Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts.
As director of the FBI for forty eight years, J. Edgar Hoover was the most feared man in the United States Government. Living by the motto of "information is power," he had the goods on everyone: who was sleeping with who, or who was harboring a dark secret. He kept confidential files on anyone in a position of power- even the eight presidents whom which he served under. He was an extreme moralist who surrounded him self with people who lived by his code of ethics, or they were fired. He lived with his mother until her death, and never married. What few people knew was that Hoover himself was the one who was harboring a dark secret his entire life; Clint Eastwood's latest biopic, J. Edgar focuses on that very issue.
The narrative is told through Hoover (DiCaprio) in his later years, and a series flashback scenes of his life and career in public office. The screenplay by Dustin Lance Black focuses the story on personal relationships in Hoover's life, mainly the repressed gay relationship that Hoover had with his assistant director, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer.) However, unlike Black's screenplay, Milk (2008) this film does not portray scenes of gay sex. In the one scene where you think it's going to happen, it doesn't. The film instead portrays the two men repressing their homosexual feelings (not unheard of in the mid 20th Century) and settling for a lifelong companionship. There were two other close relationships in Hoover's life; his mother, Anna Marie (Judi Dench), and his personal secretary, Helen Gandy (Watts.) The film shows how his overbearing mother most likely shaped Hoover into the man he was, and how he never had an intimate relationship with another woman. The one woman whom Hoover attempted to show interest in turned out instead to be one of his closest confidants, Helen Gandy. Helen ended up being the one person whom he entrusted all of his confidential information and evidence with. The rest of the narrative portrays Hoover as a man obsessed with glory, and who twisted the truth in his actual work in apprehending criminals, but got results nonetheless. The most famous incident that gets the most screen time is the "Lindbergh Baby" case in 1932 which changed the way the FBI operated from that point on.
Through make-up and sheer acting ability, Leonardo DiCaprio is stellar in his portrayal of the head "G-Man." Without a lot of pomp and circumstance, Clint Eastwood does an excellent job of showing who J. Edgar Hoover really was: a repressed gay man who was also a powerful man. There is no question after watching this film that Hoover was a man who got things done- even if he did not do them himself, and regardless of his sexuality.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Septien (2011)
Directed by: Michael Tully
Starring: Michael Tully, Robert Longstreet, Onur Tukel, Brian Kotzur, Rachel Korine
The plot of this film is about the Rawlings Brothers: Ezra (Longstreet), Amos (Tukel), and Cornelieus (Tully.) Cornelius has returned home after an eighteen year absence. The reason that the audience knows he has been gone that long is because in the very beginning of the film, there is a scene where Ezra asks Cornelius "Do you mind telling us where you have been for the last eighteen years?"...almost as nonchalantly as you would ask someone where they were the night before. What we don't really know is the reason as to why he left in the first place. Living on their (deceased) parent's farm in what appears to be somewhere in the rural south, the brothers all have serious demons in their closets. Ezra is a drag queen who thinks he is mom to his brothers, Amos likes to paint disturbing pictures, and Cornelius likes to hustle people in sporting contests, then blow the money on booze and drugs. Strange fact is that he has what appears to be a natural talent at any sport he plays; be it football, soccer, or tennis. Cornelius is the one who is harboring something very dark in his past. An ex-football coach who is now a plumber named "The Red Rooster" is tied into Cornelius's past. The "Red Rooster" part of the narrative plays out in the end when a preacher shows up at their farm and performs some sort of exorcism, revealing the reason why Cornelius left eighteen years ago.
Indie Filmmaker Michael Tully in his own words describes his latest film, Septien as a "wholly entertaining art film, and a late-night made for television movie from the 80's, combined with Southern Gothic Horror." I will say one thing- this film is most definitely art, and certainly entertaining...if that's your thing. This kind of film would most likely be found in an underground movie-house somewhere deep in Gotham. Fortunately for Michael Tully, the film's right were sold exclusively to IFC (Independent film channel.) So at least his film is getting some pretty good air time to people who may not have sought it out to begin with. As a true lover of Indie and "strange" art films, I really enjoyed this twisted flick...I'm sure though, that it's not every one's cup of tea.
