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

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011, U.S.)

I have heard a lot of people say that they liked this one better than the first one, and I have a hard time deciding whether I agree or not. I remember liking the first one a lot when I first saw it, but when I rewatched it about a week ago, I only liked it about as much as anything else. So, hard to say. Still, this movie was great.

I think I said it before, but I'll say it again. Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. have such chemistry on screen, to the point where they really don't need any leading ladies. Not in a romantic sort of way or anything, but their witty banter and physical comedy seem interrupted by a lady's presence. They're just too funny. Still, the other actors were good too. I was so excited to see Noomi Rapace out of her goth Salander gear and with a few more healthy pounds on. She made a very good gypsy. The guy who played Moriarty was also eerily good, with that nerdy, seemingly good-natured facade masking pure evil. Oh, and Stephen Fry as "Shirley's" brother = priceless!

The plot was very twisty and convoluted and involved a big conspiracy, and it was fun to watch the whole thing unwind slowly and with such Holmesian flair. I don't want to give anything away, but it was definitely big. And the ending... wow-wee! So shocking, so funny, so entertaining.

And to save my favorite guy for last: Hans Zimmer is just a musical genius, and I loved his soundtrack for this movie. It's no POTC, but it's definitely heading in that direction. His compositions were all very original sounding, but with a hint of inspiration from the plot or setting. It's hard to explain what I mean, but there were some pieces that seemed very Victorian and some that seemed very industrial, etc. The best ones, however, were the ones that were gypsy inspired, with the fiddle and all. Just perfectly done.

I would definitely watch this one again.

Rating: 4.5

One Day (2011, U.S.)

I had been looking forward to this movie for ages. I read a review of the book in Library Journal or Booklist last year before it was first published in the U.S., bought it for the library, and read it as soon as it came out. I loved it. Of the 122 books I read last year, it was one of only 7 that I gave five stars to. I thought the concept, the writing, the everything was absolutely stellar. Therefore, I guess it was inevitable that the movie could only pale in comparison.

I've said recently that Anne Hathaway has really been growing on me lately, and I really liked her in this. I think I've seen Jim Sturgess in a couple things, but he's never really stuck in my mind. I really liked him in this too. Their chemistry was decent, much better as friends than lovers, but it still worked. The costumes and sets really help keep the viewer oriented as the plot whizzes from year to year, from the late 1980s to the present day. Like the book it's based on, the movie's story is fundamentally good. I just didn't feel as emotionally invested in the characters as David Nicholls made me feel.(This is slightly odd, as Nicholls adapted the screenplay himself. Novels and films are inherently different mediums though, I guess.)

I don't know, I feel like I'm being unfair. If I had seen the movie without reading the book, I probably would have thought it was incredible—writing, acting, setting, and the rest. As it is though, I feel like I'm comparing a stationary star to a comet. The one just isn't as magical having experienced the other. Still, I definitely recommend the movie. (And highly recommend the book!)

Rating: 3.5

Breaking Dawn, Part 1 (2011, U.S.)

This movie is an excellent example of how low expectations can really improve one's enjoyment of a movie! I knew from the second that I read "the scene" in Breaking Dawn that the movie was going to end up being a cheesy B horror film, for at least five minutes. Then I kept hearing bad reviews of the movie, and I said to myself, "Well, duh." But really, it wasn't that bad.

To begin with, the wedding was beautiful. It wasn't quite how I pictured it in my head, but I liked their interpretation. Bella's dress was stunning, in my opinion, and Kristen Stewart looked incredibly beautiful. I loved how they reused their prom song for the wedding background music. I loved how everyone else literally disappeared from the scene while they were getting married, showing how they were the whole world to each other. I really loved their wedding kiss, which was long without being R-rated, sweet, romantic, and so laced with meaning. Oh it was just beautiful!

