Hello Old Friend

Today I had an interesting conversation with my boss and a few regulars about blogging. My boss has read my blog and likes it. That's heartening, but I feel like I don't have as much time to write as I used to. Perhaps this has something to do with not being at an office job anymore. I certainly had more than enough time to devote thirty minutes a day to typing out a review when sitting in a cubicle. I also had more time to watch movies and go to the theatre when I worked a 9-5. Since moving into the bar scene, I find that all I want to do when I get home is catch up on TV and sleep. My days off are crammed with all the tasks that MUST be completed for me to continue living. Add to this the lack of internet at my house and you get a pretty lazy blogger.

The positives: I think I'm finally starting to find a balance after over a year of being a paid night owl. I am also consciously choosing to watch the movies that languish in my queue or on top of my DVD player. I miss writing about what inspires, drives, and truly nourishes me. That may sound cheesy, but film and to a slightly lesser extent TV have been my touch stones. I have always been interested in what makes them good, what other people think, and how they factor into my life. I don't know what I would do if my TV broke. Actually, I do; as that happened to me not too long ago. I borrowed money from my parents to replace it ASAP.

As a welcome back to blogging, I want to talk about a movie I just saw.

"Would You Rather" (2012)
Director: David Guy Levy
Starring: Brittany Snow (also Exec-Producer), John Heard, Enver Gjokaj, Sasha Grey, Eddie Steeples

"Would You Rather" is perfectly described as a cross between "Hostel" and "Ten Little Indians". The concept isn't particularly new, but the approach and acting elevate it beyond previous works. We meet Iris (Snow) as she interviews for a job. She just quit school to take care of a sick brother after both parents have died. Money is tight, and she doesn't seem qualified for much. Her brother's doctor introduces her to Shepard Lambick (Jeffery Combs), the head of some huge corporation? Endowment? It isn't explained very well. Needless to say, he's rich and giving away money. Would Iris be interested in attending a dinner party, playing a game, and potentially winning enough to make all her and her brothers' dreams come true? Sounds too good to be true, and that's our first red flag. WYR doesn't try to be smarter that other films of its ilk, it simply understands that you, the viewer, know what's going to happen, and speeds along until hitting pay dirt.

Iris agrees to go to the dinner where she meets a cast of characters plucked from the pulp headlines: a gambler down on his luck (Heard), a saucy minx (Grey), the token black guy (Steeples), the ex-military guy (Charles Hofheimer), the little old lady (June Squibb). Dinner seems pleasant until the game is introduced.

It's a simple children's game. We've all played it: Would you rather? In our version, the choices are usually between bedding some famous actor or the weird guy at school. Drinking some weird concoction or kissing a dog. Who knows? The possibilities are endless! Of course, this is a horror/suspense film, so the stakes are much higher. I don't want to ruin some of the ingenious ways Mr. Lambick has devised to torment and test his potential beneficiaries, but I will pose this offered question: Would you rather electrocute yourself or your neighbor? How much are you willing to risk to chance?

At times, WYR made me cover my eyes. It was a nice change of pace for me truthfully, where nothing is usually weird or disgusting enough that I've not seen it before. In this case, I may have seen it before, but I cared more for the characters involved that I didn't want to see what I knew must happen.

Is this torture porn in the same way Hostel may be categorized as? No. Is it equally, if not more, disturbing? Yes. What would the average person do in these"Exam" or "Cube" that "Hostel". It's really about what makes a person human? What limit is too far? What would you do to achieve what is most important to you? It is in these questions that WYR succeeds.

circumstances? As one character expressed, we'd like to think we know but as the timer runs down, what would we really do? Thinking on this now, I think the film has more in common with

Would you rather??

Quothe the raven...

"The Raven"
Director: James McTeigue ("V for Vendetta")
Starring: John Cusack, Luke Evans ("Immortals", "Clash of the Titans"), Alice Eve ("Entourage" TV, "She's Out of My League"), Brendan Gleesen

*** (3.5 stars)

I have been waiting for this movie to come out for what seems like forever. I find myself saying that often about the movies I review and for that I'm sorry. However, when you pair John Cusack (hello, gorgeous) with Edgar Allan Poe (uh... not so gorgeous), every depressed teen's entry into depressive poetry, you know it's going to be a film like no other.

