(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

You almost never see God, but the devil makes his presence known . . . daily

Swift shot: The Vatican does not authorize the recording of any exorcisms, this was the film’s disclaimer, and at my screening they actually had priests handing out the Prayer of Saint Christopher on little slips of paper.  Right before the film started, those same priests reminded us that while the devil is real, we have free will.  Nice touch, and it added a little bit of creepy atmosphere to the whole experience.  I wasn’t scared while watching this film; it played out as a mockumentary, and it was handled well, albeit a tad predictable in places, but I would see it again if someone else paid or once it is on cable.  Running just under 91 minutes, it had a great knack of keeping my attention the entire time and never became boring.

It’s 1989, South Hartford, Connecticut, and we are led on a police CSI type video walk-through of a crime scene of pure graphic, gory horror.  In what looks like a quaint, normal, suburb home, we see up close and personal the cadavers strewn about the house . . . all with one thing immediately in common, they are members of the clergy, or more to the point, were.  The classic film-footage was excellent, I think they may have actually borrowed some from an actual multiple slaying crime from that area and time.  It had the right amount of grain to make me think I was back in 1989.  As we see the footage, the police are escorting a frail looking house-mother into the back of a police cruiser, it’s Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley).

Now it is 2009, twenty years later, and we meet Isabella Rossi (Fernanda Andrade), who lived her life thinking her mother was deranged, but just three days before her father dies, he tells her why her mother was moved from the states to Rome, Italy.  Turns out when her mother killed all those people of the cloth, they were conducting an exorcism on Maria.  Now a young woman, Isabella is driven to find out the truth about her mother and enlists the help of a film-maker to foot the bill and capture the results of her endeavors on camera.  She hasn’t seen her mother since she was eight years old, probably just as well.

To add some substance to the documentary, film-maker, Michael (Ionut Grama) manages to get his camera in some pretty restricted areas.  Isabella and he are invited to film a session at the Vatican School for Exorcism, which was also featured in ”The Rite”.   They are permitted film access to the Centrino Hospital in Rome that now houses the disturbed Maria Rossi.  But, as her doctor explains, it has been years since her last violent outbreak, because they have a strict no religion and no excitement policy when it comes to Maria.  But, just in case, her outer cell containment area is emblazoned with several crosses.

After the class, Isabella meets two priests that are, in fact, rogue exorcists that are not sanctioned by the Vatican . . . or are they?  Father Ben (Simon Quaterman) is young and ambitious and disagrees with the Vatican’s revision to permitting exorcisms which was released in 1999, essentially it makes it impossible to exorcise anyone, because the signs needed to require an exorcism aren’t typically present until the exorcism is actually happening.  A nice little, Catch-666 if you will permit me.  His fellow rogue is Father David (Evan Helmuth) who wants to help, but he doesn’t want to sacrifice anything real to help people.  Ben wants to save the world from the devil, and Isabella just wants validation that her mom isn’t crazy, because Dissociative Identity Disorder is genetic.  So, if her mom is possessed, she won’t have to worry about being a psycho herself.

The film reminds us that there are four signs needed to declare a bona fide possession: Preternatural strength; aversion to holy relics and symbols; speaking in foreign tongues; and objects moving by themselves while near the victim.   But, while few of us know anyone who has ever been possessed, we all know of a story not too far from home where a seemingly normal person slaughters his/her whole family.  It happens especially during the holy months, so while this film didn’t scare me as I watched it, it reminded me of the real horrors people commit every day that sometimes defy science and nature.  I was reminded of the chilling Yates case, where the Texas mother violently drowned all of her children because “God told her to do it”.  Who needs Hollywood to scare you, whether the devil is real or not, people can be manipulated by all manner of forces, light and dark.  Say your prayers tonight that you don’t start hearing little voices telling you to get creative.  If you want real terror, just turn on the news for more than twenty minutes . . . you will find the devil.

The film was worth the trip, gas and ticket price, but I think it is better watched at home with some open-minded friends who scare easily, because ten minutes after the film you can roll your eyes back into your head and start speaking Latin to them . . . all the better if you have mastered climbing the walls like a cockroach.

(1 People gave this 1.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

The lifeless ‘circus’ 

Swift shot: Boring, Boring, Boring, Spy.  I had just one expectation for this film . . . to be less dull and uninspired than “The Good Shepherd”, and it was actually worse!  Everyone knows that US Intelligence is by far more sexy than the stuffy Brits, so I anticipated a lot of pensive thinking and intrigue in this film, but I thought The Good Shepherd’s poor reception by critics, essentially would set the ground work for a more imaginative script.  They blew it!  Of course, without fail, Oldman becomes his character, George Smiley, but I just didn’t know enough about any of the characters, including Smiley, to give a Tinker’s damn about them.  With such an impressive cast, shame on the writers for not giving them much with which to work.

