The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

In 2009 the Swedish The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was a surprising success. The adaptation of the first of Stieg Larsson books was far from perfect, but it was kind of refreshing. Somehow, the studios in Hollywood must have been jealous, and why wouldn’t it be a bad idea to make an American adaptation of the Swedish books? And with a very gifted director like David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac) a (financial) success is guaranteed.

For those who haven’t read the book or seen the first movie: Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is a journalist who just lost a big lawsuit against a rich and powerful businessman. Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), from the Vanger concern, one of Sweden’s biggest family-companies, hires Blomkvist to investigate the apparent murder of his favourite niece Harriet who disappeared more than 40 years ago. Before hiring Blomkvist, Vanger had him checked by the very talented but disturbed Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) who will later join Blomkvist as his assistant investigator. Together they find out that the Vanger family has a very disturbing history.

Fincher opens with stunning credits conducted by a techno version of Led Zeppelin’s Immigrant Song, which is not only a good choice lyrically but adds to the irony of reusing original material. The credits make you feel you are about to watch a James Bond movie, which is almost confirmed even when we see the first shot of Daniel Craig. Luckily these associations don’t last very long and Craig shows us a credible Mikael Blomkvist.

Just to be clear, strictly this movie is not a remake of the Swedish film. It is a re-adaptation of the Larsson book and the makers made a few choices that are fairly different compared to the first movie. Not only is the plot different in some aspects, although the main part is exactly the same, but the characters are portrayed differently. Let’s start with the character whose shoes are probably the hardest to fill: Lisbeth Salander. Rooney Mara does an excellent job in playing the disturbed but brilliant hacker genious. In 2009, Rapace showed us a very though, distant and violent girl whereas Mara is cuter and seems more fragile. That she possesses the necessary evil and violent qualities is shown adequately in the revenge scenes with her pervert guardian Bjurman (a good role from the Dutch Yorick van Wageningen). The main difference in her character is the affection she develops for Blomkvist (I will try not to spoil too much) where Rapace was distant and couldn’t show any intimacy towards men, which makes sense regarding some of the disturbing developments during the movie. The ‘love’ scenes between Blomkvist and Salander therefore seem unlikelier than in the Swedish version. 

My biggest objection against this movie is the way in which the Vanger family is shown to the viewer. Henrik Vanger promises Blomkvist that he will get to know each member of the family more than he will like to. This couldn’t be less true for the viewers of this film. In the Swedish version we get to know some of the members or at least there reputation quite well. This creates a different suspense and drags you more into the family mystery. In Fincher’s one this isn’t done in a satisfying manner. Some of the choices in how to tell this story work very well, but for instance the different twist in the end is one that doesn't require a lot of creativity. The director does manage to use his talent with beautiful style and he adds his trademark dark tones to the storytelling and effective cinematography. Therefore, I wouldn’t say Fincher is disappointing me with this movie, except that I would like to see him make more original films. 

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not a bad movie, but the original version is too recent for a ‘remake’ in my opinion. Perhaps this one is a better adaptation (I haven’t read the book), it sure is not an improvement on the 2009 film. Maybe Americans should consider recording an English audio track next time….

6/10

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 2011)

There are two big American films that were awarded  main prizes at Cannes last year, The Tree of Life (winner Palme d'Or) and Drive (best director). The second most prestigious price after the Palme d'Or is the Grand Prix and was won last year (shared) by Bir zamanlar Anadolu'da (Once Upon a Time in Anatolia) from Turkey.

The movie is about a group of men on a trip through the Anatolian grasslands in search for a dead body. This body belongs to some unlucky guy who was murdered. His killer is amongst the group of men including cops, a doctor, a prosecutor and some assisting staff. Trying to find the location where the killer, who confessed obviously, buried the body is not too easy since the search is done at night and the crime was committed after some substantial alcohol intake. The indistinctness of Turkish landscape (shot beautifully, mostly illuminated with just yellow headlights from a car) doesn’t really help the search. After some unsuccessful attempts the frustrations are rising for one the cops, while the doctor is starting to have a more and more interesting conversation with the ‘Clark Gable look-a-like’ prosecutor. The latter tells the doctor about a woman who announced her own death after giving childbirth. The doctor claims that this is medically unlikely and their conversation turns out to become a big issue as the movie progresses.

