The Mysterious Case of Harriet Vanger (also starring a girl with a dragon-shaped tattoo)
By theredraylives | January 18, 2012
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
dir. David Fincher
Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård
4 out of 5 Stars
David Fincher’s last film, the near-masterpiece The Social Network, set a bar that sadly, this film fails to clear. The man is certainly capable of directing amazing films (and he has, many times), and his visual style and directoral chops are still good as ever. Enter The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, a film that is as well-paced and efficient as it is plodding and ineffective. For as much as the performances can be lauded, for as much a tragedy the film is for Rooney Mara’s Lisbeth, and as intriguing the mystery the plot presents is, it suffers dramatically from over-predictability and a very drawn-out pace that, while understandable, is unnecessary. The problem with Girl stems most from the fact that this film couldn’t decide what it wanted to be about, then sandwiched everything together, which tended to streamline things somewhat and dramatically- if jarringly- re-set the pace for the rest of the film. It represents a missed opportunity, as the film’s title is ultimately where one looks for a focal point- sadly, the girl with the dragon tattoo is too infrequently on-screen and explored to make this a film about her. NOTE: Spoilers to follow.
The film begins with journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) who has recently been prosecuted for libel for printing unsubstantiated information regarding corporate CEO Hans-Erik Wennerström. He is approached by Henrik Vanger (excellent performance by Christopher Plummer) to write a biography of him, but more than that, is wanted for his investigative chops to help Henrik finally put to rest the disappearance/murder of his niece Harriet some 40 years earlier. Blomkvist agrees, and the investigation begins. Meanwhile, we’re intercut with the story of Lisbeth Salander (Mara), a ward of the state whose guardian has had a stroke, and she is placed under a new guardian who keeps a very tight leash on the girl’s finances.
Screenwriter Steven Zaillian has done a masterful job here in not making this very long, drawn-out exposition seem boring. The real issue with the pacing comes from the split stories of Blomkvist and Salander, who are inevitably destined to be brought together by the film (she is set up early-on as an amazing investigator). As an audience, we know that eventually the film is going to put these two together, but it takes forever in doing so (easily half of the 158 minute runtime, if not more). Again- the exposition wasn’t boring, and indeed it was important for both Mara’s character and the investigation, but one can’t help but wonder if these two could have been put on-screen together a little bit sooner. Craig and Mara have great chemistry here and it’s a shame to see it pushed to the latter portion of the film.
Similarly, the mystery itself avoids asking the question that immediately comes to mind the moment it presents itself: what if Harriet is still alive? Sadly this doesn’t occur to anyone in the film until well after the 2 hour mark has passed, and it can be a little grating seeing the characters in the film continue to ignore this very real possibility. When, at the end of the film, one finally learns that this is indeed the case, it is more an eye-rolling “finally” kind of moment moreso than a great revelation or shock. Where she has been and how she survived are entertaining stories, to be sure, but they are revelations that were long overdue by this point in the film. It would have been more shocking to find out that she actually was killed, since, given the evidence the film presents, that would have been the more surprising conclusion.
What makes the story effective, really- and what ultimately keeps the film from being a snorefest- is Mara’s character Salander. Having spent time pondering the film, it is the opinion of this reviewer that this film is better thought of as a tragedy with Salander as its central character, and this seems to be the intent of both Fincher and Zaillian as well. Mara is absolutely up to the task, infusing her character with so much anger, betrayal, isolation, and tenderness, that she feels absolutely and incredibly real. The film itself isn’t really an Academy Award contender, but her performance is simply brilliant. Other characters in the film are ably played- from Plummer, to Stellan Skarsgård and the remainder of the cast. Craig is similarly well-played, with his lifeless performance- considering what has happened to the character, this is a wonderful choice by Craig in playing the character (he is very dispassionate and seems to have a blank glaze over his eyes throughout the film).
Another monumental bright spot is the return of Fincher collaborators Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who worked on The Social Network with Fincher and return here. They present a wonderfully atmospheric soundtrack that plays well with the film’s pace and themes, and while the soundtrack may not be as masterful as that of The Social Network, this one certainly stands out as well.