I am no fan of torture, with some exceptions, and especially not when I am the one being tortured!  And, I willingly allowed the film-makers to torture me for over two hours, ok, I will give them about 20 minutes of film-time that didn’t suck and was even brilliant in fact, but when the majority of scenes are free of dialog and driven by sympathetic introspection, not to mention tediously boring, well, that is about how I define torture.

Set in 1972-73, Control (John Hurt) has gained wind of a possible mole within the circus (AKA, the leading echelon of British Secret Intelligence) and the only person on his payroll whom he can trust, Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) is sent to Hungary for a meeting with one of his assets to help identify the villainous traitor.  But, as Control slips off to death, which is handled in such a bizarre, did you catch that fashion, that I almost didn’t catch it, so I am doing you the courtesy of providing that exposition free of charge.  Anyway, Control dies and a new Control assumes the position, and his greatest desire is to bring the Yanks on board to share intelligence.  Apparently, at some point in time, (at least it was implied) the Yanks found British Intelligence suspect and a “leaky ship” so the Americans have been avoiding sharing, well anything significant, with their British friends. 

Control manages to bring his trusted compatriot and former member of the circus, George Smiley into the hunt for the mole, all the while a mysterious figure from the circus’ past, a double-agent, code-named Karla is somehow involved and is believed to be the puppet-master of the mole.  George recruits the stalwart Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) who risks career, and more, to discover if there is a mole within the circus.  Personally, I thought Cumberbatch stole the whole film, because I actually believed he was his character, he and Tom Hardy, as his ‘scalp-hunter’ Ricky Tarr were the most interesting characters in the film.

Mark Strong gives a great performance as Jim Prideaux, but again, I am only guessing what his character is really all about, because the story-tellers leave so much left to the imagination that it becomes downright annoying and even condescending at times.  I understand that the action and violence was used very little to ratchet up the effect when it finally happens, I get that, but just because you don’t want to oversaturate the film with violence and action, doesn’t excuse you from using other tools at your disposal . . . say an amazing cast who could put out some excellent dialog work and build these characters!  Shame, shame, for shame!

A lot of the story-telling is left for you to guess at, which I can appreciate to a point, but when half of the audience is comatose or snoring that says a lot.  I am in favor of using my imagination, and in some cases that is preferred, but not the whole bloody film!  The story was told as if it were a true story and the film-maker was afraid to reveal anything solid about any of the characters for fear of exposing them to the enemy.  Newsflash, we are an audience, we want to be entertained, we want to know about these characters so when anything compelling happens to them we will care.  The only time I excuse that is in a balls-to-the-walls action flick, which this was so incredibly . . . not.

Look, some critics are going to say, it dazzled me with its subtlety, it was so underwhelming that it was overwhelming, to which I say, and THAT is why you are a “critic” and I am not; I am a movie lover.  I did not love this movie, in fact I couldn’t wait to get home and share with my thousands of followers and friends how much I did not like this movie.

At best this is one you should watch alone, at home, when you have some time to dissect it and not be distracted by your friends falling asleep.  It was the most un-thrilling thriller I have ever seen, even less so than “The Good Shepherd”, which is really saying something.  With this award-winning cast: Colin Firth; Gary Oldman; John Hurt; Ciaran Hinds; Mark Strong, and even Tom Hardy, I challenge you to tell me anything significant about their characters after seeing this film.  You can’t, because you never actually learn anything real about them . . . some things are revealed, but nothing of merit.  So, why would you care what happens to any of them, it’s just a story, and a poorly told story at that!

(2 People gave this 4.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

“Everyone has lost something in the war.”

The H-Bomb:  Like many in my generation, I have grown up with the movies of Steven Spielberg.  Be it Indiana Jones or “Jurassic Park”, “E.T.” or “Jaws”, the man has an ability to create pure magic on film in a way that really no one else can.  Or at least he did.  To be perfectly honest, I don’t think this past decade has been Spielberg at his best.  “A.I.: Artificial Intelligence” had interesting aspects, but didn’t really work as a whole.  Ditto for “Minority Report”.  “Catch Me If You Can” went in one ear and out the other.  “The Terminal” I would argue is a genuinely bad movie, as is his remake of “War of the Worlds”.  And don’t even get me started on “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Expletive Deleted”.  For me, the only good film he’s made in the last ten years was “Munich”, which I do feel is a terrific movie that didn’t get anywhere near the recognition it deserved.  But that one aside, I can easily live without anything else he’s done.  Not to mention the man seems to have forgotten how to end a movie, filling them full of false endings and making them run at least a half hour longer than they should.