Starring: Michael Tully, Robert Longstreet, Onur Tukel, Brian Kotzur, Rachel Korine
The plot of this film is about the Rawlings Brothers: Ezra (Longstreet), Amos (Tukel), and Cornelieus (Tully.) Cornelius has returned home after an eighteen year absence. The reason that the audience knows he has been gone that long is because in the very beginning of the film, there is a scene where Ezra asks Cornelius "Do you mind telling us where you have been for the last eighteen years?"...almost as nonchalantly as you would ask someone where they were the night before. What we don't really know is the reason as to why he left in the first place. Living on their (deceased) parent's farm in what appears to be somewhere in the rural south, the brothers all have serious demons in their closets. Ezra is a drag queen who thinks he is mom to his brothers, Amos likes to paint disturbing pictures, and Cornelius likes to hustle people in sporting contests, then blow the money on booze and drugs. Strange fact is that he has what appears to be a natural talent at any sport he plays; be it football, soccer, or tennis. Cornelius is the one who is harboring something very dark in his past. An ex-football coach who is now a plumber named "The Red Rooster" is tied into Cornelius's past. The "Red Rooster" part of the narrative plays out in the end when a preacher shows up at their farm and performs some sort of exorcism, revealing the reason why Cornelius left eighteen years ago.
Indie Filmmaker Michael Tully in his own words describes his latest film, Septien as a "wholly entertaining art film, and a late-night made for television movie from the 80's, combined with Southern Gothic Horror." I will say one thing- this film is most definitely art, and certainly entertaining...if that's your thing. This kind of film would most likely be found in an underground movie-house somewhere deep in Gotham. Fortunately for Michael Tully, the film's right were sold exclusively to IFC (Independent film channel.) So at least his film is getting some pretty good air time to people who may not have sought it out to begin with. As a true lover of Indie and "strange" art films, I really enjoyed this twisted flick...I'm sure though, that it's not every one's cup of tea.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Project Nim (2011)
What happens when a chimp is taken from captivity and then raised by humans? Can a chimp be taught to live like a human? Can a chimp learn to speak and communicate like a human through sign language? The bigger question is: what happens when a chimp is raised by humans, taught to live like and communicate like them, and then put back into captivity to live with other chimps? Film maker James Marsh, also known for the Oscar-winning Man on Wire (2008) explores those issues in his latest documentary film, Project Nim. The film is centered around a chimpanzee named Nim Chimpsky (a dig at famous linguist Noam Chomsky) who was born in captivity in Oklahoma in 1973. A few days after being born, Nim is given to Herbert Terrace, A Columbia research professor. Terrace then gives Nim to a student of his, Stephanie LaFarge. As a science experiment under the direction of Terrace, Nim goes to live with Stephanie and her family, and they treat him as one of their own. Nim is then bounced from one "foster" family after another, all under the direct supervision of Herbert Terrace. During the five years he is under Professor Terrace's supervision, Nim is taught to live and act like a human, and is taught to communicate through sign language. You can see clearly through archived footage that Nim thinks of himself as a human during his early years of life. Some of the "archived" footage is re-enacted for production sake, but that's another topic of discussion altogether...I'll let that one go.
Then...the inevitable happens. After five years, it is determined that Nim can no longer live amongst humans. He has already bitten one of his handlers, pretty severely (what did they expect from a wild animal?) Nim is taken back to the Oklahoma refuge where he was born to live amongst the rest of the chimps in captivity. From this point in the story, Nim is bounced between living in captivity,being subjected to cruel and unusual medical research, and finally back into captivity again to live out the remainder of his life.
What's really bothersome about this film is that no one had any culpability in the things that happened to Nim in his life. No one, including and especially Professor Terrace really seemed to grasp the concept of the cruelty that Nim was subjected to. Stephanie LaFarge even admits that she had absolutely no clue what she was getting involved in when she took Nim into her home. The only person who really seemed to care and was genuinely concerned for the primate was a handler at the Oklahoma Refuge, by the name of Bob. He was the only one in Nim's life that wanted nothing from him, other than to be his friend and see that he was treated humanely.
I am sure that this film will ignite a fire under the heels of the folks over at PETA, if it hasn't already. The film documents the cruel and inhumane things that were done to Nim, starting from birth when he was taken from his mother. When Nim was then taught to live like a human, he was basically stripped of all his natural wild instincts of living amongst other chimps. He was subjected to cruelty once more when he had to learn how to live back in captivity. The question of whether Nim actually learned to "communicate" or not through sign language is irrelevant in my book. However, from what is shown in the film, Nim does clearly learn how to communicate through signing. After attacking one of his handlers, Nim signs "I'm sorry." Was that a reaction that he was taught after negative behavior? or was he truly communicating that he felt sorry?