Sadly there are a few things holding the film back from really moving from good to great, a fate suffered by other Fincher films as well (Zodiac and Benjamin Button come to mind). First is the lack of focus on Mara’s character which really jars the pace early in the film. Her story is by far the more interesting of the two, but she is cut back to far too infrequently and when she is, her scenes don’t last very long. Not to say these scenes aren’t incredible- they make up some of the most incredible scenes in the film- but it cuts back continuously to the Vanger investigation, which is important to the inevitable climax, especially for Mara’s character, but is a snooze by comparison. Credit must go to Fincher and Zaillian for making this at least bearable, as in less capable hands it might have been a complete disaster.
Also, issue must be taken with the opening and the ending of the film. The opening since it is drastically out of place- Fincher seems to be channeling himself when he did the Fight Club intro, as that is what this is most reminiscent of. It sets the wrong tone for the beginning of the film. The ending since it is largely unnecessary- we see Salander somehow entertaining the idea that she and Blomkvist will have this happy relationship together. Given her character to this point she’d have no inclination to believe that Blomkvist was interested in such a thing, and more than that, having her learn to be sociable and trusting of people doesn’t immediately mean she has to settle into some relationship with him. The character could and should have learned these things regardless, but been realistic enough to know that this partnership was not going to continue. This was somewhat heavy-handedly shown to her instead, and it just wasn’t necessary. Her tragedy is that she still has no one, even after finally finding a connection, but still she has actually formed one: this should be the film’s greatest moment, and instead it basically sucker-punches her.
Overall, however, the film was very engaging. The performances and the nature of the Vanger mystery alone (and moreso, the stunning revelations of why Harriet vanished) make the film very entertaining, and the runtime doesn’t hinder this at all. If more of that runtime had focused on Salander, this could easily have been rated higher, but instead, it stands at four stars out of five.
by Nicholas Haskins
Follow me on Twitter or book my face. You can check out the international trailer for Girl here. “You’re the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.”
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | No Comments »
Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Good Movie Gone Wrong
By theredraylives | January 16, 2012
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
dir. Guy Ritchie
Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Jared Harris
3-1/2 out of 5 Stars
After a fantastic outing in the original Sherlock Holmes, Robert Downey Jr. (Holmes) is back with his mostly-unwilling sidekick Dr. Watson (Law) in the sequel to the mostly strong first chapter (mostly, because, well… Mark Strong? Really? There’s a pun to be noted there, but surely it has been noted before). This time, Holmes has met his match in the form of the genius criminal mastermind Professor Moriarty (Harris)… or so the promotional materials would have you believe. Ultimately the studio attempts to sell the film to the audience this way, so that when one sees it, one has this idea at the forefront of the mind, so as not to question it. Sadly, after the credits roll, one walks out of the theater feeling that the film was in some way lacking, inadequate, missing that one piece of the puzzle that might have turned good into great. This, then, is the lesson of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows- a good movie, yes, but just a few steps short of great.
Where the film’s strength lies, however, is in its lead actor, and Downey Jr. is even better as Holmes in the second outing. He speaks, moves, and acts precisely as one is led to believe Holmes’ mind works- and does so even more effectively than in the previous film, where he was also outstanding. He has become far more comfortable in the role, to the point where one could watch Downey Jr’s Holmes sit in a room for two hours and he’d find some way to make it entertaining. His performance alone sets the film higher than anyone else in the role likely could. Similarly, Law’s Watson has an even better camaraderie with Holmes than he did in the first film, and the two play off one another so well that one never for a second questions this relationship. It is living, breathing, constantly evolving, and constantly moving. Holmes is at his best when he is on-screen with Watson, and vice-versa, and luckily the two share a great deal of screentime as they did in the previous film.
On another note, we get introduced to Holmes’ brother Mycroft, played here deliciously by Stephen Fry (in all his glory). The character was probably the best new addition to the cast, though outside of being Holmes’ brother, he isn’t doing much. Still he was a great deal of fun to watch, even if his character didn’t necessarily make any sense (he largely serves as a human deus ex machina). Rachel McAdams briefly returns here as Adler, and her return is all too short, since she was delightful to watch in the first film. Like Watson, both Adler and Mycroft have a fantastic rapport with Holmes, and the scenes they share together are among the best in the film.