For all intents and purposes, it looked to me like the bearded one had lost his touch.  That’s why I was so pleasantly surprised by “War Horse”, a film that is harrowing and moving, and sees Spielberg back in fine form.  Based on the novel by Michael Morpurgo,  it tells the story of a down on his luck farmer (Peter Mullan, “Session 9″) who purchases a horse to work in his field just as the first World War is about to begin.  His wife (Emily Watson), thinks that the animal is useless and wants to get rid of it, but his son, Albert (Jeremy Irvine, excellent) immediately takes a liking to the gorgeous young horse and names it Joey.  When it looks as though the horse can’t be trained, Albert prevents his father from giving Joey a buckshot shampoo and sets about training the horse himself, and then defies the odds by doing exactly that.  But before long a storm rolls in and destroys the crops.  Completely broke, and with no way to pay the rent, the farmer is forced to sell Joey to a young British Army Officer, who intends to ride him into battle.

After Albert’s tearful pleas for him not to take the horse, the officer gives him his word that if he can, he will return Joey to him after the war.  But World War I was a particularly messy war in which nothing went according to plan, and over the course of four years, Joey finds himself being shuffled between many different owners and masters, on both sides of the conflict.  Each owner is very different from the last, but they all share one thing in common, they are all able to recognize that this is a very special horse that they have in their care.  Once he is old enough, Albert joins the army and goes off to fight, in hopes that he will be reunited with Joey.

“War Horse” is, a few minor flaws aside, an absolute triumph for Spielberg.  It has all the elements from Spielberg’s best films; it’s touching, if a tad sentimental, emotional, and rousing.  Fantastically crafted with stunning cinematography, it, much like “Saving Private Ryan” did, captures the visual beauty of everything, even something as ugly as war.  It’s theme of Albert’s unbreakable bond with Joey is one that will surely resonate with anyone who has ever owned and cherished a pet.  If there’s one thing Spielberg does better than anyone else, it’s being able to strike an emotional chord in the audience, and that’s very much evident here.

As the title clearly indicates, this is about a horse that goes off to war, so it’s easy to surmise that the horse is placed in jeopardy on a number of occasions.  The most grueling of which being when Joey gets himself “tangled” in the middle of no man’s land.  The sequence is difficult to watch, but plays out in a way that is rewarding and very “Spielbergian.”  It tugs on the heart strings, perhaps a little too deliberately, and if you’re one who is inclined to shed tears, then I recommend bringing tissues.  For the record, I’m not and I didn’t.  Cynics may condemn Spielberg for being emotionally manipulative, but frankly, who gives a rat’s rectum what they think?  For me, it worked, as I’m sure it will for most.

As for complaints, I would say there are times, mainly with character actions and the way certain events unfold, where the story stretched credulity almost too far.  It was never so unbelievable that it was absurd, but it did have me thinking, “Come on, would that really happen?”  Also, there were some interesting characters that I would have liked to have spent a little more time with, like the two German brothers who desert the army, as well as Joey’s German handler on the battlefield.  These were people I felt were a little short changed.  But the film’s biggest flaw, the one that most of Spielberg’s modern film’s suffer from, is that it’s too damn long.  It’s not that it had a series of false endings, but that the first act on the farm, which is kind of dreary, really should have been shortened.

But, these problems are miniscule, as “War Horse” is overall one terrific motion picture.  Joey’s journey is long and trying, but it’s one that is very much worth riding along on.  It’s not the best film I’ve seen this year, but it’s most definitely up there, and it has left me convinced that Spielberg has not lost his touch, after all.

(3 People gave this 3.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

“Next time I seduce the rich guy.”

Swift shot: Mission Improbable is a better title, or maybe Mission Incredible – as in has no credence.  I go into these types of films with a high suspension of disbelief tolerance, but when the very element that MAKES this not just a “spy film” but rather an IMF film is so poorly executed, where even one of the lead characters has the line “it was all dumb luck” – yea, dumb luck is what critics call convenient writing.  If you walk out of the film thinking anything other than “how convenient” – I challenge your level of intellectual imagination.

Whenever I watch a film where I repeat that throughout, in my head, odds are I am not impressed with the story or the writing, and Ghost Protocol is no exception.  Apparently being disavowed agents means squat to Interpol, CIA, Mossad, MI6, anyone who matters, because these jokers were flitting from country to country with nary a care in the world, all whilst being declared the greatest threat to global security since Bin Laden.  They tried to account for everything, but overall it was that dreaded convenient writing rearing its ugly head all too many times.

