The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

So, this is the American adaptation of Stieg Larsson's novel of the same name, previously the subject of a rather highly regarded Swedish film adaptation. I've seen the Swedish film and have read the novel (which I hadn't before seeing the Swedish film). This, American, version is directed by David Fincher, director of films such as Seven and Zodiac, so this is sort of in his wheelhouse. The film still takes place in Sweden, just as the novel does, possibly resisting the pull to Americanize it in that way.

In case you haven't read the novel or seen the Swedish film, the story goes something like this: Mikael Blomkvist (here played by Daniel Craig) is a disgraced journalist, just convicted of libel. He's contacted by the lawyer for an old businessman, Henrik Vanger, with a proposition for Mikael, while he rides out the storm of the controversy – to investigate the murder of his niece, Harriett, some 40 years previously. The police were never able to solve it and Henrik wants to give it one last go, while he can, with a new set of eyes. During the course of the investigation, he is brought into contact with hacker Lisbeth Salander (played by Rooney Mara, who told off Mark Zuckerberg in the opening scene of Fincher's The Social Network) who investigated him for Vanger before hiring Blomkvist and joins his investigation of the murder.

Both the novel and Swedish film, in my opinion, start agonizingly slowly (and given that I know people who couldn't get through the beginnings of either, because of how slow they are, bears that out). Here, Fincher and screenwriter Steve Zaillian, are able to get the story going much more quickly. In the novel, Larsson drags things out for pages and pages to the point I wanted to scream at him to get to the point. In the Swedish film, the pacing drove me crazy – just as the story seemed to get going it had to stop, and almost get sidetracked, introducing Salander. Fincher and Zaillian create a much more even pace, where the two characters' stories are intercut better and one never feels as though it's getting in the way of the other. They cut it down to only the necessities in order to get the story going.

David Fincher has the skill and confidence to let a few shots give you needed information. Whereas the novel and Swedish film often felt as though they lacked subtlety and belabored points. If they wanted you to notice something or get a point or message, they sort of beat you over the head with it. Especially with message. There's nothing wrong with having a message, but it's less effective if you wield it like a sledgehammer. Here, it's toned down – the points are still made but with more finesse. Information and message is never a distraction from the story here.

Unfortunately, due to how much story there is in the novel and having to compress it for a film (even, here, with a two-and-a-half hour movie), some things will suffer. Characters and relationships kind of get glossed over in this film. Aside from Blomkvist and Salander, we don't really get to learn much or get to know the other characters, apart from what part they might have played in Harriett's disappearance. Literature has the luxury of being able to take the time to delve into characters and relationships and story. And there simply is just too much to be able to get into it with a film version. I'll be curious, though, on whether or not there will be an extended version once it hits home video.

Any discussion of this film would not be complete without getting into the performance of Rooney Mara. It is fantastic. I don't feel that I can really describe how great it is. It's just – wow. I'd also want to mention Jeff Cronenweth's cinematography, it's natural and just looks fantastic. The score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (who won the Golden Globe and Academy Award for their score for Fincher's The Social Network) is also excellent - perhaps highlighted by a version of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song", with vocals by Karen O, that accompanies the opening credits.

I know it may not be a totally popular opinion, but I, personally, liked this version better than the Swedish one. And I definitely liked it more than the book, which I got dangerously close to chucking. But, of course, they're all their own pieces that stand on their own merits and provide their own unique insights and twists on the characters and story. I think that people who may have had problems getting into either the book or Swedish film will have a better time with this one.

4 out of 5

For reference, see also my review for the Swedish film.

Midnight In Paris

I can't really think of a way to write about Woody Allen's new film, Midnight in Paris, except to say that it's just fun. I thoroughly enjoyed because it's just plain delightful. Allen deals with issues such as the fear of death, love, and the folly of nostalgia without getting serious or heavy. He keeps it light and fun.

Gil, a screenwriter who is trying to write a novel, is visiting Paris with his fiancee, Inez, while her father conducts a business deal. Gil is captivated by the city, but longs to be in the city during the 1920s, when it was a hotspot for artists and writers. He views that time and place as a sort of golden age. This tendency of people will become a theme throughout the film.

