The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

First Hit: Exciting, suspenseful, and an interesting Swedish mystery film based on the first book of a trilogy called "Millennium" by Stieg Larsson.

I must say I was a bit shocked by the level of sadistic and hostile sexual behavior as represented by 4 of the men in this film. In those moments it was hard to sit still without squirming. However, the Swedish title means "Man who Hates Women" and the screenplay by Nikolaj Arcel and Rasmus Heisterberg clearly dictated this tone.

However, this tone has a counter weight which lives in a internally raging but quietly intense Lisbeth Salander (played by Noomi Rapace), a young computer hacker, and a thoughtfully kind Mikael Blomkvist (played by Michael Nyqvist), an investigative reporter who just lost a libel case.  

A powerful industrialist wants to find out what happened to his favorite niece who disappeared from his huge home on a family island some 40 years earlier. He hires Blomkvist because he is honest and a good investigative reporter.

Unbeknownst to Blomkvist, he is assisted by the tattoo and pierced laden Salander because she sees that he’s a honorable man. Eventually, Blomkvist discovers his hidden computer ally and together they work to resolve a string of very old murders.

This resolution also assists Salander in resolving some of her personal angst and sets her off on a new life.

Rapace is powerful and clearly the star of this film. Although she is on the screen less than Nyqvist, her character is what sets the mood, tone and temperament of the film. Every scene she is in, she captured my attention. Nyqvist is a little soft spoken and less driven than what I would have expected from an investigative reporter but he's a great counter to Rapace. The Director, Niels Arden Oplev, did an outstanding job of walking the line between the exploitation of sadistic behavior and providing enough of what drives Rapace and Nyqvist to find a resolution to the mystery.

Overall: Although I was uncomfortable at times, I was impressed with this film and if the other two novels from this trilogy hit the screen, I will be there to see them.

Shutter Island

First Hit: Regardless of the semi-surprise ending, getting to the end was painfully difficult because film goers have to wade through overly crafted scenes while the story line and music drone on.

The previews of this film made me cringe because it seemed like the film would be overwrought with style over substance.

However, it was a mess in both ways it was over stylized and the content had no substance. I’m not sure why Martin Scorsese did this film, except to say the thumbnail version of this film could have been very interesting.

There are too many scenes and each scene seems to be overly developed. The poorly constructed script leads the actors to drone on about stuff they already said earlier. There were also times when the characters seemed to learn something important only learn it again later as if it was new information.

The film was almost like a run-on sentence.

Anyway, the plot is simple: Detectives come to this island to investigate the disappearance of an inmate. The investigators Teddy Daniels (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (played by Mark Ruffalo) have problems investigating because of the lack of support by the staff but resolve to find an answer to the disappearing woman.

In the end, their real roles are revealed and the audience is supposed to be surprised. This isn't what happens. What the film does is take the actors far and wide of their target.

I suppose this was to give the film depth and meaning but what it presents is more and more confusion. It almost states: Confuse the audience enough and they will be happy to have the ending we give them.

DiCaprio is good enough in his role and he does do his best, but the script and over handed directing squelches the performance. Ruffalo is better because he has less to do (less is more). Ben Kingsley as Dr. Cawley is strong and convincing, mostly because he has fewer scenes. Scorsese is a fine director but this film felt heavy handed and lacked a trust that his audience would be able to get where he was going. Laeta Kalogridis’ script is overwrought with needless dialogue and repetitions of ideas.

Overall:  About one-third of the way into the film I realized I couldn’t wait for it to be over. I started looking around the theater at the other audience members and I didn’t see anyone connecting to the screen and the story like I did when I saw my previous film; North Face.

The Taking of Pelham 123

First Hit: The impact of this film wasn’t like the original; however the strong acting makes this a good watch.

The original film has a subway car being hijacked for ransom; this new version has a subway car being hijacked ransom; what makes the original more compelling?

The context in which they were filmed: In our world today someone hijacking something is more common and we’ve had real life bombings and killings in subways therefore we are use to it, at times even numb to it.