Still, I didn’t feel like I wasted my money, there was plenty of action and international intrigue with a bit of sex appeal to season the script.  The film was visually superb with even the opening credits offering a glimpse of what was to come. While this was produced by my favorite production studio and the Bad Robot team with many of J. J. Abrams loyal actors used throughout, the whole thing felt flat and contrived, like the whole point in making this film was to allow Tom Cruise a literal platform to scale .  . . this time the world’s tallest building.

I didn’t see MI3, and I can’t even remember much about MI2, but I did enjoy the “original” MI film when it first ran in theaters.  I guess if I had seen MI3 I would know the significance of Ethan Hunt’s wife’s untimely demise.  That seemed to be a pivotal plot point in this film, but I really didn’t care about these characters that much, even with Simon Pegg affording us a few laughs.  Jeremy Renner stood up well in his scenes with Cruise as Chief Analyst Brandt, actually playing the role of film-critic within the film.  I appreciate when film makers incorporate that element, because they are trying to answer their critics, and Brandt’s constant questions were indeed the same ones jiffy popping in my head, minus the butter, of course.

Paula Patton didn’t suck as Agent Jane, and I didn’t really find out much about Pegg’s character, Benji, if he had a back-story, it wasn’t developed at all in the theatrical release. Michael Nyqvist steps into this international cast as the evil genius, as his Millenium role is being played by the current James Bond.  It would all be surreal, if the rest of the film’s incredulity didn’t demand more attention.  In one climactic scene, Hunt is fighting with Nyqvist’s character, Hendricks, who is reported to have an IQ over 190, but they neglected to mention that this scientist also was trained in some form of martial art that Hunt can’t seem to best . . . how convenient!  And, in one of those “mask reveal” moments, they had someone pretending to be someone else that made absolutely no sense . . . period.  See if you catch it.

I am always asked, that’s great Rick, we know how you felt about the film, but what was it about?  Simply put, international genius, nutball, wants to do global damage and only the exposed and disavowed IMF “team” can stop it.  What, like you need anything else?  If you are a fan of the original series, skip this one, if you like your popcorn flicks with lots of fatty butter and want to just enjoy the action, see it!

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

“Out with the old, in with the new.”

The H-Bomb:  George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a 1920’s movie star who is on top of the world.  Each film is a bigger hit than the last, he lives in a beautiful mansion with a cold, money grubbing wife (Penelope Ann Miller), and he’s a darling of the press and public alike.  Life couldn’t get any better for George… and it doesn’t. 

One day, George’s producer Al Zimmer (John Goodman) tells him about a big change that’s coming to cinema: the addition of sound.  George blows the notion of this new kind of picture off completely, thinking that it’s just a passing gimmick and believing that his audience will always be there for him. 

But George soon finds out the hard way just how wrong he is.  “Talkies” are not just a fad, they are here to stay.  It’s no longer just about faces, but about “Words! Words! Words!” as Norma Desmond would contemptuously say.  The truth finally sinks in for George when his latest film opens against a sound picture and flops.  To make matters worse, the star of that talkie is Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), an actress he more or less discovered, who’s star has been on the rise while his has been on the decline.

Now George finds himself completely unemployable in a business that he once had at his beck and call, unable to even pay his loyal chauffeur, Clifton (James Cromwell).  Will he ever find a way to reclaim his former glory?  And what about Peppy, the newly minted start for whom he once had feelings?

An appreciation for silent films and the early age of cinema seems to be a recurring theme as of late.  It certainly was in Martin Scorsese’s fantastic “Hugo”, and it is yet again in writer/director Michel Hazanavcius’s “The Artist”.  However, “The Artist” isn’t merely an homage to silent films… it is a silent film.  A silent film shot in black and white to look like it came straight from that era, with the dialogue being shown on titles against a black screen, but most of the information and emotions being conveyed through exaggerated facial expressions and gestures. 

It’s a silent film about the end of the silent films, when the advent of sound, coupled with the Great Depression, made them obsolete.  But it wasn’t just the technique that went obsolete, many of the actors did, as well, once actually delivering dialogue (and ideally doing it well) became a factor.  George’s story could be the story of any actor who couldn’t adapt to the new ways.  In fact, the theme of adapting to a constantly changing world is a universal one, that could be applied to people from all walks of life, especially in this day and age.

But what makes “The Artist” so good isn’t simply that it has a theme that rings true, it’s also that it’s a love story.  One with many facets, not only about romance, but also about loyalty and second chances.  All that, combined with the cinematic form and technique, along with some knockout performances, make “The Artist” an absolute delight to watch. 

Dujardin and Bejo, with their classic looks and expressive faces, truly look like two actors who stepped right out of the period.  Their chemistry is terrific, as you can almost see the sparks between them, despite the fact that they have no dialogue.  Goodman is terrific, and provides some of the funnier moments as the stereotypical, cigar chomping studio honcho.  Cromwell does great with what little he is given to do, and I loved Miller as the bitchy wife.  Oh, and the dog… the dog is brilliant!  See the film and you’ll see why.

