Category: Movie Reviews

Posted on

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Starring Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara and Christopher Plummer
Directed by David Fincher (The Social Network)
Rated R for brutal violence including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language

    Based on the best-selling novel by Swedish author Stieg Larsson, Girl tells the story of a Swedish magazine journalist (Craig) who goes on the search for a woman who has been missing for forty years.  When his search becomes overly tedious, he acquires the help of a young but brilliant computer hacker with a huge set of personal issues (Mara).  Together they find themselves on the verge of not only finding their missing woman, but uncovering a hidden secret that has plagued a northern Swedish town for decades. 

    Before I dive into the obvious, I will admit that this new version of the huge best-seller is pretty darn good.  It is a dark and frightening film that is a testament to what a film can be when you put a lot of money behind great source material and then hire the best director, writer and actors to build it. 

    And now the elephant in the room: why did we need the film to begin with?  In 2009 the first of the trilogy was released with another great director, writer and stellar cast.  Sure it was in Swedish, and you had to read subtitles, but that didn’t seem to matter since the film ended up being a huge international success both financially and critically.  Also, the lead actors both ended up as the stars of two other big competing holiday films (Michael Nyqvist in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and Noomi Rapace in the new Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows).  The film won many awards and made many critics’ top ten lists that year. 

    And yet two years later the Americans decide they can best it.  Well of course they can, but what’s the point?  If the film wasn’t released in the US or had little recognition that would be one thing, but that simply isn’t the case.  Did Fincher do a better job?  Yes, but not that much better.  Is Steven Zaillian’s script better written?  Of course but both scripts relied heavily on the source material by Stieg Larsson.  Are the actors better?  Not hardly.  They are better looking, that’s for sure, but both casts were fantastic.  It’s one of those situations where you feel that instead of the filmmakers asking themselves if they could make a better movie, they needed to ask themselves if they should. 

    Also, I think Columbia Pictures has been confused about this project for a while.  They’ve done a poor job marketing it, partly because I don’t think they have a clue how to sell it to American audiences.  They didn’t allow most critics groups to see the film before voting deadlines, which means they are only banking on possible Oscar nominations with no buzz leading up to it.  And then you have the fact that they are releasing the film on an extremely crowded Christmas weekend which is a horrible date for a movie of this nature.  Most Americans will go see a movie with their families over the holidays and I seriously doubt that audiences will choose a film about sexual violence over typical holiday fare like action and comedy. 

    I’m sure many of you though haven’t seen the original and are asking yourselves if it is worth a go.  At that point the answer is yes.  This is a very good film, but be prepared for a disturbing drama.  The original title of the book is “Men Who Hate Women.”  Of course “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” has a nicer ring to it, but the actual Swedish title is a better descriptor.  Sexual violence is not an easy subject matter to explore and that’s the theme of the entire film.  A-

Posted on

Happy Feet Two

Happy Feet Two

Starring the voices of Robin Williams, Elijah Wood, Pink, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon
Directed by George Miller (Mad Max)
Rated PG for some rude humor and mild peril

    Taking place a generation after the events of the first film, Happy Feet Two follows the lives Mumble, Gloria and their new son Erik.  Under pressure from his parents to either dance or sing, Erik is confused as to what his talent really is and searches throughout the film to find it.  When global warming causes the colony of penguins to become trapped by mountains of ice, Mumble must find a way to rescue them before they starve to death.

    When Happy Feet hit theaters in 2006 I was shocked at how much I loved it.  I expected a mediocre to bad experience and was treated to one of my favorite films of that year.  The music was fantastic, the animation was gorgeous and the direction was inspired.  So armed with a bigger budget and five years worth of animation advancement, I figured the sequel could have real potential.  With expectations high, its sometimes hard to live up to them, and in this case they definitely weren’t lived up to.

    I’ll start off by admitting that they didn’t screw it all up.  This one, just like the first, has a unique look to it that is simply beautiful.  What could have been just a black and white film is full of vibrant colors that leap off the screen.  And George Miller has an eye for animation direction that I believe is unrivaled in the industry.  How to Train Your Dragon came close in regard to direction, but you could tell that there was a lot of inspiration from Miller.  That being said, his story telling here isn’t nearly as good thanks to an unimaginative script that steals heavily from Disney’s Dinosaur.

