A film about men who hate women, among other things…

The H-Bomb: Disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvyst (Michael Nyqvyst) has just been convicted of libel and steps down from the magazine he created, Millennium. But before he has time to stew over his losses, he is hired by Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taube), an elderly business man who‘s a member of the wealthy and powerful Vanger family, to investigate the disappearance of his niece, Harriet, who vanished some four decades ago and is believed to have been murdered.

At first Blomkvyst seems to be getting absolutely nowhere in his investigation, but out of the blue he is helped by a computer hacker named Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace), an emo-ish goth chick who has some… er… issues of her own, to put it kindly. Lisbeth ends up joining Blomkvyst’s investigation and the two strike up an unusual relationship while digging into the mystery, discovering a link to Harriet’s disappearance and the murders of other young women, and uncovering some very dark secrets about the Vanger brood.

Okay, where to start, where to start. “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a Swedish import that is the first part of the “Millennium” trilogy, which is based on a series of books that is insanely popular in Europe. I’ve been reading the hype and praise for this for a good long while, with reviewers giving it four and five star ratings and calling it things like “Brilliant!”, “Amazing!”, and “A Mind Bending Thriller!” I was actually really looking forward to this one… well, you know how too much praise can be a bad thing?

When I finished watching this for the first time (notice I say first time), my reaction was simply “Meh. That‘s it?” I mean, can we say over-hyped?! Don’t get me wrong, I thought it was a perfectly decent film, but I wasn‘t amazed or blown away. I certainly didn’t think it was any kind of a masterpiece, and I felt it had a lot of problems. Mainly, on first viewing, I found it to be very unfocused, where it kept going off on tangents that just seemed kind of pointless to me. Lisbeth being jumped in the subway by a pack of young hooligans, flashbacks to her as a child setting a car on fire, and an entire first act subplot about her being sexually exploited by her social guardian (Swedish version of a parole officer, I guess). These, amongst other things, seemed extraneous and distracted from the central murder mystery.

The mystery of the missing, dead girl was very intriguing, and that aspect of the film kept me completely immersed. I also thought the performances by both the leads were superb, and the chemistry between them was quite compelling. The film is also strikingly well directed (by All Niels Arden) in places… but goddamn, there just seemed to be so much fat in the movie – things that seemed irrelevant to the main plot that made it all seem so unnecessarily drawn out, that it really just muted the impact of the entire picture for me.

On top of all that, this movie also has enough false endings to give the third “Lord of the Rings” film a run for its money. At some point, during the fifteen minutes or so, I was literally chanting at my TV “End! End! End! End!!!!” Then it FINALLY ended… thank Christ for small favors.

Now, that was how I reacted the first time I saw the film. I did give it a second go, and while I still find it bizarrely over-rated by the uber-hip, we-love-all-things-foreign latte slurping cinephiles, something did strike me on the second viewing. Bear in mind, I have not read the books or seen the later films, so I’m simply venturing a guess, but it occurred to me that this is the first part of a trilogy, so many of the elements that seemed out of place and gratuitous to me the first time around will probably be of greater significance in the sequels, as the characters are developed further, particularly Lisbeth (like why she’s as royally fucked up as she is). So that considered, I was more forgiving of those elements on my second viewing and enjoyed the film considerably more.

Again, though, I still don’t think this is the modern classic that many proclaim it to be. There are still pacing issues, the movie is still too long, and there are many, many scenes of characters looking at old photos, newspaper stories, and doing online research, which I’m sure work fine in the book, but in the film, they’re not very cinematic nor exciting to watch. Another issue is that there are so many characters and names to remember that unless you’re paying the strictest attention, you could lose track of who’s who and who’s what to who very quickly. This is definitely not a “check your brain at the door” type of film.

After all is said and done, I did like this movie, despite my criticisms. It’s a sophisticated, well crafted, ambitious film with very richly developed characters and the performances are top notch. It, as I’m sure you’ve heard, is being remade in the U.S. with David Fincher directing and Daniel Craig starring, and even though I loathe this remake trend, I must confess that I am interested in seeing what they do with this story. I do recommend it overall, but I must warn you to take the hype with a grain of salt.