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Iron Lady (2012)
Director: Phyllidia Lloyd
Starring: Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, Olivia Colman
The Iron Lady is a look back on the former British Prime Minister's life. This biopic starts out in present tense, and shows a frail and aged Thatcher displaying clear signs of Dementia. She appears confused, often thinking that her son still lives close by and her husband, Dennis (Jim Broadbent) is still alive. She is having hallucinations of her husband, even holding conversations with him. She watches current events on television and makes statements to the maid that they need to react to those events...like she is still in office and her maid is another member of Parliament. A scene that really sums up Thatcher's current health/state of mind is when her daughter, Carol (Olivia Colman) has to remind her that she is "No longer the Prime Minister, her son lives in South Africa, and Dad is dead." Thatcher seems confused at her daughter's statement, and quickly changes the conversation. The narrative of the rest of the film is a bounce between present time and her past. Her life story comes though a series of flashbacks; detailing her early life, marriage, children, and then on to political office.
Director Phyllidia Lloyd does a good job of painting a portrait of the former Prime Minister's early life; giving the audience an understanding of who she was, and how her early life lead to her being a conservative in her political life. But once the story goes in to her political life, the narrative starts to become rather bland and rushed through. A lot of important events that took place during Thatcher's time in office were skimmed over, especially the conflicts she had with the Irish Republican Army, and the INLA. There is a scene when a hotel that Thatcher and her husband were staying at was bombed, but then it just sort of fizzles out. In real life, five people were killed including a member of the British Parliament. In real life, Thatcher was a strong ally to Ronald Regan and played a big part in the fall of the Berlin Wall, but that event was just skimmed over as well. The only event that the film paid any real attention to was the War in the Falkland Islands.
Her years as Leader of the Opposition, as well as her years as Secretary of State for Education and Science were barley even covered, focusing instead on taking the story straight to her years as Prime Minister. I suppose that was ok, since the story is about "The Iron Lady" and I think that is what the director wanted to focus on.
If someone is going to do a biopic on someone's life, then the question has to be... why? The director really needs to catch my attention and explain to me why this person's life was or is so important. The writer needs to tell the story under the assumption that no one has ever heard of this person prior to the story being told. The Iron Lady painted a picture of a woman who was both revered and hated by her public, but was really vague as to the reasons why. This film never really went into great detail on any area of her life. The film also failed to show how her years in political office took a toll on her and her family in real life.
One thing that no one can argue against is Meryl Streep. She is THE greatest actor of her generation. If Hollywood had a Royal Family- she would be the Queen, without a doubt. Her ability to sink into a role and actually become that person whom she is portraying is second to none. I'm not just talking about her ability to change her accent either. As I was watching this film, I could barely even see Streep- I was watching Margret Thatcher...not someone who was trying to act like her.
The Iron Lady is just "Ok" in my opinion; not superb, but not a total failure. Meryl Streep was the main reason why I wanted to see this film in the first place. Without her, who's to say if the film would have been worth watching or not.
Starring: Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, Olivia Colman
The Iron Lady is a look back on the former British Prime Minister's life. This biopic starts out in present tense, and shows a frail and aged Thatcher displaying clear signs of Dementia. She appears confused, often thinking that her son still lives close by and her husband, Dennis (Jim Broadbent) is still alive. She is having hallucinations of her husband, even holding conversations with him. She watches current events on television and makes statements to the maid that they need to react to those events...like she is still in office and her maid is another member of Parliament. A scene that really sums up Thatcher's current health/state of mind is when her daughter, Carol (Olivia Colman) has to remind her that she is "No longer the Prime Minister, her son lives in South Africa, and Dad is dead." Thatcher seems confused at her daughter's statement, and quickly changes the conversation. The narrative of the rest of the film is a bounce between present time and her past. Her life story comes though a series of flashbacks; detailing her early life, marriage, children, and then on to political office.
