Melancholia (2011, Denmark)

I am enraptured.

Apparently this is the most "polished" film that Lars von Trier has ever made, which he wasn't pleased about. I haven't really seen enough of his films to form a complete judgement, but I think this film really showcased his artistic genius and creative eye without frustrating the viewer, which makes it just about perfect.

Basically, the film is told in two parts, one focusing on each sister. The first is about Justine and takes place during her wedding reception. (Her new husband is played by Alexander Skarsgård, and I think we all know how much I adore him!) Justine is clearly suffering from depression and is having a hard time staying in the moment. Meanwhile, a new planet has appeared from the other side of the sun. The second part is more about her sister Claire, who clearly suffers from clinical anxiety. The planet, dubbed Melancholia, appears to be on a crash course with the earth (though Claire's husband says it won't happen).

So that's the bare bones of the plot, but it is just so beautifully complex that it's hard to describe. It seems like a lot of reviewers didn't like it because they didn't understand it; they were looking for planets crashing, big Hollywood entertainment value. A large percentage of reviewers seemed to like Part 1: Justine and were frustrated or hateful about Part 2: Claire. I think this is because they didn't understand it. Many people understood that Justine was depressed, but they didn't understand Claire's anxiety, and they didn't like Claire. I, however, have more firsthand experience with mental illness than I would like to have, and it was clear to me that both sisters were ill in different ways and that Claire's illness goes unremarked because she is so busy trying to take care of Justine, whose illness is much more obvious to strangers. Anyway, the planet of Melancholia seemed to be a metaphor for the sisters' illnesses. Justine's is hidden (behind her sometimes sunny personality?) as Melancholia is at first. It goes largely unremarked and misunderstood. Claire's is overwhelming, inescapable, and she feels out of control as the planet comes rushing toward Earth. The approach of Melancholia causes her to panic because she can't control it, and that is a fundamental component of anxiety.

So anyway, yes. To summarize the plot, we have sisters, mental illness, metaphor, planetary collision. The acting was phenomenal. Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg made me believe both that they were sisters with a strained relationship and that they were mentally ill. It's hard to catalog all the minute expressions and glances that made up their performances, but needless to say, they were exquisite and didn't overact at all. The quality of acting really contributed to the success of the film. Toward the beginning, we see Justine and Michael in the limo on their way to the wedding reception, and their looks and giggles and kisses were so infectious and convincing, I felt like I really was intruding on the loving bliss of happy newlyweds. And it only continued from there. The chemistry between all the actors, even the young boy who plays Claire's son, was magical.

In terms of other elements, I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that the film was visually stunning. It opens with a long (very, very, very, very long) montage of the moments directly before the planets collide at the end of the film, and even though it was a disconcertingly long intro, it was so beautiful that it was hard to mind. This was also when the film's primary music was introduced—Wagner's Tristan und Isolde. It set the perfect mood and continued to hold the entire film together to the end.

I could go on forever. I can't wait to see this film again. It's so intelligent, beautiful, heartbreaking, wonderful, thought-provoking, and strangely real. The last film I loved this much was probably Never Let Me Go, and we all know how I felt about that. (Strange that they're both shockingly realistic but technically sci-fi. I could have stumbled on the perfect genre here.) I'd recommend this to everyone, but especially to those with sisters or firsthand experience with mental illness. It's hard to watch in that regard, but it really strikes a chord.

Wow.

Rating: 5.0

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011, U.S.)

I'll just go ahead and get this out of the way to begin with: the Swedish one was better.

With that said, this was what you'd expect an adaptation of the book to be, just like the Swedish version was. The plot was simplified some (I really didn't like what they did to the ending, but I won't spoil it), though it retained all the key elements to prevent the story from changing. Still, I felt it was overly simplified in places, almost like they were assuming the American audience would prefer a less intellectual plot in favor of a more action-based one. (For instance, why did Mikael not go to prison? That really bothered me. Why was Millennium suddenly this hugely staffed publication instead of a struggling moral voice?) Not that there was more action in this one than the Swedish one, but it felt more action-y. There wasn't more sex or nudity in this one either, and yet that part felt more pronounced as well. Very strange. I think it must be something about how Scandinavians make sex seem like a natural part of life, while Americans make it seem like a racy, commercial thing added just to sell tickets. But let's not get on our anti-America soapbox today.