Charlie St. Cloud (Zac Efron) has a promising future. He’s a skilled sailor and ready to attend Stanford. He has a younger brother, Sam (Charlie Tahan), who looks up to him and a mother (Kim Basinger) who works hard to support her family. All that changes after a tragic accident leaves his brother dead and Charlie overcome with grief.

On his way to an after-graduation party, Charlie and Sam are in a car accident. In the ambulance on the way to the hospital, Charlie flat lines, but the paramedic working on him, Florio (Ray Liotta) doesn’t give up, and Charlie is given a second chance and survives.

Fast forward five years, and Charlie is a caretaker who lives in a cemetery and takes care of the grounds. This involves cleaning duck poop off the headstones, chasing away the ducks from the grounds, and taking care of the plots. He never made it to Stanford, he hasn’t sailed in five years, and he’s pretty much regarded as the town crazy. Oh and every night, he plays catch with his dead brother Sam.

When a classmate from high school, Tess (Amanda Crew) is missing at sea, Charlie realizes why he was given a second chance and joins the search to find his missing classmate. I can’t really reveal any more about this storyline, as it would give too much away.

Charlie cried a lot in this movie. A lot. However, it was truly part of the story, unlike a certain vampire series where the lead male character cries a lot. Anyway, Efron has come a long way from the “High School Musical” series, and he showed it in this movie.

This is a straight-up drama. Don’t go see it expecting to laugh. Do expect to cry (possibly). Slightly reminiscent of “The Sixth Sense” (minus the thriller factor), “Charlie St. Cloud” is a good story with fine acting and overall a decent film.

“It’s halothane.”

Swift shot:  A Swedish vampire film, complete with awkward attire, dated dialog and a touch of the surreal.  If you are sick of the melodramatic crap America is forcing you to endure – romantic, gift-wrapped vampires – add this to your Netflix instant-play and grab some Absolut, you’ll need it.  Lina Leandersson portrays the wretched creature in a commanding on-screen performance that all aspiring actresses should follow.  Her character, Eli, simply . . . IS – and this little Swedish actress will terrify you with her pragmatic delivery.  At times, you’ll forget she is just wearing a mask for your entertainment.  It’s one of those roles you are pretty sure still stares back at her in the mirror long after director Tomas Alfredson called a wrap.

“Låt den Rätte Komma In” is based on a 2004 novel written by John Ajvide Lindqvist of Sweden.  The novel gained international attention and was finally realized as a film in 2008.  I saw some screen captures of this film via a Facebook acquaintance and decided it deserved a screening, despite the lame title.  Glad I opted in on this one, because it didn’t disappoint . . . mostly.

Immediately, I was drawn to the almost albino teen, Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) who essentially reminded me a lot of myself at that age . . . brooding and twisted. Living with his mother most of the time and seeing his father occasionally, Oskar lives in the periphery of life.  He has a voyeuristic nature and is a curious spectator to his surroundings.  Oskar is constantly bullied at school by a group of kids not much bigger than him and not much different than him ultimately.

But with one interesting utterance “Squeal like a pig” Oskar attracts a spectre, Eli.  From her first line, she makes it clear that she can’t be friends with Oskar, to which Oskar replies, “What makes you think I want to be friends with you?”  Perhaps it was this small act of defiance that ultimately draws Eli to Oskar – or maybe there is a more sinister desire behind her attraction.  To the outside world, she is all of twelve years old, but inside she is an ancient force, a monster in every sense of the word.  The creature your grandparents warned you about in the woods or the creep up your spine when you think you are alone in some desolate place.

Some of the acting by supporting cast really sucked, even with the subtitles, I can tell a forced delivery when I see and hear it.  The townspeople, notably failed to impress me and cost this one a higher rating – calling you out Peter Carlberg and Ika Nord.  The special effects will underwhelm most American audiences, but it’s clear director Alfredson wanted a subtle, believable approach to the super-natural.  And, really, American audiences are spoiled with the stuff we see nowadays – it was refreshing to see toned down special effects, which turned out to be the creepiest scenes anyway.  I already see the American version, “Let Me In” is going with a more fantastic approach, shame really.