After a night out with Inez and a couple of her friends who happen to be visiting Paris as well, and some wine, Gil decides to walk back to the hotel rather than join them dancing. He gets lost, of course, and takes a rest as the bells chime midnight. A strange, antique car drives up, stops and the people inside beckon him to join them. He at first resists, but, come on, a bunch of French people offer you wine and continue to insist you join them, you go.

And go, they do (spoilers ahead). To a party. For Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald. And Cole Porter's there, playing the piano. The Fitzgerald's take Gil to meet Ernest Hemingway. After a conversation with Hemingway, Gil asks him to read his manuscript. Hemingway declines ('I hate it.' 'You haven't read it.' 'If it's bad, I'll hate it because it's bad. If it's good, I'll be envious.') but tells Gil he'll give it to Gertrude Stein, whom is the only person he trusts to read his work. Gil leaves to grab the manuscript from his hotel, but once he leaves he's back to modern time.

Over the course of the next few nights he goes back to the 1920s. He meets Gertrude Stein, Picasso, and Picasso's mistress Adriana (whom Gil is immediately smitten with). As he goes back more, and spends more time with her, his feelings for her and Inez become complicated. Does he really want to get married to Inez, whom he doesn't seem to have much in common with? If he's falling in love with a girl from the 1920s, how can that work? In a very humorous scene, he meets Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel, and Man Ray and explains to them that he is from the year 2010 and in love with a girl from the 1920s. They see no problem with this, however, because, well, they're surrealists.

Gil spends a night with Adriana. She's always wished to live in Paris in the 1880s. When he confesses his love to her, a carriage approaches and beckons them inside and they're transported to the 1880s, where they meet Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Gaugin, and Degas. When Gil finds out that they wish the live in the Renaissance, he realizes that people are always nostalgic for a time past and you just have to accept the time you're in. After getting offered a chance to design costumes in the 1880s, Adriana chooses to stay, but Gil goes back to 2010. He ends the relationship with Inez and chooses to stay in Paris rather than go back to California.

I don't know what I can say, it's just fun. Gil is the typical Woody Allen character, but Owen Wilson doesn't try to be Woody Allen or play the Woody Allen persona, and he's good and works really well. I enjoyed the scenes with Hemingway. I can't think of anything that I didn't especially like. Inez was maybe a little two-dimensional (odd given the way Allen's female characters are generally very strong), but given the needs of the story and how little she really featured, I don't know how that could be changed without effectively changing everything else. It's intellectual without being condescending. It feels fresh and light but meaningful. It's an excellent film. That's it.

4 1/2 out of 5

Super 8

Writer/director J.J. Abrams has been pretty open about Super 8 being an homage to the early films of Steven Spielberg (who produced the film through his Amblin Entertainment production company), and to be honest, I feel that it does the film a disservice. That puts into my mind images like Close Encounters of the Third Kind and, of course, E.T. - movies that really capture your imagination, not to mention their status as classics. So it sets you up to walk into the theater with this expectation, but it's not that kind of movie.

Not that that's a bad thing. There are definitely elements and influences at play in this film (it's sort of like mixing the child protagonists of E.T. with the mystery and government secrets of Close Encounters of the Third Kind plus the monster scares of Jaws), but they work together to make something clearly Abrams' own. And, for the most part, it works really, really well.

What works the most is the kids. They're fun and unique of each other. You care about them. Their relationships with each other are believable. It's so much fun watching these kids try to make a movie. And the jealousy that comes up when two friends are interested in the same girl and, of course, she only likes one of them (especially at that young age, when it's so new to them and they don't quite know how to deal with it). And this is, perhaps, the most Spielberg-ian aspect of the film – the child protagonists - which only furthers the expectation of a Spielberg type movie at the start.

Where it stops to work as well is when it tries to become a monster movie (in Spielberg terms, this is the Jaws component). It doesn't work, as well, because it just doesn't quite mesh with the tone of portions of the film with the kids and their families. It's two distinctly different feelings. The kids, their families, and the mystery of what the Air Force is doing in town go together very well. And a very fine movie could be made using just that. But Abrams has to go one step further and have a monster that starts snatching people.