Visually, it was very well done too. I already mentioned the wedding. There were a lot of beautiful establishing shots of the island, Washington forests, the waterfall where they swim, Rio (the giant Jesus!), and the like. I loved the use of montages, namely the island time one and the Renesmee one. The one on the island showed them hiking, playing chess, swimming, talking, and just being together, and I thought it perfectly crystallized and captured that honeymoon feeling and their connection. Hard to explain. (Also, I loved their use of the red and white chess pieces from the front of the book. That was pretty clever, and I don't think they've done that since the first movie... not that a ribbon and a rose petal are easy to incorporate.) The shots of teenaged Renesmee were very dreamlike and actually made me want to like her, which is quite an accomplishment—I really kind of hated her in the book. Bella's dream the night before the wedding was really well done, but something makes me not want to go into detail and give it away. The honeymoon love scene was close to perfect. I figured they would go the book route and just "fade to black" and wake up in the morning with feathers flying (which didn't get left out, yay!), but they actually showed it. It was tasteful and beautiful and it definitely looked like soul mates being together for the first time. That was one of many scenes that was quite moving. One other visual aspect I was impressed with was the makeup on "sick" Bella. Until now, most of their makeup has involved making humans look like pale vampires with golden/red eyes and beautiful looks. Bella's transformation into a ravaged, hollow-eyed, broken girl was pretty incredible, especially in contrast. (On the other hand, I was less impressed with vampire makeup. Carlisle's hair looked greasy, Rosalie's nasty black eyebrows continue to irritate me, Alice isn't as cute without spiky hair, and Irina's—yay, Maggie Grace!— eyes didn't look like the contacts were set quite right, to give a few examples.) Anyway, I think this might have been the most visually appealing of the movies so far.

So what was wrong with it? I'll start with the obvious. The birth scene. No. Still, it could have been a lot worse. In fact, I thought Bella's broken bones, especially the spine, were quite underdone. There was no fountain of blood at the birth, which you might consider underdone but that actually made the scene fit better. (There was still chewing, but you can't see it, so again that really helped. The whole scene was not the B movie bloodbath I had anticipated, which was the biggest relief ever.) The effects of the venom injection are shown though a sort of CGI vein interior, which was sort of cheesy and reminded me of a Magic School Bus episode. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure how they would have accomplished this otherwise, because they don't have the benefit of Bella's Ernaline monologues like the book has. Also on the subject of point of view, I thought that losing Jacob's perspective during the pregnancy was a loss for the movie, which is ironic since I didn't like that narrative choice in the book. (You have to admit that it's weird for the first 3 books and 2/3 of the fourth book to be told from one perspective and then 1/3 of the last book to be told from another.) I missed the scenes of Jacob trying to imprint and his snarky comments and his anger at Edward, Bella, "Blondie," and just about everyone else in the world. It took a lot of emotion away. Also on the subject of werewolves, the pack has a big meeting where they do their talking in each other's heads thing, and it was really stupid. Their voices were sort of edited to sound all echo-y and more raspy and just fake in general, and I thought that scene in particular (or any scene with inner wolf conversations in general) would have been a lot less ridiculous and more effective if they just used normal voices.

On the subject of actors, poor Billy Burke didn't have as many funny moments as previous movies, which was sad. On the other hand, Pattinson and Stewart's chemistry was off the charts. The way they oriented around each other in scenes (as Bella's mom notes in the previous movie), the way they look at each other, the love scene, the wedding kiss, the chess matches... I swear their connection was palpable. Rather breathtaking, really. As for everyone else, they were basically standards and really irrelevant to the story. I would have liked more from Taylor Lautner, but I felt the fault was not his but the scripts. He did do a lot with his body language to convey emotion he was never able to vocalize.

Probably the most disappointing thing was the music. The score wasn't bad, and the soundtrack might not have been either, but I didn't think it was used to the same effect as earlier soundtracks. (Can anyone think of baseball anymore without hearing "Supermassive Black Hole" in their head? I can't!) The music may have been good, but it just didn't stand out. The one exception was, as I mentioned before, the reuse of "Flightless Bird, American Mouth," which gave the movies and the characters' relationship an agreeable symmetry.

So overall, I quite liked it. That may be mostly because my expectations were so low, but hey... I'll take what I can get!

Rating: 4.0

Anonymous (2011, U.S.)