Overall, this film will crawl up your spine and force you to think, is it love that drives Eli, or is it sinister survival.  If nothing else, this film will get you talking with all your horror-film loving friends about what they took from it.  And, oh, be warned, there is some very inappropriate content towards the end that you will NEVER find in an American film.  Don’t say you haven’t been prepared.  Watch this one, then let me hear your comments, was it love or something else?

***Click here for more images***

“Ramona and Beezus” is based on the book series by Beverly Cleary.  I know I read these books when I was in elementary school, but I don’t really remember them much.  I do remember that Ramona was a rambunctious little girl with a very active imagination.

Ramona Quimby (Joey King) is a creative little girl, who has an older sister Beatrice (Selena Gomez).  (When Ramona was small, she couldn’t say Beatrice’s name, so she called her Beezus, which stuck as her nickname.)  Ramona and Beezus also have a baby sister, Roberta (can you tell by the character’s names that these books were written in the 50s and 60s??).  Ramona, Beezus, and Roberta live in Washington with their parents Robert (John Corbett) and Dorothy (Bridget Moynahan).  Also part of the family is Aunt Bea (Ginnifer Goodwin), whose high-school boyfriend Hobart (Josh Duhamel) is back in town and wants to get back together with Bea.

Everything is peachy keen in the Quimby house, until Mr. Quimby loses his job and the family faces the possibility of losing their home, forcing them to move to another town.  Ramona comes up with some fantastic yet harebrained ideas to try to save their house, including selling delicious lemonade, offering delicious car washes (that of course, ends in disaster), and auditioning for a commercial.

Even though she means well, Ramona is always in trouble in school.  Mrs. Meacham (Sandra Oh) is her exasperated teacher who has to deal with Ramona and her far-fetched ideas.  I’ve got to give Ramona credit, she tries really hard!

What I liked: when Ramona would imagine fantastic things in her mind, we the viewers saw them on the movie screen.  I thought that was a nice visual touch.  The story flowed well, and I have no complaints about the dialogue or the acting.

What I didn’t like:  overall, the movie was kind of hokey, but that’s to be expected.  In this day and age, it was kind of unusual but nice to see a nuclear family doing family things with their neighbors!!  Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with a happy ending, is there??

Warning:  there was one sad part.  Parents may have to explain the concept of “pet heaven” to their children after watching this movie.  I thought that part of the movie was handled well though.  The girls dealt with it and accepted it.

I thought for the lead role, Joey King’s performance was more than decent.  A few scenes were just so-so but overall she gave a pretty strong performance.  I think she has potential.  I enjoyed the interaction between the sisters.  I think both actresses performed those scenes well.

“Ramona and Beezus” isn’t the greatest flick ever, but it certainly isn’t the worst.  Don’t go to the theatre expecting much and you will enjoy it for what it is.

The H-Bomb: Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an Extractor, someone who goes inside people’s dreams in order to steal their secrets and ideas. Naturally, his most frequent clients are shady corporate types looking to commit various kinds of industrial espionage. After his latest job gets bungled, Cobb is commissioned by a Japanese business man, Saito (Ken Watanabe) to perform an Inception. What is an inception? It’s the opposite of an extraction, of course. Instead of stealing someone’s idea, it’s the act of planting an idea into someone’s mind through a dream.

Most in Cobb’s line of work believe that inceptions are impossible, but not Cobb. Why? Because Cobb has performed one before. That’s just one of the many dark secrets of Cobb’s past that are buried inside his mind and his dreams. Another being a mysterious Brunette (Marion Cotillard) who constantly turns up in Cobb’s extractions as a threatening force. Who is she, and what is she to Cobb? Wait… I’m getting ahead of myself here.

