“Probably a better book”

Taking a look at popular literature these days, I noticed this The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo book being featured in prominent magazines. I read a synopsis, found it intriguing and immediately started wondering when I’d be hearing about the movie version. I didn’t have to wait long, as I quickly found out it had already been adapted into a movie from Sweden. Upon hearing some general positive reviews of the book from friends, I opted to try my hand at what sounded like a layered noir-ish, detective story.

And for the most part, that’s exactly what the movie is; a densely layered mystery upon mystery that unfolds in a rather unceremonious way.  Not wanting to give away too much, suffice it to say, the way our two heroes meet is a rather unique affair. The movie very much feels like two stories mashed together that play toward a third act.  That being said, there are more than plenty of sequences in the film that play past their expiration date and really don’t do anything to move any of the stories further. But when the film goes to the darker areas, the scenes are arresting.

Some scenes in this movie are just brutal and so charged with a darkness that the movie uses them as tentpoles until the next plot point needs to be unveiled.  Put simply: When the movie is going right, it’s right up there with some of the darkest cinema you’ll watch.  When it’s not, it plays like a typical thriller filled with schlock and cheese.  I’m not sure how much the director trusts his audience in this film, having the characters constantly explain what they’re thinking and delving into pointless exposition.

For 2 of the 3 acts in this movie, there is enough of those tentpole moments and general intrigue to keep you interested.  By the third act, the mysteries are devolving and the edge is mostly gone. The people I went to see this with made note that the movie seems to play out a lot like a book should. And it is apparently part of a trilogy, so it should be interesting to see how the preceding films play out as well as the announced Hollywood version. Other than that, this film is nothing more than a decent thriller with spots of effective brutality, but not enough to keep it afloat.

RATING:

A friend of mine the other day kept saying, “I am Cahl Han-rat-e”.

I asked him what it was from.  When he reminded me it was from Catch Me If You Can, I wanted to kick myself. How could I forget that flick? I saw it in theaters and then watched it multiple times on DVD.  But for some reason, it went away for me. That being said, upon revisiting, I found what may be some of the better portions of cinema from 2002.

For one, how did Christopher Walken not get nominated for something? As the senior Frank Abagnale, Walken employs such subtly and nuance into a role that would have screamed cliche as the dad who taught his kid how to be.  The scenes where his back is up against the wall with the IRS and his conflict over his son’s actions are really heartbreaking and special.  For a guy who is usually type casted for an over the top personality, Walken shows masterful skill in restraint here.

Speaking of great preformances, Tom Hanks as the aforementioned Handratty, is spectacular as well.  It’s not often that an A-List Hollywood talent would take a second fiddle in a movie like this, but Hanks does so and at an alarmingly fun rate.  He becomes the perfect Sylvester to Leo’s Tweety Bird; clumsy, thinking he is ahead of the game and constantly stepping on his own toes.  It doesn’t help that he is really outmatched here, however, not unlike the cartoon.

Enter Leo.  I’m going out here and saying it: This is is his best role. He is great in the role of Frank Abagnale.  Upon multiple viewings and a critical eye, his preformance is so particularly nuanced and alarmingly credible, that he may just be giving off the best con; Charming, smart, thorough, slick and sophisticated in the same moment as naive,scared,confused. I actually forgot how old he was supposed to be, much like I think Abagnales own real life marks. It is a rare preformance of what is supposed accuracy but certainly full of character. Oh, Amy Adams and Jennifer Garner make good cameos too. How did I forget this?!

This is a beautiful looking movie. Under the stellar direction of Spielberg, Janusz Kaminski once again gently and starkly brings to the screen beautiful pictures of these characters.  He photographs the 70′s in a very specific way; glowy and soft but really vibrant of color and bright and it matches the mood. Couple that with a very effective score from John Williams, the film really takes off.

Another limb: This may be Steven Spielbergs most personal movie. Yes there is brutal truth and savage imagery in Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan. Yes, there is grit and anger in Munich. But knowing about Spielbergs past and how he made his start, his story isn’t unlike Abagnales: Brilliant young kid get’s his family pushed apart, strikes out and works for himself out of the eye’s of the bosses and makes it.  Obviously, Abagnale’s journey ends a bit differently. I think Spielberg is having a lot of fun walking with Frank through this story.  He see’s a lot of himself in the main character and he designs a film with the same kind of enthusiasm and excitement Abagnale has in running.

The movie does drag in certain areas.  It get’s a bit long and tedious toward the middle when it feels like “We-get-the-point” material being rehashed.  But these aren’t reasons why I forgot the movie so much. I honestly can’t explain why.  It may be because it’s just good enough to know about the movie, but not accessible and memorable enough to have key scenes memorized. Although, even then, I can’t think of why it wouldn’t have that effect.  Either way I’m glad I took another look at it as it has re-entered my pantheon of good movies and will be for years to come.

