The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Redux

I've read the books and liked them.  Saw the original movies, liked them.  Agonized over whether I should see the American version of the movies.  And knew in my heart that I wouldn't be able to resist.  After all, David Fincher directs the first American version.  Daniel Craig plays Michael Blomqvist.  Rooney Mara reportedly does a good job as Lisbeth Salander though it is mind-boggling to imagine anyone coming close to Noomi Rapace's perfomance. 

The story involves the search for what happened to Harriet Vanger, the niece of Henrik Vanger, Swedish industrialist tycoon. Disgraced journalist Michael Blomqvist is hired by Vanger to research her disappearance and presumed death 40 years earlier after so many others have failed.  Blomqvist requests an assistant with computer/internet skills (read hacker) and Lisbeth Salander is hired.  Both are intense, intelligent, independent individuals who are quick to intuit and inevitably become involved.

Niels Arden Oplev's direction of the original movie, 152 minutes long, was very faithful to the book.  Its depictions of violence, sex and sexual violence leave nothing to one's imagination: it is very graphic and detailed indeed.  Fincher's version, six minutes longer at 158 minutes, while remaining true to the spirit of the novel and telling of the story, shows the sex, violence and sexual violence but assumes the American audience can neither tolerate it as much nor as long nor in quite so graphic detail.  The screenplay takes a few shortcuts that don't affect outcome of the story or the setup of the remainder of the series. 

Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails fame) and Atticus Ross were responsible for the original music.  They have worked with Fincher before, most recently on The Social Network.

Positives:  Daniel Craig does a nice job.  Not a fantastic, Oscar worthy job, but he gets out of his clothes often enough to keep me interested.  Not sure if that does much for any of you folks, but it made me happy.  Rooney Mara was effective, her performance was more emotional than Rapace's, if it can be called that, as a character such as Lisbeth Salander is not one to show emotion.  Always nice to see Robin Wright, here as business partner to Daniel Craig's character.  Other actors were all good.

Overall, I give the movie a B+.  If I had to pick one movie, I would recommend the Swedish version.  But if you are a true fan of the novels, see both.

Hugo: You Should Go!

I was caught asleep at the controls.  Hugo was completely off my radar screen.  This has been a crazy year for me and I have not been concentrating on movies, I haven’t seen or reviewed as many as I would have liked, I haven’t kept up with what’s been released.  Then a friend told me he’d seen Hugo and it was wonderful.  I did some reading up on it and agreed that it was a must see.  So, off I went with one of my movie buddies.  My friend was right….. Definitely a must see movie and definitely worth seeing in the theatre, in 3D.

Hugo is based on the story written by Brian Selznick titled The Invention of Hugo Cabret.  It is a Caldecott winner (won in 2008).  The Caldecott is an annual award to the artist of the most distinguished American picture book for children.  For more information concerning the book, the inspiration, the author, George Melies and early filmmaking, please feel free to go to www.theinventionofhugocabret.com and www.imdb.com .  Both sites have a wealth of information.  I learned from my niece that Mr. Selznick’s books, both The invention of Hugo Cabret and his new one, Wonder Struck, are awesome.  Trust me, I have it on the best authority.

The story is about an orphan, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), who winds the clocks in Gare Montparnasse in Paris.    He was brought there by his sot of an uncle after Hugo’s father died.    Uncle Claude then wandered off after training Hugo to do his job of winding the clocks while diligently avoiding the Station Master (nicely played in a restrained manner by Sacha Baron Cohen).  Hugo also must avoid various adults while nipping food and supplies to keep the clockworks going.  This leads to Hugo being caught by the proprietor of the toy shop, played by Ben Kingsley (Papa George, Monsieur Melies), who confiscates Hugo’s precious notebook.  Young Isabelle(Chloe Moretz) is under guardianship of Papa George and Mama Jeanne and strikes up a friendship with Hugo when the toy shop owner confiscates Hugo’s notebook.  She introduces Hugo to Monsieur Labisse (Christopher Lee) the bookseller and Mama Jeanne (Helen McRory).  We slowly learn the story of George and Jeanne and how Hugo and his notebook fit in.  Throughout the film we watch the budding romances of the Station Master and Lisette (Emily Mortimer) and between Madame Emilie (Frances de la Tour) and Monsieur Frick (Richard Griffiths) and their two dogs.  Jude Law does a cameo as Hugo’s father and Johnny Depp pops in and out as a guitar player.  Martin Scorsese pops in too as a photographer.  One of the lovely parts of this film is the creation of a whole world inside this train station.  A world unto itself.  (I credit my on-line friend Hokahey for this succinct observation…. He expresses this sentiment well in his blog Little Worlds.  I suggest you wander over to check his out.   See my link.)