The other members of Cobb’s extraction crew include Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), his icy right hand man, Eames (Tom Hardy), his forger- someone who can disguise himself to look like other people in a dream- and Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect who designs the inside world of the dreams and the latest addition to Cobb’s crew. It’s during her recruitment that Cobb explains to her (and us) the rules of the dream world. First, never design a place in a dream based on your own memories, it will make it harder to establish what’s real and what isn’t. Second, if you die in a dream, you will simply wake up, but if you die when under sedation, you will sleep into an even deeper dream state from which you may never wake. Third, the background characters in a dream are the subconscious projections of the person having the dream, and if they find out there are outsiders inside the dream, they will attack and kill them.

Now, for the sake of not giving away spoilers, I won’t delve any further into the specific plot of the film. I’m also going to avoid any kind fancy critic talk and just say straight up, I fucking loved this movie! In this dire age of filmdom where it seems everything is either a remake, or a sequel, or a sequel of a remake, or a remake of a sequel, it is unspeakably refreshing to see a movie bursting at the seams with this kind of intelligence and imagination. It’s one of those films where I felt exhausted at the end of it… but in a good way.

Much like with his epic “The Dark Knight” (which is the BEST comic book film ever made, I don’t give a fuck what the being-contrary-to-sound-hip naysayers say), writer/director Christopher Nolan has cooked up another complex, cerebral film that is of course embraced by critics, and that is also palatable and exciting enough for typical moviegoers to enjoy. He manages to match the thrilling spectacle of both of his Batman films, and create a mindfuck that equals the intrigue of his breakout film, “Memento”. In my oh-so-humble view, I think he is one of the single most talented, intelligent filmmakers working today, and he could be the next Spielberg in how he makes movies that have both brains and Box Office muscle.

An interesting thing I noticed was how Nolan took two themes from his previous films and reversed them. “Memento” was about a man with a very rare form of amnesia, and in this film, the protagonist has memories that could potentially harm and destroy him. “Insomnia” was about a cop with said sleep disorder, while this film is about characters who, one could argue, sleep too much. Just something that occurred to me on the drive home from the theater.

If there’s one area that Nolan has truly grown as a visual director, it would be the action. He has finally learned how to shoot action scenes in a way that doesn’t just rely on quick cutting and shaky cam, though there was a notable improvement between “Batman Begins“ and “The Dark Knight“. The gunfights and chases are thrillingly shot, and there’s a sequence in a hotel hallway that I thought was truly fantastic. There’s also a scene set on a snowy slope that may conjure up fond memories of the old school James Bond films for some viewers.

Moving on to the performances, DiCaprio is terrific in this movie. He suffered the stigma of being a pretty boy after “Titanic”, but he has always been a gifted actor, and I would put this up there with “The Departed” as being one of my favorite performances of his. He plays a very complex, conflicted character with a painful past, who we learn more and more about as the movie progresses, and he hits every note just right. I won’t go out on a limb like I did with Sandra Bullock and say that he will win the Oscar for this, but I think he’ll certainly be nominated.

Nolan not only gave Leo a great character to chew on, but he’s also loaded the film with some top notch thespians who have emerged in recent years. Gordon-Levitt kills it as Cobb’s super cool number two. He actually makes a more convincing bad-ass than I thought he would. Page is very good in her sort of audience surrogate role, once again giving us her geeky, girl next door charm. Cillian Murphy, who plays the target of the inception, is given a number of great moments to shine, and he does, in spades. Watanabe and Cotillard I had trouble understanding in places, because of their accents, but they were both quite good as well.

Now on to my minor quibbles, which are indeed very minor, the first of which being the movie’s length. It’s very well paced, and there’s more than enough happening to hold interest throughout, but it is two and a half hours long, and towards the end, I was starting to feel its length. Again, it didn’t really hinder my enjoyment of the film, but it could have been tightened just a little. Another slight grievance is that, as stated, it’s a very complex film. A very complex film with a complex plot set in a world with very complex rules, almost too complex for it’s own good. If you don’t catch every single piece of information thrown your way, you could find yourself getting lost completely. Even if you do catch it all, you could find your brain getting twisted into a knot just trying to keep track and keep up with it all.