Some suspension of belief is required to truly enjoy this movie, the lack of physical similarities between the lead actor and his real life counter part not withstanding. One must also suspend any knowledge they have of Poe himself. Yes, it is true there is no record of Poe for the three days proceeding his untimely death; but I hardly think he did it in the joie de vivre spirit shown in the film. It's also hard to think of him as a man capable of getting out of the bottle and drugs long enough to have a love life or any real life for that matter. That being said, there are many facts and facets of the movie that come directly from real life and from what is known.

Baltimore, Maryland- 1849. Poe is back in his adopted hometown and desperately poor. His only salvation is the off-limits daughter (Eve) of a well to do businessman (Gleesen). She is is inspiration and the only thing he thinks about more than booze, dope, money, and fame. Soon, grisly murders begin to happen that only the new detective (Evans) can explain- they are based on the work of Poe. He then enlists the help of Poe to try and solve these murders. Who will guess the killer first, the audience or the detectives?

What surprised me most was how bloody this film was. Thinking back on it I can't imagine why I was surprised, but I was. I guess it's just been a while since I've seen a person cut in half or disfigured outside a "torture-porn" or more traditional horror flick. The FX by Szilvia Paros ("Pillars of the Earth" TV, "Hellboy") are well done and support cinematographer Danny Ruhlmann's ("In a Savage Land", "Little Fish") epic shots.

Cusack toes the line between curmudgeon and scholar well, though it takes a while to warm to some of his acting choices. Eve really shines in a scene that finds her playing out "The Tell-Tale Heart" (not a spoiler, it's the clip she's been showing on appearances). I hope Evans makes more pictures that require acting and clothing (not that I mind him being half naked in the least). His weathered face reminds one of Daniel Craig and he has the potential for the same silent glances heavily weighted in meaning as well.

The only downfall to "The Raven", and responsible for the 3.5 rating instead of 4, is the somewhat disjointed storytelling. It is as if the film didn't know how to start itself or how to end. The middle, the investigation of the crimes, is well executed. Each murder points a finger towards the next and Evans and Cusack make a great team in trying to decipher them. Without giving too much away, the revelation of the killer was a bit of a downer as well. The obligatory confession that even villians not in a James Bond film must give felt like an after-thought.

Fans of the actors, subject, or genre will appreciate this film; though I'm not sure it needs to be seen in the theatre. Rental will allow what I hope to be good special features beyond the usual making of. A featurette linking characters in the film with their real life counterparts would play well. As would one exploring the many theories surrounding Poe's death.

A Pair of Star-Crossed Lovers

Every once in a while, I get on a genre kick. Sometimes it's horror, sometimes comedy or foreign. This week I was all about biopics.

First up:
"Bright Star" (2009)
Director: Jane Campion
Starring: Ben Whisaw (Keats), Abbie Cornish (Fanny), Paul Schneider (Mr. Brown)

** (2 stars)

Based on the poet John Keats secret love affair with Fanny Brawne near the end of his life. Fanny comes from a somewhat established family and is of the age when she must think about marrying, and more importantly, marrying a man with money. Her best prospect is family friend and failed poet Mr. Brown, who teases her life a child on the playground. Enter young Keats- poor, mysterious, talented. Fanny is immediately drawn to him and their secret rendez-vous commence. Tragedy strikes when Keats contracts TB and is sent off to Rome to convelese. Months later, he is dead at 25- a failed poet.

If this sounds like spoilers, I apologize. However, history tells us these things so I don't feel I'm ruining anything. That you know the romance is ultimately tragic was part of the marketing campaign.