Director Phyllidia Lloyd does a good job of painting a portrait of the former Prime Minister's early life; giving the audience an understanding of who she was, and how her early life lead to her being a conservative in her political life. But once the story goes in to her political life, the narrative starts to become rather bland and rushed through. A lot of important events that took place during Thatcher's time in office were skimmed over, especially the conflicts she had with the Irish Republican Army, and the INLA. There is a scene when a hotel that Thatcher and her husband were staying at was bombed, but then it just sort of fizzles out. In real life, five people were killed including a member of the British Parliament. In real life, Thatcher was a strong ally to Ronald Regan and played a big part in the fall of the Berlin Wall, but that event was just skimmed over as well. The only event that the film paid any real attention to was the War in the Falkland Islands.
Her years as Leader of the Opposition, as well as her years as Secretary of State for Education and Science were barley even covered, focusing instead on taking the story straight to her years as Prime Minister. I suppose that was ok, since the story is about "The Iron Lady" and I think that is what the director wanted to focus on.
If someone is going to do a biopic on someone's life, then the question has to be... why? The director really needs to catch my attention and explain to me why this person's life was or is so important. The writer needs to tell the story under the assumption that no one has ever heard of this person prior to the story being told. The Iron Lady painted a picture of a woman who was both revered and hated by her public, but was really vague as to the reasons why. This film never really went into great detail on any area of her life. The film also failed to show how her years in political office took a toll on her and her family in real life.
One thing that no one can argue against is Meryl Streep. She is THE greatest actor of her generation. If Hollywood had a Royal Family- she would be the Queen, without a doubt. Her ability to sink into a role and actually become that person whom she is portraying is second to none. I'm not just talking about her ability to change her accent either. As I was watching this film, I could barely even see Streep- I was watching Margret Thatcher...not someone who was trying to act like her.
The Iron Lady is just "Ok" in my opinion; not superb, but not a total failure. Meryl Streep was the main reason why I wanted to see this film in the first place. Without her, who's to say if the film would have been worth watching or not.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Footloose (2011)
Directed by: Craig Brewer
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Andie MacDowell, Kenny Wormald. Julianne Hough, Miles Teller
Re-made from the original 1984 version, Footloose finds Ren McCormack (Kenny Wormald) moving in with relatives to Bomont, Georgia from the big city (Boston this time instead of Chicago) after his mother dies (his mother was very much alive in the original.) Ren is a big-city kid with an attitude. He's a misfit stuck in a small bible-belt town where public dancing by teenagers has been abolished after five teens were killed in a car accident on their way home from a dance. Ren makes both friends and enemies amongst his peers. He befriends a popular redneck kid named Willard (Miles Teller) and falls in love with the bad girl/preacher's daughter Ariel (Juliane Hough.) He starts a petition to get the no dancing laws abolished so the school can have their senior dance. He battles with school authorities, the town council , and most of all The Rev. Shaw Moore (Dennis Quaid.) I hate to give it away...but it's really no secret what happens next. Ren is victorious in getting the school dance, the bad guys get their butts kicked in a fight, and all the teens dance and frolic at the dance in the end.
While the plot remains relatively intact, it fails on every other level. The entire film looks like a bad episode of Glee, starting with the opening scene of a choreographed song and dance routine to the re-made tune of "Footloose." With a mix of hip-hop and country music, the score is nothing but a re-made soundtrack of the original. I will begrudgingly admit that both Wormald and Hough in their respective roles can in fact dance, but neither one of them can act their way out of a paper bag. Their scenes together are painful to watch. What's even more painful to watch is the scene where Ren pulls into the vacant warehouse and does his "I'm pissed and gotta blow off steam by dancing routine." In the original version, Kevin Bacon pulls off this scene with his energetic dancing, filled in with an up-beat score and flash-back sequences of all the things bothering him. In this version, Wormald starts yelling and screaming, and then does some sort of urban dance/gymnastic bit that just did not fit. The scene looked painful for Wormald himself to do, let alone somebody else watching it. It was clear he had no idea of where to go with the character in this particular scene. The only props I will give is to Dennis Quaid; he is one of the finest actors in the business, and he is the only one in the entire cast capable of making a convincing argument in his portrayal of The Reverend Shaw Moore. The role of Vi Moore (Andie MacDowell) basically just disappears. I don't mean that MacDowell disappeared into her character of the Preacher's Wife, I mean she completely disappears in the film. Her character is utterly useless in this version, only carrying about two dozen or so lines of dialogue. MacDowell looked and acted like a robot throughout all of her scenes who was just going through the motions, and wishing she was anywhere but on the set of this film.