Wow. I am so glad that this film was finally released near me, because I loved it. It was absolutely absorbing from the first second, as we follow an actor who's running late into the play he's introducing. (That actor, incidentally, is Derek Jacobi, who I later found out from reading Bill Bryson's biography of Shakespeare is a very strong believer in the Shakespeare-didn't-write-Shakespeare school. He must have been thrilled to get this role!) Basically the story goes that the Earl of Oxford wanted his plays performed to influence the political climate, but he didn't want his name attached to them. He tried to get Ben Jonson to put his name to them, but Jonson didn't want to. Somehow Shakespeare, who is an absolutely ridiculous, full of himself, almost air-headed actor, ends up having the plays attributed to him.

I don't know if I have ever seen a more convincing alternate history. All of the "evidence" seemed entirely plausible (although how accurate it was and what was excluded for convenience's sake, I can't say). The plot lines that involved the queen having illegitimate babies without anyone knowing seemed a bit of a stretch, but once the babies were men it worked a lot better. Anyway, for the most part the plot was fascinating, and I liked how they framed the story as a play in modern New York. (It was especially neat at the end, when during the credits the screen shows the audience filing out of the theater, just as the audience in the movie theater was doing. Weird but cool!)

I can't say enough about this cast. Really, wow. A majority of the cast was composed of people who are good, strong actors (mostly British) who I am familiar with but who the average movie-goer wouldn't necessarily recognize. All of the young earls— Southampton (Xavier Samuel), Essex (Sam Reid), and young Oxford (Jamie Campbell Bower)—were so convincing as these godlike golden boys, beautiful warriors, sons of privilege. I was especially enraptured with Bower's performance. His range of emotion was really powerful. Of course, the two women who played Elizabeth, Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson, were perfectly cast. (Has Redgrave ever played the queen before? She was great! It was weird to see Richardson as Elizabeth when I was first introduced to her as Catherine Parr in The Tudors.) David Thewlis and Edward Hogg as the Cecil men, elder and younger, were sharp and conniving, very snake-like. Sebastian Armesto was a serious Ben Jonson, passionate about his work, with dark eyes that looked like they'd been strained by candlelight one too many times. Rafe Spall as Shakespeare... I don't know what to say. He was definitely the comic relief. So funny, so self-centered, so obviously not a writer. He was good. Even with all of this fabulous talent, the real star of the show was Rhys Ifans. I have seen him in many different things (Rancid Aluminum, Vanity Fair, Enduring Love, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, The Deathly Hallows) and I'm always impressed by his range and skill. Enduring Love is an especially impressive performance from him. But this film might have been his best ever. I have never seen him perform such a commanding character before. I don't think it's necessarily that his acting has matured, because he's always been so good. It's more like this was the role he was always meant to play. His presence dominated every scene he was in. Amazing.

Okay, I've gone on about the cast forever, but they really were that good! Now I don't want to bore with descriptions of music and scenery and lighting and costumes, but suffice is to say that they too were simply incredible. I especially loved the panoramas of Elizabethan London, which just looked so realistic. I also had the same reaction that I had to The Conspirator—I felt like I could smell the smoke from flickering candles and smell the sewage in the gutter and taste the pints of ale in the pub. Really, really great work. One thing that bothered me about the music is that several of the period songs they used had been used before in Elizabeth, or Elizabeth: The Golden Age, or Shakespeare in Love, or some other Elizabethan drama. It's great music and it fits the time, but surely there must be more than five songs that have survived. I know, minor complaint, but when you're an avid watcher of every Elizabethan film you can get your hands on, these are the things you notice.

All in all, probably one of the best movies I've seen in ages. I would almost be tempted to give it a 5.0, except for a few plot details that didn't quite work for me. Still, as I said, it was an engaging, interesting plot with an unparalleled cast, stellar mis en scène, and fitting period music. Definitely a must for fans of the theater, Elizabethan England, and possibly Shakespeare too (unless you don't want to hear that he didn't write his work).

Rating: 4.5

The Conspirator (2010, U.S.)

Hmmmmm, I can't decide about this one. There is no denying that the lead actors were awesome. I've been a fan of Robin Wright since she was Robin Wright Penn and James McAvoy for... well, awhile anyway. (Probably 2007. You know why.) Their acting absolutely transported me, and Wright was particularly inspired. You know how it's all going to end, but you can't help but think the strength of her character and her convictions will be enough to change the outcome. To a lesser extent, McAvoy's character's determination to follow the letter of the law does the same thing. The supporting cast was filled with talented, big name actors as well. I'd say this film was a casting triumph.

Just as impressive as the actors was the entire period feel. The sets and lighting were incredible. I felt like I could nearly smell the smoke from guttering oil lamps and hear the crinkle of crinolines. It's rather hard to explain just how realistic it was. Fabulous work.

Even though the subject of the War can seem rather tired sometimes (especially around here), I really enjoyed the choice of topic. While the assassination of Lincoln is a frequent choice of content to include, he is always pictured as the blessed martyr and the conspirators as evil criminals. (I won't get into the fact that Lincoln was, in fact, bordering on becoming a tyrant as John Wilkes Boothe proclaimed, holding onto the Union at all costs despite the People's wishes. But anyway.) I thought the movie was pretty balanced and not hateful to the South as many fictionalized versions of the assassination are. In fact, the men of the president's cabinet seemed so corrupt, their trial of Surratt so unconstitutional, that they seemed to be the villains. I have to say that it was refreshing. The blatant disregard for the constitutional rights of citizens in the 1860s was very upsetting, and I wonder how many people realize how strongly yesterday's civil rights violations echo today.

Unfortunately, I have to say that the film finished on a sour note. (Well, besides the anticipated unhappy ending.) This was a literal sour note. The music, which up until that time had been subtle, period-appropriate instrumentation, morphed into modern music almost the second the credits began to roll. It was very jarring and threw me right out of the world of the film. Very bad choice.

Rating: 4.0

Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (2004, U.S.)

I don't have too much to say about this documentary, but I did want to mark that I have watched it. We're reading A People's History of the United States and Voices of a People's History of the United States for one of my book clubs, discussing a few chapters each month. This month a few of us met to watch this film about Zinn's life and work. Of course, anyone who is interested in the subject matter will like this documentary, and if you're against Zinn's ideas you probably won't like it. For myself, I'm amazed that there was once a person in the world who cared so much and worked so hard to make this country, and this world really, the place it should be. The challenges that Zinn faced just because of his beliefs and his work should be enough to make any mere mortal give up thousands of times, but he never did. He was a truly exceptional person, and I wish I had been able to see him speak while he was alive. This film was an interesting, though too brief, insight into the man and his work.

Rating: 3.5

Puss in Boots (2011, U.S.)

Soooooooooo cute. I always thought that Puss in Boots was the best character from the Shrek movies, and now that I have two little orange fuzzballs of my own, I have to say I'm even more biased. Of course, the cat jokes were all hilarious to me (and to the friend I saw it with, who is not really a cat person). I laughed out loud several times. Antonio Banderas is such a good voice actor, and the rest of the cast was pretty good too. The plot was definitely weird. It involved Humpty Dumpty, Jack and Jill, the goose that lays the golden eggs, Jack's beanstalk... it was bordering on ridiculous, but somehow it worked. The one negative thing I will say about it is that Humpty Dumpty is just creepy, in his looks, his mannerism, everything. I don't know why, but he made me think of a pedophile. So that was a bit off-putting.

I can't say enough about the main focus of this movie, however. Of course, that's Puss. He's one of those characters like Jack Sparrow who could salvage any movie. (Well okay, that's not a fair comparison, but I thought that was true of good old Jack until POTC4!) Totally worth it for Puss, Banderas, and funny cat jokes.

Rating: 4.0

The Ides of March (2011, U.S.)

I went to see this with my mom because she wanted to see it, and it was better than my other option. Why did I not want to see a movie with the sexy and talented Ryan Gosling, you ask? Well, aside from the fact that I fluctuate between finding George Clooney passable and downright annoying, this subject matter just didn't interest me at all. The matter of politics is depressing enough in the real world without having to see it in a fictional world too. What kind of escapism is that, I ask?