The film has a great premise. Part biography, part history, part love affair; how could it go wrong? But, wrong it does. The film feels overly long dispite coming in just under two hours long. The acting is good, Cornish and Schneider especially. Cornish displays the naivity and ideality young woman possess, and that many a heroine of romantic lore have been written around. Schneider, perhaps best known for independent films "All the Real Girls" and "Lars and the Real Girl", has a fantastic Scottish accent and teases Miss Brawne as if it's an Olympic sport. Whisaw is fine as Keats, but it does not compare to his "star making" turn in "Perfume" or more recently on BBC's "The Hour".

Furthermore, the film is boring. Too much film is spent on voice over's of letters written and poems being tried out when it could have shown the action to a much better result. Campion is the champion (pun intended) of quite, moody, romantic fare. Her approach is no different here, though I feel she was far more interested in her subjects personally than she was at making us fall in love with them.

The movie did make me want to know more, mostly because I was left knowing so little, so I jumped to Wikipedia for an overview. Five minutes browsing the internet left me with a much better taste in my mouth. Why didn't they play up the secrecy of their affair? No one knew until Fanny's death when she bequithed the love letters to her children. Her life was far more intersting during and after her time with Keats, I wish the film had focused more on her.

Next, I finally say Cronenberg's "departure" film.

"A Dangerous Method" (2011)
Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley, Viggo Mortensen, Vincent Cassel
Awards: Golden Globe nomination, Best Supporting Actor- Viggo Mortensen, London and Los Angeles Critics Association Best Actor- Michael Fassbender, Venice Film Festival Golden Lion- David Cronenberg

****(4.5 stars)

Just after the turn of the century and prior to World War I, a destraught Russian woman, Sabina (Knightley), is delivered to Jung's Zurich clinic. She is histerical and fights help with every fiber of her being. Jung begin's what was then refered to as "the talking cure" on her, based on his readings of Freud's papers. As Sabina gets better, so does the relationship between student and teacher, both of Jung and Freud and Jung and Sabina) developes. Together, Freud and Jung work to develope and create what becomes psychoanalysis. As Sabina gets better, she begins a long-term affair with the married Jung that releases him from his own mental confines. She goes back to school and becomes a therapist herself. However, this love triangle soon becomes toxic to many involved ending in the infamous rift between these two masters of the mind.

The biggest surprise in this film may be Knightley. She physically embodes a woman suffering from past trauma's and guilt. The opening scenes in which her whole body fights her revelations is brilliant. Fassbender may be the most exciting actor of his generation. Jung could easily become an unsypathetic character, yet he creates a man flawed and accepting of his own flaws. Mortensen and Cronenberg should have a contract, along the same lines as Time Burton and Johnny Depp, and make as many films together as possible. Both bring the best out of the other and the unscene relationship that must be evident off camera bleeds into the performance.

The film makes clear the stylistic differences between Freud's and Jung's approach to the psyche that is easy for the layman to grasp. Again, it is the female character that is almost more interesting. Sabina graduates and becomes a respected psychoanalyst. During the war, she moves back to Russia with her husband and family. During World War II she refuses to leave her home and is killed, along with her children, by the Nazi's. That she is no longer forgotten is wonderful.

I would certainly recommend this movie to anyone interested in the birth of our understanding the mind, to those with a major crush on the actor's or director (guilty!), or to anyone interested in a movie that makes them think. I certainly understand you may need to be in the right mind set for such a film, but try to get there!

Cronenberg is a director that continues to grow even though he doesn't need to. Having made his name as the Canadian father of horror, he know puts that same eye to detail, destruction, and psychology to more realistic forms. His next project, "Cosmopolis", takes him back to the future armed with the character development he has perfected in recent years. Not even the presence of Robert Pattinson is enough to turn me off this film.

Backyard Movie Making: Super 8

**** (4.5 stars)

Sometimes I think it would be nice to relive old memories. The ones from childhood you often think about in times when being an adult is rough. There's my first birthday party to see "The Land Before Time", or the homemade Twister game at my Kindergarten Halloween party. The year I was Catwoman for Halloween, or when a deer walked within three feet of me at my Grandmother's house. It seems obvious that is exactly what writer/director J.J. Abrams and producer Steven Spielberg were doing when they conceived of "Super 8".