Again, these are very minor. At the end of the day, what we have with “Inception” is something that only pops up on the rarest of occasions, a popcorn movie with a brain. There are points where this will remind people of “The Matrix”, but this is truly its own film, and a far better one, in my view, at least. This is one that I definitely intend to go see again, and I can’t recommend it enough. If you’ve had enough of vampire-werewolf soap operas and talking toys, then I highly urge you to go check this one out.

Magic is science!

***Yen Sid says, click here!***

Read our youngest writer, Taylor’s review – here!

Swift Shot:  Based incredibly loosely on Goethe’s 1797 ballad, Der Zauberlehrling, “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” will keep you entertained throughout its run time.  Though the story-line differs incredibly, and some peons will argue, in their puerile voices, “But it wasn’t REALLY the SORCERER’S APPRENTICE.”  True, it was better!!  Granted, it was all fluff and fantastic cinematography, with an incredibly unbelievable plot, but if you want to enjoy a film this summer, you can’t go wrong.  Or, listen to the other stuffy critics who still shill their mindless crap via something called a “newspaper”.  I am a movie lover, and I loved this movie!!

The saga of three powerful sorcerers unfolds in Britain, 740 AD, as a power vacuum looms when the legendary Merlin finally meets his demise at the hands of the vile Morgana.  As the narrator points out, Merlin entrusted his vast knowledge of sorcery to three pupils – he should have trusted two.  Merlin is ultimately betrayed by Maxim Horvath (Alfred Molina), and a fight for control of the entire planet ensues.  Balthazar and his dedicated lover, Veronica (Monica Bellucci) manage to subdue Morgana in a cascading doll known as the Grimhold.  But, to trap her, Veronica has to join her.

Before Merlin is betrayed, he tells his pupils of a student that will be born, the Prime Merlinian, who can finally defeat the wretched Morgana and her dark followers.  To this end, he grants his pupils immortality, of course, the old buzzard never tells them it will take a century for the Prime Merlinian to appear.

Balthazar finally finds him, tucked away in the obscurity of our modern world, in Manhattan.  Enter, the apprentice, the incredibly reluctant apprentice – I might add – Dave Stutler (Jay Baruchel), whose name alone conjures images of a nebbish dork destined for not much.  Still, the Prime Merlinian, he is, and Balthazar recruits him through relentless pragmatism to help defeat Horvath – of course, Dave had no small part in releasing Horvath – who was also trapped in the Grimhold . . . along with some other nefarious Morganians.  (One of these Morganians is ripped from a modern classic – I won’t say who here.  But, I will say, it brought a twisted grin to my mind).

The reluctant apprentice (come to think of it, that would have been a better title) is a physics student at NYU trying to win the affection of the beautiful “one who floated away” Becky Barnes (Teresa Palmer). The alliteration with her name made me think Stan Lee was somehow involved in creating her character.  Becky was pivotal to the plot, and I really enjoyed watching her on screen, plus, it was a nice nod to all the geeks out there who let their harts get away.

This film was exactly as labeled, an epic, comedy, action film.  Ok, maybe the epic part was a bit much, because it was a great film, but epic, it fell just shy of epic.  The acting was solid, the comedy was perfect, little nods here and there to geeks of the universe were handled in a way that allows the nerd to develop into a somewhat believable hero.

The special effects, well, what can I say, they were solid, but kudos to the whole crew for making that dragon scene in Chinatown so much fun to watch.  Now that scene . . . was EPIC.  Still, a scene does not a film make.

Nicolas Cage brings it as Balthazar, the thousand year old master pupil of Merlin, seeking out Merlin’s heir.  Cage has been accused, yes, by me, of phoning in performances to collect a paycheck, but he really must have loved the original Fantasia, because he did the old man, Walt “Yen Sid” proud!  His character is fun to watch on screen.