On the downside, the film does have the slight scent of prestigious Oscar Bait to it… a scent that usually makes me gag.  When I sense a film is bucking for an Oscar, it just pisses me off.  However, I had such a good time with “The Artist” that I can’t begrudge it that.  Film aficionados will absolutely treasure it, and general audiences who are willing to give it a shot will enjoy it, too, I think. 

But how many will, since it is a black and white silent film, and that undoubtedly will put off a good number of average moviegoers, who sadly would rather see what Asshead Kutcher is doing this “New Year‘s Eve“.  And that really is a shame, because “The Artist” is an immensely entertaining little yarn, with heart and smarts, that is far more worthy of people’s time and dime than most of the junk floating around out there.  It’s slowly trickling into theaters around the country this awards season, and if it comes to one near you, definitely take a chance on it.

(4 People gave this 4.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

The feel bad movie of Christmas.

The H-Bomb:  Remakes are considered by many to be an ongoing epidemic plaguing Hollywood.  Everyone bitches about them, they’re often sited as proof of how creatively bankrupt the movie industry has become, and overall they’re viewed as nothing more than cynical cash-ins.  Normally, I myself share these sentiments, viewing remakes as pointless, unoriginal, and undeserving of my time or money.  But in the case of David Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”, I can and must make an exception, because it is one remake that not only matches the original, but actually surpasses it.

Of course, this isn’t exactly a remake of the 2009 Swedish film, so much as it’s a new adaptation of the Stieg Larsson novel, which is the first entry in what’s known as the “Millennium Trilogy”.   The action is still set in Sweden, though everyone speaks English this time, and the plot is pretty much the same;  Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is a journalist who steps down from his magazine after being convicted of libel.  Soon after, he’s summoned out to an island owned by the rich and powerful Vanger family, where he is hired by Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to investigate the disappearance of his niece, Harriet, who vanished 40 years ago, and who he believes was murdered by someone in the family.

The Vanger clan is a peculiar one, in which everyone lives in close proximity to each other, yet they never speak.  As Blomkvist conducts his investigation, he comes to find that some of the family members are more cooperative than others, and everyone seems to have something to hide.  Eventually, he finds himself in need of a research assistant, and turns to Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a punk computer hacker with a look and disposition that is somewhat unconventional, to put it mildly.  She’s a girl with a painful past, a frosty demeanor, and her own unique way of dealing with people who cross her, be it a purse snatcher in the subway or her lecherous social guardian.

Reluctantly, Lisbeth agrees to help Blomkvist with the investigation, and as they dig deeper into the mystery of Harriet’s disappearance, they find evidence that she might have been the victim of a serial killer.  Soon, they realize that their lives are in danger, as someone in the Vanger family does not want them to discover the truth about Harriet.  All the while, an unlikely attraction between Blomkvist and Lisbeth starts to develop.

While I did like the Swedish film of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”, I didn’t entirely love it.  I felt it had too many issues to make it a great film; the pacing was off, it was difficult to keep track of all the characters, it was too long, and I just didn’t feel as drawn into the story as I felt I should have been.  This new version rectifies most of these problems.  Right away, from an exhilarating, James Bond-style opening credits sequence, this thing just grabbed me tightly by the nuts and didn’t let go until its final, melancholy moment.  I can’t attest to whether this is more faithful to the novel, as I haven’t read it, but I can say, with certainty, that this new film is the version that I responded to more.  Throw bricks at me if you must, but I just flat out liked this one better.  And no, it has nothing to do with not having to read subtitles (though that certainly didn’t hurt).

Director Fincher and screenwriter Steve Zaillian not only fixed the first film’s imperfections, but actually improved on what that one got right.  The mystery is completely captivating, methodically building tension with Trent Reznor’s and Atticus Ross’ offbeat music score helping to create a feeling of unease throughout.  It moves at a deliberate pace, without ever becoming dull, and makes for a perfect companion piece to Fincher’s under-rated “Zodiac”, which this is, to me, reminiscent of, except with a lot more attitude.  As the two leads, Craig and Mara play off each other well, each giving it as good as they take it, and their chemistry is terrific.  Their rather chilly romance is perfectly believable, despite the age difference, which is brought up.

The film also doesn’t shy away from some of the uglier aspects of its Swedish counterpart, most notably the relationship between Lisbeth and her guardian.  I won’t say exactly what goes down, but things do get nasty, and it is just as potent in this version as it was in the original.  The guy sitting right next to me in the theater became visibly uncomfortable during these scenes, averting his eyes, squirming in his seat, and afterwards saying out loud, “This is too graphic for me.”  It does indeed get pretty rough, and if you’re of the squeamish variety, you may just want to avoid this altogether.  You may also want to pass on this if you’re a cat person, since something very bad happens to a certain feline at one point.