Set in 1979-1980, a group of boys entertain themselves in small town Ohio by making 8mm movies about zombies. What none of them expect is that the fantasy world they've created will suddenly show up on their door step. After witnessing a horrific train crash, their sleepy town of Lillian undergoes several strange events from lost phone lines, to missing car engines, to missing people. The U.S. Air Force shows up to take control of the wreckage as well as the town. The fate of the people lie in the youthful audacity and curiosity that only children have. What they find is at times funny, moving, scary, and cheesy.

It would be unfair to say too much about this movie. The trailers, some of the best in recent years, have done a good job of building suspense and excitement for the film without giving anything away. The audience I was with jumped three times, but laughed along with the jokes twice as often. And, that's the thing. This isn't really a sci-fi film, it's a coming of age movie that everyone regardless of how they grew up can relate. In the band of geeks, there's the chubby one, the dictator, the quiet one, the crazy one, the passive one, and the hot one. These actors, many of whom have few to zero credits to their names, capture what it was like to be adolescent. The dialog rings true because they were free to ad lib where need be. Another testament to Abrams power as a director. I would love to see him dial it back a bit and make a really personal (even more so) film. Something that reminds us this is the guy who created "Felicity". It's time for his "first feature" and not another blockbuster. Of course, with the estimated earnings of this movie, that dream will probably never come to pass.

It's easy to make comparisons to Speilberg's early work, especially "E.T." and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", but that really diminishes the film that is Abrams creation. Certainly he was influenced by these films, but what filmmaker working in this genre isn't? There was a lovely quote by Spielberg in this weeks "Entertainment Weekly" that talked about how all films influence us and it's impossible to make a movie that doesn't draw on those influences, whether it be a complete rip off, homage, or tone. [side note: I wish I had the article with me, it was really good, but I'm writing this away from the house so I suggest you just go out and get you a copy!] Someone should wake up M. Night Shamylan and tell him this is how you make a movie.

I'm not sure this is the summer movie to trump all summer movies, but it is enjoyable on many levels that other blockbusters are not. A perfect double feature: "X-Men: First Class" and "Super 8". We could subtitle it: "A lesson in what the summer could be".

The Power of X

It should be noted that I am a geek. One of the highlights of my year so far was attending the Dallas ComicCon and missing Leonard Nimoy in the hall by just seconds. Geek.

I love comic books; the art, the characters (both fantastical and realistic), the stories. Whether it be a far away galaxy or right here on earth, the future or in the present or the past; I am constantly impressed by what the writers and artists are able to accomplish. Comic books, and their grown counter part the graphic novel, represent the perfect blend of my twin passions- movies and books. Seemingly simple writing is reinforced by the art work, both working diligently to move the story forward and build characters frame by frame.

It seems shocking that it would take so long for Hollywood to jump on the geek bandwagon, until you remember comics are for kids. Or, at least that was the popular thought when the greatest characters were created in the 50s. Who would have thought a dime store comic book would later sell for millions?

Regardless of how long it took to get there, Hollywood eventually did come calling and have been turning out both good (1st Superman, Batman, Blade, Iron Man, Ghost World) and bad (Daredevil, the Hulk, Barb Wire, Tank Girl (though I LOVE that movie), Ghost Rider) ever since. The list could go on. It amazes me how anyone could fuck up a comic book movie. It's all right there! The set design, art direction, costumes, physical characteristics, etc. Each character has a long and layered back story. There are established hero's and villains, not to mention plots galore. Seriously, some one must be taking the piss to turn out as much garbage as they do.

It was with great excitement that I went to see "X-Men: First Class". I love the X-Men. Of all the big "brands", the mutant warriors of good and evil are by far my favourite. I love how each character is so different from the next, but there are subtle overlaps in powers. The line between good and evil is also blurred as each villain and obstacle are attacked by opposing sides- the "good" X-Men and the "bad" Magneto and his army. [side note: Does anyone else think it's kind of lame that Magneto didn't get a cool moniker for his brood?].

