David Fincher's Dragon Tattoo (fixed)

I initially wanted to hold off on commenting on the leaked red-band trailer for David Fincher's re-adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but since I can't seem to stop watching it, I might as well go ahead. First, for those who haven't seen, here's the camcorder-video, taken from somewhere in Europe (where the trailer is already showing in theaters). **The red-band trailer has since been removed from Youtube by Sony. Here is the (non HD) green-band trailer:

Now, with any US re-do of a major foreign film, there's sort of an unwritten rule among movie lovers. We're supposed to decry, or at least be highly skeptical of, Hollywood's shameless need to rip-off foreign work, all so that American audiences don't have to *gasp* read subtitles (!!!). However, this is one remake where I'm inclined to throw skepticism to the wind, and fully embrace the new version. Why? Because it's not entirely a remake. It's more of a re-adaptation, meaning that the film makers, including screenwriter Steven Zaillian, went back to Stieg Larsson's book, rather than the Swedish film. And according to an interview several months ago, Zaillian made the bold choice to alter the source material, which is refreshing in an age when so many literary adaptations try to be slavishly faithful to the text.

And with Larsson's books, that's a good thing. The Millennium Trilogy has certainly become a major literary phenomenon, but I've never been entirely sold on the hype (and so begins the umpteenth iteration of my rant on these books). Lisbeth Salander, originally played by Noomi Rapace, is the main draw in the trilogy. A bi-sexual punk/hacker with a dark (daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaark) past, she's a wonderful idea as far as characters go. That said, in Larsson's books, she comes across as a great idea of a character who isn't fully utilized. This is, in part, due to the fact that she competes for narrative importance with Stieg Larsson, er, I mean, Mikael Blomqvist, a crusading investigative journalist. I was never that drawn to Larsson's painfully obvious author insert (or, Gary-Stu), and his portrayal in the films by the unbearably bland Mikael Nyqvist certainly didn't help matters. As far as stories go, the trilogy has plenty of interesting moments, but was somewhat undone by Larsson's drawn out plots. The second novel, "The Girl Who Played with Fire," despite being my favorite, begins with an overlong introduction set in the Caribbean that has nothing to do with the rest of the intricate plot. This section was wisely cut for time on screen, one of the few things that was good about The Girl Who Played with Fire, which was something of a train wreck over all. To sum it up, Lisbeth Salander is a great idea who deserves to be the star of a better series of books...

..or maybe just better movies. This trailer may not have any dialogue, but it speaks volumes about why I'm so excited for Fincher's take on the story, and why I think it will blow the Swedish version out of the water. The images, many filled with Fincher's signature of blue and green tints, are intense and gritty, and Rooney Mara looks appropriately eerie/otherworldly as Lisbeth. We'll have to wait until December to debate whether she's better than Rapace, but she certainly seems capable of filling the role. More immediately impressive is Daniel Craig as Blomqvist. Not only does he seem less bland in the role, but he could potentially make Blomqvist a more interesting character. Zaillian's script reportedly makes Blomqvist less of a womanizer, which should help the character feel like less of a blatant stand-in for Larsson. Also along for the ride, behind-the-scenes, are Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who wrote the excellent (and Oscar winning) score for Fincher's The Social Network. You can get a small taste of Reznor in the trailer; the cover of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song" is performed by Karen O and Nine Inch Nails, and adds a great, grungy vibe to the gritty visuals and icy locales. Sony is clearly having fun with the film's tough-as-nails image, labeling it the "feel bad movie of Christmas," and that only makes me more excited. All hail King Fincher.

Review: "The Hangover Part II"

It opens with an exasperated phone call. An exhausted and grimy-looking man named Phil (Bradley Cooper), contacts the bride of his friend Doug (Justin Bartha), to let her know that things have gone horribly wrong. The many who have seen 2009's The Hangover know this as the opening scene. The many who have yet to see the sequel likely don't know that I've also just described the opening of Part II.

For better or for worse, Todd Phillips' sequel to his '09 blockbuster could almost pass as a remake, considering how similar it is. Just as Baz Lurhmann relocated Romeo and Juliet to California, Phillips has relocated The Hangover to Bangkok, only with the same actors, and only 2 years later. The result is not necessarily a cash-grab. It has funny moments amidst the carbon-copy set-up and structure. It just makes you wonder why they bothered to essentially make the same movie over again, only with minor differences and set in an even seedier locale.

Not that there aren't some minor changes in the details. This time Stu (Ed Helms) is the one getting married, and the missing person isn't Doug, but the 16-year-old brother of the bride-to-be (Mason Lee). Come to think of it, Mr. Bartha's presence in the movie feels almost unnecessary, as he's not among those suffering from a disastrous hangover. The character who was once the object of a frenzied search has been relegated to the role played by his wife, receiving calls and asking "what happened?" Meanwhile, the original wolf pack of Phil, Stu, and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) goes through roughly the same routine as last time. They wake up disoriented, in a trashed room (although the inherently crappier room lessens the effect of any damage the characters caused). Instead of a missing tooth, Stu now has a tattoo which he doesn't remember getting, Alan's head is shaved, there's a vest-wearing monkey hanging around, and there's a finger in a bowl of melted ice. Phil just looks worn out, which I'm assuming is part of Cooper's secret contract wherein it states that he must always look attractive on screen.

As the trio traverse Bangkok and begin piecing another wild and crazy night back together, the film's reliance on formula rears its ugly head. It doesn't sink the film, but it robs it of the pseudo-mystery fun of the first. We now know to expect insane, outrageous happenings. So while some of the surprises may top the original in shock-value, the overall impact is muted. Still, the character interactions do produce some funny moments. Galifianakis' oddball antics generally prove to be a highlight, while Helms' freak-outs are perfectly pitched moments of exasperated hysteria ("All I wanted was a bachelor brunch!!!"). There's also Ken Jeong, reprising his role as the gangster Chow, earning solid laughs throughout. Cooper is generally there to be pissed off, rarely given anything actually funny to say or do. As far as "straight men" characters go, there's little that's interesting to him, especially considering what a sleazy jerk he can be. It's the sort of role that I suppose formula demands, but here in particular, it feels noticeable that most of what Cooper says is usually vulgar, without inspiring many laughs (not so for his co-stars).