After a stop at a small village to have some dinner, where almost all the men are fascinated by a beautiful girl, the next morning the body is found and has to be taken to the mortuary for autopsy. The way the body is dug up and transported is good for some hilarious cinema. Back in the mortuary the wife of the victim has to identify the corpse and the doctor and an assistant perform the autopsy (which is not displayed visually, but does result in some uncomfortable sounds).

If I would have to describe Once Upon a Time in Anatolia  in 'Hollywood' terms I would end up somewhere between the Coen Brothers and Jim Jarmusch. This movie is minimalistic, beautiful, subtle and has a lot of funny dialogue and some hilarious situations. It is minimal in both plot and camerawork. The plot is not very important,this movie is all about the underlying emotions and thoughts the characters have. Slowly (very slowly even) this becomes clear to the viewer, who might expect a crime movie for at least the first hour.

What I love about this movie is that it doesn’t explain a lot but gives the viewer room for his or her own interpretation. The only flaw the director is making in my opinion  is that its length (150 minutes) is challenging its viewer to stay focused from time to time. Some scenes are so long and extensive that they become dull after a while (but perhaps this was the directors intention). On the other hand the director is skillful enough to keep a movie like this interesting until the last (brilliant) shot.

Because of its slow pace Once Upon a Time in Anatolia is definitely not a movie for the generation that requires a lot of visual stimulation, but is a treat for the patient and open minded viewer.   

8.5/10

Dressed to Kill (Brian de Palma, 1980)

Is Brian de Palma a great filmmaker? This is a question I’ve been pondering for a few of his movies lately. To answer this question, let’s first ask: What makes a great filmmaker? Film is usually a sum of script (originality), scenes (directing), editing, acting, decors, music etc. In my opinion de Palma is not ‘mastering’ all these aspects, but I do believe he is a great director. Dressed to Kill is a perfect illustration of this statement. It lacks originality, but excels in style.

In the opening scene we see a woman (Angie Dickinson) in the shower getting raped. This turns out to be a dream/fantasy for who appears to be our protagonist. She is sexually unsatisfied, as she discusses with her psychiatrist dr. Ellliott (Michael Caine). As a result she picks up a guy in a museum in a scene which is almost literally taken from Hitchcock’s Vertigo, but is directed to perfection by de Palma (just like in its source material). The next morning when she wants to leave the stranger’s apartment she gets killed with a razor in the elevator. (In a scene that, is again, directed brilliantly, but not original). So we have seen a woman who appears to be the protagonist of this film, but gets killed sooner than expected (sounds familiar?).

This ruthless elevator massacre is partly witnessed by a cute prostitute (Nancy Allen, de Palma’s wife at the time) who the movie will revolve around for the rest of its time and is seen as the main suspect by police detective Marino (Dennis Franz, who I think was born to be playing a cop). She is in great danger, since the killer (who appears to be a blonde lady) saw her near the elevator. With help of the victim’s genius son she tries to identify the killer, to prove her innocence.

Dressed to Kill is not the first and definitely not the last movie where de Palma is copying Alfred Hitchcock. And here we have a great director quoting a great filmmaker. Hitchcock his movies are highly original, perfectly balanced and therefore visionary. De Palma is copying his style and tries to use it in his own story, but this is where he can’t distinguish himself. Despite some brilliantly directed scenes the movie as a whole doesn’t seem to hold the suspense. Its plot is simply too predictable and sometimes unlikely. Without spoiling, the final scene of the movie is again, well directed, but a bit lame. If we look at de Palma’s total oeuvre he made some good movies, but I don’t think he ever wrote an original script that was really good (his Femme Fatale from 2002 may come close…).

I wouldn't consider de Palma one of the greatest filmmakers, but he should rank high as a great director. Some of his scenes are superb in building suspense. Think about the scenes on the stairs in both The Untouchables and the Black Dahlia, the break-in in Mission: Impossible and the awesome camerawork in the 'hit-scene' in Snake Eyes. Some of the movies I just named, are pretty far from high quality movies, but are memorable because of some of those awesome scenes. Thanks to a great director using his typical long takes, split-screens and suspenseful music.