My favourite character is Jean Grey, almost exclusively because she becomes the Dark Phoenix whom I adore. It is much for this reason I loved "X-3", and seem to be the only person who did! I urge you to go back and watch it again. Sure, Brett Ratner isn't known for the subtlety that proved Bryan Singer the right man for the job. (Remember when everyone hated that he was directing? Fools!). The story was good but perhaps they tried to do too much in too little time (much like this newest film). **SPOILER ALERT IF YOU NEVER SAW "X-3: THE LAST STAND"** Still, who could forget when Mystique is cured of her mutant-ness and Magneto leaves her behind? I think the line is something like, "You were beautiful, now look at you." To a nude Rebecca Romijn!! Or, the struggle Rogue goes through when faced with the possibility of a cure. Should she? Shouldn't she? I hated the choice she ended up making, though now, years wiser, I understand it.

How did Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) meet and then how did they come to be foes? (I won't use the term enemy, as I've always felt they still have a great deal of love and respect for one another). When did they become Professor X and Magneto, respectively? When was the school for gifted youngsters established? Why is Charles in a wheel chair? All and more will be answered!

The film starts with our hero's in the 40s- Erik in a Nazi prison camp and Charles in a mansion in upstate New York. It then moves pretty quickly to the 60s and the dawn of the Cuban missle crisis. Mutants are alone, unrecognized, and in hiding. Erik is hunting his old nemesis and war criminal Sebastian Shaw (a devilishly cool Kevin Bacon) and Charles is getting is doctorate in Oxford. Soon, he is enlisted to help CIA operative Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne), and believer in the extraordinary, as she hunts for Shaw. Shaw has taken what he learned as the chief medical experiment guy in concentration camps and turned himself into a superhero with the ability to absorb energy. He looks smashing! Joining him on his quest for world domination is Emma Frost (January Jones), Riptide (Alex Gonzalez), and Azazel (an unrecognizable Jason Flemyng). On the side of good, Charles and Erik use a prehistoric version of Cerebro to locate other mutants who may be able to help in their task. Finally, more than half way through the movie, we meet the first class: Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Angel, not to be confused with the male Angel from "X-3" (Zoe Kravitz), Havok (Lucas Till), Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones), and Darwin (Edi Gathegi). It's nice to see some new faces in the already established movie-verse of X-Men.

Matthew Vaughn has transitioned well from the indie darling "Layer Cake" to more commercial fare like "Kick-Ass" and this film. His attention to character is precisely what this film needed. There is a lot of history (both real and from the comics) to cover, and not getting lost or dragged down and away from the plot could be tricky in less capable hands. I think there were just too many cooks in the kitchen, with four credited screenwriters, not to mention two story by credits. Clearly, someone had a lot of fun writing it but the film would have been better if it didn't try to introduce too much of the school. It should have been called "X-Men: Origins" and saved the "First Class" moniker for a second film when we could really explore the establishment of the school.

There are great performances through out, most notably Fassbender. It's great to see Magneto with a bit more humanity, before it is killed and he begins trying to lead the mutant uprising. Lawrence proves she can handle a blockbuster (good thing what with "The Hunger Games" poised to become the new "Twilight") and Hoult shows just the right edge of nerd and carnivore. The biggest fault in casting is the other women. I'm not sure if Jones is just used to the "Mad Men" school of acting or if she just can't act, but she was never really present and seemed to phone it in. One would think the role of Ice Queen would be perfectly suited to her, but I guess that doesn't work in every dimension of the 60s. Thankfully, it does not distract from the overall film. Byrne is also under utilized, but I disagree with other reviewers that her character was so unbelievable. We must remember, most women at this time were homemakers or secretaries. It is not far fetched that she would be demeaned or objectified in the work place. Of course, the Moira MacTaggert of the comics is a lot more interesting (and not a CIA agent), but what can you do?

I want desperately for this film to do well (knock on wood). I want more sequels! There is so much story to be told, so many characters who still have not had their day, it would be a shame to stop here. Whether you're a card carrying geek like me or just someone looking to have fun at the movies (all without having to check your brain at the door), then this is the must see of the summer.