Much like Fincher’s previous film, “The Social Network”, this is very much an actor’s piece, and this time, he has brought some top level talent to the table.  As Blomkvist, Craig gives what I would say is his best performance outside of Bond.  I think he’s a tremendous improvement over the original Blomkvist, Michael Nyqvist.  Don’t get me wrong, Nyqvist was good, but Craig is sympathetic and charismatic in a way that he wasn’t.  Plummer, the veteran that he is, brings real gravitas to the role of the ailing Vanger patriarch.  He perfectly conveys the sadness of a man whose great wealth has brought him very little happiness and who has been tormented over the years by not knowing the fate of his beloved niece.  Stellan Skarsgard is just creepy as Martin Vanger, Henrik’s nephew.  Even when he’s being nice, he’s still just creepy, and that’s why I fucking love him.

Of the entire cast, the one I initially had doubts about, the one potential weak link, was the girl with the dragon tattoo herself, Rooney Mara.  It’s not just that Noomi Rapace, the original Lisbeth, seemed irreplaceable, it’s also that Mara seemed unlikely to be able to fill her Ass Kicker boots.  She was good in her bit in “The Social Network”, but if she had been anymore lifeless in the “Nightmare on Elm Street” re-dud, she would have been playing a corpse.  But, my concerns were misplaced, as she turned out to be every bit as amazing as Rapace ever was.  She’s tough, brilliant, sexy, and disturbed.  Her Lisbeth seemed to me to have a bit more warmth than Rapace’s, and by a bit, I mean a bit, as  the character still is emotionally cold and distant. At one point she dons a t-shirt that reads “Fuck You, You Fucking Fuck.”  Truly a chick after my own heart.  Mara has made the role of Lisbeth Salander entirely her own, and I do see some award nominations in her near future.

I would say she steals the film, except that the rest of the film is almost just as good.  Fincher, one of the best directors working today, has crafted a near masterpiece, marred only by over-length (the one flaw of the original they didn’t fix).  People who haven’t read the book or seen the Swedish film may get a little lost in spots, and the Lisbeth/guardian subplot may seem extraneous to those not familiar with the entire “Millennium Trilogy”.  I am a little nervous that they spent $100 million to make this thing, as this isn’t exactly a film that’s going to appeal to everyone, and if it fails to make its money back, it could prevent the rest of the trilogy from being made into films.  And that would be too bad, as “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a dark, gripping mystery that is, while tough to take at times, intelligently written and flawlessly acted.  Take it from the H, the feel bad movie of Christmas is one you do not want to miss!

(3 People gave this 4.67 out of 5)

 Loading ...

“Be careful what you fish for!”

Swift shot: Frantically paced, clever, fun, with an imaginative script.  Holmes and Watson find themselves married to their work, in more ways than one, as they match wits with the fiendishly calculating Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) across Europe.  Guy Ritchie turns in another winner this time with witty scribes Keiran and Michele Mulroney delivering an action-packed story.

The year is 1891, Europe is on the brink of a global war, anarchists and nationalists are juxtaposed as the nations amass their forces preparing for a dreadful, technological slaughter. Everyone else sees the rampant bombings of the occupiers, oops, I mean anarchists as solely anti-government loons hell bent on tearing down the establishment, but Holmes (Downey Jr.) knows better.  It doesn’t take him long to convince his astute mate, Watson (Law) that someone, a well-connected character, Moriarty may be pulling all the spiders webs, but to what end?

It isn’t like Watson wants to run around on another potentially perilous adventure with Holmes, especially considering he is finally going to wear the shackles of horrible matrimony, get married, rather.  Kelly Reilly reprises her role as Mary, soon to be Mrs. Mary Watson, unless Holmes manages to massacre her wedded bliss. On a wonderfully shot  train sequence, with close-quarters combat and all manner of ingenuity to escape death, she gets her chance to show she is worthy to marry a veteran of the Afghanistan campaign.

Mary is dispatched to let another feisty feminine join the game, Noomi Rapace (fresh off her fiery performance as Libeth Salander) assumes the role of gypsy Madam Simza, who is just as much a badass as Salander . . . she was well cast!  When we first meet her character, she is dealing with a pesky Cossack who must have cockroach DNA!  She is concerned because her brother, a dedicated anarchist, has gone missing and sent her a mysterious note.  That is how she makes Holmes’ acquaintance.

