The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo ★ ★★ ★ ½

Release Date: Australia January 12, 2012 Other countries

Rating: MA 15+

Running Time: 158 mins

 The Answer to the Millennium Question?

We serious moviegoers don’t like remakes. Especially remakes of European movies. Hollywood has this thing about underestimating audiences. They think we don’t like reading subtitles.

They take a good story, already successful in a foreign language, cast some big name actors—sometimes not—Hollywoodfy it. And presto, we all have another reason to dislike remakes. We comment to each other, “Did you see the—enter European country of origin here—version? It’s sooo much better.” Then there’s the book conversion film which encourages the same discussion. “The book was sooo much better.”

So, here we go again, this time with ‘The Girl With A Dragon Tattoo’. Unless you have lived on another planet, you will know that it's book one of Stieg Larsson’s Swedish Millennium trilogy, which has sold 65,000,000 copies in forty-six countries, since its publication in 2005.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo opens with Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) in a load of trouble. He works with Millennium Magazine and is convicted of printing a libelous story against billionaire industrialist Hans-Erik Wennerström. There is one bright light for him, though, when one of Sweden’s wealthiest industrialists, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) hires Blomkvist to discover what really happened to his beloved niece, Harriet, whom he believes was murdered by a member of his large family.

Lisbeth Salander (played by an unrecognizable Rooney Mara), an ingenious researcher, is contracted via Milton Security to investigate Blomkvist for Vanger. Lisbeth is an antisocial, pierced, tattooed, cold personality with a dark past. When Blomkvist moves to the Vanger family property, set on a remote snow swept Swedish island, he begins to unravel, step by step, the forty-year-old mystery of Harriet’s disappearance. Things become explosive when Lisbeth joins him in his quest as together they follow the leads to a most surprising end.

Now for the million dollar Millennium—or entrance price—question…

If you’ve read the book and seen the Swedish film—which I have—is there any reason to see this remake? I pondered this as the lights dimmed and the exhilarating sound track by composer, Atticus Ross (Academy Award® winner for Social Network) began pumping.

The unequivocal answer is YES. It is one of the best thrillers you will see this summer, and worth it, if not just to see Rooney Mara’s habitation of Lisbeth Salander. Director, David Fincher, whose last effort ‘The Social Network’, swept the Academy Awards® last year, teams with Steven Zaillian (co-writer Moneyball) and producer Scott Rudin to bring this story to the screen so dynamically you won’t realise you’ve just sat there for a not inconsiderable 158 minutes.

The only thing that would improve the experience would be to be handed, upon cinema entry, a family-tree card of the Vangers. The relationships are a lot to follow at the cracking pace set by the film—even if you have read the books.

Ultimately, "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" contains no big name stars leaping off incredibly tall buildings, amazing motion capture characters, smart spies or Oscar winning performances from actresses seeking more awards. What there is, though, is a group of consummate film makers coming together to create a film that will knock your socks—or tattoos off.

And yes, it’s better than all the books and films combined. And, yes again, films of the other two books in the series will follow. Go see it.

Read More

Santa's Apprentice ★★★½

There wasn’t a pair of 3D glasses in the cinema; and not one CGI character danced across the screen.  Santa’s Apprentice is—dare I say it—an simple animation with no special effects.  

Looking around at all the children, waiting expectantly to be entertained at the nearly full preview screening, I thought, I wonder how long into the movie before we hear the I’ve-had-enough-shuffle?  My two veteran preview attendees the nine year old Mr-hyper-critic and the eleven year old Mr-I’m-bored,-too-much-talking, were already complaining they wouldn’t like it.  ‘It’s just a cartoon. Can we go if it’s boring?’

‘Eat your popcorn kids and be grateful you see so many movies,’ I said, whilst thinking, I do hope it isn’t boring.   After all, we have the quintessential Christmas movie on DVD at home with Polar Express.   How can you top that?

Then the lights lowered and the magic began.  I was back in my childhood with a sentimental tug pulling at my soft spot, that comes from a movie that doesn't need special effects because  it has heart.  There was very little shuffling throughout and my two didn’t ask to leave.  The miracle of a good Christmas story had occurred.

Santa’s Apprentice is an Australian animated tale of Nicolas, a seven year old Australian boy, who meets all the criteria to become the next Santa; a role the current Santa does not wish to relinquish but must according to Santa Law.  Swooped up one night, from his orphanage home, he is taken to the North Pole to an initiation in ‘Santa 101’.  His adventures, mishaps and ultimately his final understanding of the true magic of Christmas kept the audience, including my two, engaged and quite often laughing. 

It is so refreshing to hear Australian voices behind an animation and this film has the current crème of Australian acting talent which includes Shane Jacobsen, Delta Goodrem, Magda Szubanski, Hugh Sheridan, Max Cullen and Georgie Parker.