General reaction to The Hangover Part II has been negative, and in some ways it's easy to see why. Phillips and co. have essentially remade the first movie, only without having to establish as many characters. Taken on its own, Part II probably seems much funnier. Under the shadow of the original, however, it's all a little too familiar, even though it's often amusing and occasionally hilarious. The decision to repeat the formula of the first film does not wreck this sequel. It merely renders its goal - to be a shock and awe campaign of what-just-happened comedy - somewhat diluted.

Grade: C+

Trailer: "Take Shelter"

While it may not have picked up any awards from Robert DeNiro's journey, Jeff Nichols' film Take Shelter has quietly been picking up steam. The film was actually picked as the critics' favorite from the festival, which is saying something considering the heavy hitters at the festival (both in and out of competition). After seeing the trailer, it's easy to see why. This looks like an understated, yet eerie psychological thriller. Michael Shannon has been on the rise ever since Revolutionary Road (2008), and this could be a big breakout moment for him, at least on the indie circuit. And then there's Jessica Chastain, who will has at least 5, maybe 6 films hitting theaters this year (including the Cannes jury's favorite, The Tree of Life). Then there's Kathy Baker, always a welcome presence, who doesn't do nearly enough work these days. So that's: good cast, interesting premise, intriguing/eerie trailer, good early reviews. The only thing missing is a distributor to get the film into theaters this year.

Review: "Fast Five"

The Fast and Furious series, for all of its diversions in sequel nomenclature, deserves credit for its consistency. It is consistently loud, consistently dumb, consistently fast, and consistently unassuming. It's also, despite the series' considerable ups and downs, consistently fun. The series' fifth entry, Fast Five, has earned the only positive consensus in the F+F catalog, and in some ways, it's easy to see why the critical community has decided to embrace this film. It's a silly and barely memorable film, but it's also down to earth, in the sense that it never aspires to be an ounce more than what it is (unlike, say, Sucker Punch).

Opening with a brief catch-up, we see that Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) has been sent to prison, much to the dismay of Brian O'Connor (Paul Walker) and Mia Toretto (Jordana Brewster). In the film's opening action sequence, the pair intercept Dom's prison transport bus, sending the thing flipping down the desert road. A news report then tells us that only one prisoner was missing when police arrived on the scene, and that there were no injuries. Yes, you heard that right. Not even 'no fatalities,' no injuries. Barely 20 minutes later, Diesel and Walker survive a massive fall from a bridge into a river. So while there are no elves or dragons in Fast Five, director Justin Lin and screenwriter Chris Morgan quickly establish that this all takes place in fantasy-land.

From there, we get a relatively standard heist set-up, although this time OMG we're in RIO you guys! The movie never lets us forget either (at least two overhead shots of the Christ the Redeemer statue, pans along the coast/beaches, etc...). The bad guy sets off the good guys, who plan monetary revenge, all while forced to evade US law enforcement, led by agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson's ginormous biceps). Pic's middle mostly consists of piecing together the plan, trial and error tests runs, and scattered encounters with Hobbs and his ilk. There's a pregnancy subplot too, although I could've sworn that at some point Ms. Brewster can briefly be seen toasting with a beer bottle (root beer, perhaps?).

And yet for all that's ordinary (especially the barely-there performances), there's still an undeniable sense of fun about the whole thing. Is it dumb? Of course it is. But it's so sincere in its stupidity, and so completely without pretension in regards to its "emotional" moments that the movie never gets weighed down. And even though the film may hold off longer on vehicular chases (a chance for a race involving a blue Porsche is skipped for time), the movie delivers when it wants to. Lin and cinematographer Stephen Windon do a nice job of showing us what's actually going on in the action, whether on foot or in cars. The film's trio of editors keep things moving fast, but never over-cut to the point of making action scenes incomprehensible or jumbled. It's a nice change of pace from the wannabe-cinema-verite-shaky-handheld that pervades so many action scenes these days.

And even though there's nothing resembling actual character development, I suspect longtime fans of the series already have fond enough associations with the main characters. For the rest of us, there's a clear enough of a line between good and bad that it doesn't really matter how one-note these people are. They're buff and beautiful, so it goes without saying that we're supposed to root for them. Somehow, that feels OK here. Fast Five may be dumb, but as stated above, it's inoffensively dumb, and it's also a great deal of fun. In other words it's the epitome of the lowest tier of big-budget summer entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with any of that.

Grade: C+

Review: "Thor"

It's not an easy thing to convincingly portray one of Norse mythology's most important figures. In spite of this obstacle, relative newcomer Chris Hemsworth does an admirable and thoroughly convincing job as the Marvel-ized version of the haughty God of Thunder. It's a good thing too, because he's one of the few aspects of Thor, the latest set-up film for 2012's The Avengers, that comes close to godliness.

Opening with prologue that feels straight out of The Lord of the Rings, Kenneth Branagh's adaptation sets up the film's multiverse efficiently. Years ago, the terrifying Frost Giants threatened to plunge Earth into an eternal ice age, only to be stopped by Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and his army of gods (demi gods? super beings?). Now, in the present, Odin's son Thor (Hemsworth), in an act of foolhardy bravery slyly suggested by his trickster brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), has torn apart the centuries-old truce. When Odin learns of his son's actions, he strips Thor of his power (including the ability to wield his mighty hammer) and banishes him to Earth. It's here when he - quite literally - runs into a trio of scientists, played by Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, and Kat Dennings.

And it's here, in the Earth-bound section of the story, that everything that's best about Thor comes together, even if the end result feels a bit slight. Whereas the opening is filled with portentous shouting matches, the Earth scenes introduce a vital sense of humor that very clearly lets us know that Branagh and crew aren't taking the whole thing too seriously. Thor's fish-out-of-water angle is executed with surprisingly fun results, thanks in large part to Hemsworth's completely convincing portrayal of a god completely out of his element. Along with Tom Hiddleston as the scheming Loki, Hemsworth's work is what makes the film the lightweight fun that it is.