Magic is used a lot in the film, and while we are led to believe most people are too dimwitted to catch on that objects are catching on fire or moving about this way and that, it doesn’t really detract from the overall film, in fact, mere mortal gumption comes in handy a few times.  So, I was happy to see that with all the fantastic magic being used, human ingenuity shared a part with the super-natural, in fact, science and magic are not only able to co-exist, you wonder how many weak-minded fools out there still think magic isn’t “real”.  After this film, you might not be converted, but you won’t be disappointed.

I liked how quickly the bad guy adapted to his new world, using modern items in a very lethal sense – you won’t look at that Far Side desk calendar the same way after this film.

What didn’t I like?  I can’t really tell you here without giving away too much.  The ending left a stale taste in my mouth, and you can see most things in the film coming from a mile away.  The villains were inept, because they spent too much time being ostentatious .  You wait this long to attain something, obtain it, don’t cater to the invisible audience so much.  Still, they were lethal and interesting . . . at times.  To get more than four stars though, I want my villains to be more villainous and less showy.

Overall, this is one of those that you gotta see at the box office, waiting for DVD will cheapen the efforts put into this fun film.  I mean, it’s Disney at its best.

Look out superheroes, the villains are taking center stage.

***More despicable pictures, here***

Gru, voiced by Steve Carell with a very weird, and sometimes difficult to understand Slavic accent, prides himself on being the world’s most villainous thief along with a resident evil scientist, Dr. Nefario (Russell Brand) and his myriads of minions. That is, until a little healthy competition comes along. When a new rival villain, Vector (Jason Segel) steals the Great Pyramid of Giza, hides it in his backyard, and replaces it with an inflatable replica, Gru realizes he must do something even more spectacular and plots to steal the moon.

After funding for his evil scheme is denied by the Bank of Evil (“formerly Lehman Brothers”, the movie’s best laugh) due to Gru’s history of heists which have been more costly than financially rewarding, Gru sets off to steal the Shrink Ray prototype, not yet perfected, from his new nemesis in order to shrink the moon and bring it back to earth . . .  bringing the world to its knees.

Unfortunately, penetrating Vector’s laboratory proves to be impossible, until he observes Vector purchasing Miss Hattie’s cookies from three orphans, Margo (Miranda Cosgrove), Edith (Dana Gaier), and Agnes (Elsie Fisher) who are peddled out by the Home for Girls’ Miss Hattie (Kristen Wiig) to sell cookies door to door. Gru seizes the opportunity to gain entry to Vector’s lab through their cookies and adopts the adorable trio.

Gru has little interest in the girls, but after some time the children help Gru discover his sensitive side through their demands for him to read bedtime stories, and flashbacks to his childhood reveal Gru’s mommy issues. Gru’s scheming and crazy plans are really just his attempts to make his mother proud of him. (how original)

This transformation story is funny, with one gag after another. The yellow pill-shaped minions provide most of the comic relief similar to the penguins in Madagascar. So many elements of the movie are reminiscent of Up, The Incredibles, Monsters vs. Aliens, and other recent films, making Despicable Me seem far less inventive than the story really is.  Despicable Me is tolerable, hardly the children’s spy thriller it could have been, and not as funny as the previews might suggest, but overall it would suit if you were looking for a few (and I do mean few) laughs on a rainy day at the theater, and of course you’ve already seen Toy Story 3.

Passion without pretense.

***Some sexy, choice images await you here***

“Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky” portrays an affair between two of the most recognizable, egocentric geniuses of the 20th century. They both revolutionized their industries: Chanel in fashion and Stravinsky in music. They were also both under the harsh lens of public scrutiny, who didn’t always understand what these two artists offered.

The film commences with a recreation of the 1913 Parisian opening of Stravinsky’s “The Rite of Spring.” In it, the bourgeoisie are introduced to his jarring and uncomfortable tune that appears to spit in the face of everything they’re used to (“Swan Lake” and similar engagements). They boo, hiss, and start fights. The cops are called in. Suddenly, an elegant night at the ballet feels more like a soccer riot. All of it gives viewers some insight into how Stravinsky’s music first influenced the world and the type of people it attracted (the contemplative and modern Coco Chanel, for one).