Santa’s Apprentice is a movie for the kids who still believe in Santa and for adults, with older children, who miss being quizzed on how Santa knows when they’ve been naughty. Don’t take your fifteen year old to this, but do take your younger children.  This year I won’t have to explain to my children how Santa delivers all the presents in one night, Santa’s Apprentice answered it beautifully.

Just like the secret to this movie’s appeal, the answer was made clear, ‘It’s the magic of Christmas’.

Read More

We Need to Talk About Kevin ★★★★★

We need to talk about Kevin should be called, “We will think about Kevin for a long time.”  Since watching this disturbing movie, scenes from it keep flashing through my mind.

Somehow, I arrived at the preview without seeing a trailer nor reading anything on the book.  As the story unfolded, each moment was a revelation.  This is the best way to see this film, so this review is intentionally vague in plot outline.  I will say one thing; this movie is a horror story.

We need to talk about Kevin is a dramatic thriller based on the award winning 2003 novel by Lionel Shriver.  It follows the relationship conflict from birth between Eva Khatchadourian (Tilda Swinton) and her son, Kevin, played by three different actors Ezra Miller, Jasper Newell as six-eight-year-old Kevin, Rocky Duer as infant Kevin.  The older Kevins’ portrayals are remarkable.  Eva must also deal with her husband Franklin’s (John C. Reilly) unsympathetic views of her difficulties with Kevin.  When Celia (Ashley Gerasimovich) is born, she adds another nail in the family’s relationship coffin.

From the beginning scenes we realize something terrible has happened, over which Eva, now without family and living a struggling isolated life, is guilt-ridden. Her acceptance of her guilt is heart-wrenching. Through well-handled flashbacks, we watch as Eva painfully remembers the key moments which have brought her to this disastrous point in her life.

Eva is a role few actresses could play. Tilda Swinton, gaunt and finely controlled in her emotions, will win awards for her role of the Mother attempting to understand how to love a child who is so unlovable. 

This is dark and gut-wrenching subject matter.  As a parent, I felt every moment of Eva’s confusion and desire to connect with her son, and protect her family.  You need to see this movie because it is a masterpiece of filmmaking and storytelling. 

However, there is a price to pay.  It will haunt you and unsettle you, just as Sophie’s Choice sometimes still crosses my mind thirty years later.  For a little while, I don’t think I will want to talk about Kevin.

Read More

LARS VON TRIER'S MELANCHOLIA MOTION POSTER REVEALED

The Australian motion poster for MELANCHOLIA, the much anticipated film from controversial director Lars Von Trier, has launched today. 

                      

MELANCHOLIA is a beautiful story about the end of the world. Justin (Kirsten Dunst) and Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) are celebrating their marriage at a sumptuous party in the home of their sister (Charlotte Gainsbourg), and brother-in-law John (Kiefer Sutherland). Despite Claire's best efforts, the wedding is a fiasco, with family tensions mounting and relationships fraying. Meanwhile a planet called Melancholia is heading directly towards Earth.

The stunning animated poster features the provocative director Lars von Trier alongside the outstanding ensemble cast which includes Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland and Alexander Skarsgård.

The visually stunning and original concept was designed by Madman Entertainment's creative team. The poster was created using a behind the scenes image from the film which allowed von Trier's image to be incorporated next to his stellar cast.

In addition to the motion poster, Madman Entertainment have also created a 2-minute 'making of' featurette where Madman Art Director Marcus Cobbledick demonstrates the steps taken to produce the motion poster and discusses the creative concept including the unorthodox use of von Trier.

                                

MELANCHOLIA will be released nationally by Madman Entertainment on 15 DECEMBER, 2011.

Read More

Anonymous ★★★★

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet."

In Anonymous, this very question posed by Juliet, may be answered.

Anonymous provides one theory on the debate surrounding the belief that William Shakespeare was not the author of the 37 plays and 154 sonnets credited to him. Mark Twain even commented that in Shakespeare’s will there was “Not a play, not a poem, not an unfinished literary work, not a scrap of manuscript of any kind.”

The film is complex, centring on Edward De Vere’s, the Earl of Oxford’s (Rhys Ifans) initial use of the playwright Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto) as the front man for his work, which as a nobleman, he was not permitted to publish. Enter William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall), a drunkard actor, who grasps the money-making opportunity by signing his name to the increasingly more popular plays.  Alongside this is the other story of De Vere’s love affair with Elizabeth 1 (Vanessa Redgrave & Joely Richardson—as the younger Elizabeth), creating its own political dramas, with later shocking ramifications.

Anonymous moves alternately between the earlier lives of De Vere, Elizabeth 1 and her confidante the powerful William Cecil (David Thewlis) to their present day lives, filled with political manipulation, jealousy and betrayal.  It’s almost a ‘thinking man’s’ soap opera.

It’s an unexpected project for Roland Emmerich, director of the blockbusters, Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and 2012.  Emmerich became fascinated with the Shakespeare authorship question after a conversation with screenwriter John Orloff.  He believes the film will open up the subject to wider discussion. 

The actor’s performances are compelling, the storyline well-crafted and the computerised visualisation of London beautifully evoked.  You cannot help pondering the ideas presented in Anonymous long after the movie is over. 

Shakespeare may have been talking about himself when he wrote,

“All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts.” But he could have also been talking about the film, Anonymous. Whoever Shakespeare was, I think he would have applauded.

Read More

In Time ★

There was an embargo on this film for reviewers.  We had to sign an agreement not to give our opinion on it until the 27th October, 2011.   There was a very good reason for this.   The film studio is hoping that at least they will get the first weekend of receipts out of it before the word gets around.   In our world, we still use money and, whatever, you pay to see it, will be a waste of it-and your time.

I suspect also, the studio is attempting to protect the reputation of writer and director, Andrew Niccol (Truman Show and Gattaca).  He is to be the writer and director of 'The Host', based on Twilight author, Stephenie Meyers last book.  There must be a lot of money tied up in that project, which they are spinning into a three movie series.  Don't ask me why they are doing that either, it's only one rather average book.

But to the review, of course, and the reasons why you should find something else to watch...

‘Time is money,’ said Benjamin Franklin.  This idea is the concept of ‘In Time’, starring Justin Timberlake & Amanda Seyfried. 

It is a fascinating idea that, in a not too distant future, at the age of 25, the genetically engineered aging gene turns off.  The inhabitants of this world are then given one year on their clock, displayed in bright green numbers on their arm.  They then earn and spend time as we would money.  In the slum areas, where our hero Will Salas (Timberlake) lives, most people struggle constantly with only a few months on their clocks, always checking how much time is left after each pay day.

Then Will meets Henry, with over one hundred years on his clock, who has already lived a century. Disillusioned Henry shares with Will that the rich in New Greenwich are stealing from the poor through inflation.   He gives his remaining time to Will, setting Will on a course to change the order of this imbalance society.

Entering the wealthy Time Zone of New Greenwich, Will meets up with spoiled rich girl, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), who yearns for more excitement in her life.  Meanwhile Will is pursued by Raymond Leon, a Timekeeper (Cillian Murphy) who enforces the rich folk’s control of time. The movie is action filled with time sensitive car and foot chases, along with arm wrestling games ending in death.  In between a romance develops, as it must, between Will and Sylvia.

As the film drags on, and, unfortunately, that is what it does, the audience begins to wonder if they should be checking their own arms to see whether to spend more time on this hugely flawed film.

How anyone can ruin such an incredible idea is an obvious question.   One answer is in the clichéd and over-wordy script delivered via very poor performances by Timberlake and Seyfried.  Then add two male lead characters who are clearly not physically twenty-five, Timberlake is thirty and Cillian Murphy is thirty-four.  Then top it off with plot holes so huge you could land a time machine between them.

As we left the theatre we pondered another Benjamin Franklin gem, ‘Lost time is never found again.’  What may be even worse is that ‘In Time’ was a lost opportunity.

Read More

REAL STEAL ★★★

Robot movies are usually great fun. Throw in a Father who has abandoned his eleven year old son at birth and is now forced to look after him temporarily after his Mother dies, and you have a fun movie with some heart.

Hugh Jackman is Charlie Kenton, a down and out robot boxing promoter, who when he takes on the care of his son Max, Dakota Goyo, also takes on his beaten up and previously dumped sparring robot, Atom.  After using up all his favours with, Robot fixer-upper and boxing gym owner, Bailey Tallet (Evangeline Lilly), he begs just one more to get the broken down Atom on his feet and fighting.  Max’s enthusiasm for getting a match for his robot, and the road to the inevitable match up with the top league robot, Zeus, evoke all those other rousing movies like ‘Rocky’, ‘The Champ’, and even ‘The Fighter’—although I’m not saying this is another ‘Fighter’.

If you’ve seen the ‘Real Steel’ trailers, then you will have a good idea of what you are in for, when sitting down with your popcorn and coke.  Dakota Goya and Evangeline Lilly are very good in this.  I’m sure we will see Dakota popping up in upcoming films just as his namesake (female Dakota Fanning) did after ‘I Am Sam’ and ‘War of the Worlds’ set her on the road to childhood stardom.

Hugh Jackman seemed a little uncomfortable in this role and the American accent was a little off.  Perhaps, he was missing his Wolverine claws.   Having said that there was a moment there where I wiped away a tear whilst pretending I was scratching my cheek.  Don’t you hate that? 

The highlight of the movie has to be Max and his robot’s dance sequences. Those alone are worth the ticket price. 

Read More