Re-making films is nothing new in Hollywood. Sometimes a great director can come along and take a classic film, update it, and make it even better than the original. Case in point is the 1962 classic film Cape Fear. Martin Scorsese remade that film in 1991 and did a brilliant job of twisting the roles a little bit; making the character of Sam Bowden (Nick Nolte) a person with dark skeletons in his closet, and not so wholesome like the Gregory Peck version of the role in 1962. Another example is the 1935 film Mutiny on the Bounty. Re-made in 1962 and then again in 1984 (The Bounty), the re-makes of this film broguht something different to the screen, each time making it better.
The 2011 version of Footloose is definitely NOT an example of taking a classic film and making it better. Director Craig Brewer massacred this film. I'm surprised too- coming from a director who made great films like Hustle & Flow (2005) and Black Snake Moan (2006.) However, after what he did to Footloose I am sure that Herbert Ross (director of the 1984 version) is probably rolling in his grave...even though the film was dedicated to him in the end credits.
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Andie MacDowell, Kenny Wormald. Julianne Hough, Miles Teller
Re-made from the original 1984 version, Footloose finds Ren McCormack (Kenny Wormald) moving in with relatives to Bomont, Georgia from the big city (Boston this time instead of Chicago) after his mother dies (his mother was very much alive in the original.) Ren is a big-city kid with an attitude. He's a misfit stuck in a small bible-belt town where public dancing by teenagers has been abolished after five teens were killed in a car accident on their way home from a dance. Ren makes both friends and enemies amongst his peers. He befriends a popular redneck kid named Willard (Miles Teller) and falls in love with the bad girl/preacher's daughter Ariel (Juliane Hough.) He starts a petition to get the no dancing laws abolished so the school can have their senior dance. He battles with school authorities, the town council , and most of all The Rev. Shaw Moore (Dennis Quaid.) I hate to give it away...but it's really no secret what happens next. Ren is victorious in getting the school dance, the bad guys get their butts kicked in a fight, and all the teens dance and frolic at the dance in the end.
While the plot remains relatively intact, it fails on every other level. The entire film looks like a bad episode of Glee, starting with the opening scene of a choreographed song and dance routine to the re-made tune of "Footloose." With a mix of hip-hop and country music, the score is nothing but a re-made soundtrack of the original. I will begrudgingly admit that both Wormald and Hough in their respective roles can in fact dance, but neither one of them can act their way out of a paper bag. Their scenes together are painful to watch. What's even more painful to watch is the scene where Ren pulls into the vacant warehouse and does his "I'm pissed and gotta blow off steam by dancing routine." In the original version, Kevin Bacon pulls off this scene with his energetic dancing, filled in with an up-beat score and flash-back sequences of all the things bothering him. In this version, Wormald starts yelling and screaming, and then does some sort of urban dance/gymnastic bit that just did not fit. The scene looked painful for Wormald himself to do, let alone somebody else watching it. It was clear he had no idea of where to go with the character in this particular scene. The only props I will give is to Dennis Quaid; he is one of the finest actors in the business, and he is the only one in the entire cast capable of making a convincing argument in his portrayal of The Reverend Shaw Moore. The role of Vi Moore (Andie MacDowell) basically just disappears. I don't mean that MacDowell disappeared into her character of the Preacher's Wife, I mean she completely disappears in the film. Her character is utterly useless in this version, only carrying about two dozen or so lines of dialogue. MacDowell looked and acted like a robot throughout all of her scenes who was just going through the motions, and wishing she was anywhere but on the set of this film.
Re-making films is nothing new in Hollywood. Sometimes a great director can come along and take a classic film, update it, and make it even better than the original. Case in point is the 1962 classic film Cape Fear. Martin Scorsese remade that film in 1991 and did a brilliant job of twisting the roles a little bit; making the character of Sam Bowden (Nick Nolte) a person with dark skeletons in his closet, and not so wholesome like the Gregory Peck version of the role in 1962. Another example is the 1935 film Mutiny on the Bounty. Re-made in 1962 and then again in 1984 (The Bounty), the re-makes of this film broguht something different to the screen, each time making it better.