Other performances aren't quite so entertaining. Natalie Portman gives minimal effort as scientist Jane Foster, while Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings make for charming, yet inconsistent comic relief. A handful of minor characters from Thor's realm are played with nice effort, but feel like afterthoughts. Action sequences are iffy as well. While they aren't incomprehensibly edited, Branagh shoots them in close-up, resulting in fights that are loud, but somewhat hard to decipher, and rarely engaging. Credit should go, however, to the marvelous (albeit campy) costume and set design; Thor's home realm of Asgard is rich and fully realized. Yet unlike, say, the first Iron Man, Thor never reaches a point where it completely immerses you in its mythos. Despite a good-hearted nature, and some charming, earnest work from its cast, the whole effort feels minor, rather than godly.

Grade: C+/C

"Biutiful" - REVIEW

Many theorists and art critics would argue that artists must evolve, and that to repeat one's self stylistically would be detrimental. Now, when it comes to theory, I'm far from being an expert, but for any artistic or philosophical theory, it always seems to me that there are more than a few exceptions. Unfortunately, director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu isn't such an exception, and his latest film, Biutiful is unfortunate proof that old (and not entirely good) habits really do die hard.

Set primarily in Barcelona, Biutiful tells the story of Uxbal (Javier Bardem), a corrupt cop whose life is slowly coming undone. In addition to the cancer that he has left untreated for too long, Uxbal must deal with raising his children, his undependable ex-wife (Maricel Alvarez), and helping illegal immigrants from Senegal and China stay undetected while they try to do business across the city. If this sounds like a recipe for something unbearably bleak, it is, although thankfully Inarritu is less indulgent and contrived here than he was in Babel.

This is largely thanks to the fact that the film only has one true protagonist, whereas Inarritu's three previous films have all depended on fractured narratives colliding with each other. As Uxbal, Bardem navigates all of the character's angles with skill and restrained power. It's unfortunate, though, that the film around him isn't of equal quality. Despite the narrowed focus, Biutiful still has prominent vestiges of Inarritu's previous work, and tries to shoe-horn in additional important characters, such as a widowed Senegalese women, and a pair of gay Chinese immigrants. Of the supporting characters, the only one who really comes through in the writing is Alvarez's Marambra. It's a passionate performance, and her broken chemistry with Bardem clicks (if anyone wants to do a Spanish remake of Blue Valentine, look no further for your leads) in all of the right ways.

In fact, if Inarritu had kept the focus more on Uxbal's family, instead of throwing everything at him all at once, Biutiful could have been a much more effective (and shorter) film. As it is, though, it's too long considering how average the execution of all of the subplots is. It's not exactly boring, but throughout the 2 hr 15 min runtime I kept waiting for "the good stuff" to happen, which is never a good sign. Special mention should go to Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography, though, for the richly composed images of outer decay. On the other hand, the sound design, while effective, is often distracting, and there are any number of moments when people hug when I swear you can hear the static coming off of their hidden microphones. Meanwhile, Gustavo "why the hell did I win back-to-back Oscars?" Santaolalla's score feels simplistic and derivative, and rarely contributes to the moods or emotions of the film.

These aspects make Biutiful a frustrating experience. It's certainly far from being awful, but there's so little that deserves praise outside of Bardem, Alvarez, and Prieto. It's the kind of film that, despite possessing a small handful of strong elements, you have a hard time recommending because of everything else around them. You want to root for Bardem, but Inarritu makes it difficult because he refuses to really change his game, which results in a middling effort on almost all fronts.

Grade: C

"Another Year" - REVIEW

The title and premise of Mike Leigh's latest film, Another Year, suggests the potential for a lagging, meandering, and weightless slice of life. It's the sort of film that could have easily sunk into tedium, especially considering its two hour run time and very limited plot/story. And yet through a key stylistic difference (I'll explain in a minute) and a strong group of performances, Another Year turns out to be one of the director's finest, and this is coming from someone who isn't exactly a fan of his.

Tom and Gerri (Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen) are a happily married couple living in the London area, and over the course of the film (broken up into four segments; one for each season), we see them interact with various friends and relatives, usually at a meal or outing. Yet the film doesn't begin with Tom or Gerri. An entire first scene goes by without either of the two appearing, and the focus of the scene is on a woman who only appears once more (in the very next scene) in the entire film (Imelda Staunton). On the other end of things, the film concludes with a lingering shot on someone other than Tom or Gerri as well. I bring this up because it plays into the strange discussion that has dominated talk of the film's awards season prospects: is actress Lesley Manville - as Tom and Gerri's friend Mary - in a leading or supporting role. Judging the film based on how it begins and ends, I got the sense that while Tom and Gerri ground the film, they aren't exactly the leads (at least not the primary leads). We may not see Mary at home or by herself, but she's the character we get to know best over the course of the film.

Either way, it's a shame that Manville has been largely overlooked over the course of awards season, because her work here stands among the best of the year, lead or supporting. Mary may not exactly have her life together (as evidenced by the jumpy manner in which she moves and talks), but Manville is careful not to take the performance to the point where she becomes annoying or exhausting. And part of this is, perhaps, due to one of the key changes that Leigh seems to have made in this film: he's either cut down on improvisation, or his direction and his actors have made their improvisation less obvious. So even though the film may still feel a little long in some parts (the final section, Winter, goes on just a little too long), the film has the overall feeling of being better constructed and less open than much of Leigh's previous work.

This is also, in large part, due to the strength of the performances. Manville may be the MVP here, but she's beautifully backed up by Broadbent and Sheen, along with smaller turns from David Bradley (AKA Mr. Filch from Harry Potter) and a stunning cameo performance from Imelda Staunton. Staunton in particular nails her two scenes at the film's beginning as a woman whose situation, though never specified, is in shambles. Despite the bleak nature of her scenes, she's one of the supporting characters you wish that Leigh would bring back in. Alas, that might have proven to be too much, and would have weighed down the film's happier segments (Spring and Summer).