**** (4 stars)

Anatomy of Torture

This was supposed to be a review of the movie "Borderland", one of the "After Dark Horrorfest: 8 Films to Die For" in 2007. Unfortunately, after about twenty minutes into the movie I had to stop watching. I wanted to stab myself in the face with a spork, it was so bad. This rarely happens, but when it does it's such a bummer! I was sick for a week and the best thing about it was wading through the long list of movies saved to my DVR and finally working my way through them.

The "torture porn" genre, often credited to Eli Roth though films of this nature have been made for decades, is certainly getting played out. You can't have torture for the sake of torture. Like any movie, there must be a plot (even a basic one) and characters we care something for. Roth is certainly a master at creating these types of stories as well as knowing when to stop and move on. I'm looking at you "Saw" and "Final Destination" franchise! In Roth's films, the characters interact well with each other and often have back stories worth knowing. The violence and gore serve the plot rather than as the only thing holding the movie together.

I recently re-watched "Hostel", though I'm not sure how appropriate the term "re-watch" is. I've watched this movie twice before but never in its entirety. The first time I tried watching, it was really late at night, I may have been drinking, and I kept falling asleep. I woke to a young man getting his Achilles sliced and fell back asleep. I woke again later to some other torture scene and fell asleep again. The next day I figured any horror movie I fell asleep to must not be worth watching. Then I saw "Hostel II" and fell in love. If this were the sequel, with a great story line featuring both sides of the same coin, hunter and hunted, than the first film must be better than I gave it credit for.

Perhaps it's "Hostel"'s fault for my disgust at "Borderland" and it's blatant rip off approach to gore. In horror, bad writing is easily forgiven by story. Bad acting can be covered up with blood and guts. But a combination of both is just lazy. "Borderland" is about a trio of mid-twenty somethings on vacation in Mexico looking to do what all young males in Mexico in movies are- boobs, booze, and drugs. Once there, they uncover a human sacrifice cult who, I assume, end up torturing and killing them. I don't really know. They lost me when Rider Strong, aged 28 at the time, loses his virginity to un underage prostitute dressed like Sailor Moon whom his friend paid. Groan! Okay, so it may have points for being based on a true story. Okay, so maybe it got better. The problem is, this is the age of ADD/ADHD and I don't have the patience to wait for a movie to decide to start.

While Roth wisely chose not to make a third "Hostel", the geniuses at Twisted Pictures/Lionsgate just can't help themselves when it comes to sequels. 2004s unique and uniquely disturbing "Saw" was a break through in horror when it came out. Here was a movie no one knew much about, made for pennies, that scared the bejeezus out of everyone. Entering the arena of forever famous villains is Jigsaw. Is he the puppet? The puppeteer? What's the end game? Huge box office sent the producers into a diabetic coma and they've popped out a movie a year since it's release. "Saw II" introduced more players and expanded the universe slightly, making it a worthwhile sequel. They should have stopped at "III".

Newline saw it's cash cows crow when they released "Final Destination" in 2000. It wasn't a huge success in the theatres, but DVD sales were enough to produce sequels with ballooning budgets but similar returns. Not the best market strategy I'd say, but they've put out 5 of these pictures. How many more ways can Death come for these kids? Besides, when you make a movie called "The Final Destination", that should be it. Seriously.

There is room in the world of horror and popular cinema for films that push the boundaries of decency and taste. Whether it be serial killers, cannibals, sadists, or toys possessed by evil; all can thrive and be enjoyed. The problem is not in the content, it's in the delivery. The notion that there are no new stories only new ways of telling them is especially poignant. Roth changed the co-ed camping genre with "Cabin Fever", James Wan gave us the worst puzzle solvers of all time in "Saw", Greg McLean took the hitchhiker genre to the outback with "Wolf Creek", Rob Zombie paid perfect homage to 70s exploitation with "House of 1000 Corpses" and it's follow up "The Devils Rejects". But the media and audiences act as if this is new. It isn't. George A. Romero, Wes Craven, John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, and the incorrigible Roger Corman have been making "torture porn" for years. We just called it horror. The fact is, horror is at its best when it's character driven. And, we don't even need to know the characters. How many A-list celebs starred in any of the above films? None. All made millions. 

