This film is unwatchable. We lasted ten minutes. The scene with the vase is the most pathetically unfunny comic scene I’ve witnessed in ages. It’s so bad I feel completely confident condemning the entire movie on the basis on that scene alone.
Poor Kristen Bell.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a challenging book to turn into a movie because so much of the book’s charm is Bloomkvist’s long, slow, twisting research process, and slowly getting to know Salander’s bizarre personality. I think that this book would have made a tremendous mini-series. Cramming the story into 150 minutes obviously requires a good deal of condensing. On the whole I think the filmmakers did a good job and made wise choices.
I think the casting of Blomkvist and Salander is really great. They got Bloomkvist damn near perfect, and while Salander does not have quiet the affect I always pictured, she is not far off. I do think that they made Salander a touch too reticent (she does talk a bit in the books) but despite this the character comes across very well in the film version. All the supporting performers are cast beautifully, in my opinion.
They captured the physical terrain (which is so evocative in the books) really well. The entire island is just hauntingly fabulous. I still can’t get over how close it all looks to how I had everything pictured from reading the book. I’m sure they used locations that Larsson scouted for the books, but it’s still shocking. The cinematography is beautiful.
Dramatically the film is very solid. The set up with Vanger is done well. I loved how they used still photographs in the movie, both dramatically, and to keep all of the many characters in order for the viewer. I think they trimmed the setup of Salander a bit too much – her relationship with Armansky is a really important and good part of the story which I missed from the movie – but they still did a good job with her. Some say the rape scene was done in an exploitative way. I think it was done really well; it’s shocking for sure, but the point is that Salander has had many really awful things happen to her. The climax didn’t quite have the punch of the book, but it was still good; it was way better (I might add) than similar scenes in recent Hollywood films.
I am a big fan of Stieg Larsson’s books, especially this first one, and I found this movie version to be so enjoyable I will probably add it to my movie collection. It’s out on Netflix: rent and enjoy!
What can I say about this movie. It’s not bad, I guess. Its story is just so simplistic and uninspired, and the action is pretty ho-hum also.The preview was edited to make it look like Jason Bourne light, but really it’s all pretty boring. Matt Damon is pretty good doing his Matt Damon thing; everyone one else is pretty ify.
Then there is the dialog: “Alpha company move in! Bravo company stay put!” “I’ve got them! Two hostiles moving north, one friendly in pursuit.” “Does it make sense to you that we keep coming up empty? No.” And of course there are ten zillion scenes of guys with automatic rifles kicking in people’s doors, pointing their guns at them and screaming “GET THE FUCK DOWN! GET THE FUCK DOWN!”
I honestly ask you: how much of this shit can you listen to before your brain starts to glaze over?
(And why does every CIA guy in movies now have to be some fat, disheveled slob who doesn’t bathe himself?)
There’s a lot worse films out there, I suppose, but that does not change the fact that on the whole this film is really pretty feeble.
My wife and I both really enjoyed City Island, more than we expected to. It is gathering steam as a summer sleeper movie, and I can see why. It’s funny, honest, even a bit moving, and has wonderful performances across the board, especially by Andy Garcia, an actor I have never really liked all that much but who really impressed me here.
Some criticize City Island for following a formula of recent Indie-film success (basically, the Little Miss Sunshine formula.) But I would argue that it does it with considerably more skill and heart. It was made by Raymond De Felitta, who back on 2000 made a virtually unknown but wonderful and heartfelt little film called Two Family House (which featured Kelly Macdonald before she was “Kelly Macdonald!”) Two Family House is definitely worth Netflixing if you are in the mood for a great little unknown movie.
City Island is definitely worth seeing! Very enjoyable!
God, what a movie! Why can’t Hollywood make movies like this?!
My wife and I talked animatedly about this film for hours afterward. We were both floored. The last film I saw that I liked this much was Tell No One, another exquisite foreign mystery, but this film reminded me even more of The Lives of Others. It may prove to out shine both of them in the test of time. It also reminded me a little of Malèna (2000) – I’m thinking here of the beautiful score and the incredibly moving way it is used in the film.
The main story lines – a murder mystery and a love story – are woven together almost perfectly, and all the subplots are woven in seamlessly. I have not in some time seen inter-related story lines move forward so effortlessly. What really overwhelmed me in retrospect is how spontaneously the love story evolves. Nothing is telegraphed in the slightest – the depth and tenderness of it sneaks up on you slowly and then unfolds before you’ve had a chance to prepare for it, and the results are pretty devastating. I cried twice: once at one of the most beautiful scenes I’ve seen in a long time, and once at the overwhelming ending. This is seriously good stuff!
The two leads are, in a word, incredible. Their charisma, their presence, their chemistry, and their acting: all outstanding. You deeply bond with both of them. The fellow playing the husband whose wife is killed turns in a really breathtaking supporting performance – it’s a very low-key performance, but every look, every little element is just perfect and haunting. All the other supporting actors are well-cast and turn in wonderful performances.
I don’t want to give anything away, so I will stop here. I can’t recommend this film highly enough.
I don’t really care for Michael Douglas as an actor, but in his old age he has taken a few quirky roles that really allow him to transcend the plastic seriousness that has plagued his career all his life. He was fabulous in King of California, and he was really good in the film being reviewed here: Solitary Man.
What is really interesting to me is that his character’s downward spiral is caused by a routine physical where a doctor doing tests finds “something” – it doesn’t even matter what. Basically, it sends him off the deep end! If he never had the physical, nothing would have happened and his fabulous life would have remained intact. I love the subversive condemnation of chronic over-medicalization implicit in this, even if the film-makers didn’t intend it.
The film is mostly a set piece for Douglas to fully inhabit and explore this sad but interesting character, but it all works really well because the supporting casting and acting is just spot-on. (The one exception: Jesse Eisenberg – the appeal of that guy still leaves me bewildered.) I can’t stand Danny DeVito, but I thought he was terrific in his little role – it’s maybe the first time I’ve liked him, ever. Imogen Poots is great as the daughter of his girlfriend. It helps (of course) that the film is well-written, and directed and paced effectively.
I do think the film over-estimates the number of drop-dead gorgeous 20 year olds on a typical college campus, especially these days. I walk through NYU’s campus every day on my way home, and I can go for weeks, months, without seeing anyone even remotely head-turning. But in the context of the film it is fun to suspend disbelief and be in the tormented world of this newly born sex maniac desperately trying to fend off his own mortality, and grinding what little remains of his life to dust as he does.
The film is definitely worth seeing!
When my wife and I got through watching this movie, she turned to me and said “I guess 13 Going On 30 was Gary Winick’s one good movie,” to which I replied “it helped that 13 Going On 30 had an actual SCREENPLAY!” She concurred.
I get the distinct impression that Gary Winick looked at this dog of a screenplay and thought to himself “I wonder if I could carry the whole film on Amanda Seyfried’s face?!” And then he set about to capture this woman’s wide face in overly extended close-ups as frequently and as beautifully as possible, and in every manner and variety of exquisite lighting imaginable. The guy couldn’t even be bothered to film the Italian countryside he was so fixated on memorializing this gal’s face in celluloid. I mean, you do see the Italian countryside a bit, whizzing by in the background, but it’s mostly by accident. The problem is, I think he has really badly overestimated the power of Amanda Seyfried’s face (or anyone’s face for that matter.)
This film has almost literally has no dialog. “How did you sleep last night? – I slept really well thanks.” Not dialog. “There’s more Lorenzos to look for – Yes, more Lorenzos to look for.” Not dialog! “I’m going to be busy until Friday, is that okay with you? – Yes, that’s okay with me.” NOT DIALOG! “My mother died when I was young. – I’m so sorry to hear that.” NOT DIALOG! Good God, where did these writers learn their craft?! It sounds like they just set up mics in their houses and recorded the boring drivel of every day existence, and then transcribed it.
That’s problem number one: there is not a single interesting or compelling thing uttered in the entire movie. Problem number two is that the young romantic lead (Christopher Egan) is a completely disastrous piece of casting. The guy has no timing whatsoever, no presence whatsoever, no chemistry with Amanda Seyfried (or her face) and in my opinion is not very good looking – It’s a “lose” all across the board. Unfortunately, Winick also shows a lot of close-ups of this guy’s face, way too many in my opinion. (What else does he have to do, I guess? No one in the film is saying anything!!)
It’s hard not to like Vanessa Redgrave, and she does look really good in her extended face shots! But really she is just hamming her way through this movie. And the supporting casting and acting is piss poor. I sort of think they all just wanted to spend a month in the Italian countryside, fucking around, and this opportunity dropped in their laps. Presto: bad movie.
Oh, and one last thing. Playing a Taylor Swift song during the climax just seals the awfulness of this film with a sickening finality. I mean, please.
The way I see things, as far as romantic fluff in movies goes, there is good romantic fluff, great romantic fluff, and bad romantic fluff. The problem with most critics is that they can’t tell the difference – it’s all “stupid, mindless, unrealistic fluff.”
Winick has done all three varieties. 13 Going On 30 (2004) was great romantic fluff – a fabulous screenplay, charismatic leads who had great chemistry and who were also fine actors, superb supporting performances and casting, an incredible score and an incredible soundtrack (it’s rare to have both!) and a fabulous denouement and ending. Bride Wars (2009) was good romantic fluff – nothing special, nothing you would ever watch again, but fun to watch once, and done with taste and a certain amount of class and style.
Now he has completed his trifecta. Congratulations to him!
The Young Victoria is an okay movie. It’s somewhat entertaining and decently put together. Performances are solid across the board. The music is a little overdone, and I found it distracting that Victoria’s main theme is also the theme used in Secret Things when Christoph is having sex with his sister!
The problem with the film is that they didn’t write nearly enough dialog for the viewer to be truly drawn into all the court intrigue. The story feels very much like a broad-brush sketch. As a result, at the end of the film, it kind of feels like you didn’t really watch a movie.
My wife and I went to the opening of Date Night at the 19th street theater in Manhattan. The theater was packed with young couples on “date nights,” which my wife observed is because we are all DESPERATE for something funny!!! Well, Date Night delivered the goods – we both laughed a lot and found the film very enjoyable.
I am a big fan of Steve Carrell, but have always felt that the comedies he has been in tend to be lowest common denominator type stuff that pigeonholes him in a nerdy, straight man role that never really gives him a chance to shine. My regard for him as an actor comes from his more serious work, particularly Dan in Real Life, a personal favorite of mine. But in Date Night he finally gets some pretty decent material to work with. It’s not great material – some parts fell a bit flat for me – but it’s good enough to produce a lot of genuine laughs without falling back on too much “potty humor” and predictable site gags.
He also gets to work opposite the wildly popular Tina Fey. She has never been my favorite comic actress, but I can definitely admit she is a step up from your average comedienne, and she and Carrell make a good comic pair.
It’s a good “date night” film when you need to laugh and indulge in some silly fun! I recommend it!
A while ago, my wife and I watched a little B-film from 2009 called The Answer Man, where Jeff Daniels plays a famous author who years ago wrote a big-selling spiritual book but now is a irascible, screwed-up recluse who is unable to relate to anybody and so filled with anger his body is quitting on him at a young age. He meets Lauren Graham, who plays an acupuncturist he goes to, and slowly he starts to fall in love and face his life. I remember at the time we were both ripping the thing mercilessly.
But The Answer Man is starting to look pretty good compared to Love Happens. In Love Happens, Aaron Eckhart plays a famous author who wrote a big-selling spiritual book but who in his private life is a sad and tormented guy. He meets Jennifer Aniston, falls in love instantly and starts to face his life. But God, what a dreary affair the whole thing is. It’s the kind of movie that you keep watching despite its low-grade awfulness, telling yourself “I might as well see how it ends.” But then as the denouement approaches it starts turning south more vigorously and finally you ask youself “why again am I sitting through this shit?” and you turn the thing off without even caring what the punchline was. At least that’s what we wound up doing.
Some thoughts on Love Happens:
Problem 1: Jennifer Aniston is such an awful actress. I was shocked at how bad her delivery of her lines is. Even throwaway lines that are almost impossible to screw up she somehow manages to make sound bizarre and artificial. Her range of facial expressions is pitiful, as is her comedic technique. Judy Greer, who plays her “friend,” totally outclasses her in their scenes, even thought Greer has hardly any lines and none of them are any good. (By the way, why does Judy Greer never get any leading roles?)
Problem 2: The movie spends WAAAAY too much time on the self-help workshops, which are cloying and downright insufferable. The advice he’s giving people is generally pretty bad or insensitive, and what’s worse I think the film wants you to believe that he is really helping people. The folks in the workshop don’t seem the slightest bit real. But the film keeps banging you over the head with this stuff. At one point in the film I realized that Jennifer Aniston had been off-screen for like a half-hour as they messed around with the workshop crap – you can’t have that in a romantic comedy! As my wife pointed out “The film is so bad it made Jennifer Aniston look good.”
Problem 3: The thing with the bird just drove me over the edge. We shut it off shortly after that.
If you want to watch a bad movie on this particular topic, I would suggest The Answer Man. At least it’s occasionally funny, has quirky dialog and some memorable lines, is somewhat interesting, Lauren Graham is very easy to like, and the cloying moments are somehow kept under control.
Love Happens can safely be skipped.
Irreviews 