Back in 1974 when the original came out, high jackings, bombings and killings sprees, especially in subways, were more unusual, hence the impact on the audience was different; it was unusual and scary. However, strong character acting by John Travolta as Ryder the head hijacker and Denzel Washington as the disgraced dispatcher made this new version of this film work.

John Travolta has the look, feel, and dialogue which gives his character the psychotic edge making his character compelling to watch. Denzel Washington is very strong as the intelligent direct interface between the ticking time bomb below the surface of New York City and the everyday life taking place on the streets above. Tony Scott directs this film with little waste; however I found that the shaky camera shots and the quick cuts during the scenes where the police are ferrying the money from one side of NYC to another excessive and needless.

Overall: An entertaining film but it doesn't have the impact as the original for the reasons stated above. However, if were born after 1970 and you’ve not seen the original, this one will do very nicely.

Angels & Demons

First Hit: Poorly constructed, not believable, and without suspense.

I’m not sure why this film was made except to rake in money from the audience who watched its poorly made predecessor The Da Vinci Code.

At the beginning we find ourselves in a lab in Sweden they create three hermetically sealed containers of anti-matter. This is dangerous stuff, they say. Someone steals one of the containers by gouging out one of the scientist’s eyeballs to use on a retinal scanner which allows him to break into the room where the anti-matter is kept.

Next, there is a threat on the Vatican to blow it up with the anti-matter and it is made more important because the same guy kidnaps 4 important Cardinals and they are each scheduled to die just prior to the antimatter blowing up the Vatican.

The Pope has died and his young helper (Played by Ewan McGregor) has temporary and limited Pope power so he tries to help solve the crime (or does he?).

To save the day (Find the anti-matter and kidnapped Cardinals) they call in Robert Langdon (Played by Tom Hanks) who doesn’t get on well with the Vatican because of his previous book which dissed the Vatican and the Catholics. But they need his expertise in the real history of Catholicism to tell them about the Illuminati, a secret sect that broke off from the Vatican because they delved in finding out the truth of humanity through science.

To assist Langdon the scientist, Vittoria Vetra (Played by Ayelet Zurer), who helped create the antimatter joins in the search because she is the only one who can change the battery in the anti-matter’s container. The battery keeps it from becoming matter and exploding.

Ron Howard, as director, shoots nice pictures but really needs to focus on finding good material about people that we can care about. Tom Hanks must be in the sunset of his career if he couldn’t see that this film has no soul and nothing to care about. I’d ask him to remember Philadelphia and Forrest Gump and do a gap analysis against any script he receives. As for the rest of the cast, they were not believable except Armin Mueller-Stahl as Cardinal Strauss who seemed to bring some authenticity to his role.

Overall: A visually pretty waste of talent and time. But if you like driving around Rome fast in cars this film might be for you.

Roman de Gare

First Hit: An excellent complicated suspense thriller where the ending isn’t what I expected, yet it was very satisfying.

Fanny Ardant plays a very successful writer, Judith Ralitzer, who very subtly evokes sureness and strength in her ability to create popular books that people like to read. She also shows she can seductively manipulate.

At the beginning of the film she is being interviewed about her latest book when the scene quickly shifts to Pierre Laclos (played by Dominique Pinon) driving along a French highway.

While listening to the radio there is an announcement that a pedophile predator is on the loose and one of his calling cards is that he does magic tricks for children which lures them into his web. Pierre, stops at a highway fuel stop and does a bit of magic for a young girl while her parents watch. Then you observe Pierre watching a couple have a huge breakup where the man drives off leaving Huguette (played by Audrey Dana) alone at the roadside station.

Pierre tries to make conversation with Huguette but she continues to tell she wants to be left alone. He offers her a ride and she declines. The next day she is still waiting for her fiancé to drive back and pick her up but to no avail and Pierre is still there so she accepts a ride with him.

Given what we know about Pierre at this point, everyone in the audience is concerned that he is going to kill this younger woman. However, the film from here takes off and adds new characters, complexity and an ever evolving storyline.

All three main characters Judith, Pierre and Huguette are wonderful and ably assisted by an excellent supporting cast. However, the strong script and clear direction of this script by Claude Lelouch make this a top notch film.

Overall: This was an excellent film.