So, to the hordes of hungry film students out there dreaming of their own "Hostel", take a deep breath and ask yourself, "What would Eli Roth do?" If the answer sounds like any movie you've already seen, you didn't really ask him. Go back to the drawing board and work a bit longer. I promise, it will pay off in the end. 

Millennium Trilogy Resolved

**** (4 stars)

I've been a bit preoccupied with life at the moment, so not a lot of time to sit at home and watch the Netflix collecting dust on top of my VCR/DVD combo. Last night I finally finished "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest", the third film in the Millennium trilogy based on the best selling books of the same name. I reviewed the first movie on my older blog, but seem to have skipped the second one all together. Weird. If you haven't seen the movies or read the books you've probably been living in a distopian society that has outlawed all forms of entertainment. If that's the case, than congrats on escaping from the cult and let's get crackin' getting you up to speed.

**There Will Be Spoilers! (But, I'll try to keep them to a minimum)**

In the first film, "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", we are introduced to Mikael Blomkvist- rogue journalist and editor of a seemingly boring political magazine. Blomkvist has just served a short prison sentence for slander when he is recruited by a wealthy old man to help solve the disappearance of his granddaughter. Blomkvist's search is too long and tedious to do alone, so he enlists the help of a computer hacker named Lisbeth Salander to help.  Lisbeth is a bit of a genius but the government has kept her under control by declaring her incompetent and locking her up in a mental institution when she was a young girl. What's the angle? Of course everything ends happily but of course that's not true or there would be no need for two other movies.

Cut to the second film, "The Girl Who Played With Fire". Blomkvist moves on with life and begins investigating a possible sex-traffic ring. He would be lost without Salander's hacking skills and once again enlists her to help. Unfortunately for her, there is more than meets the eye in this case and she is soon the scape goat for several murders that occur during the investigation. Now on the run, she must rely on Blomkvist for help this time around. These events unfold along with, and sometimes in conjunction with, the story of Salander's painful childhood and years of abuse. It is revealed that her father, whom she tried to kill as a child, is actually behind everything that has happened to her in life and is now the one trying to shut her up forever. Unfortunately for him, she gets there first and tries to kill him again. Blomkvist to the rescue and roll credits.

Now, in the final movie, Salander is clinging to life and about to face trial for the attempted murder of her father. We all know by now what a bad guy he is, but he has deep roots and trusted allies with which to help him. This film is a lot slower than the previous two and that's saying a lot considering the shortest of the trilogy is 129  minutes. The problem isn't necessarily the filmmakers as it is the author. Steig Larsson traumatically died shortly after the first book was published. We know through his long term girlfriend that a forth book was in the works. Would it have continued the story of Blomkvist and Salander? Was is something completely different? We may never know as it is tied up in the malicious court case between her and Larsson's family. [side note: If you're with a Swede, get married. The country does not recognize girl friends or common law wives, and the family can contest the will and estate in such cases. Bummer.]

The book was able to do a better job at explaining the government's connection to Salander's father and herself since it is unrestrained from the confines of time. To shot the book as written would require the film to be almost 8 hours long. The writers did a fine job editing out additional back stories and characters, yet they seem to have forgotten the main ones. How is Blomkvist so smart in the previous films but so dumb in this one? Why would Sweden protect such a nasty individual as Salander's father? The book fixes both of these problems and for that reason, I suggest you read it first. Otherwise, you will be left in the dark about many things that will fill in the holes the movies creates.

It is a bit of a sad conclusion to such a fantastic series, but not so far gone as to warrant massive complaints or calls to avoid it. You should see it. If you've already watched the other two movies, it will be impossible to ignore it. Furthermore, the English language remake is being filmed now and I can already guess there will be more car chases, bare breasts, and swearing than the original. Such a shame.