Seven years pass, and Europe is licking its wounds after World War I. Coco Chanel is mourning the loss of her lover and financier, Boy Capel, and Igor Stravinsky, his wife Katherine, and their children have been exiled from Russia. Chanel invites them to stay at her Chateau in France, to which the composer agrees. And, so, we have the perfect arrangement for a tense and sexual ménage.

Anna Mouglalis and Mads Mikkelsen portray Chanel and Stravinsky, respectfully, in a way that isn’t commonly seen on screen. They flaunt the aspects of their characters’ personalities that audiences generally would like to ignore – Egoism, arrogance, and something of a god complex – in favor of creative brilliance. In one scene, Katherine asks Chanel if she ever feels guilty, to which the designer simply responds, “No.”

The relationship between these two characters is an interesting one because it is so simple. These two people are attracted to the creative power they both wield, and this becomes cause for a physical relationship that suggests passion, though never reaches a peak amounting to more than lust. Essentially, it’s all just fucking, pure and simple.

It would almost be too much to handle if it weren’t for Katherine, who is a passive force in a household of strong wills. The affair is pretty much out in the open, and Katherine knows about it from the beginning. She also knows that there is no love at work, and that her husband has been more creatively active than ever before. She allows it to happen, to a point, and is able to ground the two titular characters before they float away on their high horses.

While the affair in question falls short of its emotional mark, though it successfully says what the director wants, the film flourishes as a feast for the eyes. Chanel’s home is decorated in a way that will make design nuts go gooey, and it couldn’t have been any other way. Her favorite room, composed mainly in black and white, is an homage to her sense of style and a representation of the cold and composed aura she walks around with. The costuming, too, is perfect. Mouglalis, also a model for the current Chanel line, wears old gowns from the company that you simply can’t look away from. She’s gorgeous and when she speaks, her deep, sultry voice demands attention.

This film is one that should be watched with some prior knowledge of the characters, because director Jan Kounen leaves their pasts mysterious. All that is really on display here is their affair and the creative endeavors they were both able to pursue because of it. When boiled down to its roots, it’s a very simple film; one that has more power than you might expect, but less than its potential offered.

***More bizarre images here***

The summer blockbuster season is in full gear and America can’t seem to get enough of vampires, animated toys, and their favorite fallen hero, M. Night Shyamalan. For better or worse, this familiar fodder is likely to steal attention away from independent and foreign films that deserve their fare share of it. Micmacs, for one, is a French import that is captivating, sweet, and funny in a way that matches few films in the box office today.

It begins with tragedy. A stray bullet finds its way into Bazil’s (Danny Boon) skull. He survives, but is left knowing that the un-removed piece of lead may induce instant death somewhere down the line. Without a job or anyplace to go, Bazil roams the streets of Paris until he ends up in an enclave of freaks – including a human calculator and a contortionist – who live in a cave in a salvage yard.

The film quickly becomes one of the whimsical brainchilds director Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amelie, Delicatessen) is known for. Bazil finds two monolithic structures, each housing one of two weapons manufacturers he has an unwavering hatred for. One built a mine that killed his father. The other forged the bullet that lies in his fractured head. With the help of his new friends, he hatches a complex scheme for revenge that is fast-moving and beautiful as it unfolds, even though it’s likely too intricate for its own good.

When watching a film by Jeunet, you must completely suspend disbelief. Micmacs is a fantasy film, even though there are no elements typical of the genre. It takes place in the real world, and then it doesn’t. Often, the characters are too smart for their own good. More than often, they’re heads are so far in the clouds that the story and setting can only work if they reflect that. Thankfully, that’s exactly what happens.

With the help of cinematographer Tetsuo Nagata (Splice, Paris, je t’aime), Jeunet delivers a visual treat along with his hefty dose of magical realism. If the plot seems like too much to swallow, rest assured that Micmacs will, at least visually, leave a lasting impression.

The film is also aided by a slew of stellar performances. Micmacs has a solid cast of familiar faces (Jeunet likes to work with a team of actors throughout his films) who embody the strange ensemble perfectly. Even though some of the characters seem very two-dimensional, they work in this world that doesn’t always make sense.