A lot of elements were better in this version. One thing I liked was the technological bits, how they showed Mikael and Lisbeth stitching all this information together on the computer. The time-lapse pictures of the parade were especially well-done; it helped me visualize the process in a way I hadn't been able to before. I also liked the flashbacks to the day of the bridge accident. They were really well done, and the way they were filmed, with whatever filters or whatnot they used, really gave it the feeling of a memory that was clear but starting to fade around the edges. Probably the best part was the soundtrack, which was just perfect. I can't remember the soundtrack to the Swedish version at all, but this one was chilling, suspenseful, advancing, retreating, startling in all the right places. Famous metal musician as composer for this film... perfect choice.

So of course that leaves me with casting, a major influence on how good adaptations are, especially of this book. Well, Rooney Mara is no Noomi Rapace. She was okay, and she was a decent actress, but she didn't completely embody the role the way Rapace did, physically or mentally. Rapace was transformed into Salander, while Mara was an actress playing the role of Salander. That's my opinion, anyway. (Part of this is also due to makeup/costuming, which also wasn't as good as the Swedish version.) The rest of the cast was pretty darn good, though. I liked Christopher Plummer for Henrik a lot. Daniel Craig was a pretty sweet Mikael. (In fact, he shares strange similarities to the Swedish version actor, who also has that craggy sort of face and compact body. But Craig is a lot sexier.) When I saw Robin Wright, I realized that she's sort of how I pictured Erika all along, except maybe younger... but again, she was a lot like the Swedish actress (except her age). And I just adore Stellan Skarsgård, so I was psyched when I saw that he was in it. When I realized what role he was playing, I was shocked, but of course he was perfect. The man can act. (Props to them for actually casting a Swedish actor, too.) So all in all, a pretty strong cast, with the exception of the titular girl. My main complaint was the accent issue. Obviously, Skarsgård has a light accent. Plummer also seemed to adopt a light accent. Craig sounded like he was trying to do a strong Swedish accent sometimes, but sometimes it morphed into something resembling his Russian accent and sometimes into something resembling his American accent. (His was sadly the most distracting and annoying. I love him anyway.) Wright had a very strong accent, although how accurate it was, I couldn't say. Then most of the rest of the cast sounded American. So that whole thing was a major consistency problem for the film. Look, we know it's an American movie that takes place in Sweden and they're speaking in English anyway, so if you want to go ahead and have American accents for everybody, that's fine. If you want to try to coach everyone to have Swedish accents, that's fine too. But make up your mind and do it all the same. Sheesh.

Anyway, that is all. My general opinion is that you should read the book, but if you don't like to read you should watch the Swedish version, but if you can't stand subtitles you should watch the American version. But I'm warning you, it's just not as good and you'll be missing a lot.

Rating: 3.5

Metropia (2009, Sweden)

I have to copy the plot summary from imdb to make this make sense: In the near future, oil reserves are nearly depleted and Europe is connected by a series of underground tunnels. While navigating these tunnels, Roger hears a voice in his head. Seeking a way to rid himself of the voice only leads Roger deeper into a bizarre conspiracy of control at the highest reaches of government.

This is rather oversimplifying, but it's difficult to explain. As you can see from the poster, this had the most interesting animation style I've ever seen. I couldn't quite decide whether it was 2-D or 3-D. The correlation between voice actors and characters was interesting as well. Roger looked vaguely like Vicent Gallo, while Stefan looked even more like Alexander Skarsgård. Yet these two characters also looked like each other a bit (which is a part of the story, not coincidence). So that was all pretty neat.

The world that they created in this dystopian future Europe was fascinating. The superior public transportation system, which is such a positive aspect of European life now, becomes the symbol of the worst parts of life in the future. Consumerism (and objectifying a specific woman in commercials for a specific product) gives the corrupted leaders a means of control over the populace. The colors are mostly black and gray, and only a few things stand out. Most noticeably Roger's dull red jacket, the model's brilliant blond hair, and the bright blue color of the shampoo she's advertising.

I can't fully do this film justice. The concept, the mood, the animation, the voice acting—all were superb. I highly recommend it, especially if you like something a little different every now and then.