    To make matters worse, the music here is just plain flat.  There is an occasional laugh from a clever lyric such as “I’m Bringing Slushy Back,” but overall the music sounds like the B-sides from the first film.

    The big saving grace for the pic lies in the introduction of Will and Bill the Krill voiced by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon.  Leaving their swarm, they attempt to fight their way up the food chain at any cost.  Their dialogue is incredibly witty and their antics are extremely fun to watch.  They are most definitely the high point of the film.    

    Five years ago I had an image in my mind of what the first Happy Feet would be like before I saw it, and that image was the sequel.  B- 

Posted on

J. Edgar

J. Edgar
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Watts, Armie Hammer and Judi Dench
Directed by Clint Eastwood
Rated R for brief strong language

    As the creator of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover was known as one of the most feared and hated men in America for almost 50 years.  While some feel that he spent years abusing the powers he was given, it is his private life that many have found to be most interesting.  This new biopic by Clint Eastwood explores both the public and private world of one of American history’s most intriguing characters.  

    I have to admit that I didn’t know a whole lot about J. Edgar before this film.  We had read a little about him in history in as much as to obtain the knowledge of “who created the FBI?”  I do remember my teacher discussing that he used to dress in women’s’ clothing but knew nothing more than a single fact and a rumor.  I only say this because I have no idea how accurate the film is.  Part of me trusts Clint Eastwood to create as factual a biopic as he is capable of.  That being said, if this is a true story, it’s a fascinating one.  The movie portrays Hoover as a man of pure ambition professionally and total confusion personally.  A man who knows what is acceptable to the world and how to get ahead in it, but who also must hide his homosexuality from it.  He makes a living of gathering secret and damaging information on the country’s leaders while at the same time hiding his true identity and damning secret from those that would persecute him.  In this regard I found the character study to be intriguing.  

    The acting here is inconsistent.  Actors of DiCaprio’s and Dench’s talents do well under the fast paced directing style of Eastwood, but Hammer, Watts, and other members of the cast come off as players who would have liked another take.  

    As for the production, there were also many inconsistencies.  I was pleased at how good the makeup looked on DiCaprio as the older Hoover (I actually thought it was Phillip Seymour Hoffman at first sight) and how poor it appeared on Hammer who looked like he was wearing a bad Halloween costume.  

    I was also disappointed in Eastwood’s minimalist score which played like cocktail lounge music throughout.  Clint is a talented composer, but this film needed a much better score than it received.  I would bet that hiring Alexandre Desplat, a composer who is much more adept at expressing emotion in softer films, could have improved the experience immensely.  

    Overall, I liked the idea of this movie quite a bit, but I was distracted by the execution.  There was a lot of potential for a masterpiece, but that promise was not delivered.  C+


Posted on

The Rum Diary

The Rum Diary

Starring Johnny Depp, Aaron Eckhart and Amber Heard
Directed by Bruce Robinson (Withnail & I)
Rated R

    Based on the novel by Hunter S. Thompson (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas), The Rum Diary follows the adventures of an American journalist (Depp) who moves to Puerto Rico for a job but ends up clashing with both the locals and the Americans living on the island.  

    I’ll start this off by declaring that Hunter S. Thompson is an acquired taste that I haven’t acquired yet.  While this movie wasn’t nearly as dismal an experience for me as Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, I still could not get into it.  The characters are somewhat quirky as are the situations they find themselves in, and because of this I let out a laugh or two.  But those laughs only brought on a mild amusement as I was more bewildered than entertained.  

    As for Depp and the rest of the talented cast, they did an admirable job with the source material so there is no fault there.  

    The problem as I see it is with the script.  It’s one thing to have fun characters but if they don’t tell a compelling story then you get nowhere.  There were elements of the film that reminded me of The Big Lebowski, but without a plot.  Lots of fun to be had but once the drunk wears off there is no direction.  Two hours of this turns out to be quite tedious.  

    And to make matters worse, there is no resolution.  The journey isn’t over, but the movie is.  It’s almost as if the filmmakers are telling the audience “you don’t have to leave but you can’t stay here.”