But this is where we come to one of the problems with the film. Despite the general quiet warmth of the film, at times it does seem a little condescending. Everyone around Tom and Gerri is usually a mess of some sort, and they're all single, whether through divorce (Mary) or death (Tom's brother). The film seems to treat Tom and Gerri as slightly superior to everyone else simply because they're a happy couple, as though the only way to achieve happiness and stability in life is to be with someone. It's not a glaring issue, but it rears its head enough times to make it somewhat noticeable. The last shot also seems to reinforce this (while simultaneously evoking Mary as actually being the film's lead). For Tom and Gerri, the course of the film really does depict just another year, but for people like Mary, it depicts another year of loneliness and dissatisfaction.

Thankfully this is an issue that never becomes so prominent as to drag down the entire film. Leigh's writing, while a times a little drawn out, is effective at showing the connections among his characters, and his actors do a strong job of projecting a sense of camaraderie. And while it may not be as heartwarming as it's been advertised, it rings true enough in the right places to remain effective without becoming hopeless or bleak. And despite its title, it certainly deserves to be given a chance, because this is more than just Another Mike Leigh Film; it's one of his best.

Grade: B/B+

Villains revealed for "The Dark Knight Rises"

After months of waiting, Christopher Nolan has finally given us his villains for his third (and final) Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises, due out in July 2012. Anne Hathaway will play Selina Kyle, who traditionally becomes Catwoman, and Inception and Bronson star Tom Hardy will play Bane. Hardy's casting as Bane makes sense enough; he has the right look to play someone frighteningly equipped with brawn and brains in equal measure. According to Wikipedia, the character is even considered one of Batman's greatest powerful foes; apparently in one comic book storyline, he even manages to break Batman's spinal cord. Ouch.

Hathaway, on the other hand, is more of a question mark. She's certainly a talented actress, but she has a certain joy about her that makes it difficult for me to picture the future Oscar co-host as the classic villain/love interest. After all, Hathaway is nearly a decade younger than Christian Bale, which has the potential to cause chemistry issues. Then again, the character could simply be more Selina Kyle, and less Catwoman. She could start off as another love interest, and the film could set up for her transformation, either within the film or as an incomplete subplot (though that would be odd, considering that Nolan isn't returning after TDKR).

To be fair, many of us had similar thoughts when Ledger was cast as the Joker ("how on earth is that guy going to become the Joker!?!?!"). And of course, we aren't even remotely close to knowing what the Nolan brothers' (plus David S. Goyer) vision/design is for the character. It's safe to assume that she'll be scaled down somewhat in terms of flamboyance (Nolan's bat-verse is pretty free of camp). And I doubt that we'll be seeing anything like this:

All in all, the pair of Hathaway and Hardy make for an interesting pair of casting choices. The film doesn't begin shooting until April or May, which means we won't get any grainy on-set photos from afar for quite a while now. Hopefully Nolan and co. will give out a costume sketch or something along the way, but if not, we'll simply have to play the waiting game.

"Blue Valentine" - REVIEW

Blue Valentine, Derek Cianfrance's (temporarily NC-17 rated) look at a marriage gone awry, opens with a simple enough scenario: the family dog has gotten out of her cage, and is missing. Yet by the time this scene concludes (and an answer is still not given), the film has elegantly, effectively shown you that Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy's (Michelle Williams) marriage isn't in great condition. It's scenes like these, some downcast, some charming, that allow Blue Valentine to reach the filmmaking and acting highs that it does.

As the film's only two real characters (in the sense of being fleshed out), it's up to Gosling and Williams to create a compelling doomed couple, and in this they succeed. It's not necessarily because they're written (initially) as likable people, but rather because of the skill and commitment that the two actors bring to their performances. A scene where Williams almost goes through with an abortion chills all the way down to the bone thanks to the actress's subtle skill at communicating her gradual change of mind.

As a result, neither half of the story ever feels shortchanged, because we believe this couple in their happier days and in their more dour moments. Some have accused the film of being slanted against Williams' character (Cianfrance based it - somewhat - on an actual relationship), but if anything the film leans slightly in the opposite direction. Cindy goes through with her plan to study medicine and becomes a nurse, whereas Dean gives up on his own potential and settles, never actually acting to make life for the household better, even if he wants it. And when the first, only really, explosive argument hits, it all rings true.

Labeled as a love story in reverse, Cianfrance's film is more of a love story put in a blender. It jumps often between the two sides of the film (Dean and Cindy getting together and happy vs. Dean and Cindy married and at odds with each other), though never to be confusing. Transitions between the two sides of the film are handled with a number of elegant linked cuts. A scene in which "Past Dean" look across a hallway and sees Cindy for the first time is followed by a reaction shot of present-day Cindy staring off at something else. These cuts, along with the strangely effective soundtrack by Grizzly Man and near constant presence of the color blue, help add the tiniest flourishes of style in a story that we know is headed for a bad place.

Unfortunately the film, like the relationship, has its issues. Some of the normal cuts between time periods can give off a sense of bi-polar film making, rather than two elegantly woven halves. And though much of the film works, it does sometimes lag. At 1 hour and 50 minutes, it never drags to the point of tedium or boredom, but let's just say that there are a handful of places where you might find your mind wandering. A few minor characters, though played effectively, feel unfortunately one note (ex: Cindy's angry father).

On the whole, though, Cianfrance, through the strong work of his leads, is able to craft a compelling look at a match not quite made in heaven. It never descends into melodrama or engineers cheap ways to elicit overwrought screaming matches from its characters. Films like this are often sunk by aspects like direction or script, and even with the handful of issues with the writing, Cianfrance's film easily stays afloat thanks to the keen awareness of his direction, and the wonderful work from his committed leads.

Grade: B/B+

Spiderman: Turn On the Reboot

Spiderman has been receiving a lot of press as of late, both good and bad. On the Great White Way, Julie Taymor's U2-penned musical "Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark" has suffered delay after delay after delay (delay could also be switched out for 'disaster'). Cast members have been injured or have left all together, and despite good notices for the stunts (when they, y'know...work), the production has been troubled to say the least.