The rest of the cast is somewhat uneven. Noomi Rapace’s Madam Heron is less a living, breathing character as she is a walking plot device, and this makes her quite underwhelming (despite her relative importance to the overall plot of the film, she never feels like she means anything to said plot, because ultimately she really doesn’t). Jared Harris brings an uneasiness and a cold, calculating demeanor to Moriarty, even if his performance seems a little stiff at times, something that must have been a conscious choice. This serves as a stark contrast to the garish and somewhat unpredictable Holmes and works very well. Still there is ultimately something missing from Moriarty, and this goes back to the idea that he is supposed to be a criminal mastermind who is, in every way, Holmes’ equal. The film desperately wants the audience to believe this, but a relative failure to really explore the character (not so much in terms of backstory as in terms of further screentime) coupled with a lack of rich dramatic tension leaves much to be desired. Telling an audience that the man is an evil genius and the equal of Sherlock Holmes doesn’t mean anything if the evidence doesn’t play out on-screen, and make no mistake, it never does (showing a collection of notes and newspaper clippings linking Moriarty to various foul deeds does not make him menacing). For as wonderful as Downey Jr. is as Holmes, as richly as he has captured the capricious nature of his character, Harris simply doesn’t bring it in the contrast. Moriarty never seems quite dark enough, never seems quite calculating enough. One never feels that Moriarty has a chance at actually one-upping Sherlock Holmes.
More to the point, the film relies too heavily on action to show the back-and-forth struggle between Holmes and Moriarty in what should be a highly intellectual struggle between two men equally matched on that field of battle. Moriarty falls into the category with too many other villains of all media- for being such a genius, he surrounds himself with monumentally incompetent people. His plans fall apart not necessarily because of a failure in his design, but in a failure in those beneath him executing them. Mind you, his right-hand mercenary-for-hire (Paul Anderson’s Colonel Moran) is more than competent, but is ultimately meaningless, especially since he is given no tangible connection to Moriarty outside of being a gun for hire. True that at the end, once Holmes has succeeded in thwarting Moriarty’s plan, we do get the intellectual back-and-forth that is so long promised, but at this point the film is deep in the last reel and it is too little, too late.
A major issue that the film has- and what really knocks this film from ‘great’ to ‘good,’ is the fact that slow-motion is over-used to the point that it drains all the life out of the film. Particularly in what is probably the film’s biggest action set piece, Holmes and company are making their escape from Moriarty’s clutches and are being fired at by artillery and mortars. This is absurdly out of place in the film, both because 1.) this isn’t a war movie, and 2.) the entire sequence at normal speed would take about 10 seconds, but this scene alone is stretched out to span minutes. Minutes, as in the slow-mo is so slow that the shots are almost completely frozen. Moreover, the scene completely removes the audience from the film and has no real narrative point. Yes, they’ve escaped, but no, they’re not out of the woods yet (literally), and the audience knows this. Slowing it down to the point that one is basically looking at moving stills for a good chunk of time. It’s as if Ritchie pulled out a gigantic hammer and keeps beating the audience in the head with it just so they know that they haven’t escaped yet. Mind you, there is a way to effectively use slow motion, but rest assured, it is not this. Even Zack Snyder would shake his head at this scene.
Still there is much to love about Ritchie’s second effort in the Holmes cinematic saga, and one imagines there will only be more (and hopes, even). The film is beautiful to watch, from the cinematography, the details in the sets and costumes, right down to the accents of the characters. The world that has been created here is breathtaking, and it never for a moment feels like it isn’t real, or that these characters are not living and breathing in each moment they’re on-screen. The cast was certainly up to the task, but can only work with what they’re given, and there are sadly too many obstacles to make it through to the end unscathed. Too much is alluded to, not mentioned, or not focused on, particularly in Moriarty’s case. The best thing to be said about the film is that one will leave the theater feeling indifferent. There is too much to love about the film to hate it, but there is simply not enough to love to truly love it. Three and a half out of five stars.
by Nicholas Haskins
Follow me on Twitter or book my face. Now, are we going to declare war on Spain, or are we not?