Instead of running to wait in line for Airbender this weekend, which is already a huge letdown, give in to something different. Micmacs won’t rock your world, inspire you to change yourself, or teach you something new. It will, however, lift you out of your comfort zone and drop you someplace fantastic. Though admittedly pointless on many levels, there is enough fun to be had for you to forget that. Plus, being pointless is, in a way, the point of it all.

Fans Bent Out of Shape

***Whether you are a loyal fan or not, you gotta see more images, click here***

The Last Airbender by M. Night Shyamalan is a HIT if you are one of the few who never saw the cartoon it was based on. As a nonviewer of the series myself, I didn’t see anything wrong with the film. The fans on the other hand were so upset by the film that when the ending credits came about and one expected the usual applause of a film well done, I heard a minor uproar. Accompanying boo’s being delivered gratuitously, there was a “What the hell was that?” and my personal favorite “…I don’t remember Ang being such a vagina.” So since the views were so different, I thought I would try something different this time around.

Anime Fan

Are you serious M Night? He wants us to accept this as an adaptation to the Avatar cartoon series? How does the director not even get the names right? “Ang” somehow becomes pronounced “Ung” and “Sokka” pronounced “Sew-ka”.  That “twist” M Night is famous for just happened to be the fact he fucking changed the ending of the story. Stupid move.

Non-Anime Viewer

I think M Night’s film was almost flawless. The acting was phenomenal and chemistry on the screen is not something you see every day. The Last Airbender is loaded with slap-stick comedy that both children and adults would find entertaining. The bending in the films was out of this world! “Bending” is the ability or power to control the elements using your flow of chi and choreographed martial arts moves to physically control the elements to pretty much do your bidding. Benders can fling formed clumps or balls of the earth, fire, air, or water at their opponents. It appears to be that air, water, fire, and earth bending each has their martial arts style representative of the given element. The bending and the fights is what made the film such a blast for me. Even Sokka, who does not have the ability, kicked serious butt with his boomerang sword thing.

Anime Fan

No don’t get me wrong, the 3D graphics rocked my fucking socks off and the elemental effects were so real it was hard to remember that it was actually just 3D and not some alien holographic technology. The ending is really what killed it for me. If you saw the shows “Book One: Water” you would be flabbergasted as to why the hell you sat through what I call “this garbage.”

Non Anime Fan

Well being that it was indeed based on a cartoon, and keep in mind, M Night changed things up to keep it more realistic, he said so himself as did Jackson Rathbone.

Anime Fan

Pah-hahaha. Why? M Night should have stuck to the show’s details if he was making an adaptation of it! I mean, story-wise the movie was pretty accurate. Some small things that bothered me just didn’t let me love the movie. In the show, the Fire Nation is feared and powerful not because they are everywhere like ants, but because they are the only types for “benders” that can summon fire out of their ass (not literally) and use it at will. I sincerely don’t think the movie would have lost any of its realism by adding this key detail at all. Trying to keep it real, he changed the schematics of the movie. It takes a special kind of genius to ruin something with such a firm outline. I was not asking for a replica of the show, but wow. I’ll just say leave it to M Night to add what one could call a “twist” to something set in stone. You are right about the acting though. Most of the characters not only looked their cartoon counterparts, but the actors almost possess their voices. Sokka and Katara’s relationship is a great parallel to the cartoon and everything was present. Another thing I don’t really feel right about was the fact that he made the different nations completely different races. I am not sure what he was playing at there; it sort of threw me off.

Non Anime Fan

Well that’s good then. Everything seems to be structurally consistent with the show except for these few major details. I observed the greatest upset more towards the end of the movie. Even never having seen the series, the ending was pretty anticlimactic . . . yet consistent with Ang’s (or Ung’s) character. For anyone who doesn’t know, “Book One: Water”, is the first in a three seasons series, suggesting this film is the first of a trilogy! I can’t wait for it. The “fans” may not be pleased but I sure as hell was.

Anime Fan

I am not watching that shit again.