expected it to be a fantastical, whimsical and magical adventure, not unlike Harry Potter. I mean, it didn't look bad, but it didn't stand out. Having seen it now, I am relieved that the magic comes more from the heart than it does from spells and sorcerers.
Scorsese has assembled an impressive cast and a few of the actors and actresses I believe he's working with for the first time, too.
Though, oddly enough, it is the films lead that I find the most polarising. On the one hand, when he needs to emote, the kid can emote. His tears are sincere and when his face fills with wonder, it is such a joy to behold. But at the same time, the character can come off as unresponsive and rude (despite being told later that he has “good manners... for a thief”) as he doesn't say please when asking for things, especially whenever he asks for his notebook back and he doesn't respond immediately. And no, I will not accept “well, the death of his father at such a young age made sure he didn't develop the proper social skills” because whenever we see the flashbacks with his father, he seems a lot more well-adjusted. And yeah, the effects of death manifest in all different forms but it's not like he was raised by wolves when he died, he did have a life before the tragedy. If his father had died when he was an infant, this might make more sense. He does improve in the third act, but for the first two, you kind of understand why Ben Kingsley's character wants nothing to do with the boy.
Speaking of Ben Kingsley, his character is probably my favourite of the whole movie. Throughout the first two acts, he plays the role of a bitter, aged man without making him unsympathetic or hamming it up by bellowing for no reason. And by the third, when you understand his past better, it just makes him that much more a three dimensional character. And (spoiler alert!) knowing that the character is actually someone from real life, it makes the journey (character development-wise and literal) that much more heartwarming. It's not my favourite role of his (that's still his Dr. Watson in Without A Clue, equally tied with Itzhak Stern, and for the record, I have yet to see Gandhi or House Of Sand And Fog and a whole bunch of others).
If Hugo is aloof and serious, Isabelle is his antithesis. Well, she is serious but in the sense that she's mature for her age, not like Hugo who seems to be single minded. Chloe Moretz is delightful as the inquisitive, quick-witted adventure-seeking girl with a vibrant look on life. I actually think she makes a better protagonist than Hugo, which is kind of sad considering it's Hugo's movie.
Also turning in a great performance is Sacha Baron Cohen as the train station inspector. The man is able to come up with new and interesting performances with every project he undertakes and this is no exception. Despite being the closest thing this movie has to an antagonist (another factor I like about the movie, the lack of a conventional villain. I mean, sure, I love villains but if the film doesn't need one, it can make for more interesting viewing sometimes), he is still sympathetic with his own subplot about attracting the attention of a sweet and pretty flower girl (played by Emily Mortimer, who is ever so adorable in this movie. Not that she isn't in others, but especially here) and getting too tongue tied to strike up a conversation with her, not helped by his leg injury from the First World War. While his own backstory is only ever glossed over, it hints at a life not entirely unlike Hugo's and he also gets some of the funniest lines of the movie, like the running gag involving his conversations with another man expecting a baby with his wife, and is unsure if he is the father.
Much like The Muppets was a love letter from a lifelong fan to the entire franchise, so too is this a love letter to... well, movies themselves. The film goes into great detail about the first films ever made and describes how much of an influence they came to be. Hugo and his father loved the movies, and it is this that forms part of the drive for Hugo to complete his father's work. This film is a vessel in which Martin Scorsese is basically saying “For every thing you've allowed me to do and achieve in my career, this is my thank you.” He goes back to the beginning and it's not just the third act and all its revelations, the entire film holds homages to the silent era. A lot of the film relies on the expressions of its actors and scenes lacking dialogue to carry the movie and for the most part, they work. Heck, even the promotional poster of Hugo hanging from a clock is an homage to a film called Safety Last!, starring Harold Lloyd.
It may not be my favourite of Scorsese's filmography, but it is incredibly heartfelt. I give Hugo a 3.5/5.