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | No Comments »
Congratulations to our Buy & Win Contest winner!
By Michael Vass | January 7, 2012
We wish to thank all those that visited Alchemy at World of VASS during the holiday season of 2011. We especially thank everyone that purchased an item and were entered into our Buy & Win Contest.
The entry was automatic for any purchase over $50. The prize was 5% of all the revenues of M V Consulting, Inc generated by the sales at Alchemy at World of VASS. It was just that simple.
The prize winner was determined randomly, and notified of the win on Jan 4, 2012. Payment was made on Jan 7, 2012.
Due to our strict privacy protection we cannot reveal the full name of our winner. But we can say that we congratulate
Alicia S. of Quarryville, PA
We hope that the money comes at an opportune time and will help kick-off a great start to 2012!
Looking forward, we are planning a similar bonus to shoppers looking for unique, hand-crafted, and imported gifts for Valentine’s Day, birthdays, or just because you want something special.
Don’t forget that it is your support of our political commentary, entertainment news/events, and gift shopping websites that allows us to survive. We do appreciate all the support you provide.
Again thank you all for visiting our online store.
Sincerely
Michael Vass
President – M V Consulting, Inc
info@vassconsult.com
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Omaha Omaha Hut… now that we all know
By Michael Vass | January 2, 2012
There are a lot of things that sports fans will put up with when it comes to sports color commentary. Sometimes you get to hear someone great, like John Madden, but most of the time just someone good. Occassionally you will have to endure horrendous color commentary, like how many U.S. commentators used basketball and even baseball terminology for color commentary on the World Cup in 2010. But no matter how good or bad the color commentary, fans should never have to endure what happened on Jan 1, 2012.
It was during the Giants vs Cowboys Sunday Night Football game. In the 3rd quarter, after the Giants had successfully gotten Dallas to jump offsides for the third time in the game, Cris Collinsworth – the color commentator for NBC – did the unthinkable. Collinsworth revealed, on national television while the game was underway, what the Giants were doing.
‘When the Giants use Omaha Omaha Hut it means that the playclock time is running down.’ – Cris Collinsworth during the NY Giants vs Dallas Cowboys game on 1/1/2012
It may sound simple, but that little comment is huge. Collinsworth revealed critical information about the strategy and tactics of the Giants. He gave inside information to a team, that very likely influenced the game. There is no question that someone connected to the Dallas Cowboys heard this information and passed it on to the team, as any Dallas fan would do. For the rest of the game, whether because of Cris Collinsworth’s reveal or not, Dallas never again was offsides.
In fact, it was during the 3rd quarter that the Dallas Cowboys made a massive surge and nearly evened out the game. Could the information that Cris Collinsworth revealed have been the key to breaking the code the NY Giants use for calling plays before the snap? Did this influence the game, giving an edge to the Cowboys that did not exist before? There is no way to know for sure.
What is known for sure is that Cris Collinsworth knew he should not say what he did. He prefaced his inside information with the fact that he is not supposed to say what he knew, especially during a live nationally televised game.
Did Collinsworth do this because he does not like the NY Giants? Was it because he is a fan of Tony Romo? Could it have been because he was paid, or had a bet placed somewhere? Did he want to try to increase the ratings for NBC with Dallas fans? Who knows. But whatever the reason, it is unexcusable.
If the color commentator can give away team secrets – because of their access to teams and players – on national television, what are they doing in private? Is this something that sports analysts will start doing? Sports journalists? Is it happening already? What if some other sports commentator wants to help their favorite team, should they do what Cris Collinsworth has done as well?
The NFL, and/or NBC Sports, should penalize Cris Collinsworth. An example needs to be made. Because what if next time it’s the Super Bowl or World Series or World Cup, and an announcer/commentator gives away some other vital piece of information? What if another sports commemtator decides, for whatever reason, to help out one team over another – especially if Cris Collinsworth is given a pass without even so much as the notice of the NFL. Is there a single fan that wants to have their game of choice altered or influenced by some guy in a booth? Is there a fan of any sport that wants the integrity of the game compromised?