“Going nuts hasn’t been this fun since…well it is just a movie.  That was an overstatement. Sorry”

Setting up the mood in a genre movie is perhaps the most important thing a film-maker can do.  We know the dialogue may be crap. We know the story may be fantastical and ask us, the audience, to appreciate the stretch we have to make to buy in.  But if we can identify with some characters and some situations, it’s really enough to get us by.  In this latest installment of zombie-ish horror, The Crazies succeeds and then some.

The Crazies, a remake of a George Romero film, does nothing different with the genre.  It stays pretty close to the chest and stays within itself.  It doesn’t attempt to make empty messages or have the characters make hollow or transparent decisions.  Much like another sci-fi flick in Avatar, it’s really about buying in and director Breck Eisner does this to a pretty good degree.  This is mostly done in a pseudo documentary style of film-making which is intended to make the audience feel like it’s looking over the shoulder and in the thick of it with the heroes.

And the heroes are pretty good…when they’re not delivering dialogue.  All in all, the script of the movie had a solid story in tact and had to dress up some of the heavier dialogue scenes with pure cheese; where characters are dictating their actions as a means of their thoughts.  It’s clear that director Breck Eisner doesn’t really trust his audience enough to let us develop our own reactions and feelings toward the material.  But I didn’t find this a detraction.  I found the ride enjoyable and worth taking.  There are crappy scenes, crappy lines but all in all not enough to drag a final product down.

It’s clear Eisner isn’t comfortable really undressing this material.  He’ll let us see a man burn his family alive, but he won’t let us see a son seperated from his mother NOT get returned to her merely minutes later.  He’s willing to go just far enough to remind you that you’re watching a horror film, but not enough to really imagine the real horror.  But it does go further than other fare.  It is a step in the right direction.  If you’re looking for a movie that will keep the suspense and keep you in the story, The Crazies is in theaters now.  This movie get’s a solid 7 + out of 10 Bones for being just a by the numbers, entertaining, creepy movie.

RATING: PLUS!

“Who knew that the Harbor Islands had cliffs? And not just cliffs but giant bluffs?”

Any time a movie is pushed back from a release date, it brings me cause for concern.  It’s like sending a message to the viewers, that someone thought it was ready and the people in charge ultimately of that decision, disagreed.  Usually, those people are not directors. I only see a room full of people making creative decisions that do nothing but hurt the intended message and overall quality of a film. So imagine my surprise to see Martin Scorsese’s latest movie, Shutter Island, fall victim to my paranoid scenario.  It was written off as a tactic to garner “Oscar buzz”.  But any movie fan saw that by the time Shutter Island came out, the nominees would have already been announced.  So really, now that it’s here and I’ve seen it, what’s the real story about what happened on Shutter Island?

Martin Scorsese is considered to be a master film-maker amongst the film-making community.  It would be hard to disagree with someone making that argument considering the resume of films and pedigree. And to that degree, when I heard that Scorsese was doing a “horror” movie, I was excited. I always enjoy watching directors work outside their regular genres and really stretch their style in other ways. So when I heard that Scorsese was making this movie based off a Dennis Lehane novel of the same name and working with Leo again, I couldn’t see what could go bad.  Because every collaboration of these guys has been a solid if not very good film. Which isn’t to say that Shutter Island is a bad film, but it has it’s limits.

Shutter Island is less horror film and more psychological thriller.  There are intense moments of suspense that are coupled with a really effective sense of place and art direction; everything looks good here but it doesn’t feel whole.  I found myself being bored throughout some of the middle parts, with straying strands of narrative branching here and there.  Nothing looks worn in or gritty, something I think Scorsese champions in many of his older films.  This film is more reminiscent of a Gangs of New York rather than a GoodFellas.  Which doesn’t make it bad, it just doesn’t for an overall atmosphere to go with the good use of tension employed. To speak of this grit, is the lack of style as a larger point that is absent for majority of this film.

There are flashes of Scorsese’s virtuouso musings in this, don’t get me wrong, but not enough to really make this movie feel much different than other mind-benders I’ve taken in.  I can’t knock on the movie for not doing things I wanted to see but I can criticize that what I did see felt standard and pretty safe. The preformances are fine and the one really effective part is the score. Other than that, it’s a fine way to take in a movie, but not much more.  If you want to be creeped out, then this will be fine.  Other than that, I wish I was let off the island a bit sooner.  This movie get’s 6 out of 10 Bones for being just fine.

RATING: