Year: 2009 (UK release date 2010)
Director: Ti West
Screenplay: Ti West
Starring: Jocelin Donahue, Tom Doolan, Mary Woronov
Plot synopsis is here
A modern horror, which takes its aesthetics from the films of the 70's and 80's; to try and recreate that same retro feeling of days gone by. In hearing a description like that, one may think that House of the Devil dwells from the stable of a certain Eli Roth. It doesn't. Although from a certain stand point, Ti West's piece of retro chic terror could be bundled in with the Hostels and Cabin Fever's of this world*. However with it's slow burn execution and satanic moral panic theme West has created a different beast. A clear homage to older horror but not with pastiche or irony. It will not be for everyone, particularly those who like their horror films to play out thick and fast. But those who have patience may find this to be a very rewarding genre flick.
At this moment, Mainstream America appears to be very preoccupied with remaking everything it can. Updating the "classics" with horror beats that lean more towards the modern generation. This way of thinking has altered the landscape of horror slightly, taking the likes of Dawn of the dead and changing it from an socially satirical horror film, to more of an action thriller. West's film is a regression, a modern horror filmmaker making a very deliberate 80's horror, in every sense of the word from the film stock (16mm) to the techniques themselves; which include zooms, extreme close ups and electro synth scoring among other things. This threw me off as a viewer and helped with West's build up of the films tension and story. I truly feel that if this approach was put in place in remakes such as Last house on the Left or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre I would have enjoyed them more.
It's the lack of slickness that made house of the devil so effective for me. A shot will last a half a beat too long, camera movements that lack their usual smoothness and music that doesn't just build up towards zinger moments (jump scares) but builds dread when there's no need. This is film making that harks back to the days of The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby, in which even the movie's "nothing" moments don't feel right. For me, West's film kept that feeling of unease though out the film, using technique to generate atmosphere and install dread as opposed to excessive gore effects or cheap jumps.
West's film also features a neatly crafted, screenplay with a descriptively simple narrative naturalistic dialogue for it's protagonists and more than a hint of the sinister when it comes to it's villains. Working together with the atmosphere of the piece, the script not only introduces and builds a character that I can cared about and makes it hard not to feel for her as the rabbit hole gets deeper. The film really benefits in spending time with her
However it's the solid performance placed by Jocelin Donahue as Sam that completes the package for me. Channeling Mia Farrow and Jamie Lee Curtis, Donahue gives a likable performance, that reminded me of horror films with lead characters who are vulnerable, not just virgins. The film also features sinister performances from Tom Doolan and Mary Woronov. Displays, which unsettle, not with grand, OTT gestures but subtle glances and inflections on their lines.
Nowadays we expect "more" (in terms of actual action) to happen in our horror movies and for me this was a refreshing change. It has a feel that reminds me of some of my favorites of the genre with an climax which while feels a tad short, revels in it's satanic what-the-fuckery. There's a sense of dread throughout this film that we don't get in that many horror films these days but I wish a few more had. The house of the devil will have a hard time effecting the Saw generation but should hopefully find itself a nice little cult audience that will enjoy it's deliberate approach.
*Ironically Ti West directed the straight to video sequel to Cabin Fever. He's disowned it.
Friday, 2 April 2010
Sunday, 28 March 2010
Review: Kick-Ass
Year: 2010
Director: Matthew Vaughan
Screenplay: Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughan
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Chole Mortez, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Clark Duke, Mark Strong, Nicolas Cage
I can't lie when I say this but I found it to be very difficult to truly get down with the buzz of Kick-ass. When sites like Ain't it cool cooed over its more than warm reception at comic-con, I found it hard to be that excited. It's a super-hero movie based on a comic book written by a notable comic book writer. Call me a cynic but is it really that hard to get comic book fans that impressed over something like this?
The answer? Probably. We all know how finicky fanboys get when Hollywood comes over with it's millions; purchasing material left, right and center to make dubious movies like Catwoman (A film I watched for free and still wanted my cash back). Kick-ass is a little different in that it was more independently produced and had no one to really answer to. This is probably why we've had such a intrusive ad campaign for the project. So meddlesome were the rollover ads, that at one point when checking my mail, the ad was also blocking ANOTHER ADVERT FOR THE BLOODY MOVIE. If the aliens of They Live existed then we would have been under their control to obey in minutes.
Anyway, all that aside there was a lot of hoopla surrounding the film and sometimes with an arsehole like myself this can go the other way from what people want. I've had cinema managers stating it's the best comic-book movie in the last five years, I've had people who were on the film telling me years in advance to watch out for it, So after all the talk, the buzz and ads that block ads advertising the same thing...was it worth it? The answer is yes. I found Kick-ass to be a very satisfying movie. Part coming of age, part comic-book movie, but most importantly all fun.
Picture Watchmen without the anguish, Spiderman without the cheese factor and you get the gist of what your expecting. It's a comic-book movie that loves it's source material and takes pleasure in its absurdity without getting too bogged down in the mental misery that tortures Bruce Wayne in his sleep, or bothers Clark Kent when he's stalking his kid. There is angst throughout the movie, but it's handled well enough that you don't wish to punch the characters in the face. Quite the opposite actually, as screenwriter Jane Goldman (Johnathon Ross' amply breasted wife) and director Matthew Vaughan bring us characters that are very likable and enjoyable to follow.
While it takes narrative points from the aforementioned Spiderman, Kick-ass manages not only to feel fresh but also remain amusingly subversive at times, the titular Kick-ass character likening super-heroes to serial killers is one of the quieter highlights with other moments include aspects such as tracking down Kick-ass' secret identity; a moment which I thought about first and was pleased when the characters brought it up. The film also revels in moments of meta-fiction; idea of a film of a comic book character who then gets his own comic book within the film is a bit of a trippy one, along with a certain filmmaker craftily making sure his wife gets a piece of the action. Also, fans of Layer Cake will not wonder where they've seen that 4x4 before.
But with all the self-referential winks to the audience what Vaughan doesn't forget what they've has come to see and fills the film with some bold set pieces, including two action sequences involving the films break out star Hit-girl (a superlative display from Chloe Moretz) that I absolutely adored. He also helps coax some great performances out of his cast. The aforementioned Moretz is great fun, while Aaron Johnson once again shows off the potential that made his portrayal of John Lennon so appealing in Nowhere Boy. Mark Strong is slowly becoming the go-to guy for general villainy (he makes it look easy). On a lesser note Christopher Mintz-Plasse looks like he may become the next Micheal Cera, while Lyndsy Fonseca is gorgeous but don't look for a show stealing turn as she hasn't got too much to work with. Clark Duke shows his comic timing and made me smile often as Marty. It's a little unfortunate he didn't have me biting the inside of my cheek as much as Nic Cage; two words: Adam West.
So final thoughts on Kick Ass? It works. It's fast, snappy and fun. It took me a little while to get into but once the film finds it's rhythm then I was with it all the way. A film with genuinely enjoyable characters wrapped in an action packed ultra violent package. Empire is suggesting on it's front page as "your new favorite film" which of course comes off as the hyperbole it is but as a piece of mainstream entertainment it's a damn good laugh.
Director: Matthew Vaughan
Screenplay: Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughan
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Chole Mortez, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Clark Duke, Mark Strong, Nicolas Cage
I can't lie when I say this but I found it to be very difficult to truly get down with the buzz of Kick-ass. When sites like Ain't it cool cooed over its more than warm reception at comic-con, I found it hard to be that excited. It's a super-hero movie based on a comic book written by a notable comic book writer. Call me a cynic but is it really that hard to get comic book fans that impressed over something like this?
The answer? Probably. We all know how finicky fanboys get when Hollywood comes over with it's millions; purchasing material left, right and center to make dubious movies like Catwoman (A film I watched for free and still wanted my cash back). Kick-ass is a little different in that it was more independently produced and had no one to really answer to. This is probably why we've had such a intrusive ad campaign for the project. So meddlesome were the rollover ads, that at one point when checking my mail, the ad was also blocking ANOTHER ADVERT FOR THE BLOODY MOVIE. If the aliens of They Live existed then we would have been under their control to obey in minutes.
Anyway, all that aside there was a lot of hoopla surrounding the film and sometimes with an arsehole like myself this can go the other way from what people want. I've had cinema managers stating it's the best comic-book movie in the last five years, I've had people who were on the film telling me years in advance to watch out for it, So after all the talk, the buzz and ads that block ads advertising the same thing...was it worth it? The answer is yes. I found Kick-ass to be a very satisfying movie. Part coming of age, part comic-book movie, but most importantly all fun.
Picture Watchmen without the anguish, Spiderman without the cheese factor and you get the gist of what your expecting. It's a comic-book movie that loves it's source material and takes pleasure in its absurdity without getting too bogged down in the mental misery that tortures Bruce Wayne in his sleep, or bothers Clark Kent when he's stalking his kid. There is angst throughout the movie, but it's handled well enough that you don't wish to punch the characters in the face. Quite the opposite actually, as screenwriter Jane Goldman (Johnathon Ross' amply breasted wife) and director Matthew Vaughan bring us characters that are very likable and enjoyable to follow.
While it takes narrative points from the aforementioned Spiderman, Kick-ass manages not only to feel fresh but also remain amusingly subversive at times, the titular Kick-ass character likening super-heroes to serial killers is one of the quieter highlights with other moments include aspects such as tracking down Kick-ass' secret identity; a moment which I thought about first and was pleased when the characters brought it up. The film also revels in moments of meta-fiction; idea of a film of a comic book character who then gets his own comic book within the film is a bit of a trippy one, along with a certain filmmaker craftily making sure his wife gets a piece of the action. Also, fans of Layer Cake will not wonder where they've seen that 4x4 before.
But with all the self-referential winks to the audience what Vaughan doesn't forget what they've has come to see and fills the film with some bold set pieces, including two action sequences involving the films break out star Hit-girl (a superlative display from Chloe Moretz) that I absolutely adored. He also helps coax some great performances out of his cast. The aforementioned Moretz is great fun, while Aaron Johnson once again shows off the potential that made his portrayal of John Lennon so appealing in Nowhere Boy. Mark Strong is slowly becoming the go-to guy for general villainy (he makes it look easy). On a lesser note Christopher Mintz-Plasse looks like he may become the next Micheal Cera, while Lyndsy Fonseca is gorgeous but don't look for a show stealing turn as she hasn't got too much to work with. Clark Duke shows his comic timing and made me smile often as Marty. It's a little unfortunate he didn't have me biting the inside of my cheek as much as Nic Cage; two words: Adam West.
So final thoughts on Kick Ass? It works. It's fast, snappy and fun. It took me a little while to get into but once the film finds it's rhythm then I was with it all the way. A film with genuinely enjoyable characters wrapped in an action packed ultra violent package. Empire is suggesting on it's front page as "your new favorite film" which of course comes off as the hyperbole it is but as a piece of mainstream entertainment it's a damn good laugh.
Sunday, 21 March 2010
Review: The Spy Next Door
Year: 2010
Director: Brian Levant
Screenplay: Jonathan Bernstein, James Greer
Starring: Jackie Chan, Billy Ray Cyrus, George Lopez
The plot Synopsis is here
If your a follower of this blog, you should know not only do I write reviews here but I also co-host a film podcast at Geek Planet Online. The show (Cinematic Dramatic) allows me to yell even more pompously and pretentiously than I do here. Due to my ranting, my Co-host Iain decided that followers of the podcast should suggest in the forums which "bad" flick I should watch this week to talk/rant about along side the main review I Love You Phillip Morris. The boards decided to inflict The Spy Next Door on me and in a bizarre turn of events; I found myself enjoying Jackie Chan's children adventure a lot more than the aforementioned ILYPM for the simple reason that it knew what it was and did what supposed to well enough.
What did it do? Well it had Jackie Chan despite being past his prime, pulling off nutty stunts. It had a cheesy script that made no sense but still had enough cheap shots to amuse a loser like myself. Expecting the film to be a life changing piece of cinema is like the kid that gets picked last at football to score the last minute cup-winning goal. But it works fine as a dumb piece of knock around fun.
Why did it work? I guess it was the physicality of it all, watching a Jackie Chan family film with stunts that are still done by the guy despite being in his mid-fifties is still ten time better than sitting down with The Pacifier or Are we there yet? Chan's grinning face and slightly less daring feats than before get us through the film. The film is sub-par but Chan's charm is still quite high with me and sometimes it's that alone that make certain scenes palatable.
The rest of the film? Pretty much tosh to be frank. There's some risible child acting, Billy Ray Cyrus shouldn't be allowed near anything to do with film and Brian Levant's direction and editing of the action seem to be trying it's hardest to ruin what ever excitement that is generated from the medium flying stunts (not really high flying as Chan is clearly not in his 20's anymore). Yet with these issues in tow the film is still just about passable. It's sweet but not too saccharine, its heart is in the right place and it does what it's supposed to; which is of course keep kids quiet for 90 minutes and hey presto it works! Of the all the naff films that come out for children these days, I'd rather sit through something like this than the next CGI filled, Pop-Culture clustered, Animal Yakking, Dreamworks nonsense. I'm sure my kids (when I get them) won't mind if I showed them this either...I think it could only be the once however.
Director: Brian Levant
Screenplay: Jonathan Bernstein, James Greer
Starring: Jackie Chan, Billy Ray Cyrus, George Lopez
The plot Synopsis is here
If your a follower of this blog, you should know not only do I write reviews here but I also co-host a film podcast at Geek Planet Online. The show (Cinematic Dramatic) allows me to yell even more pompously and pretentiously than I do here. Due to my ranting, my Co-host Iain decided that followers of the podcast should suggest in the forums which "bad" flick I should watch this week to talk/rant about along side the main review I Love You Phillip Morris. The boards decided to inflict The Spy Next Door on me and in a bizarre turn of events; I found myself enjoying Jackie Chan's children adventure a lot more than the aforementioned ILYPM for the simple reason that it knew what it was and did what supposed to well enough.
What did it do? Well it had Jackie Chan despite being past his prime, pulling off nutty stunts. It had a cheesy script that made no sense but still had enough cheap shots to amuse a loser like myself. Expecting the film to be a life changing piece of cinema is like the kid that gets picked last at football to score the last minute cup-winning goal. But it works fine as a dumb piece of knock around fun.
Why did it work? I guess it was the physicality of it all, watching a Jackie Chan family film with stunts that are still done by the guy despite being in his mid-fifties is still ten time better than sitting down with The Pacifier or Are we there yet? Chan's grinning face and slightly less daring feats than before get us through the film. The film is sub-par but Chan's charm is still quite high with me and sometimes it's that alone that make certain scenes palatable.
The rest of the film? Pretty much tosh to be frank. There's some risible child acting, Billy Ray Cyrus shouldn't be allowed near anything to do with film and Brian Levant's direction and editing of the action seem to be trying it's hardest to ruin what ever excitement that is generated from the medium flying stunts (not really high flying as Chan is clearly not in his 20's anymore). Yet with these issues in tow the film is still just about passable. It's sweet but not too saccharine, its heart is in the right place and it does what it's supposed to; which is of course keep kids quiet for 90 minutes and hey presto it works! Of the all the naff films that come out for children these days, I'd rather sit through something like this than the next CGI filled, Pop-Culture clustered, Animal Yakking, Dreamworks nonsense. I'm sure my kids (when I get them) won't mind if I showed them this either...I think it could only be the once however.
Review: I Love you Phillip Morris
Year: 2009 (U.K release 2010)
Director: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Screenplay: Glenn Ficarra John Requa
Starring: Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor
Plot synopsis is here
I was a little surprised that I Love You Phillip Morris has come out in England before the U.S. There was a strange moment of British smugness over the fact that we got a Jim Carrey movie first over the yanks. I don't know why but it felt like some sort of achievement. However I wasn't too surprised by the film itself. Despite some interesting elements, this "serious" Carrey venture is as bland as vanilla ice cream with cardboard sprinkles. Those who have their wits around them will have guessed the films ending in the first two seconds; this wouldn't be to much of a problem if the film didn't have such a meandering plot, uneven tone and in my opinion; not much laughs.
It's not so much the fault of the actors, as Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor do the best they can with the material given to them. Carrey's performance reminded me how strong his comic timing can be, while McGregor hasn't been this interesting in ages, playing up to the nativity of the character. The trouble seems to be in the films direction. The films play on standard Hollywood rom-coms is honorable but boring as we get scene after scene which do nothing to elevate the emotion we're supposed to feel about the two characters. The film isn't humorous enough to give us the connection we need and so when it suddenly flips on the audience and goes for it's serious moments, the lack the punch to make them effective.
It's a shame because co-directors (writers of Bad Santa) actually do a good job with the central romance, as the film does as much as possible to play the relationship as straight (heh) as possible. It would be be possible to re-write the film as a heterosexual rom-com with little or no issue at all and does well to say that gay people are just as nuts as straight people. Brokeback Mountain this is not, what we have are normal people in a supposedly extraordinary situation. Unfortunately it's way too ordinary to elicit any more than a passing interest.
The film appears to be in a constant struggle with itself, undecided if it wants to be a board comedy, a more subtle affair or something dramatic, annoyingly there are scenes that seem to suggest that this could have been a character study of sorts, but these virtually ignored from the start. The struggle leaves us with a stalemate, a Jekyll and Hyde of a tale with isolated moments of entertainment that are almost lost in the mediocrity that surrounds them
Looking at the IMDB I happen to be in the minority and that's fine, I can deal with that, it's happened before and as always I'm happy that others found something in a film that I didn't. However, I do find it quite surprising that so much got so much out of such a schizophrenic movie that tries far too hard to be loved by everyone but will not win over any Carrey haters let alone those with a casual interest to film. I have to say however the films view on homosexuals will no doubt infuriate some of the more insane followers of the bible belt...once again the smugness rises.
Director: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Screenplay: Glenn Ficarra John Requa
Starring: Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor
Plot synopsis is here
I was a little surprised that I Love You Phillip Morris has come out in England before the U.S. There was a strange moment of British smugness over the fact that we got a Jim Carrey movie first over the yanks. I don't know why but it felt like some sort of achievement. However I wasn't too surprised by the film itself. Despite some interesting elements, this "serious" Carrey venture is as bland as vanilla ice cream with cardboard sprinkles. Those who have their wits around them will have guessed the films ending in the first two seconds; this wouldn't be to much of a problem if the film didn't have such a meandering plot, uneven tone and in my opinion; not much laughs.
It's not so much the fault of the actors, as Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor do the best they can with the material given to them. Carrey's performance reminded me how strong his comic timing can be, while McGregor hasn't been this interesting in ages, playing up to the nativity of the character. The trouble seems to be in the films direction. The films play on standard Hollywood rom-coms is honorable but boring as we get scene after scene which do nothing to elevate the emotion we're supposed to feel about the two characters. The film isn't humorous enough to give us the connection we need and so when it suddenly flips on the audience and goes for it's serious moments, the lack the punch to make them effective.
It's a shame because co-directors (writers of Bad Santa) actually do a good job with the central romance, as the film does as much as possible to play the relationship as straight (heh) as possible. It would be be possible to re-write the film as a heterosexual rom-com with little or no issue at all and does well to say that gay people are just as nuts as straight people. Brokeback Mountain this is not, what we have are normal people in a supposedly extraordinary situation. Unfortunately it's way too ordinary to elicit any more than a passing interest.
The film appears to be in a constant struggle with itself, undecided if it wants to be a board comedy, a more subtle affair or something dramatic, annoyingly there are scenes that seem to suggest that this could have been a character study of sorts, but these virtually ignored from the start. The struggle leaves us with a stalemate, a Jekyll and Hyde of a tale with isolated moments of entertainment that are almost lost in the mediocrity that surrounds them
Looking at the IMDB I happen to be in the minority and that's fine, I can deal with that, it's happened before and as always I'm happy that others found something in a film that I didn't. However, I do find it quite surprising that so much got so much out of such a schizophrenic movie that tries far too hard to be loved by everyone but will not win over any Carrey haters let alone those with a casual interest to film. I have to say however the films view on homosexuals will no doubt infuriate some of the more insane followers of the bible belt...once again the smugness rises.
Friday, 19 March 2010
Review: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Year: 2009 (U.K Release 2010)
Director: Niels Arden Oplev
Screenplay: Rasmus Heisterberg, Nikolaj Arcel
Starring: Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace
Plot synopsis is here
This week there was rumblings that that English language remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in the works may fall into the hands of David Fincher (he is looking more like James Cameron by the day). It's interesting (read not surprising) that Fincher would be looking at such a project because to me The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo feels a lot like a Swedish Seven. Those last two words placed together should either freak out those who hate the idea or get fans even more intrigued.
Based on the first novel of Stieg Larsson's The Millennium trilogy (Original Swedish title is the very aptly named Men who hate women), Niels Arden Oplev's film is a heavy one. Not only does the film have enough graphic imagery to make someones crotch crawl back into themselves, but the dense plot strands demand your attention throughout the 152 minute running time. This isn't your average crime thriller, but a headstrong, character driven beast which might take a while to get into but was never uninteresting in the slightest.
A website I frequent, compared the film to the Da Vinci code, finding the plot to be too heavily based on computer searches to be appealing. This is something i disagree with, as it's the characters (considered cold and stereotypical in the same review) which we follow that make the film so appealing. The plot may be more than a little "out there" but the burning intensity that Noomi Rapace gives the character Lisbeth kept my eyes glued to the screen. A resourceful yet emotionally stunted girl, who hides her secrets with her brilliant ability and upfront attitude. Her outward look shows a woman who is always in control and yet the tiny inflections and fragile glances by Rapace barely conceal the character's vulnerability. It's a woman who is no damsel in distress (watch her fight) but is still struggling to cope with a deeper inner conflict. Stereotype? To some. Absorbing? Most definitely.
Plaudits should also go to Michael Nyqvist whose "lost" face is actually one constantly fraught with disillusionment. Divorced, with an upcoming jail sentence looming; he takes a job he really wasn't sure about in the first place and find himself in a web of what may or may not be a conspiracy which could destroy what's left of him. Forgive him if he's not filled with a more fiery spirit. Nyqvist's Mikael Blomkvist is the calm "straight man" to Rapace's intense Lisbeth. The two work superbly in tandem so it's it's even more ballsy to keep the two separated for the narrative's first hour allowing the film to focus on building the characters of both.
As a thriller, TGWTDT is a constantly engrossing; it's admittedly outlandish story is still one of entertainment and solid internal logic, it's moments of humor are strangely playful amidst the morbid themes (Race, Misogyny, Greed) that are raised within the narrative. Director Niels Arden Oplev takes time in telling the story and still had me wanting to know what happens next to these characters. I have got long to wait as the second part of the film is on it's way very soon. If Fincher gets his hands on the project, then I expect the same level of interest.
Director: Niels Arden Oplev
Screenplay: Rasmus Heisterberg, Nikolaj Arcel
Starring: Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace
Plot synopsis is here
This week there was rumblings that that English language remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in the works may fall into the hands of David Fincher (he is looking more like James Cameron by the day). It's interesting (read not surprising) that Fincher would be looking at such a project because to me The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo feels a lot like a Swedish Seven. Those last two words placed together should either freak out those who hate the idea or get fans even more intrigued.
Based on the first novel of Stieg Larsson's The Millennium trilogy (Original Swedish title is the very aptly named Men who hate women), Niels Arden Oplev's film is a heavy one. Not only does the film have enough graphic imagery to make someones crotch crawl back into themselves, but the dense plot strands demand your attention throughout the 152 minute running time. This isn't your average crime thriller, but a headstrong, character driven beast which might take a while to get into but was never uninteresting in the slightest.
A website I frequent, compared the film to the Da Vinci code, finding the plot to be too heavily based on computer searches to be appealing. This is something i disagree with, as it's the characters (considered cold and stereotypical in the same review) which we follow that make the film so appealing. The plot may be more than a little "out there" but the burning intensity that Noomi Rapace gives the character Lisbeth kept my eyes glued to the screen. A resourceful yet emotionally stunted girl, who hides her secrets with her brilliant ability and upfront attitude. Her outward look shows a woman who is always in control and yet the tiny inflections and fragile glances by Rapace barely conceal the character's vulnerability. It's a woman who is no damsel in distress (watch her fight) but is still struggling to cope with a deeper inner conflict. Stereotype? To some. Absorbing? Most definitely.
Plaudits should also go to Michael Nyqvist whose "lost" face is actually one constantly fraught with disillusionment. Divorced, with an upcoming jail sentence looming; he takes a job he really wasn't sure about in the first place and find himself in a web of what may or may not be a conspiracy which could destroy what's left of him. Forgive him if he's not filled with a more fiery spirit. Nyqvist's Mikael Blomkvist is the calm "straight man" to Rapace's intense Lisbeth. The two work superbly in tandem so it's it's even more ballsy to keep the two separated for the narrative's first hour allowing the film to focus on building the characters of both.
As a thriller, TGWTDT is a constantly engrossing; it's admittedly outlandish story is still one of entertainment and solid internal logic, it's moments of humor are strangely playful amidst the morbid themes (Race, Misogyny, Greed) that are raised within the narrative. Director Niels Arden Oplev takes time in telling the story and still had me wanting to know what happens next to these characters. I have got long to wait as the second part of the film is on it's way very soon. If Fincher gets his hands on the project, then I expect the same level of interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)