Thankfully, not all is bad for the famed web-slinger. After months of collective head scratching over the decision to reboot the franchise instead of create a proper 4th film, the first still of our new Spidey, Andrew Garfield, in costume has emerged.

Garfield is certainly lankier in frame than Tobey Maguire, but despite my initial doubts, the suit actually looks convincing on him. Judging by the state of the costume and the downcast look, it's safe to assume that this shot comes from a rather dark moment in the story (unless this turns out to be nothing more than a publicity still). But the real test Marc Webb's (500 Days of Summer) will face will be whether it can make audiences go back to the beginning with Peter Parker for a second time. Granted, Batman Begins had no problems doing this, but in that case, the Batman films had become a complete joke. Despite the lackluster reception of Spiderman 3, the film made bucket loads of money, unlike Batman & Robin.

And even though this is a reboot, the film won't be exactly the same story. A look at the cast list reveals that Rhys Ifans is Dr. Curt Connors, AKA the Lizard. This is somewhat appropriate seeing as Dr. Connors (played originally by Dylan Baker) was rumored to become the Lizard in the 4th Spidey film before it fell apart. In fact, looking at the cast list, there's no one listed as playing Harry or Norman Osbourne, the roles inhabited by James Franco and Willem Dafoe in the original trilogy. And as far as love interests, all we have now is Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), with no one cast as Mary Jane Watson.

So even though the there's obvious that plenty will be different, there's bound to be uncertainty about this project until it finally hits screens...or until the first fan-boy reviews leak from any test screenings conducted by Sony. Either way, we'll have to wait until 2012 to find out exactly what Marc Webb and Garfield have come up with. Just please, please don't let it be even remotely like 3. We can't go through that mess again.

RIP: Pete Postlethwaite (1946-2011)

This morning brought the unfortunate news that Oscar-nominated actor Pete Postlethwaite passed away after a long fight with cancer yesterday. It's always a shame when someone so talented and with such a vibrant, diverse career passes away at such a relatively young age (64). His Oscar-nominated turn in In the Name of the Father ranks up there with the best of them, and is just one great moment in a rich career that deserves to be remembered.

"Red Riding: 1974" - REVIEW

While not exactly the happiest way to ring in the new year (cinematically speaking, at least; I've got a glass of champagne with me as I write this), I'm pleased to say that my last official viewing for the 2010 calendar year is a very good one. While I'm sure I could take a moment to speculate as to how watching a film that's the first in a trilogy is somehow thematically relevant to something in movies this year or even in my personal life, I won't because well, that's just cloying. Rather, let's get to the film I watched today to close out 2010:

Based on a series of horrifying true events in England, the Red Riding trilogy's first installment, directed by Julian Jarrold, begins in 1974. A young girl has vanished, the latest in a series of missing child cases. Journalist Eddie Dunford decides to investigate the disappearance, and in doing so unlocks an increasingly dark and sinister web of corruption in Britain's police force. Like 2007's excellent Zodiac, Red Riding is one of those detailed crime dramas that at times threatens to sink under the weight of the details, both known and unknown. But what makes this film different from Fincher's San Francisco-set tale is that we never see anything bad happen, at least, not to the victims. Dunford takes quite a beating in his quest to find the truth, but the film itself doesn't punctuate its main story with horrific side trips. And yet Jarrold's entry in the trilogy (based on David Peace's novel) is a steadily paced, yet engaging way to kick off what is sure to be an increasingly complex narrative.

While the performances are strong - Garfield is quietly sympathetic and Rebecca Hall continues her 2010 winning streak - Red Riding succeeds more in its craftsmanship. While it by no means rushes through the plot, the screenplay and the editing keep the scenes and story moving along at just the right pace to hold interest. We start, like Eddie, aloof and not terribly involved in the case of the disappearing girls, but little by little the film draws you in. Revelations are never sensationalized or turned into moments of high drama. Instead, Jarrold directs the flow of events with a calm, understated hand. His goal here isn't so much to dwell on the "oh the horror!" aspect of the crimes, but rather root us in the position of Dunford, a man slowly coming to terms with the fact that there's more to the vanished girls than a single predator.

This is beautifully echoed in the the film's greatest strength, Rob Hardy's brilliant cinematography. Hardy has a gift with framing, and makes even the most plain and ugly 70s architecture interesting to look at. More important though, is how often he uses limited focal range, sometimes leaving only a small portion of the frame sharp. Sometimes it's simply a stylistic choice, but in other scenes there's a nice complimentary feeling of Dunford's (and our) inability to see the whole picture. In what could have been a rather ordinarily shot film, Hardy's beautifully composed images lend this gritty story a sense of richness, without "softening" the ugliness.

Yet while the screenplay is generally strong, and is well handled by both director and actors, it occasionally throws in one too many details. A vaguely sketched out subplot involving the recent death of Eddie's father and his relationship with his mother don't entirely work, especially in one distracting and bizarrely edited scene that never clearly establishes whether it's a dream, hallucination, or reality. This issue, though, along with the film sometimes keeping us an inch too far out of the loop, seems relatively minor by the film's end. Like the rest of the film, the finale keeps a level head without reducing the impact, and the final sequence is a thing of beauty. And whether or not parts 2 and 3 live up to this first installment, Jarrold and crew can be proud that they've made a film that, while ambiguous at its end, still feels complete and satisfying.

Grade: B+

"True Grit" - REVIEW

Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) repeatedly announces that she is "only 14 years old," and unlike the original True Grit, which starred a 20-year-old Kim Darby as Mattie, when Steinfeld says it, it rings true. Only 13 when she shot the latest film from Joel and Ethan Coen, Steinfeld's role is much more important than it was in the 1969 original, and it's just one of the reasons why the Coens' remake (or rather, re-adaptation) works so well.

Like the original, True Grit tells the story of a Mattie Ross' attempt to track down her father's murderer by hiring a hard-nosed US Marshall named Rooster Cogburn. Now, as to just how close the Coens stuck to Charles Portiss' novel for their screenplay, I can't vouch, as I've never read the source material. That said, in going back to the text instead of the John Wayne film, they've found a way to make a film that is much more inline with their sensibilities, and even their sense of humor. This is a good thing, because if there's one thing that surprised me in True Grit, it's the amount of humor that runs almost consistently throughout the film.