Well, it went just about as expected. Gosling was stellar, of course. Clooney was actually pretty good. (This was not one of those movies when I wanted to yell "Shut up, you irritating man!") The supporting cast—Marisa Tomei, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood, Jeffrey Wright—was obviously a strong one. I couldn't say one bad thing about the acting. I also learned a whole lot about the campaigning process, from logistics to worker motives to the sordid details of life on the road. The plot was complex and certainly engaging.

But. When it comes down to it, I left the movie feeling distinctly unhappy. Is there really any resolution? Did the characters grow? Why was this film made and why do we watch it? It wasn't unsettling exactly, or depressing, or entirely off-putting. But leaving a movie with that empty sort of feeling makes me feel all out of sync. It's one thing to be sobbing and depressed, but feeling out of balance with the world is something I just don't like.

Still, I think the movie has many things going for it, and it is the perfect movie for the right kind of viewer. I wouldn't be surprised if it got some Oscar nods.

Rating: 3.0

Midnight in Paris (2011, U.S.)

 Has it really been almost three and a half years since Woody Allen finally made me start my film blog? And again I say, "Good ending, Woody Allen!"

But to begin with, perhaps I should tell him "Good beginning!" instead. The first several minutes of the film are comprised entirely of scenes from Paris, both tourist destinations like the Eiffel Tower and local hangouts like street cafes. It was beautiful, it really set the scene by introducing Paris as its own character, and it made me think repeatedly, "I've been there!" It was a nice little trip, and all this before the credits began to roll.

To begin with the concept: I loved it! It's a bit like The Polar Express. Gil, who has escaped from his fiancee Inez and her parents, is wandering the city when, at the stroke of midnight, an old fashioned car pulls up as if the meeting was predetermined. Soon he's wandering the much livelier streets of a Paris that has been gone for 90 years, meeting his idols and letting his inner self blossom. How many of us long to retreat to an earlier time, one that we hold in our imaginations as a Golden Age? For Gil, it's Paris in the 1920s. For Adriana, who he meets in the '20s, it's la Belle Epoque. As Gil says, "That's what the present is. It's a little unsatisfying because life is unsatisfying." His whole journey of self-discovery is colorful and humorous but also beautiful, and it is oh-so-Woody-Allen.

The casting was excellent, although I felt a little backwards regarding the leads. Normally I love Rachel McAdams, and she was very good in this movie. The only problem was that usually she's sweet and loveable or savvy and spunky. Here, her character was a shallow, annoying socialite. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of Owen Wilson (I much prefer his brother), usually finding him to be quite annoying. In this case, he was the loveable one. Strange to get used to that big trade-off. He was good, but the remainder of the ensemble cast was stellar. In the modern world, Michael Sheen as Inez's irritating, superior friend Paul was spot-on. French first lady Carla Bruni as a museum guide was understated. In the 1920s, I adored Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald (the more movies I see her in, the more I like her). Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott was a good counterpart. Corey Stoll was an incredible Hemingway; to be honest, I had to remind myself that he was an actor and not the author several times. Kathy Bates was perfect as the outspoken Gertrude Stein (think Molly Brown toned down about 20 notches). Adrien Brody, one of the most underrated actors in the world I think, was a wonderfully vibrant Salvador Dalí. "Rhinoceros!" (Much different from Pattinson's portrayal in Little Ashes, but equally believable.) I was pleased to see Gad Elmaleh in a non-French (language/country of origin) film, because he has a great range of expressions (which may come from having a mime for a father) that lend themselves to brilliant comedy and worked very well as the detective here. And of course the lovely Marion Cotillard is always a classy, sexy, talented addition to any cast, especially a period piece.

I don't know quite how to describe my feeling watching this film other than to use the word "transported." It was really wonderful, thought-provoking, amusing. I would recommend it to anyone, but especially to those with a love of Paris or early 20th century art/culture, or a nostalgic longing for any bygone time.

Rating: 4.0