The 2011 version of Footloose is definitely NOT an example of taking a classic film and making it better. Director Craig Brewer massacred this film. I'm surprised too- coming from a director who made great films like Hustle & Flow (2005) and Black Snake Moan (2006.) However, after what he did to Footloose I am sure that Herbert Ross (director of the 1984 version) is probably rolling in his grave...even though the film was dedicated to him in the end credits.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
Directed by: David Fincher
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Robin Wright
Mikael Bloomkvist (Daniel Craig) is a disgraced investigative journalist who has just been hired by an elderly millionaire, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to investigate the dissaperance of his niece over 40 years ago. The family of the missing girl lives on an island, and remains isolated from the rest of the community. With ties to the Nazi party, the entire family (including Henrik) are all suspect. Blomkvist hires a 23 year old ward of the state and technical genius, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to aid him in the investigation. Lisbeth has had more than her share of hard times in her life, starting at the age of 12 when she tied to murder her father (a plot that will play out in the rest of the series.) She has a court appointed guardian (Yorick van-Wageningen) who abuses her...another plot that will play out as the series continues. She isolates her self from any close relationships aside from one or two distant people who are hackers like herself. Just in case you didn't read the books, or see the original "Girl" series, The Girl with the Dragon Tatttoo is the first installment of a three part series based on the novels written by Stieg Larsson.
When I first heard that there was going to be a U.S. version of the 2009 Swedish film, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I will be the first to admit that I was more than just a little bit skeptical. I was sure that there was no way David Fincher was going to be able to pull this off. Well, I'm man enough to admit when I am wrong...with some reservations. Both Noomi Rapace (from the original series) and Rooney Mara do a good job of portraying the haunted, dark character of Lisbeth Salander. However, if I had to choose who was better, I would have to say that Rapace did a better job of making her character more believable. Mara seems to be a little uncomfortable and not as confident in her character of Lisbeth. On the same note, in the 2009 version, Michael Nyqvist seemed out of place in his role as Bloomqvist, where Daniel Craig is more fitting to his character; bringing his "James-Bond" appeal to the stage. I'll also note that the Swedish language in the original version sets a better tone for a plot that actually takes place in Sweden. Having the dialogue in English (with Swedish Accents) takes away from the authenticity of the whole thing.
If you've never seen the original film, you will not notice the difference between the two. The U.S. version is just fine in its own right. Director David Fincher sticks to the plot of the original, bringing the same suspenseful scenes tied in with his brand of fluid camera movement.
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Robin Wright
Mikael Bloomkvist (Daniel Craig) is a disgraced investigative journalist who has just been hired by an elderly millionaire, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to investigate the dissaperance of his niece over 40 years ago. The family of the missing girl lives on an island, and remains isolated from the rest of the community. With ties to the Nazi party, the entire family (including Henrik) are all suspect. Blomkvist hires a 23 year old ward of the state and technical genius, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to aid him in the investigation. Lisbeth has had more than her share of hard times in her life, starting at the age of 12 when she tied to murder her father (a plot that will play out in the rest of the series.) She has a court appointed guardian (Yorick van-Wageningen) who abuses her...another plot that will play out as the series continues. She isolates her self from any close relationships aside from one or two distant people who are hackers like herself. Just in case you didn't read the books, or see the original "Girl" series, The Girl with the Dragon Tatttoo is the first installment of a three part series based on the novels written by Stieg Larsson.
When I first heard that there was going to be a U.S. version of the 2009 Swedish film, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I will be the first to admit that I was more than just a little bit skeptical. I was sure that there was no way David Fincher was going to be able to pull this off. Well, I'm man enough to admit when I am wrong...with some reservations. Both Noomi Rapace (from the original series) and Rooney Mara do a good job of portraying the haunted, dark character of Lisbeth Salander. However, if I had to choose who was better, I would have to say that Rapace did a better job of making her character more believable. Mara seems to be a little uncomfortable and not as confident in her character of Lisbeth. On the same note, in the 2009 version, Michael Nyqvist seemed out of place in his role as Bloomqvist, where Daniel Craig is more fitting to his character; bringing his "James-Bond" appeal to the stage. I'll also note that the Swedish language in the original version sets a better tone for a plot that actually takes place in Sweden. Having the dialogue in English (with Swedish Accents) takes away from the authenticity of the whole thing.