I found the cinematography wonderful.  The sets were well imagined.  The filming was lovingly done.  The story was well-told.  I learned a great deal about early movies.  This is Martin Scorsese’s homage to movies.  I was drawn in and kept there for the most part.  I must admit there were moments here and there that I checked the time.  At the end of movie I loved it.  How does the film rate?  One of the best I’ve seen this year.  But that’s damning with faint praise.  But this was a good movie.  And, Marty knows how to end a movie.  Something that’s been missing from the last few films that I’ve seen.

Martha Marcy May Marlene- My, My, My, My!

I wanted to be clever and try to write this review with words all beginning with the letter M.  I quickly rethought that as it would be so very, very annoying to both you and me.  But not quite so annoying as I found the end of this movie.  The end wouldn't have been quite so annoying except that the previous two movies I had seen in a theater (Drive and The Ides of March) had not been entirely satisfactory in their endings.  Is this a trend?  I'm not liking it.  I tend to be a conventional person.  I like Bach.  I like old fashioned rock and roll.  I like stories to have a beginning and an end.  Is that too much to ask for?  Oh, but I am giving you the impression the movie was not good.  I shouldn't do that.  There were many good points that made this movie worth seeing.  It's just that the end didn't quite satisfy and was, well..... but let's leave this for the end.

Please:  BE AWARE- SPOILER ALERT!  This review discusses the movie at length.  Including the end.

Martha Marcy May Marlene is the story of a young woman (Elizabeth Olsen, younger sister of the twins) who finds herself living on a farm somewhere in upstate New York (really, this covers basically all of New York State except New York City and immediate suburbs when you think about it) with quite a few young women, a few young men and an apparently charismatic older man named Patrick (I'm thinking Patriarch here) played here by John Hawkes.  I am a big fan of John Hawkes.  He played Teardrop in Winter's Bone, my favorite film of 2010.  He was also in The Perfect Storm.  I do like John Hawkes- a great actor to watch.  He brings life and character to each role.  I like Elizabeth Olsen as well.  I enjoyed her performance, very "informed, nuanced and (I want to say gritty)" but that word doesn't really feel right here.  I've just written a few cliches but what I really mean is that I loved her performance and she was a joy to watch.  So natural and real.  But I have wandered off a little, well maybe not since the actors are important but back to the story.  Life on the farm is communal though hierarchal - Patrick at the top, then the men, then the women who serve the men.  Martha, when she joins the community, is given a new name by Patrick- Marcy May.    The name Marlene is the name given to any woman answering the telephone at the farm.

Sean Durkin wrote and directed this story.  It is told in segments, present and past.  Marcy May escapes from the commune and calls her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson who was so delightful as Harriet Hayes on Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip).  It has been over two years since Lucy has heard from Martha and Lucy has married Ted (Hugh Dancy).  Lucy and Martha mother's had passed away we learn.  It seems Martha wanders off and is gone for two years before Lucy receives the phone call.  In the interim,  Lucy has, of necessity, "moved on" with her life.  Martha only discloses that she spent these last two years with a boyfriend, not divulging that she has been living with a communal cult.  The story moves between the present and the past.  As Martha jumps into the water from the boat on the lake to swim, we see Marcy May in the water swimming in the secluded swimming hole with her communal cohorts. The film continues to move back and forth in this manner. 

Martha's story begins to unfold in this present/past storytelling manner.  Through this device, we begin to learn her journey and rigor/controlled circumstance of the life on the farm.  Part of Patrick's control is the drugging then rape of the young women, performed as part of ritual.  The day after Marcy May is "indoctrinated", Patrick shares a song he has written about her to the group.  This flatters Marcy May and lulls her into acquiescence.  Eventually, Marcy May assists in the "indoctrination" of another young woman that includes the administration of the drug and reassurance that this will be a wonderful night.  In another scene, young men and women of the commune are having sex in the same room, while Patrick observes, though not in an orgiastic way. 