And even though the humor (and the story) may not entirely have the typical Coen brothers sense of irony, it still feels as though something they would come up with if they felt like playing it a little on the safe side. Assisting them through these (relatively) tame waters is their impeccable cast. Though she's been placed in (and won) supporting actress in the critics awards thus far, Steinfeld truly deserves to be labeled as lead. Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) may be the iconic character from Portiss' story, but at heart the story belongs to Mattie and her quest for justice and vengeance. Steinfeld beautifully captures the sense that Mattie is both a girl mature beyond her years, and yet still, well, 14 years old. As for Bridges, the role remains something of an emblem rather than a fully-formed character. What background details we're given don't really sink in, as their used more to portray Cogburn as a man with a penchant for rambling. That said, Bridges, whose last collaboration with the Coens gave us the ultimate laid-back "Dude," is able to pull off the role, one which has such large boots to fill. But the real joy of the film (aside from the surprise of Steinfeld) is Matt Damon as Texas Ranger LeBeouf, who has been searching for Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) for a separate crime. Damon, recently returning to comedy on NBC's 30Rock, gets to show off his comedic talents even more here, and he plays the slightly huffy, self-important Ranger with just the right touches, without making the character truly obnoxious or unbearable. A good part of the fun also comes from the fantastic (if at times overly wordy) dialogue, which is a mix of wild west gruffness mixed with a strange pseudo-Shakespearean tone (don't expect many contractions).

But good performances are nothing new for the Coen brothers. What's really, really surprising is the film's overall emotional impact. In a career long-dominated by black humor, irony, and in some cases flat out nihilism, True Grit ends up being surprisingly touching. I can't remember the last time that term applied to anything the Coens have done (if ever). Even with the comedic aspects of the film penetrating further into the story that one would expect, by the time it reaches its climax and begins to wind down, the result is actually moving (though completely free of schmaltz). While the story basics and characters may have been traversed before, for the Coens, True Grit is bold new territory well-explored.

Grade: B/B+

Trailer for Joe Wright's "Hanna"

Much more interesting that I thought it would be. This could have easily come off as something too kiddie-friendly, but Wright and co. really seem to be planting this firmly in the PG-13 area. Given the slightly less cartoonish look of this compared to, say, Kick-Ass, I'd be surprised if the film didn't attract some controversy for showing someone so young being so brutal (did she snap that woman's neck!?). And it's good to see Cate Blanchett back on screen after that awful Robin Hood film last year. We haven't seen Wright tested by action scenes before, which could end up hindering the film, but the cast and the footage here are strong enough to make me think that perhaps he's pulled it off.

"Rabbit Hole" - REVIEW

Losing a child can never be an easy experience. It's the sort of event that lingers and lingers, and even when you think it's gone, it finds ways of reminding you that it's still there in your thoughts. It's also a subject that has been done to death (excuse the pun) on film. It's an excuse for big weepy moments, filled with angst-y dialogue and blubbering. Sometimes it's the main part of a film, and somethings it's just a point in the overall story, but either way, it's a story/device that is often used to wring out tears, often by shamelessly yanking at audiences' heartstrings. And differing from these traits is exactly what makes Rabbit Hole, John Cameron Mitchell's adaptation of David Lindsey-Abaire's Tony-winning play, such a success.

One of the wisest choices Abaire made (he adapted the screenplay himself) comes down to timing. Instead of dealing with the loss of a child in the immediate aftermath, the story of Becca and Howie Corbett (Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart) is set 8 months after the tragedy. This gives Abaire, Mitchell, and the actors room to play their roles as more fully formed characters, as opposed to "grief stricken wife" or "grief stricken grandmother." And most surprisingly, it even allows Abaire's script the opportunity to present moments of *gasp* humor. It's these tiny moments of levity and relief that keep the film from drowning the audience in mawkish, non-stop suffering. That his writing is often quite swift only helps the scenes and story move with a certain briskness that prevents the heavy tone from weighing the movie down the whole way through. And remarkably, Mitchell, known for such outrageous films as Hedwig and the Angry Inch, directs with a beautiful simplicity, working in just enough to keep to film from feeling stage-y. But of course, none of that would matter if the performances weren't up to task.

And leading the charge through it are Kidman and Eckhart as the central couple. Kidman, who's had a rough few years, finally gets a chance to show us what a three-dimensional actress she can be. She plays Becca as a woman who has been so battered by grief that it's left her as a jagged cliffside of a person. And yet, despite some of the things she says and does, the performance never goes overboard to the point where we dislike or hate her. Even early on when she calls out a grief-therapy session member for being a "god-freak," we get a sense of why this character is acting this way, even if we wouldn't have done the same thing. In both her quiet/layered scenes, and in her few "showy" ones, she sells the character, as does Eckhart, who is every bit her acting equal in this, and deserves every bit of recognition. As the more overtly sympathetic character, Eckhart never manipulates the audience into thinking that he's character is the "right one." The two of them together, both when they share scenes or when they're apart, create a beautifully compelling pair of performances that easily rank among the year's best.

Lending them support are Dianne Wiest as Becca's mother, who has endured loss of her own, Tammy Blanchard as Becca's free-spirit of a younger sister, and Miles Teller as the teenager responsible for the death of the Corbett's son. As the Corbetts interact with these and others, the story unfolds in a slightly episodic, but never clunky manner, clipping along at a generally nice speed, and bolstered by Anton Sanko's beautiful and delicate score. At moments, the script puts the actors into such awkward/tense places, that it feels as if they're performing on a high-wire, and the result is electrifying.

But what's best about it, above all, is the honesty in the script, the direction, and in the beautiful performances. The part of the film that hit me hardest - no spoilers - was one that if I were to describe it, would probably make you scratch your head. But in context of the film, it was a strange yet fitting point for the emotions that have been so deeply buried throughout the film to pour out. And best of all, when it seems like there's no way out for the characters or the audience, the film concludes on a perfect final scene that mixes in an appropriate dose of heaviness while still offering a glimmer of hope.