There is a reason why teams have secrets about their strategies. There is a reason that sports commentators and journalists don’t tell the world every piece of inside information. Those reasons should be upheld, not broken. It’s no different than why inside trading in the stock market is illegal.
If by some chance Cris Collinsworth happens to read this, he should publicly apologize for his actions. He should admit what he did was wrong and request a punishment that he has earned (assuming that the NFL and/or NBC do not act beforehand). This is not something that should go away without the light of day hitting it.
But what do you think? Even if you are a fan of the Dallas Cowboys, do you think that the team should have been told what Omaha Omaha Hut means? And would any fan be upset if while watching their team in whatever sport play, the announcers/commentators gave away that teams secret plays and codes?
Do you think Cris Collinsworth should apologize? Should he be punished?
Topics: Sports | 3 Comments »
Movie Review: Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol
By Michael Vass | December 24, 2011
The one thing that needs to be said about this fourth Mission Impossible film is that finally the true appeal of the television show is begining to be seen on the silver screen. It sure took them long enough.
The latest foray into a modern and revamped depiction of the loved 1960′s television show, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, hit gold with the most basic premise – teamwork. For all the gizmos, all the fancy and exotic locations, the reason that Mission Impossible wasn’t working was because of the team. That’s not to say that action junkies, and fans of Tom Cruise, weren’t coming to theaters before. But even with the hordes of viewers, the prior three films left audiences wanting more than what they got. This time they will leave feeling more complete.
Once again Ghost Protocol provides what is expected of a spy/action film these days. Lots of location filming of places most Americans will never see in person – and some of the best locations and views of these distant lands at that. This adventure features Moscow, Dubai, and India. Each looking more luxurious and fascinating than any actually are (I’ve lived in Moscow and worked 1/4 mile from the Kremlin, it isn’t nearly as glamourous as the movie makes it though it is impressive).
We get frequent and pulse-pounding action sequences. there are car chases, with beautiful cars. Even a concept electric car that makes the idea of a battery powered car seem more than the delusions of eco-maniacs and the Obama Administrtion. There is hand-to-hand combat a plenty. Girl vs girl, with the mandatory rip of clothing (but nothing too crazy or sexist). Girl vs guy, against a smarmy egotistical louse that needed to have his “God’s gift to women” mentality knocked down a few stories. Plus multiple good guy vs bad guy fights, several of which our hero Ethan Hunt does not immediately win.
But that is the other seed of improvement in the series. Not only does Ethan the Great need the help of other people with skills he does not have, but Ethan gets the worst end of the physical stuff too. Ethan gets hurt in fights, misses the incredible jump that requires split second timing, and has the super specific ultra hi tech gadget fail at the worst possible time. Life is not the perfect plan and smooth sailing that the prior 3 films imply IMF agents have generally.
Perhaps it can be called the Bruce Willis Effect. Audiences relate better to a hero that is obviously human. A hero that can’t beat everyone in a fist fight, and looks like he was in one when it is done. A hero that makes mistakes and fails when trying to do things that require near miraculous ability or timing. Just imagine Officer McClane at the end of any Die Hard film – you want him to beat the stuffing out of the boss bad guy after all the crap he has been through in the film and cheer when he does it. It’s so effective the Bourne films included that aspect, and now so is Mission Impossible.
That is Ethan Hunt in this film. Bruised, beaten, outsmarted and outclassed at various points in the film. He still is cool and quite capable, but he is far more human. Which adds to the appeal of the character. Plus, the Hunt character takes on more of a supervisory/organizer role that Phelps of the television series had. Another part desperately needed for the films.
Putting these elements together finally lets the audience care about who else is in the film and what they are doing. Rather than being transition devices that let Ethan/Cruise go from one beyond belief stunt to the next, the rest of the cast in this film actually get characters that have depth and backgrounds. They actually get to do more than stand still and allow Cruise to look good. Which even provides scenes with levity and lightness that don’t feel forced or put upon the audience.
Ghost Protocol is the maturation that fans of the Mission Impossible series have been waiting for. Tom Cruise has finally let his ego go, having a character that takes some painful missteps (well, leap literally), and gives room for other actors to justify the screen time they get.