Dressed to Kill is definitely not a masterpiece, but it is entertaining and eye-candy for style freaks.

7/10 

Trespass (Joel Schumacher, 2011)

Nicolas Cage is awesome. Unfortunately the number of roles in bad movies he has been playing are more and more exceeding the good ones. Luckily in some of the better titles (Raising Arizona, Wild at Heart, Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation) he was brilliant. Cage is kind of an eccentric individual, which forces him to act in whatever crap is offered to him, to cover for his expensive lifestyle. Would he have chosen his roles more carefully, I am sure he could have been one of the leading actors of his generation. Somehow I still enjoy his acting in all of the 439567 terrible movies he starred in. It is like you can tell that he doesn’t take his job serious, like he is 'under' acting, if such is possible.

I am sorry to inform you that Trespass for sure ranks as the 'crap' I am referring to.

The story: Cage plays Kyle Miller, a 'family' man who sells diamonds for a living. He lives in a massive house with his wife (Nicole Kidman) and his rebellious (duh) teenage daughter Avery. Their quiet and peaceful life is abruptly disturbed when trespassers enter their house and take Kyle and his wife hostage. Their daughter sneaked out of the house to go to a party and is therefore the 'missing' hostage. Does it sound cliché already? It gets better!

The criminals are not at all the calm and rational types that might be useful in this kind of ‘profession'. The main hostage-taker brought his younger brother, who has, excuse me for spoiling, an special interest in Miller’s wife and didn’t take his medication. The antagonist was also smart enough to add his junkie girlfriend to the team. Last but not least there is a 2 meter high violent ‘bodyguard’ who has a special agenda himself. Are you surprised if I tell you that the team will have internal conflicts in a heartbeat and that one of them double-crossed the other? Add a handful of unlikely twists and turns and you have your movie.

Kyle Miller tries really hard not to be the standard hostage and doesn’t have a hard time to trick the trespassers with his negotiations. Nicole Kidman’s mainly screams like the helpless and concerned wife is expected to. When their daughter comes home, things obviously are getting even more exciting! 

Director Joel Schumacher is not a stranger if it comes to making crap. Do you remember his version of the Batman franchise? Luckily there are a handful of good movies he made. I personally really liked Phone Booth but his best one is probably Falling Down, where Michael Douglas loses it on a very hot day. Despite these good works his oeuvre ironically seems to have a lot in common with Cage his career (they worked together before on 8MM).

For those who don’t mind an uninspiring, dull and predictable story Trespass might be a treat, but I suggest you skip this one.

3/10

Carnage (Roman Polanski, 2011)

New York City. Zachary, son of Alan and Nancy Cowan (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) had a fight with Ethan, the son of Michael and Penelope Longstreet (John C. Reilly and Jodie Foster). Zachary hit Ethan with a tree branch and knocked out two incisors. His parents are invited at the Longstreet residence to resolve the situation and discuss how their kids can come to peace. The meeting starts of very pleasant but slowly the atmosphere is getting tenser and tenser and the situation between the parents starts to escalate. There is Alan Cowan, an attorney, who is constantly on the phone working on an urgent case for a pharmaceutical company. His phone calls are starting to interrupt the ‘peaceful’ negotiations more and more. When his wife is nauseated by Penelope’s cobbler and vomits in their presence (which is, believe it or not, hysterical) the two couples are slowly dropping their initial friendly manners and become more and more frustrated leading to a lot of sharp and funny dialogue and even mild violence, being the perfect example for their kids.

Carnage is based on the play 'God of Carnage' by Yasmine Reza. Adapting from play to screen requires solid acting since the core of the movie is based on dialogue and emotion. Luckily this movie has the perfect cast for the job. Let's start with the parents of the agressive Zachary. Big shot attorney Alan Cowan is played by Christoph Waltz, who was stunning as 'the Jewhunter' in Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds and hasn't left Hollywood since. He plays the somewhat superficial and rude attorney like he's been one for years. One will recognize features of the 'Jewhunter' in his mimicry and laugh. Kate Winslet, who plays his wife, a stockbroker(!), is responsible for one of the funniest scenes of the year, when she throws up all over the precious art books of the hostess. As usual, her acting is superb.

Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly play the host couple. Foster plays like she did in her best days and shows that she is an A actress. Her role of the somewhat tense idealistic peacemaker is played to perfection. She might even have the most convincing role in this movie.

Reilly is funny as the somewhat simpler Michael who sells toilet flush mechanisms and is afraid of rodents. As a result he got rid of his son's hamster by just dropping it on the sidewalk and leaving it there. This incident turns out to be a big deal for Nancy.

As a viewer you constantly wonder how the 4 actors are going to stay in the same room throughout the movie (which is a fair assumption if you either know it’s adapted from a play or if you saw the trailer). Some small but smart incidents make the Cowan’s walking back from the elevator to the room a couple of times and once Michael Longstreet brings out his single malt bottle, the two couples are kept in the room quite easily. This might seem a little unlikely at some points but shouldn’t spoil the fun.

The movie is set in New York, but most of it was shot in Paris because Polanski is still avoiding the U.S. for as much as he can after the notorious sexual abuse case. Say what you want about him but as a director he is still one of the finest. From the sixties (Knife in the Water, Rosemary's Baby), seventies (Chinatown) until present time (The Ghost Writer) he delivers excellent movies in a variety of genres. Carnage might seem to have a somewhat trivial directing (a lot of dialogue in a living room) but Polanski really makes a difference as a director here as well. Just look at some of the camera angles and close-up shots of the action he shoots especially at the end of the movie. It just adds that little bit of magic a good director usually has up his sleeve.

Thanks to a smart and witty screenplay Carnage entertains for the full 79 minutes and perfectly shows the strength and weaknesses of two couples, the clashes between husband and wives, men and women and last but not least the concerned and the lesser concerned parents.

8/10

Scarface (Howard Hawks, 1932)

Alright it is 2012. From now on my reviews will be written in English, mainly to improve my writing skills and of course to share my views with readers from all over the world. I will start the year with a classic.

Unfortunately, it looks like 2012 will be a year of some bizarre remakes. Oldboy, Total Recall, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and, believe it or not, Scarface will or are planned to be remade. Especially the last title is a bizarre choice because, and some of you might not realize this, Brian de Palma’s 1983 version was already a remake. The original stems from 1932 and was directed by the iconic Howard Hawks and is mainly a political statement against the crime gang wars in Chicago at the start of the 20^th century.

The story centers around Tony Camonte (Paul Muni). A cocky ‘out-of-control’ lieutenant of crime boss Johnny Lovo. Camonte kills the leading boss of the South Side in order to let Lovo take over. Ambitious as he is Tony wants to take on the North side as well (ruled by some Irish gangs operating under someone called O’Hara) but Lovo warns him not to mess with O’Hara. Ignoring these orders, Camonte soon starts a war with the Irish gangs resulting in some extreme gunfire violence. When Lovo starts to realize that Tony wants to take over and confidently starts to take an interest in Lovo’s girlfriend Poppy he orders a hit on him. Camonte survives and comes after his boss and has him assassinated by his friend Guino Rinaldo, who he will later kill himself for ‘being’ the boyfriend of his sister Cesca. Tony’s excessive violence and out of control behaviour has raised a public outcry and the law forces are getting closer to him resulting in an inevitable climax.

The synopsis above will sound familiar for those who know de Palma’s extended version of the story. Of course, the main parts described are reflected in the 1983 version, but unfortunately the tone of that movie is completely different.

Hawks his version (based on the 1929 novel) has a tenser directing, (much) better acting, and adds a sense of humour, mainly through Camonte’s secretary who can’t write(!) and has a hard time listening properly to most incoming phone calls. Last but not least the style of this movie is beautiful (this is personal....but just look at the scene where Camonte lights Poppy her cigarette and you may get the idea).

In 1932, this movie was considered extremely violent. It contains a lot of excessive gunfire but no blood or gore (obviously) which is abundantly (and in my opinion unnecessarily) present in the later version. So no, de Palma’s remake is in no way a better movie than its original. Why remake a movie which original is good and considered classic? (the last holds for both versions I guess….)

So, instead of remaking this film (which most likely will look like the 1983 version) I suggest a re-release of Hawks his movie and save a lot of effort, money, and in my case, disappointment!

For Hawks his movie:

8/10