Friday, 13 January 2012
Penny, All Grown Up
So, on the opposite side of the spectrum from the fun and frivolity of The Muppets, we have the grim and tense second adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, the second film I saw on Thursday. Yeah, that would look weird as a double billing on a marque.
Before someone asks, I will answer what will probably be the first questions that spring to mind:
Yes, I did read the book before I saw the movie
No, I haven't read The Girl Who Played With Fire or The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest yet, though they will be the next books I read
No, I haven't seen the first adaptations, I will reserve that for when I finish the books and watch all of them back-to-back.
Now, here's where I give my spoiler warning but it's a little different. If you haven't read the book, then yes, spoilers will probably pop up. If you have, aside from one thing I'll get to (and even then I won't overtly blurt it out), then you'll know roughly what the movie will contain.
So with that, let's get to the plot:
After losing a libel case against a corrupt businessman, Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) takes leave of absence from his position at the Millenium magazine publication and receives a proposition
from a retired CEO, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), in which he will be handsomely paid, in more ways than one, if he can solve the murder of his niece, Harriet, a case from years before.
Eventually, he crosses paths with expert hacker, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) and the two team up to solve the case.
Now, that's just a condensed version of a summary (even more so than normal) but that's because Lisbeth has her own subplot before her meeting with Mikael, but I'll cover some of that in the paragraphs below.
On the merits of an adaptation, it's a solid translation from book to screen. Of course, not everything from the book was going to make it but what doesn't would have been cut for purposes of tightening the film and keeping the running time to a decent length (it's a little over 2 hours already). The characters have jumped to the big screen and lost little, if any, of their impact. And when you have characters as strong as these, tinkering around is something that will come to bite you in the arse.
On its own merits, it's a very engaging mystery, with intense moments in both the main story and Lisbeth's own subplot. Well, I only say subplot because while it is important for her character development, the mystery is what brings Lisbeth and Mikael together.
For the girl with the dragon tattoo herself, Lisbeth is portrayed wonderfully by Rooney Mara. Her character has hidden reserves of strength and her reactions to all the crap in her life are refreshing to see, since they mostly resolve with her becoming more determined to kick arse.
Take (here's a spoiler for those not familiar with the book) the very, VERY uncomfortable scene in which she is raped by her social worker/guardian. Now, it was shocking in the book, but like most things, what makes the movie worse (not in terms of sucking but in terms of horrific nature) is the inclusion of a soundtrack and the performance of the actress (unless anyone out there has a soundtrack playing in their head when they read book).
After a scene in the shower, in which she is visibly tormented, rather than have her break down and cry (but in all fairness, I would not blame her if she did, what she went through is not something I wish upon my worst enemies. Hydrochloric acid in their face, maybe, but not that), she gets her revenge and doesn't break down in front of him. She remains as fierce and stoic as she normally is and makes it clear how much of a living Hell his life will be if he doesn't obey her wishes (and she caps it off by using a tattoo needle to etch “I AM A RAPIST PIG” on his stomach, to warn future potential victims). If her character wasn't defined before, then this serves as her establishing character moment. They say Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? No, Hell hath no fury like Lisbeth Salander pissed off.
Y'know, Lisbeth actually kind of reminds me of a grown-up Penny from Inspector Gadget, though obviously much darker (thus the title of the blog). She's an expert hacker, her parents are out of the picture, she cares for her guardian, she's on the side of good and she likes animals.
My absolute favourite scene is when Mikael comes to Lisbeth's apartment and discusses why he's there. At first, she's aloof and not interested in what he has to say. Once he mentions that women have been murdered or abused, her expression changes. She looks right at him, eyes wide, mouth slightly open as if in shock. It's almost like without words, she's saying “I'm in”. It is through this she displays her dedication to justice and fighting the corrupt and evil people of the world.