Simon Pegg, best know for Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, makes the most of Benji Dunn’s enthusiasm and inexperience in the feild – for laughs and Barney/Q tech genuis slot that is needed in such a film.
Paula Patton does a good job as the femme fatale Jane Carter. A beauty with good looks (if a tad skinny) and the chops to take on the enemy with a gun or barehanded as the case may be.
Jeremy Renner as William Brandt is competent. While his character is a bit of a mush, he too elevates himself as the story unfolds. Out of the main cast, he has the least likeable character. Perhaps it was the directing, or the plot, but all but 2 of his scenes seem flat and his backstory is the most dragging part of the film. Thankfully it is short and intercut with far better plot scenes.
Another great choice in this film was providing a nutjob bad guy that didn’t waste a good portion of the film trying to explain why he is a nut or what his deep inner motivations are. He is more like the shark from JAWS, or Auric Goldfinger, or the Alien – just bad and menacing because they are.
Ultimately Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol does what it is supposed to do, it entertains. There is humor, action, missteps, and spy thriller intrigue with global stakes. Throw in dashes of the exotic and hi tech gadgets that are as impressive as they may be outlandish. Shake it well with good editing and a moderately fast pace, and you are served with a film that justifies the price of a theater ticket – without feeling like you just got raped because the film studio realized that if they make it 3D they can pull even more money out of the audience pockets without any added benefit.
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | No Comments »
Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
By Michael Vass | December 20, 2011
The 2nd in what well looks to be a string of movies based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s deductive slueth features Robert Downey Jr. in the titular role and Jude Law as his right hand (at times literally) man Dr. Watson. Like the prior film it is a period piece, and filled with the British accents and locals that are home to the characters.
This film wastes no time in picking up where the first film ends. Dr. Watson is away, once again deeply involved in getting married why Holmes is equally busy with tracking his quarry – both Professor Moriarity (Jared Harris) and Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams from the prior film). Watching McAdams enjoyably trifle with Holmes and the verbal interplay was amusing, but sadly ends far too soon and surprisingly with finality. Though nothing is absolute in film, it appears that she will not be returning to future films. Still, the movie is consistent with the overall depiction of Adler and her relationship to Holmes:
To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind.
The film quickly moves on to introduce Dr. Watson, and a far more manic Holmes some undertermined time later. After a few scenes that will surely drive PETA mad, and a quick paced dialogue that conveys that Dr. Watson is no slouch in his own mental nimbleness, we get to meet another important character – Mycroft (Stephen Fry). [For those that have never read the books, the name is not a play on words or in any way refering to Microsoft]
This begins a maze of twists and turns, winding a path from England, to France, and on to Germany. The countries are critical as the time is prior to WWI, and tensions among the European powers are rising quickly. Anarchists, quite similar to the lunatic terrorists of today, are busy attacking innocents and blaming this country or that. Holmes is in a constant race to keep up with the next disaster, and hopefully avert the fall of the dominoes.
This film does an excellent job of conveying the time with accuracy. Unlike most romanticised views of the time, we see Europe more as it was. Gritty, dirty, crowded but filled with a feel of expansion and growth into something else. There is also the clear distinction between the classes and the areas they inhabit, which Holmes travels between with fluidity but never ease as he is an outsider everywhere due to his mind.
The acting is on par with the first film. Downey is quite believeable as the drug addicted (only referenced once in the film, early on and in just 1 sentance) revengeful foil to the plans of Professor Moriarity. Even in the most calm scenes of the film, Downey seems disheveled and out of sync with the world, giving Holmes an akwardness you might expect for someone who is reading the tea leaves as he sips.
Jude Law bring in a noteworthy performance. His Dr. Watson is sharp and intelligent, obscuring a man that is more akin to the wild abandon that is Holmes than he would care to admit. Law again exemplifies why Dr. Watson is both a confidant and conspirator to all the things that Holmes tries to accomplish. This movie though adds a touch of the harsher life before meeting Sherlock Holmes, the skill of Dr. Watson’s marksmanship honed in wartime and his rowdy behavior that accompanies his love of drink. In fact, in one of the more personal battles between Holmes and Watson (during a larger battle of mercenaries agaist the duo), we get to see Watson battle with his desire to live a life of adventure and his deep desire to have a family and wife.