Grade: B+/A-

"Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" trailer

As much as I want to be excited for this, the trailer only makes the feeling of this being a cash-grab more transparent. Penelope Cruz looks fun enough, and it's always good to see Geoffrey Rush and Johnny Depp back together, but the overall feeling is that the franchise has become a little stale and tired. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong when the film arrives on May 20th, but for now, consider me disappointed.

A few points on "How Do You Know?"

• I really hate this type of romantic comedy. The awkwardly put together empty scenes, the obnoxious stalling of the inevitable ending, the painfully dragged out comic relief from a random supporting character, etc...
• This is hands down the worst character of Reese Witherspoon's career. She's unbearable, and her need to vocalize canned motivational/inspirational sayings is painful.
• Paul Rudd is the only thing worth a damn in this movie, and he's the only person who ever generates a decent laugh.
• Jack Nicholson and Owen Wilson are completely wasted.
• The script is as indecisive as Witherspoon's character. It's also equally insufferable.
• This was written by the same man who gave us Broadcast News. That's just tragic.

Grade: D-/F

"The Tourist" - REVIEW

When Florian Henckel Von Donnersmarck's (The Lives of Others) latest project was given an earlier release date, and bumped up from March 2011 to December of 2010, it was taken as a good sign. Though there are exceptions, March isn't generally thought of as a great month for box-office intake, and considering that the film boasted the first ever pairing of Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie, the move seemed like a smart bet. But having seen the film, the studios behind it should have gone with their original release date. With lowered expectations, the film wouldn't be at as much risk. But by throwing it out in the holiday/awards season for everyone to see, the studio now gets to watch its film stand as one of the true misfires of the year.

Despite the pedigree of its director, the trailers only indicated that the film was meant to be zippy, twisty, popcorn fun. After all, when you've got Depp and Jolie together, you're probably aiming to turn a nice profit, and you want them in something accessible. And even though I spend a lot of time obsessing over awards season, I have nothing against "popcorn" movies in the slightest. That is, unless they simply flat-out suck, and unfortunately, that's the case with The Tourist.

From its opening scenes, where we follow Elise (Jolie) as she evades police forces on her way from Paris to Venice, the main word that comes to mind is "flat." Not even for an instant does The Tourist generate an ounce of suspense or fun. And even though the opening is forgivable, as the movie progresses, it only gets worse. When Jolie and Depp meet for the first time (on a train), they barely generate sparks. Rather, they sputter amusingly for a few minutes and then die out completely. So lacking is their chemistry that the film descends into boredom and worse, tedium. When Elise kisses Frank (Depp, obviously), it feels more like a story-telling obligation, rather than a genuine moment of romantic intrigue. They talk about their pasts; he's a math teacher from Wisconsin (Michigan? ah, who cares), she's the girl-friend of a man who's gone missing (and has also stolen nearly $1 billion from a London mobster). And like that kiss, these conversations also feel like obligations. Donnersmarck has talked extensively of his influences, namely 2005's Anthony Zimmer, along with classics like Charade. Yet for all of his talk, Donnersmarck and screenwriters Christopher McQuarry (The Usual Suspects) and Julian Fellowes (Gosford Park) deliver very little.

And that's what's most disappointing about The Tourist: its total lack of ambition. For a movie that runs 1 hr 40 min, it feels as though a rather large segment has gone missing. The film's plot adds very little when it introduces an unexpected (yet still weak) twist about an hour in, and there's next to nothing of value in terms of plot points and details. If you're expecting a caper with the level of mischief of Ocean's 11, you're going to be sorely disappointed; the stakes are almost never raised, and when they are, it's minimal. Adding to the disappointment are the flat action scenes, and the indistinguishable goons that the gangster Shaw sets upon Elise and Frank. And, not to be outdone, the film also throws in a police force (headed by Paul Bettany) filled to the brim with incompetence. It's not as bad as the idiots in Unstoppable, but it's close. The only good thing is that it provides an opportunity for Alessio Boni (from the fantastic The Best of Youth) to show up, even if all he does is look stern. Worst of all, without spoiling anything, is the use of Rufus Sewell's mysterious, name-less character. When his role in the proceedings is finally explained, you'll be left dumbfounded at just how lazy the script becomes. Clearly McQuarry or Fellowes simply wanted to end the damn thing, and they do it horrendously.

As far as our leading man and lady are concerned, there's little to praise or harp on. Depp fares better and brings his trademark quirks and awkwardness to Frank, ensuring that a handful of lines produce a mild chuckle. Jolie looks gorgeous (albeit a bit gaunt) through the whole thing, but her only direction seems to have been "be glamorous and mysterious and...that's it." Everyone else plays their one-note roles with relatively little energy, and neither the lush Venice vistas nor the energetic score by James Newton Howard ever pick up the slack. As a thriller, a romance, and a star-vehicle, The Tourist fails on just about every level. Look for it to do decent-to-strong business opening weekend (although Voyage of the Dawn Treader could crush it), and then drop off the face of the earth shortly afterward. It's not worth the time or the money, or even a rental. It's not the worst movie of the year, but it's certainly not a good one, or even a remotely satisfying one. You'd be better off simply going to Venice and hoping that you'll randomly spot either Jolie or Depp there on vacation; it's likely to satisfy you more than this film ever will.

Grade: C-

What I watched this week: Nov 22-28

As we bring November to a close, I have two more viewings before we move into the last month of 2010. Well, technically one, since the first was seen in theaters and is from the current year. I just didn't feel like having a post titled "what I watched this week" with only one entry, hence my cheating.