Plus, when it becomes the monster movie, it starts to get a bit confusing. The Air Force has been holding the monster captive for the past twenty years. For what purpose? I'm not sure. The monster smashes things and takes people (more on this to come), but I think that we're supposed to sympathize with it and want it freed. And the taking people...apparently when it touches someone they're able to understand it. When the kids find where the monster's hiding, they also find all the people it has taken, who we previously presumed dead, hanging from the ceiling of the cave. The people say that the monster was hungry, thus why it took the people. But, if it's hungry, why are all the people still alive? Was the monster saving them for a snack? What was the point? It didn't make sense. It draws you out of the movie a bit.

But still, it's an extremely enjoyable, well made movie. The kids are fun. The family drama is engaging and well done. It's not a Steven Spielberg movie and that's fine. Don't expect that, it's poor judgment on their part to push that so heavily. I walked out of the theater satisfied, happy, and glad to see something like this.

4 out of 5

Everything Must Go

Nick Halsey loses his job. He goes home to find that his wife has thrown all of his stuff on the lawn, changed the locks and security codes. His company car gets repossessed. His wife puts a hold on their joint account - rendering his credit and debit cards useless – and cuts his cellphone. He has no place to go, no money, and no way to move his possessions, which he has to do within five days according to city law or go to jail. You could say he's having a bad day. And this is where we find ourselves in Everything Must Go.

It's a great set up. He's down. He's got nothing. He's faced with the necessity to make decisions about his life and himself. He's a recovering alcoholic who has lapsed, he's never without a beer. He was let go from his job because they can get someone younger and cheaper, and, of course, his history of needing time off for treatment and counseling probably didn't help matters. And while he has lapsed, his wife, who apparently is also a recovering alcoholic, hasn't.

In order to gain the five days to keep his stuff on the lawn, he has to call it a yard sale. He hires a local kid, Kenny, whose mother is a nurse taking care of an elderly woman nearby leaving him by himself most of the time, to make signs and watch his stuff. And at first Nick isn't interested in actually selling his stuff, as he hopes to work things out with his wife before the five days are up. Nick and Kenny become friends, with Nick teaching Kenny about sales. Nick also befriends Samantha, the pregnant woman who has just moved in across the street. She has relocated there for her husband's job, he has not yet joined her there.

I have to praise Will Ferrell's performance as Nick. Where Ferrell normally plays these sort of broad, over-the-top characters, here he plays the character with an honest subtlety. He never tries to draw attention to the character or his plight. Think how easy it'd be to play it as 'hey everybody, look, I'm living on my lawn!' Especially for someone like Will Ferrell. He also doesn't play him as a total schlub loser who just gives up. He's a person who doesn't know what to do – hope things work out or just let go?

Where I think the movie falters is the self-realizations just don't seem to read. Nick watches old home movies and sees his dad, always with a beer in hand, just like him. Throughout the movie he suggests that he didn't like his father and that he was a drunk. So you'd think that maybe he'd watch these movies, see this, and, at least, start looking at himself. But he doesn't. The next morning, he's got the beer in hand just like his old man. And this is a movie about self-exploration and realization, so when moments like this pass and nothing happens....it's a missed opportunity. And at the end when he finally drinks coffee instead of beer and decides to sell everything, clean up and let go it lacks the clear, definable moment where he decides to do that. He finds out his wife has been staying with his AA sponsor and... that's it. It's a let down because you're connected with the character but miss out on this important moment.

I also felt that the outcome of Samantha's relationship with her husband was a bit confusing. Nick asks why he hasn't joined her yet and suggests that he's stayed behind because he doesn't want to be a father, and as a successful young businessman he is probably seeing someone behind her back. She tells Nick that she's called him and told him she's leaving him. He finally shows up the next day but she appears to greet him warmly, not like someone who has decided their relationship is through. It left me going 'wait? What?'

The movie is enjoyable and funny. Yes, funny. Not hilarious. Don't expect to bust a gut laughing. But there are laughs. Will Ferrell gives a performance that makes you wish he did more films like this. And I do like the relationship between Nick and Kenny, it's endearing. A good movie.

3 out of 5