    So if you are like me and place a heavy importance on the narrative, then you will probably want to avoid this meandering picture.  On the other hand, if you just like to see Johnny Depp in another eclectic role doing strange stuff, this might be right up your alley.  C

Posted on

The Ides of March

The Ides of March

Starring Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Evan Rachel Wood
Directed by George Clooney
Rated R for pervasive language

    Set in the world of a fictional presidential campaign, Ryan Gosling plays an idealistic head staffer working under George Clooney’s presidential candidate who comes to terms with the fact that to survive in politics, one must not only play dirty, but must lose their integrity as well.  

    Before anyone even saw this film, many were ousting this project as liberal Clooney propaganda.  At first I could see the merit in the argument as Clooney’s character seemed like an ideal leader in many ways.  Sure he was liberal as all get out, but he seemed to be a man who would be a true servant of the people who would act out of the country’s best interest.  But then the stuff hits the fan and you find out what all of the characters are made of and the unfortunate truth and accuracy about our current political situation is unleashed.  The movie ends up being both negative for democrats and the entire political system in general.  It leaves you with a sense that our system, on both sides of the rail, is broken and there is a good chance that it can’t be fixed.  

    I mention all of this up front because I firmly believe that even though there is a good story here, the most important aspect of this movie is its message, whether positive or negative.  The reality hits home and gives almost as much of a bad taste in your mouth as our current situation.

    As for the actual movie, aside from its intention, this is a very well written, directed and acted pic.  Adapted from the Beau Willimon play, “Farragut North,” the characters are all very well flushed out and convincing.  Every member of this extremely talented cast turns in noteworthy performances.  The great thing about a cast like this is that then they are at the top of their game, the result is impressive.

    The screenplay is a winding ball of tension, deceit and tragedy, making the politics that much more believable; and Clooney’s storytelling keeps you on the edge of your seat as you wait patiently for the upcoming lie and the next spin.

    Although the film is very likely to leave you with a sick feeling as it punches you in the gut, it also manages to entertain you while shelling out the unfortunate truth (or at least the perceived reputation) about the people that run our country.  A-

Posted on

Moneyball

Moneyball

Starring Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman
Directed by Bennett Miller
Rated PG-13 for some strong language

    Based on a true story and taken from the Michael Lewis novel of the same name, Moneyball follows former baseball player turned Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane (Pitt) as he attempts to figure out how to beat teams with four times his operating budget.  When he meets Peter Brand (who is loosely based on Beane’s former assistant GM Paul DePodesta, he starts to employ Brand’s formulas to his recruiting in order to put together a team that doesn’t make much sense to anyone other than the two of them, but somehow begins to win games in spite of everyone’s disbelief.  

    I’ll admit that I’m not the biggest baseball fan in the world.  I never played as a kid and while I get excited to go to games now I tend to lose interest rapidly once sitting in the stands.  But baseball movies are a different animal.  Most of them follow a simple formula and end up far more entertaining than the actual thing.  Moneyball follows that formula to a point, but becomes more interesting in spite of it.  Rather than focusing on the team in trouble that comes out on top in the end, it focuses on the actual business behind the sport and how numbers can compete with heart.  For some this might sound tedious, but I was captivated.  

    Putting the film on first base is the writing.  Writing this good doesn’t usually happen in a baseball film.  The dialog is quick and full of quirks and surprises.  And just when you think you know what’s going to happen next, it takes you in a new direction.  

    Getting the movie to second is the fast-paced and skilled direction of Bennet Miller (Capote).  The film is so well put together on his end that sometimes you actually feel like you are watching the real story take place rather than a representation.

    Strike one comes from some of the drama.  Sometimes the perceived need for conflict in a scene acts against it and a few of the scenes and actions of the characters come off as contrived or overreaching.  I’m sure there was much tension in the real-life story, but a film like this doesn’t need a pronounced villain just because it might lack one.

    Third base is accomplished by it’s authentic look and feel.  While I’m not certain that the actors were actually taken from the baseball biz, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised.  The conversations felt organic which usually stems from people that know what they are actually talking about.

    Strike two comes from the on the field action which looks too much like a low-budgeted baseball movie.  I’m much more interested in what goes on off the field and the playing of the sport distracts from that throughout.  