Rating: 3.5

Angels & Demons (2009, U.S.)

Even though I thought The Da Vinci Code was terrible (couldn't hold a candle to the book!), I decided to tempt fate and the movie gods and watch Angels & Demons. (It's really hard to say no to Ewan McGregor!)

Here's what I think. Like the first installment (that used to be a sequel but is now a prequel... weird), it took quite a few liberties. Mostly it was over-simplified to better fit a film format. However, there was strangely less suspense than in the book, even though they had a great opportunity to make it really come alive. A huge plot point involves a terrorist killing a cardinal every hour, and yet somehow they have time between locating each body to change clothes, do research in the Vatican archives, drive around in traffic, have some drawn out conversations, and then make it to the next murder scene with two minutes to spare. It was completely unbelievable it this respect.

Acting. Tom Hanks was okay. I felt like he didn't capture Langdon at all in the first film, and this was barely an improvement. His female sidekick, the brilliant scientist, was barely there. The strongest performances came from Stellan Skarsgård (the commander of the Vatican police) and Armin Mueller-Stahl (Dean of the College of Cardinals). They weren't major characters, but they were important and played their parts well. Ewan McGregor absolutely stole the show. Surprise, surprise. He was impassioned and calm-headed and pious and worldly at all the right times and in all the right amounts. Brilliant. The one thing that was lacking in his performance was a perfect accent. Usually his accents are passable, but he just sounded like a more toned-down Scot than the Irishman he was supposed to be. Details, details.

The mis en scène was pretty awesome, considering a large percentage of it was probably reproduction. Having been to Vatican City myself, I was pretty impressed with their recreation of the Sistine Chapel and St. Peter's Square. If I didn't know the Vatican would never allow film crews in there, I would believe it was the real thing. Other locations, such as the Castel and Ponte Sant'Angelo and the Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi (absolutely breathtaking in life) could also have been the real thing. Maybe they were. All I know is that I want to rewind time and relive those days I spent strolling around Rome. (Only this time, not in the summer with half of the U.S. and Japan there!)

Away from personal notes. I was impressed with the score from the first notes. I kept thinking that the style of the composition and the quality of performance sounded familiar. Turns out it was composed by Hans Zimmer (one of my all-time favorites) and the violin solos were performed by Jamie Bell (whose performance on the Defiance score is one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard). It had the right mix of suspense and beauty at the right times and did wonders for the film. The only thing that stuck out was when Cardinal Strauss tells Langdon that "of course" God sent him to Rome—and the score becomes suddenly ominous for a few bars. Very odd.

Overall, I can see how people who haven't read the book would love this movie. I thought it was okay, and I didn't want to tear my eyes out after watching it like I did with the first one. So there you have it.

Rating: 3.0

Mamma Mia! (2008, U.S.)

I didn't have very strong feelings about this film one way or the other, but there hasn't been much else to see in the theater this summer, and my ABBA-fan friend needed some serious cheering up, so I decided to take her to Mamma Mia!. I do not regret it at all.

I love musicals, of course. The '70s, on the other hand, I am not so fond of. Consequently, I've never listened to ABBA. Big mistake. All of the numbers in Mamma Mia! are catchy and fun—so fun that you might just want to run home and buy the soundtrack, like I did. The dance sequences are just absolutely ridiculous (and often hilarious), but they work really well. It's obvious that the script was written for the music rather than the music being written for the script, but it worked well that way.

Of course I have nothing but good things to say about the actors. Amanda Seyfried probably has a good career ahead of her, and she has a beautiful voice. Meryl Streep I like more and more as she gets older. Of course I love Colin Firth, and he was great. And I was so excited to see Stellan Skarsgård in a part where he wasn't a bad guy or some such (i.e. Bootstrap Bill)—actually, he was so adorable in this film I could just eat him up. Of the three "dads" in the movie, Pierce Brosnan was my least favorite. I've never been a big Brosnan fan, but he was still pretty good. I don't know about his singing though. Well, to be fair, his voice wasn't awful, but he sure does make funny faces when he sings. I think it's from trying to maintain an American accent.

So I don't know what else to say. Great music. Beautiful scenery. Fun dancing. Hilarious situational comedy. Stellar cast. Ends with a twist. Good, good stuff.

Rating: 4.0