Daniel Craig is also more than exceptional in his role as the determined (there's that word again. If there's one word that defines these characters, its determination) and inquisitive Mikael. He remains undeterred and much like when Daniel plays Bond, if he's ever terrified, he doesn't let it show (and in a slight spoiler for two movies, anyone remember the scene in Casino Royale when Bond's being tortured and he mocks the guy, saying the world's going to know he died scratching Bond's balls? Minus the witty banter and ball scratching and Daniel's in familiar territory). The way his relationship with Lisbeth develops is great to see, especially with Lisbeth not being very trusting of men (or people in general, really. The fact that by the end of the movie, she considers him a friend, is touching in and of itself).
Also, props to Christopher Plummer and Stellan Skarsgard. Christopher Plummer adds another layer of warmth to a character I very much liked in the book, he's altruistic and family orientated (well, the family he can stand anyway. Which is... well, he could buy a new family if he wanted to). And Stellan Skarsgard is proving to be an actor I need to watch out for, after this and Thor, I'm hoping to see more of his work.
And on a smaller note, I was concerned that the story was going to be transplanted to America so as not to scare off American audiences, but if anything, all that's been done is just have the characters speak English, albeit with accents. Big thumbs up for that.
Now, if I have one complaint, it's in the form of a slight spoiler. In the book, Australia actually plays a big part in the resolution of the mystery and several locations are actually mentioned. In the movie... well, once again, we get the shaft. Seriously, are we repellent or something? Why couldn't have that part of the novel stayed intact?
But on a more positive note, the opening title. Not just for the awesome, almost music clip style opening, the song playing is frickin' sweet. It's a cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song as sung by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. And when I left the cinema, you bet I was humming along with it. It is the best Zeppelin cover EVER. I want that song on my laptop and I will get it somehow, dammit! In fact, I need a copy of the soundtrack, the entire score is sweet.
So, all in all, does the film stack up well compared to the book and on its own? A resounding yes on both counts. The Australian film season of 2012 has already gotten off to a great start, let's hope it can remain this consistent. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo gets a 4/5 from me. And here's hoping the first adaptations (and the rest of the books) will be equally as great. And also, that Fincher, Craig and Mara see this trilogy through to the end.
Before someone asks, I will answer what will probably be the first questions that spring to mind:
Yes, I did read the book before I saw the movie
No, I haven't read The Girl Who Played With Fire or The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest yet, though they will be the next books I read
No, I haven't seen the first adaptations, I will reserve that for when I finish the books and watch all of them back-to-back.
Now, here's where I give my spoiler warning but it's a little different. If you haven't read the book, then yes, spoilers will probably pop up. If you have, aside from one thing I'll get to (and even then I won't overtly blurt it out), then you'll know roughly what the movie will contain.
So with that, let's get to the plot:
After losing a libel case against a corrupt businessman, Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) takes leave of absence from his position at the Millenium magazine publication and receives a proposition
from a retired CEO, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), in which he will be handsomely paid, in more ways than one, if he can solve the murder of his niece, Harriet, a case from years before.
Eventually, he crosses paths with expert hacker, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) and the two team up to solve the case.
Now, that's just a condensed version of a summary (even more so than normal) but that's because Lisbeth has her own subplot before her meeting with Mikael, but I'll cover some of that in the paragraphs below.
On the merits of an adaptation, it's a solid translation from book to screen. Of course, not everything from the book was going to make it but what doesn't would have been cut for purposes of tightening the film and keeping the running time to a decent length (it's a little over 2 hours already). The characters have jumped to the big screen and lost little, if any, of their impact. And when you have characters as strong as these, tinkering around is something that will come to bite you in the arse.
On its own merits, it's a very engaging mystery, with intense moments in both the main story and Lisbeth's own subplot. Well, I only say subplot because while it is important for her character development, the mystery is what brings Lisbeth and Mikael together.
For the girl with the dragon tattoo herself, Lisbeth is portrayed wonderfully by Rooney Mara. Her character has hidden reserves of strength and her reactions to all the crap in her life are refreshing to see, since they mostly resolve with her becoming more determined to kick arse.
Take (here's a spoiler for those not familiar with the book) the very, VERY uncomfortable scene in which she is raped by her social worker/guardian. Now, it was shocking in the book, but like most things, what makes the movie worse (not in terms of sucking but in terms of horrific nature) is the inclusion of a soundtrack and the performance of the actress (unless anyone out there has a soundtrack playing in their head when they read book).
After a scene in the shower, in which she is visibly tormented, rather than have her break down and cry (but in all fairness, I would not blame her if she did, what she went through is not something I wish upon my worst enemies. Hydrochloric acid in their face, maybe, but not that), she gets her revenge and doesn't break down in front of him. She remains as fierce and stoic as she normally is and makes it clear how much of a living Hell his life will be if he doesn't obey her wishes (and she caps it off by using a tattoo needle to etch “I AM A RAPIST PIG” on his stomach, to warn future potential victims). If her character wasn't defined before, then this serves as her establishing character moment. They say Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? No, Hell hath no fury like Lisbeth Salander pissed off.
Y'know, Lisbeth actually kind of reminds me of a grown-up Penny from Inspector Gadget, though obviously much darker (thus the title of the blog). She's an expert hacker, her parents are out of the picture, she cares for her guardian, she's on the side of good and she likes animals.
My absolute favourite scene is when Mikael comes to Lisbeth's apartment and discusses why he's there. At first, she's aloof and not interested in what he has to say. Once he mentions that women have been murdered or abused, her expression changes. She looks right at him, eyes wide, mouth slightly open as if in shock. It's almost like without words, she's saying “I'm in”. It is through this she displays her dedication to justice and fighting the corrupt and evil people of the world.
Daniel Craig is also more than exceptional in his role as the determined (there's that word again. If there's one word that defines these characters, its determination) and inquisitive Mikael. He remains undeterred and much like when Daniel plays Bond, if he's ever terrified, he doesn't let it show (and in a slight spoiler for two movies, anyone remember the scene in Casino Royale when Bond's being tortured and he mocks the guy, saying the world's going to know he died scratching Bond's balls? Minus the witty banter and ball scratching and Daniel's in familiar territory). The way his relationship with Lisbeth develops is great to see, especially with Lisbeth not being very trusting of men (or people in general, really. The fact that by the end of the movie, she considers him a friend, is touching in and of itself).
Also, props to Christopher Plummer and Stellan Skarsgard. Christopher Plummer adds another layer of warmth to a character I very much liked in the book, he's altruistic and family orientated (well, the family he can stand anyway. Which is... well, he could buy a new family if he wanted to). And Stellan Skarsgard is proving to be an actor I need to watch out for, after this and Thor, I'm hoping to see more of his work.
And on a smaller note, I was concerned that the story was going to be transplanted to America so as not to scare off American audiences, but if anything, all that's been done is just have the characters speak English, albeit with accents. Big thumbs up for that.
Now, if I have one complaint, it's in the form of a slight spoiler. In the book, Australia actually plays a big part in the resolution of the mystery and several locations are actually mentioned. In the movie... well, once again, we get the shaft. Seriously, are we repellent or something? Why couldn't have that part of the novel stayed intact?
But on a more positive note, the opening title. Not just for the awesome, almost music clip style opening, the song playing is frickin' sweet. It's a cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song as sung by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. And when I left the cinema, you bet I was humming along with it. It is the best Zeppelin cover EVER. I want that song on my laptop and I will get it somehow, dammit! In fact, I need a copy of the soundtrack, the entire score is sweet.
So, all in all, does the film stack up well compared to the book and on its own? A resounding yes on both counts. The Australian film season of 2012 has already gotten off to a great start, let's hope it can remain this consistent. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo gets a 4/5 from me. And here's hoping the first adaptations (and the rest of the books) will be equally as great. And also, that Fincher, Craig and Mara see this trilogy through to the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)