Once Martha has escaped the commune and is living with Lucy and Ted, she criticizes them for their essentially capitalistic attitudes.  Later, Martha walks into their bedroom and lays down in bed with them while they are having sex, though not as if joining them.  This clearly upsets Lucy as well as Ted. 

The film does a wonderful job telling the story and unfolding the pieces bit by bit.  It keeps one's interest.  As the story goes on, little by little, it gets a bit more disturbing as the members of the commune stray a little from the home front.  We also watch Martha/Marcy May/Marlene try to cope or maybe we don't.  Maybe she's in denial.  We watch her story, we watch as Lucy and Ted become more baffled because Martha doesn't open up.  The decision that Martha needs professional help is not an easy one.  Does this lead to the end?  What is the end? And then as the film ends, it all gets ambiguous.  Did she see this or that?  Who was that on the shore?  Or is that just an hallucination?  Who was in that car?  Or is MMMM just plain crazy? This is my complaint...... it's like the end of Memento:  who was calling on that damn phone?

I liked the movie.  It was interesting, intriguing, the acting was good.  The story was moving along with an interesting device to go back and forth.  Then POW!  It has to end.  Why is it no one can write a satisfactory ending anymore?
Oh, my, my, my, my!

The Ides of March: George, you should have heeded the warning

Yes, the ladies went to the movies once again.  Our friend from VT joined us and it was all good.  Except the movie was boring.  (Mostly Jane's fault- sorry Joanne- as Jane was asked her opinion and well, I'll explain another time, no wait, why not now?  Jane likes political movies and George.)  Jane also forgot Joanne doesn't.  Joanne picks next time and Jane has to grin and bear it.  But I've digressed.

The movie is loosely based on John Edwards' folly, the Democratic party's inability to run an effective campaign and general politics.  Ryan Gosling was good, playing a neophyte with a conscience (or was he?) and Paul Giamatti is always fun.  Add to this mix Evan Rachel Wood, Marisa Tomei, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeffrey Wright (Look up Jeffrey Wright- he played Peoples Hernandez in the remake of Shaft among other roles 'cause he takes care of his peoples).  Here we have some fine acting talent and yet the arc of the movie leaves one cold.  Yeah it has an ending but it leaves one wanting a better ending.  Something more satisfying.  Meatier, even if you are a vegan. 

Drive: Yeah, try that in Boston.

And Jane's back!  Sorry it has been a slow year for posts.  Life has been ultra-busy and I had been occupied finding alternate ways to descend stairs.  But I'm giving up that new pastime for the safer, easier and more entertaining hobby of watching movies again.  Takes less of a toll on my body.  Anyway, the ladies and I finally got together again, celebrated one of our birthdays and saw Drive.  While I didn't know anything about the movie (see, that other pastime was knocking things out of my head) I did know that Ryan Gosling was in it.  It also had Albert Brooks, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston and Ron Perlman.  Rounding  out the cast were Oscar Isaac and Christina Hendricks.  The director is Nicolas Winding Refn from Denmark.

The plot of the movie involves a Hollywood stuntman (Gosling) who moonlights as a wheelman for heists.  He gives his clients a five-minute window to go in, do what they do and get out.  He leaves after five minutes.  So the beginning of the movie has some nice, dark atmospheric scenes with some interesting action and a little chase scene.  Oh, be forewarned.  There will be spoilers.  Especially toward the end of this post.  But the reason to see or not see this movie is based more on the how it was filmed than the story.  And if you like the cast.  At least that's my take.  Actually, you can stop reading here after I tell you that the movie gets very, very bloody and the violence is very up close and personal in the second half.  Tarantino's Kill Bill Volume II is an easier film by far to watch than this was.  So, from here on in there may be SPOILERS.