Meanwhile, Holmes’ older brother, Mycroft (clearly the Holmes parents were sadists) unveiled by the wonderfully talented Stephen Fry, is working behind the scenes to determine if his troubled kid brother is onto something real, can all these bombings across the globe somehow be connected?

Well, here is where the film fell a bit, for someone as genius as the Professor, and for someone who never leaves loose ends, he sure left enough to have Holmes very quickly surmise he was the Soros, I mean, puppet-master behind the violence and protests.

It was all a little too convenient, really.  But, I didn’t mind, because this film was every bit as much an action flick as it’s older brother from last Christmas.  Getting to the good bits might have been less cerebral than most people preferred, but I heard a few people say that the original film was “boring” – so maybe the writers decided to trim some fat to get to the action.  I won’t fault them for that, but remember, this is a Holmes film – it needs to be incredibly clever . . . it needs to dazzle with brilliance, not baffle with the typical Hollywood bullshit.  I don’t know if it was a puzzler per say.

Still, there will be surprises, you do have to pay attention, and there are things for you to try and unravel – you may find yourself wanting to watch it again, right away, just to see if you missed anything, but in the end, the great reason for Moriarty’s game left me wanting something a bit less derivative.

(1 People gave this 1.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Belongs squarely in the . . .

Limacher Low Down: The Sitter has previews that offer a pretty decent glimpse into the entire story line of the movie; an R rated remake of “Adventures in Babysitting”. The problem with trying to retell a classic of a generation is the fact it may not work well, and that is certainly the case with “The Sitter”. Jokes that some may get don’t always hit with others, and the only thing that made me laugh a handful of times were the one liners. The plot developed poorly, certain things were predictable, and the end couldn’t come soon enough.

“The Sitter” starts off with a rather “racy” scene where Noah (Jonah Hill) is doing everything he can to make the girl he wants, Marissa (Ari Graynor), like him even a little. We find out that Noah has no job, no money, and no license; when his mom asks him for a favor, to babysit her friends’ kids so she can meet a new man and get some extra cash for him, Noah reluctantly accepts. This part of the movie really shows us how wrapped up in himself Noah is, but why? We get a little background to the family life, but it seems a little preachy and a meager way of setting up future plot points.

So, Noah takes the job, not like he has anything better to do!  We meet the first kid, Slater (Max Records). Slater is a seemingly misunderstood kid who faces the pressures of someone twice his age, at least in his own mind. Noah then is introduced to Blithe (Landry Bender). Blithe is eager to grow up like  a Hilton or a Lohan, she says everything is “hot” and likes to put on make-up that would make Tammy Faye Baker cringe. Lastly, we meet Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez). Rodrigo was adopted and brought in from El Salvador. Rodrigo definitely has a chip on his shoulder.

The kids’ parents leave quickly, and like most brats, they start testing the patience of their new babysitter, Noah. That is until Noah gets a call from Marissa. The whole meeting of the kids is important to gain a better understanding of each character, and it does help build a flimsy rapport with the audience. A few things seem far-fetched, but this is a farce of a movie after all.

Noah, who was advised against driving the family vehicle (remember, he has no license), quickly loads up the kids in the minivan and is off to do what he can to get to Marissa, and possibly get laid. This is where I saw a shining gleam of hope, only to be let down. We meet Karl (Sam Rockwell), who has something that Noah was asked to pick up for Marissa. Karl quickly accepts Noah and wants to be “friends” with him. Well, to be friends with Karl is not what Noah has in mind; he just wants to pick up what Marissa wants and be on his way. Unfortunately, bad things happen to Noah and he gets into deeper shit than he ever imagined as he started the trek. One thing leads to another and Noah needs to get a hefty sum of cash in a short amount of time. I generally like Sam Rockwell. He’s made mostly good choices, but this role just doesn’t fit him, and it really comes across in the movie as well.

The adventure officially begins for Noah and the gang; and there are some good quick jokes in the scenes. When the “adventure” really kicks in there are parts that seem forced; parts that made me question the logic; and there were even parts that seemingly took way too long to develop to progress the movie in the direction, which was rather predictable, in the way it was going. The movie concludes on a rather predictable note, and while there are very few redeeming qualities, it just was good for the movie to be over.

So many scenes were predictable and not funny, which left a bad taste in my mouth. Development wasn’t a strong suit either, as the movie had moments of heart and growth; it also had moments that just fell flat and completely missed the target. The thing I hated most about everything was this was another situation where I saw most of the funny parts in the previews!