Jared Harris has the toughest role. He must give Prof. Moriarity a strong sense of amoral ambition, and a willingness to inflict pain without making him loathesome or evil – as the character is neither. He had to provide the character with intelligence, and patience for his long plans and web of interactions, yet make him move with purpose between these steps. Lastly he needed to impart how much pleasure Prof. Moriarity takes in battling with Holmes and yet his need to win. It is a difficult role based on many subtlies, and while most scenes are very effective not all are.
Perhaps the worst role in the movie is that of Stephen Fry’s Mycroft. This is not because of an inability on the part of Fry (probably best known to American audiences for his part in V for Vendetta) but because of the script and direction. Mycroft is address as more of a high society snob. A man detached from the day to day travails of the common man, and filled with as many eccentricities as his staff and brother combined.
This is done well by Fry, but it does not convey what Sir Doyle filled the character with. Mycroft is the smarter brother of Sherlock. His knowledge and abilities are so invaluable to the Queen that not even Holmes is clear what he does for the nation of England. Mycroft is the resource that Holmes depends upon when he is in a corner, and a sage wisdom when perplexed. Of course Mycroft is eccentric, which Fry portrays well as he is nude and discussing breakfast with Dr. Watson’s newlywed wife.
The conclusions of every department are passed to him [Mycroft], and he is the central exchange, the clearinghouse, which makes out the balance. All other men are specialists, but his specialism is omniscience.
Yet this never gells with why Prof. Moriarity, who is so determined to kill Dr. Watson and his wife – thus hurting Holmes, is unwilling to even attempt to spy on Mycroft. Or why Mycroft is able to move without fear of reprisal from Moriarity. Those that have read the books get it. It’s a battle that Moriarity is rather sure he would lose, if ever Mycroft was bothered to care about the petty actions of Holmes or Moriarity, or suffer to have to act on them. But the film never conveys this, thus relegating Fry to merely an oddity and transition device.
Another weak point in the film is the ending sting against the plans of Moriarity by Holmes. Involving the wife of Watson, it begs the question of how she could break a code by herself – created by an equal to Holmes. Even with the correct key code, an ordinary person would be expected to be quite hard pressed to accomplish the feat in 3x the time she had available. Then again, the roles for women (other than McAdam’s tenatious and qualified Adler) in the film are quite limitied, as they are in the books, which does not bode well in modern storytelling.
The film is definitely at its best in the slow stop-motion action scenes. Whether it is Downey’s Holmes dispatching 4 rogues, or a race out of a forest under seige by mortars and artillery, there is a thrill of violence that plays well with the preceding or following intellectual dialogue. Guy Ritchie perhaps overuses this in the middle of the film, as if the audience forgot the opening sequence, with a monologue that is completely without need. Still, the flair in the film is the action and enough to keep most male audience members attentive.
Overall this is a good film and worth the money to see in a theater. The performances are well-done (though not Oscar worthy), the dialogue refreshingly adult and beyond the normal need to reach the lowest common denominator – without losing the audience in the process. The plot is well written and worth paying attention to in detail.
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | 1 Comment »
Fright Night (2011)… Prepare to be bored tonight
By theredraylives | December 17, 2011
Fright Night (2011)
Dir. Craig Gillespie
Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant
2-1/2 out of 5 Stars
Note that this review is not about- and has nothing to do with- the original version, or how much better/worse this version is than that version.
Fright Night is not the worst horror movie you’ll ever see. Frankly this should have been the tagline for the film, as after watching it one comes away from it with exactly that feeling. It isn’t necessarily scary, and it’s not really gory, especially in the post-Saw era of horror filmmaking. This sadly leaves it lacking in the horror department, and coupled with its grim failures in pretty much every other aspect, it makes for an entirely non-memorable experience. Worse than being really bad and nowhere near really good, the film simply “is” in the way that water is simply wet. There’s nothing new, nothing fun, nothing surprising, and certainly nothing frightening here.