    And finally, bringing in the three runners with a grand slam to win the game is Brad Pitt.  While not as moving as his turn earlier this year in Tree of Life, Pitt gets into this character and is spot-on perfect for the role.  You may not like him and his actions all of the time, but you can’t take your eyes off of him.  He plays the flawed GM like no other actor could and proves that when you get him in the right role he can be electrifying.  B+

Posted on

Drive

Drive

Starring Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston and Albert Brooks
Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn (Valhalla Rising)
Rated R for strong brutal violence, language and some nudity

    Ryan Gosling is a Hollywood stunt man who at night moonlights as a getaway driver for hire.  It doesn’t appear that he does it for money, but maybe merely for the fact that he is good at it and that he simply can.  When he falls in love with his neighbor (Mulligan) the film transforms into a sweet romance that is soon to be crushed by a disturbingly violent turn of events.  

    When Drive director Nicolas Winding Refn won the award for best director at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, my first thought was how can a heist pic win best director.  All heist pics have a twist so this one must be special.  What was sold as a heist film though is far from it.  Drive comes off as more of a character study with extreme amounts of action, all pulled off with furious intensity.  The character arc of the driver played by Gosling manifests itself as three unique personas.  There is the stuntman/risk taker driver, the romantic and then finally the adaptive, capable and calculating survivor who is capable of doing whatever it takes to make it out alive and save the ones he loves.  And Gosling pulls it off beautifully with very words coming from his mouth.

    Of course Gosling has some help.  Carey Mulligan is great as the confused friend and love interest and Bryan Cranston, who looks nothing like his Breaking Bad character here, is a treat to watch as Gosling’s boss and criminal colleague.  The most impressive performance here though comes from Albert Brooks who plays the deceptively friendly gangster and I will predict that he will get his first Oscar nomination (and possible win) in over twenty years.  

    But its not all roses here.  While the writing and performances are all as good as it gets, I found myself getting very uncomfortable watching the movie.  Not only is there an uneasy claustrophobic feeling to the pic, but the violence is so extreme and unsettling that there were times that I just wanted to look away or simply take a break.  While it is getting a huge screen count and a big studio release, the film is essentially an art film in disguise.  Many audiences will be turned off by the excessive violence and independent film style.  Then again, many might find a film they really enjoy by accident.  Overall, I’m glad I saw it, but I really have no desire to revisit it again.  B

Posted on

Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark

Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark

Starring Guy Pearce, Katie Holmes and Bailee Madison
Directed by Troy Nixey
Rated R for violence and terror
Appropriate for ages 15+

    Little Sally (Madison) has just been ousted by her mother and sent to live with her father (Pearce) and his girlfriend (Holmes) in the old house they are rebuilding in the hopes of landing the cover of Architectural Digest.  When they discover a secret basement in the house, an evil army of faeries is unleashed that only the girl sees until it is too late.  

    Lately, when the name of Guillermo del Toro is thrown around it sends a sense of quality and imaginative horror that brings chills up your spine and a feeling that you are about to have a creepy good time.  This little film, which was supposed to be released in 2010, breaks the cycle of strong films with his name attached.  You can definitely see his influence in the little touches such as creature design, mood, lighting, and production.  Where the movie falls flat is in the script and the direction.  

    The sets and creatures both serve as fairly horrifying villains within the film.  I loved the house and the buildup of tension and thought there was real promise for a good scary movie.  I’ve never been a big fan of graphic violence and the macabre as vehicles for horror, but this film gives just enough without going completely overboard.  I’m not sure why they opted for an R rating, especially considering there is no bad language and much of the violence is off-screen, but I’m glad they felt the integrity of the project was more important than luring teenagers into theater seats.  

    I had some real problems here with the script and some of the characters’ actions.  For example, in the second act, Holmes goes to the library to do some research on the house.  The first librarian she asks just happens to know everything about the old house including what might be upsetting the girl.  Isn’t that convenient?  Then, with these obvious facts in hand, she doesn’t run from the scene with the girl in tow, but rather slowly prepares for their exit from the house.  It’s almost painful to watch.  And unfortunately, this type of flaw happens more than once.  I would have left at the beginning of the second act when the caretaker winds up in the hospital from a vicious creature attack.  In this world, however, that is just a peculiar turn of events that seems to be completely overlooked by the tenants.  

    There are also some technical problems as well.  The CG looks decent enough but many of the actor interactions with the faeries has an awkward feel as if the actors didn’t quite understand what they were supposed to be afraid of on the days they were shooting the green screen attacks.  Perhaps they changed the design of the faeries after they filmed or maybe the direction wasn’t adequate enough, but something felt off in many of those sequences.  In that regard, the entire film just feels a little off; almost as if the cast and crew weren’t completely on their A-game.  There was a lot of talent to be found on set and off, but things just didn’t click and it shows.  C

Posted on

The Guard

The Guard

Starring Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle
Directed by John Michael McDonagh
Rated R for some violence, language, drugs and sexual content

    When a drug-smuggling ring begins operating in a small Irish town, an FBI agent (Cheadle) and an unorthodox Irish cop (Gleeson) have to team up in order to bring them down.

    It’s hard to imagine an original cop buddy movie.  Even though there have been some good ones with some darn good scripts, the basic premise is typically the same.  The story usually takes place when a serious cop gets teamed with one that is usually his polar opposite.  Recent examples are Lethal Weapon, Black Rain, Hot Fuzz and The Other Guys.  But just because it’s been done many times before, doesn’t mean it can’t be done again with a new twist.  And thus we get The Guard: a film that doesn’t break new ground, but offers up a nice variation on the theme.  

    While Brendan Gleeson is certainly not a household name, he has played major roles in some very popular films including the Harry Potter movies, Braveheart, Troy, and several others.  Back in 2008 we got to see him brilliantly carry a film in In Bruges with costar Colin Ferrell.  There aren’t a whole lot of leading roles out there for guys that look like a 56-year-old version of me.  So there should be no wonder why I like the guy and want to see him do well.  As for Cheadle, he’s truly the polar opposite of Gleeson and fits the buddy formula well.  Together, they make an odd team, which is what I think the film was going for.  This film was never meant to be a Lethal Weapon.  Rather than relying on big set pieces and action sequences, the movie rests its head on character development.  They want you to know all about Gleeson and what makes him so peculiar.  What you learn about Cheadle is through Gleeson’s eyes.  There isn’t a lot of good chemistry here, but since that is on purpose, the performances work.

    Where the film falls behind is its underproduced look and feel.  The print looks as grey as an average Irish day and there isn’t much in the way of music or effects.  The direction proves to be a little slow, relying more on the script and the two leading actors to move everything along.  If it had been more polished, it would been a much more enjoyable film to look at, but I have a feeling that the spirit of the thing might have been left behind in its wake.  

    One thing that surprises me is how it is being classified as a comedy.  Don’t get me wrong, there are some good chuckles, but this is much more of a character study than a laugh riot.  And while it won’t blow your mind, it does serve as a nice diversion.  B


Posted on

Horrible Bosses



Horrible Bosses

Starring Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, and Jason Sudeikis
Directed by Seth Gordon (Four Christmases)
Rated R for crude and sexual content, pervasive language and some drug material

    I’m sure that I am not alone in that I have had my fair share of really bad bosses.  While there are some great people out there in managerial roles, it seems that the bad far outweighs the good.  What makes a horrible boss?  That’s easy – it’s a simple disrespect for the people that work under you.  While the fantasy of killing a bad boss has never gone through my head – I wouldn’t have cared too much if one or two of them turned up missing, if you know what I mean.  

    So when I heard about this dark comedy about three guys who have such terrible bosses that they felt the need to take them out, I couldn’t help but be intrigued.  Are the bosses that bad?  At least two of them.  Kevin Spacey and Collin Farrell, in this film at least, are truly despicable jerks that shouldn’t even be allowed around other people, never mind being in a role of leadership.  Jennifer Anniston, as a sexually harassing boss, has a severe problem, but one that just needs a little correction rather than murder.  

    The script here is sharp as a tack and well acted by all.  The film does rely a little heavily on shock value, but that is understandable in this case since the whole premise is shocking.  The jokes hit hard and frequently and aside from Jason Sudeikis playing the part of the ultimate ladies man, everything seems organic.  

    Having worked in the corporate world for so long, I found a real connection with Jason Bateman’s character as he is sure that sacrificing a decade of his life will all pay off in the long run.  In this regard, the writers did an excellent job of giving their characters each something that most of the audience will find an association with.  Whether the audience has a blue or white collar job, people will find something familiar in these three lead characters.  

    Do you have to hate your boss to appreciate this film?  Not in the least.  I haven’t had a horrible boss for a few years now and yet the film still came across as funny and relevant.  In a world where the economy is in the tank and management knows that you can’t quit your job for the fear that there are so many out there without work, this movie acts as a pleasurable excursion from reality.  B+