The kids in the movie, especially Landry Bender, were one of the few bright spots, as they really did a good job and held their own. One thing I came away noticing was that Jonah Hill works well in SMALL doses, but a movie where he’s the STAR and tries to carry the movie just doesn’t work. I say you can avoid this movie, and remember the good times of “Adventures in Babysitting”. Basically, “The Sitter” belongs in the, hmm, what rhymes with sitter?  Yea, if you can predict that, you can easily pass on this inept attempt to rehash a classic comedy.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Read David Limacher’s interview with Darryl, here: A chat with Darryl Roberts

Limacher Low Down: America the Beautiful 2: The Thin Commandments is a follow up to the 2007 Documentary America the Beautiful. The first movie dealt with the issues of Americans doing what they can to look better. America the Beautiful 2: The Thin Commandments provides greater insight into Body Mass Index (BMI), the world of weight loss, diets, and the infatuation people seem to have with believing that being thin means that a person is healthy. The movie provides insight into these topics, and Director Darryl Roberts offers himself as a test subject to test some diets and hypotheses as well.

We start off the movie by gaining a better understanding of the Body Mass Index or BMI. This is the scale that dictates whether people are healthy, overweight, or obese. Did you know that stars such as Will Smith, Mel Gibson, and Christian Bale are considered overweight according the BMI scale? Hell, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is considered OBESE when measured by the BMI scale. The BMI scale says if a person is a certain height, they need to weigh a certain amount or they are overweight or obese! The movie offers a great insight into the falsities of the BMI scale and certain reasons why the scale has shown great importance to certain people.

The movie then moves to Darryl getting a physical by his doctor, and he learns that he has an irregular heart beat and high blood pressure. This is an alarming fact which affects more people than care to realize it. It gets worse for Darryl when the doctor prescribes him two medications which could result in a man’s WORST NIGHTMARE, Erectile Dysfunction! Darryl realizes that it is now up to him to do whatever he can to not need the medication, and cure his problems as well.

Darryl decides to attempt a “Raw” diet. Raw diets are a basic vegan diet in which foods are provided that starts with a 4 week cleanse of all the toxins in the system to start properly on the diet. After speaking with people who have succeeded on the diet, he decides to give it a try. The scenes in which Darryl is on the “Raw” diet offer a funny and honest portrayal of what most people experience. Darryl doesn’t stop there; he goes through a gauntlet of diets all of which provide the same results.

The movie next focuses on High Fructose Corn Syrup. There is great insight into the reasons behind the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup as well. When certain people are questioned about High Fructose Corn Syrup, the subject is quickly changed or the subject is just ignored all together. Facts are provided and should hold the interest of most viewers.

Next we meet Candi, a person so infatuated with looking good, and being a certain way that it has taken over her life. She works out in the morning, goes to work, and then works out after work as well. Candi is so infatuated that she and Darryl head off to the gym in the middle of a blizzard that closed down Chicago. She believes that all the work she is putting in will pay off. But where does it end? She hits her goal, and then sets a new goal. She gets questioned when her figure and weight will finally be good enough, and it seems only she knows just when it will be good enough.

There is one scene that has stuck with me, and will continue to stick with me for years to come. In one of the most heart wrenching scenes in the movie, Darryl’s half sister admits to him a secret that she never told him. She had the courage to tell him for the first time on camera as well. It took real courage for her to do it, and her Doctor gave her advice to help her with the problem she had in the past. Her doctor had told her that her BMI was too high to conceive a child. Her Doctor was transfixed on the BMI scale that he has her believing that if she wants to have a child, she must lose weight and be at a BMI of less than 25%. It really makes a person wonder if this is true, or what facts either party has to go off to show this is true.

Focus now moves to BMI and education. Schools in Ohio are now mandated to place the BMI number of students in 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 9th grade on their report cards so parents get more involved! Superintendents are interviewed about why they petitioned to no longer subject their students to placement of the BMI scale on their report cards. They provide some interesting facts, and provide good reason as to why they chose to do what they did. The State Senator who wrote and helped pass the bill into law was interviewed as well. He seemed so obsessed with living by the BMI scale, he seemed blinded by the facts Darryl provided thus far.

Darryl does a good job of providing facts behind the BMI, the people who lowered the number back in 1998, and also into the CDC. He provided interesting insight to different factors that may have been overlooked as well. The facts and figures are out there, it is just how a person chooses to view them that make all the difference. But Darryl is not done there. He chats with psychiatrists and nutritionists about weight loss, and the facts they provide are eye opening as well.

The movie does a good job of giving a better understanding into the obsession with weight and being thin. Is it healthy? Are diets healthy? Is there one solution to the problem? The questions may go unanswered, but are left for the viewer to decide. The humor flows freely, and it helps progress the movie along well. There are points when the movie doesn’t progress well, and the fact some questions are left unanswered left me with more questions than answers. The movie was well done, and I would suggest it for anyone who questions diets, or the reasoning why America has the infatuation with looking a certain way.