Shannon (Bryan Cranston) is Gosling's boss.  He wants to borrow $300,000 from Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks) a local gangster type to buy a race car so that Gosling can drive in races.  Bernie likes what he sees but his partner/associate Nino (Ron Perlman) doesn't.  Meanwhile, Gosling strikes up a friendship with Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son Benecio who live in the same apartment building as he does.  Eventually Gosling learns that Irene is married and that her husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac) is  in prison.  Gosling, Irene and Benecio do develop a bond despite this.  Then, Standard returns home much earlier than expected.  Standard is quick to see the connections but makes an effort to befriend Gosling as well.  Soon, Standard is beaten and Gosling finds him.  The beating was a warning to Standard from his protectors in prison to remind him he needs to come up with repayment money.  Gosling agrees to help Standard get the funds.  Through an arrangement with Bernie, Standard and Gosling hook up with Blanche (Christina Hendricks) and attempt to rob a pawn shop with Gosling as driver.  Blanche comes out of the pawn shop with a big duffel bag, then Standard comes out but the proprietor is shooting and they watch Standard die.  As Gosling and Blanche drive off, they are chased by another car.  They lose their followers only for Gosling to find out that Blanch has double-crossed them and there is $1 million in the duffel bag, not the $40,000 they thought they'd get.  More importantly, that money has to belong to SOMEONE who wants it back.  Mayhem starts ensuing and the blood starts flowing.  Meanwhile, we find out that Nino had setup Standard and Gosling and was responsible for the mob money.  Remember Nino?  turns out he really, really didn't like Gosling. 

At this point in the story, people start dying, many of them dying very gruesomely with knives.  Because no one can be left alive to betray the other person to the mob who owns the money.  This goes on for a while.  Gosling, as the lead, of course, deftly manages to stay alive to accomplish what he wants..... protect Irene and Benecio. 

Ryan Gosling's character is very quiet, both literally and figuratively - until he explodes during certain scenes.  In one such scene, this is jolting, not only to the viewer (though this is telegraphed to us as blatantly as possible) but to another actor in the scene.  Indeed, the movie is very visual, the cinematography is done well as is the atmosphere and the scene set-ups. 

A.O. Scott of the NY Times said the supporting cast saves the movie from tedium and I agree.  Certainly Albert Brooks and Bryan Cranston were well worth watching, but then I usually find them so.  I am also a fan of Carey Mulligan's but I don't think this role stretched her very much.

Overall, the first half of the movie was engaging but the as the plot moved into the second half, it became more gruesome and bloody.  Perhaps it was the nature of the violence.  The arc of the story with the anti-hero driving away just didn't leave me satisfied.

The Tree of Life; The Help, A Good Life

Yes, I did promise more movie reviews.  So, here goes Jane.
I went to see The Tree of Life with the ladies.   Interesting film.  Mostly enjoyable with an interesting slant and point of view.  Brad and Sean were very good.  What didn't make sense and, I think, ruined it for most people was the long "creation of the universe" sequence that interrupted the film near the beginning and went on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.......
Quite frankly, I prefer the evolution of the universe as done in 15 seconds at the beginning of "Big Bang Theory".  It works for me. 

Otherwise, there were some interesting moments and a story to be heard.  But we were distracted.....by that long interlude that didn't make sense.  Some of the items that we discussed after the movie were why didn't the parents seem to age.  Perhaps told through a child's eye.  But the whole film was tainted by that long, boring evolution of the universe which ruined the film for me.

The Help:  First I have to tell you that I read the book and loved it.  Also, it is the type of book I like.  The author and the director of the film are good friends so this ensured a good translation of the book onto film.  Which it was.  I should note that the book was written in a manner that it would easily "morph" onto film without losing the story.  Actually, it had some great moments that were great on film.  The best of the film were the actresses.  All well chosen for their roles.  I do have hopes that this may be nominated for Oscar.  Probably will all considered.

A Good Year:  This film I rented from Netflix on recommendation.  It turns out that it is based on a book by Peter Mayle who wrote several books that I have enjoyed starting with A Year in Provence and Toujours Provence.  It stars Russell Crowe who is not a favorite actor of mine but easily performs this role and perhaps sways me back into admiring his skills.  Overall, a very enjoyable film.  Basic plot is a high-powered investment banker inherits his uncle's vineyard in Provence and learns a different way of life.  A few different characters roam through the movie.  I liked it a lot.  

Where have we been?

Jane and Geri met up a week ago and agreed we have been most lax in posting over the past four months.  Where have we been?  Anywhere but here!  Geri has been very busy with teaching dance classes and her home life (all going well there, of course).  Jane has been off the grid so to speak.  She has been listening to lots and lots of new rock 'n' roll.  All composed quite loudly in her basement.  Then attending the shows at which it is played.  For her stamina in listening to all these sessions of composition, practice and refinement of the music, Jane is generally put on the guest list to the various musical performances and she is thankful for that.  Now that we have reached the second half of 2011, it is time we re-charge and see some movies.  So, it is our aim to tell you...... We're back!  Stay posted for movie reviews..... Coming to a blog near you!