This is particularly a shame considering the talent involved. Anton Yelchin, for instance, is a bright young talent. Colin Farrell is a good actor when he wants to be, and he certainly brings a creepy and brooding atmosphere to Jerry that is probably the film’s greatest positive attribute. It absolutely wastes David Tennant, with his single befuddled expression and incredibly throw-away connection to the main plot and characters.
Colin Farrell is quite effective as Jerry the Vampire (no, seriously). He commands attention on the screen and he is indescribably creepy, no matter how gorgeous all the female characters seem to think he is. Atmospherically, the film is very well shot, with great emphasis on darkness to (attempt to) enhance the dark and bleak setting. As the film begins and well into the first act, the pace is quite even, and Gillespie does a great job of showing how effective and brutal Jerry is at what he does while still remaining hidden in the shadows. As the first act winds up, outside of the appearance of Christopher Mintz-Plasse (who is terribly misplaced in this film), this thing is actually shaping up to be something decent.
After this, viewers should prepare their eyes for overtime, between all the eye rolling and the “I-can’t-believe-this-is-this-stupid” wide-eyed stare. Jerry- for some inexplicable reason- seems to forget all of his “400 years of survival” (which he makes mention of later in the film), instead opting to attack people in the street, blowing up a home, and causing a car accident, leaving a path of destruction so wide and absurd that one would swear a tornado tore through the set. Not that the authorities seem to notice, mind you; at one point, said home that detonated the night before is not even taped off, and there isn’t a police or fire official in sight. Jerry doesn’t lose his advantage through any ingenuity or careful planning on the part of our protagonists, but through the sheer force of his own stupidity, since try as they might the filmmakers couldn’t make the characters seem smart enough to turn off a water faucet much less thwart the undead.
Meanwhile, act II also introduces us to Peter Vincent (Tennant), who is also unequivocally the world’s biggest tool. He is a “vampire expert” that, in the span of five minutes, proves that not only is he not an expert, but is rather something of a sad and pathetic fraud. He then vanishes from the film entirely for a gigantic span of time (which is tragic given Tennant’s talent and the fact that the conclusion to what one could loosely call his character arc is so rushed and out of left field that one half expects him to also reveal he is half-griffon).
From here the film only devolves even further. We build toward a climax which involves Mintz-Plasse returning as a vampire for a showdown, which is so brain-crushingly awful that one begs for the sunlight to obliterate him and spare the film the embarrassment (Mintz-Plasse, usually enjoyable, says every single line of dialogue as if he is a nine-year-old who thinks he is a vampire, and finds it overwhelmingly exciting). It also features the return of Vincent, whose character suddenly has a backstory with Jerry even though it is so late in the film that it has absolutely no worth or impact. Given this revelation, might Vincent not have made a better main character in the film than Yelchin’s character, who had no semblance of a character arc? The film nearly collapsed on his pale, scrawny shoulders, and perhaps the charisma of a David Tennant could have lifted and carried this film and made it into something better than it was. In the end, the most absurd strategy of all saves the day, the hero gets his girl, and Vincent looks baffled by his existence.
This film starts with a great deal of promise and falls flat on zero character development and a black hole of dramatic tension. Why was Yelchin’s Charley the main character? Why does he have a meaningless connection to Mintz-Plasse’s Ed, which is only used to create some hokey melodrama later in the film? Why was Tennant’s character- by far the most interesting and promising of the human characters- reduced to a monument to wasted potential? The plot itself barely has a pulse. The film becomes such a disassociated mess that the only thing exciting about the ending is the fact that the film has finally ended. One would be better served watching until Charley escapes from Jerry’s home, and then just making up an ending from there. Two and a half out of five stars.
by Nicholas Haskins
Follow me on Twitter or book my face. Or, choose the form of the destructor! Choose, and perish.
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | No Comments »
« Previous Entries
Loading ...
Casino European Roulette with High-quality Technological style 3D graphics skin - play for fun earn and achievements! Mouse, follow in-game instructions.
Classic Black Jack game where you have to get a 21 to make black jack. Classic Casino game Hit on a chip to place bet. Then play and choose hit or stand acording to your cards.
