The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Q: What’s the movie about?

A:  Based on the book of the same name, this remake of the movie of the same name that came out two years ago, retells the Swedish story of a defamed journalist and his assistant (Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara) who try to solve the mystery of a teenage millionaire's untimely death in the 1960s-- only this time, it's American-style!

Q: Who’s in the movie?

A:  Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgard, Steven Berkoff, Robin Wright, Yorick van Wageningen, Joely Richardson, Geraldine James, Goran Visnjic, Donald Sumpter, Ulf Friberg

Q: Is this movie worth the price of admission?

A:  Go!  I was lucky enough to have missed the first version of this movie as well as the book, so I got to enjoy this clever thriller as if for the first time, because it was my first time.  

Q: Will this movie make me laugh?

A:  Bizarrely, yes, about three times.

Q: Will this movie make me cry?

A:  It's pretty cold, but there is one part that will break your heart.

Q: Will this movie be up for any awards?

A:  Clearly David Fincher and Trent Reznor are trying for a two-peat, and I think they have a chance.

Q: How is the Acting?

A:  It was a big deal when they cast Rooney Mara (best known as the girl who dumps Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network creating the impetus for him to start The Facebook) in the part of Lisbeth Salander.  Well, she lives up to the hype.  Then again, I never saw Noomi Rapace in the part, so for all I know she's just imitating the original performance.

Q: How is the Directing?

A:  There's a reason David Fincher is considered the David Fincher of movie directing.  He brings movement and artistry to scenes that would be stagnant in a lesser director's hands.  With him, you can see where the script stops and the vision begins.  And yet he does it all without drawing attention to his own work-- which may be what I respect most about his style.

Q: How is the story/script?

A:  A good story is a good story in any language.  The people who read the book thought so.  The people who saw the Swedish movie thought so.  And the people who see this version will think so, too.

Q: Is there anything else worth mentioning about the movie?

A:  I'm assuming there will be two more parts, as with the Swedish version, but I'm still waiting to find out the significance of the Dragon Tattoo.

Q: Where can I see the trailer?

A: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Trailer

Back To Top

The Lovely Bones

(Guest Review by Russ)

Q: What’s the movie about?

A: Based on the bestselling novel by Alice Sebold, a young girl watches over her family and the man who murdered her from a place called ‘the inbetween’, which isn’t quite heaven but will lead her there if she can find a way to let go of her mortal life.

Q: Who’s in the movie?

A: Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci, Michael Imperioli, Rose McIver, Reece Ritchie, Nikki SooHoo, Carolyn Dando

Q: Is this movie worth the price of admission?

A: Proceed with Caution. If you were a fan of the book (I was), little might keep you away from this big-budget adaptation, but you may want to keep your expectations in check. There is a lot that’s flat-out excellent about this movie, but too much of it misses the mark not only as an adaptation but also as a stand-alone film (i.e. as if the book had never existed).

Q: Will this movie make me laugh?

A: Hmm, let’s see, it’s about a 14 year old girl who is raped and murdered and the devastation that leaves behind. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say: no laughs.

Q: Will this movie make me cry?

A: Probably. Mostly in the first twenty minutes though.

Q: Will this movie be up for any awards?

A: Very possibly, with its best odds in the acting categories.

Q: How is the Acting?

A: If you saw Atonement and had any doubts left at that point that Saoirse Ronan was a budding star, then The Lovely Bones will remove them. She is the real deal and even starring opposite fellow Oscar nominees (and winners) like Rachel Weisz, Wahlberg and Sarandon, she still stands out. Mark Wahlberg and Stanley Tucci (both perfectly cast) make lasting impressions mainly due to the fact they have more screen time and their characters are better written than the adult women. Rose McIver as Susie’s little sister Lindsey, is also excellent in a supporting role that gains in importance as the story unfolds.

Q: How is the Directing?

A: I’m not entirely convinced Peter Jackson was the best director for this material. For every amazing visual he puts on screen (and there are quite a few of them, both overblown and subtle), there are a plethora of others that make little sense in Susie’s ‘inbetween’ world. I’m sure he’s trying to keep his stable of New Zealand CGI-wizards busy between massive-spectacle films, but this story never needed these kinds of visual effects to make what at heart is an emotional story about a suburban family in 1973, work. When his visuals do resonate however, they are a sight to behold and not only look stunning, but also serve the emotion of the story (or scene) in spectacular ways.

Q: How is the story/script?

A: It’s hard to understand some of the choices that were made in this adaptation, which shifts the weight of the main themes of the book from its emotional gut-punch into a more suspense-style thriller (and also telescopes the story by years). The first twenty minutes are near perfection in all aspects of filmmaking (and in rewarding fans of the book), but the script then goes a bit awry without fully going off the rails. There is still plenty of emotion in Susie Salmon’s journey, but it’s blunted by a disjointed structure that tries to shift the tone into something more akin to Hitchcock by way of Ghost. So much of this movie works and still delivers on a satisfying ending, but too much is just a bit off. Which is a shame, because it should have been a homerun when starting with such a great book and with this kind of talent both behind and in front of the cameras. I’m still convinced a brilliant movie could be made from Alice Sebold’s work; this version just isn’t it.

Q: Where can I see the trailer?

A: http://www.moviefone.com/movie/the-lovely-bones/30065/trailers

Back To Top

88 Minutes

(Guest Review by Russ)


Q: What’s the movie about?

A: The life of a successful forensic psychiatrist/professor (Al Pacino) is put in jeopardy by a serial killer he helped to convict.

Q: Who’s in the movie?

A: Al Pacino, Alicia Witt, Leelee Sobieski, Amy Brenneman, William Forsythe, Deborah Kara Unger, Benjamin McKenzie, Neal McDonough

Q: Is this movie worth the price of admission?

A: Stop! The serial-killer movie is long past its expiration date. If this one succeeds in killing the genre for a while, then that will at least be one reason in its favor for having been made. Beyond that, there’s not much else.

Q: Will this movie make me laugh?

A: Absolutely. Al Pacino’s hair will put a perpetual smile on your face. And when wind blows through it, you will laugh.

Q: Will this movie make me cry?

A: Not so much.

Q: Will this movie be up for any awards?

A: Next question.

Q: How is the Acting?

A: This cast doesn't fare well with the hammy dialogue and ridiculous plot turns that make little, if any sense. Amy Brenneman wins the award for embarrassing herself the least, though.

Q: How is the Directing?

A: Completely competent and professional and the movie looks good within its Seattle locale. But that makes up for zero when it comes to trying to decipher the plot and keep track of all the suspects. Which, at some point probably adds up to about 10-- we're only human! We can only handle so much information in our sub-alien brains.

Q: How is the story/script?

A: Did I mention that the plot makes no sense? Oh, and did I get a chance to tell you about the dialogue? Well here’s a sample from when Al Pacino’s character is told he has “88 minutes to live, tick-tock doc.” From that point, it feels like about 588 minutes before those 88 minutes are finally up. That’s not a good thing.

Back To Top