If you've never seen the original film, you will not notice the difference between the two. The U.S. version is just fine in its own right. Director David Fincher sticks to the plot of the original, bringing the same suspenseful scenes tied in with his brand of fluid camera movement.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The Artist
Directed by: Michael Hazanavicius
Starring: Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell
The Artist takes place in an era when at night at the movie theater is a big event. Everyone dresses formally to come and watch the big screen with an actual live orchestra playing the score to the film being shown. Movies are ran by studios, and the stars of the studios can command the world's attention. A low-level studio actor can work their way to the top if they are lucky enough.
George Valentin (Dujardin) is a silent film icon. He is revered by his audiences, and is the star of Tinseltown. A woman named Peppy Miller (Bejo) who is enamored by Valentin, is trying to make her break onto the big screen. Valentin takes her under his wing, and gives her tips on the business...even giving her a trademark that will make her stand out from the rest. As Hollywood makes the switch from silent film to "talkies," Valentin has become extinct, and is let go by studio head Al Zimmer (Goodman.) He tries to make a go of producing his own silent film, but fails miserably. After the crash of the stock market in 1929, Valentin finds himself broke; his wife has left him and he is now living in squalor. The only people left in his life are his faithful butler, Clifton (Cromwell) and his beloved Jack-Russel Terrier, Uggy. Meanwhile, Peppy Miller has worked her way up from studio actor to being a Marquee Star in the new era of talking motion pictures. Over the next several years, we watch as George Valentine goes from riches to rags, and Peppy Miller goes from rags to riches. Without spoiling the rest of the plot, the end of the film gives way to another era of cinema with the big-band/dancing-musical films of pre-World War II.
This film is a must see for any film buff...or for those wanting a better understanding of how film started in this country. Silent films relied heavily on over-acting with casual black and white captions to get the dialogue across. Actions truly spoke louder than words in this era of cinema, and it gives you a better appreciation of films that are made today. With a striking resemblance to Gene Kelly (who wasn't a silent film star), Jean Dujardin carries out his role with the likeness of a Douglas Fairbanks. Director Michael Hazanavicius does an excellent job of putting together a casting ensemble who truly make their characters believable in their silent roles. The entire mise-en-scene of the film works poetically in making this film look like it was shot in the 1920s.
The Artist is a tribute to silent film that is a silent film itself, only breaking the "no sound" rule twice during the entire 100 minutes.
Starring: Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell
The Artist takes place in an era when at night at the movie theater is a big event. Everyone dresses formally to come and watch the big screen with an actual live orchestra playing the score to the film being shown. Movies are ran by studios, and the stars of the studios can command the world's attention. A low-level studio actor can work their way to the top if they are lucky enough.
George Valentin (Dujardin) is a silent film icon. He is revered by his audiences, and is the star of Tinseltown. A woman named Peppy Miller (Bejo) who is enamored by Valentin, is trying to make her break onto the big screen. Valentin takes her under his wing, and gives her tips on the business...even giving her a trademark that will make her stand out from the rest. As Hollywood makes the switch from silent film to "talkies," Valentin has become extinct, and is let go by studio head Al Zimmer (Goodman.) He tries to make a go of producing his own silent film, but fails miserably. After the crash of the stock market in 1929, Valentin finds himself broke; his wife has left him and he is now living in squalor. The only people left in his life are his faithful butler, Clifton (Cromwell) and his beloved Jack-Russel Terrier, Uggy. Meanwhile, Peppy Miller has worked her way up from studio actor to being a Marquee Star in the new era of talking motion pictures. Over the next several years, we watch as George Valentine goes from riches to rags, and Peppy Miller goes from rags to riches. Without spoiling the rest of the plot, the end of the film gives way to another era of cinema with the big-band/dancing-musical films of pre-World War II.
This film is a must see for any film buff...or for those wanting a better understanding of how film started in this country. Silent films relied heavily on over-acting with casual black and white captions to get the dialogue across. Actions truly spoke louder than words in this era of cinema, and it gives you a better appreciation of films that are made today. With a striking resemblance to Gene Kelly (who wasn't a silent film star), Jean Dujardin carries out his role with the likeness of a Douglas Fairbanks. Director Michael Hazanavicius does an excellent job of putting together a casting ensemble who truly make their characters believable in their silent roles. The entire mise-en-scene of the film works poetically in making this film look like it was shot in the 1920s.
The Artist is a tribute to silent film that is a silent film itself, only breaking the "no sound" rule twice during the entire 100 minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)