Love and Other Drugs (2010) dir. Ed Zwick:

The name Ed Zwick usually calls to mind accessible action flicks with at least one key, often nominated, supporting actor. Notable examples include Glory (Oscar for Denzel Washington), The Last Samurai (nomination for Ken Watanabe), and Blood Diamond (nomination for Djimon Honsou). Which is what makes Zwick's latest effort such a strange departure: an R-rated romantic comedy. Based on Jamie Reidy's novel "Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman," Drugs tells the story of up-and-coming pharmaceutical salesman Jamie Randall (Jake Gyllenhaal). While trying to push one brand of anti-depressant to a doctor (Hank Azaria), Jamie meets patient Maggie Murdock (Anne Hathaway), who has Parkinson's. After a first meeting that ends with Maggie attacking Jamie with her purse, the two begin having a relationship-free relationship, centered only on guilt-free, no-strings-attached sex.

As the film progresses of course, a real relationship begins to take place, and (a few) complications ensue. Yet for much of the film, the story remains as breezy as Jamie and Maggie's early relationship. Despite running roughly 1 hr 50 min, Love and Other Drugs flies by, and the large amount of skin-baring scenes manage to not be repetitive. The sex scenes actually manage to push the relationship, and even the plot forward (if at times just barely), and keeps the film from feeling indulgent or tacky. Gyllenhaal and Hathaway fulfill the promise showed in the much more somber Brokeback Mountain, and radiate chemistry with this significantly lighter fare. Hathaway in particular makes the most out of her character, though this is in part due to it being much meatier. Gyllenhaal is charming, though the scenes that could have yielded stronger, richer work are often simplified, watered down even. And along with the supporting cast, namely Josh Gad as Jamie's brother, the pair get a good number of well-earned laughs.

The story, despite its ending, also manages to avoid a great deal of the tedious mush that so many romantic comedies fall into. Yes, there's the inevitable brief parting-of-ways, but here it isn't contrived. It's a bit too brief and comes too late, but it's not annoying just because it delays the inevitable. Where the film runs into problems, though, is that in its quest to satisfy the obvious need to see Jake and Anne naked, the greater issues are pushed to the side. One of the film's most interesting conflicts, Maggie suffers from a disease that requires her to take a number of medications while Jamie's job is to further turn medicine into a money machine, is barely touched upon, though it is hinted at on the surface. Meanwhile, Oliver Platt is stuck in a wholly thankless role as Jamie's roadside partner; by the film's end, Platt is rendered little more than a plot device. His final scene, in which he makes a revelation to Jamie in a bar, feels weightless as a result, despite the script's attempt to make it indicative of the character's conflict about his job and his family life. Hank Azaria, who has much more screen time, fares worse. The character never changes, and is so static and blank, and this is made worse by the film's attempt to use his role to show the dark side of certain kinds of doctors.

By the time Love breezes through to its conclusion, it feels as though the film's last act should have given the material some more weight. It's satisfying, but just barely so. Hathaway and Gyllenhaal make for an extremely appealing and watchable coupling, but even their considerable charms (and bone structure) can't completely mask the weaknesses in the screenplay.

Grade: B-

Apocalypse Now (1979) dir. Francis Ford Coppola:

When you take a step back, there have actually been quite a few good or great war movies. And yet in reviews, writers always talk about these films as though they're first of their kind. This is one of those genres of storytelling where the devil really is in the details. Plenty of war films are appropriately gritty. Plenty of them pull no punches when showing us the horror and madness of war, free of action movie tropes. And plenty of them feature strong performances. Where they really make a mark for themselves has to be somewhere else, and for Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," that comes in the final 30 minutes.

At a sprawling length of 2 hours and 40 minutes (the Redux clocks in at 3 hours), the original cut is a very strong war movie, filled with great production values, strong acting, and brutally honest depictions of violence. But, coming from the perspective of one who only saw the film for the first time a few days ago, these traits feel routine. They feel expected. And that's what makes the last half hour so dizzyingly brilliant. I had no problems with following Capt. Ben Willard (Martin Sheen) and his team as they navigated up a river to find the renegade Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando). I was never bored, and the pacing (from a team of four editors) always kept my interest. Coppola's execution of the majority of the film is also great, especially the helicopter attack set to Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries," made all the more chilling by the fact that the music is being played by on-screen characters. It's brutal but not exploitative, and it captures so much about the shades of grey that war brings out in us. The sight of a surfboard strapped to the side of a helicopter next to missiles and machine guns is hard to shake, even when its shot so matter-of-fact.

But when Willard and his team finally reach Kurtz, and the native village he has essentially become god of, the film reaches new heights. This is where Apocalypse Now puts its own stamp on the war story. Not that the outsider-becomes-worshipped-by-natives angle hasn't been used before, but here it comes loaded with so much complexity. Issues of what it means to be barbaric, in terms of different cultures and even time periods, along with man's transformation in war, all come to the surface without clashing or boiling over. And when Capt. Willard emerges from the water and mud and opens his eyes, his face covered in mud and paint, and marches toward Col. Kurtz, the film reaches mythic heights of cinematic expression. It's a towering work of construction and execution, and one that manages to distinguish itself without betraying its subject matter, which is no easy task, and just one more reason why Apocalypse Now still deserves to be regarded as a masterpiece.

Grade: A

We have our Oscar hosts

The Associated Press, along with a number of other news outlets, are reporting that at long last, the 83rd Annual Academy Awards have hosts. Following in the vein of 82's Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin hosting duo, James Franco and Anne Hathaway will be our MCs. Honestly, the choice perplexes me a little. Baldwin and Martin (the latter especially) are proven comedic talents, with Martin being a former host. And Hugh Jackman, host of the 81st ceremony, made sense because of his status as a triple threat: acting, singing, and dancing (and those previous gigs hosting the Tony's couldn't have hurt). Out of the two, Hathaway certainly makes more sense; she showed off some serious singing/performing skills in Jackman's opening number. But Franco? Um...where exactly did that come from? I'm not saying that he's a bad choice, far from it. It's just a question of why? Why would you pick a host who is currently a front-runner for one of your acting prizes? Granted, Hugh Jackman managed to pick up a Tony when he was host, but he's an exception. Somehow, Hathaway and Franco seems like a much bigger gamble than Martin and Baldwin. On the flip side, it could pay off, and the two could have great chemistry. And, now that I think about it, this certainly helps the Academy seem more friendly towards younger movie-goers, which AMPAS has been trying to accomplish for years now.