My Cinematic Alphabet

Last month, one of my favorite movie blogs, "Rupert Pupkin Speaks", created his list of the best movies A-Z. I thought this sounded like a lot of fun and a challenge, but I had no idea how difficult it would be. How do I choose just one movie per letter? I can barely come up with a response to the question, "What's your favorite movie?" (I used to say "Paper Moon" just to be a bit of s snob, but truth be told it's probably "Vivre sa Vie" or "Heavy". See! I can't even pick one in my own blog and I still sound like a snob!). To make it easier, I picked the first movie that came to mind or grabbed my attention. It's interesting how many of them are somewhat personal to me; either in content or by association with a particular memory or person.

So, here goes:

A- All That Jazz

B- Bell, Book, and Candle

C- Cafe au Lait

D- Dr Zhivago

E- Edward Scissorhands

F- Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

G- Ginger Snaps

H- Heavy

I- Immortal Beloved

J- Jason and the Argonauts

K- Killer Klowns from Outer Space

L- Last Days of Disco

M- Mallrats

N- Night Watch

O- Orlando

P- Pulp Fiction

Q- Quartermass and the Pit

R- The Red Violin

S- The Salton Sea

T- Tank Girl

U- Uncertainty

V- Vivre sa Vie

W- What About Bob?

X- X: The Unheard Music

Y- Yojimbo

Z- Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession

Kelly Canter and Jesus Christ

*** (3.5 stars)

For a movie I had no real intention of seeing, "Country Strong" really surprised me. I was anticipating something horrible I could laugh at while drinking a bottle of wine with a friend. Instead, what I got was a thoughtful though flawed film.

Gwenyth Paltrow stars as Kelly Canter, a Shania Twain/grown-up Carrie Underwood type with more demons than talent. Once again in rehab, she meets handsome orderly Beau, also an aspiring singer. When Kelly's husband-manager (never a good hyphenate) comes to get her a month early to start touring, she convinces him to take Beau with them on the road. Is obvious what will happen next, but it doesn't really matter. Unlike "CrazyHeart", our protagonist here is far more likable. She's someone you may know or have met- a woman married too young, suffering too much from and for her work, and lost inside her personal demons. The ending shocked me. I think I slapped my friend!

The stand out here is Garrett Hedlund ("Tron: Legacy") and actual country superstar Tim McGraw. McGraw has carved out a nice second career with acting. He's expressive and sincere in his acting, all the more impressive as his character is without a doubt the nemesis of the film. Hedlund left a budding impression in "Tron", and he's so much better here. He walks away with every scene he is in, and I would buy any record he put out.

A lot of people claim to hate country music. That's fair, we don't all have to like everything. But I guarantee those people like a country artist- Johnny Cash, early Elvis, Patsy Cline, Waylon Jennings. There's a song or two on their iPod for sure. Growing up in Texas you would think I would have a greater appreciation for country than say, someone from New York. That isn't the case. I was raised by Yankees and as such, country music was never really played in the house. However, I couldn't escape the above artists and others growing up. It's the new wave of country that annoys me. I don't like it's pop sound, as if it's trying to convince us it's something it isn't. Be country! I love bluegrass and the new alt-folk scene that's cropped up across the country. I like the music in this film because it's the perfect blend of both worlds- a little bit country, a little bit rock and roll. (I think I totally lose some point for quoting a Donny & Marie song though). Beau's songs are the most honest and classic. Young ingenue Chiles Stanton (Leighton Meester) is the current Carrie Underwood type. She's got a surprisingly good voice, but she doesn't really blossom until she meets Beau. My biggest complaint with her was that I didn't believe the growth of the character in so short a time span. Worse, I can't tell if it's the writing or her acting that caused this reaction.

The biggest problem with this movie is the story. I appreciate when a film drops us into the middle of the story, but you still have to flesh out the characters. If all roads lead to Dallas, as they do in this movie, then that scene must pop, must resonate, must be recognized as the pinnacle of the film. That a sold out show at the American Airlines Center can feel flat is a real feat. Hedlund rescues the movie time and again with his Honest Beau routine. I'm excited for his career and hope he continues to make interesting choices.

Writer/Director Shana Fest has made a solid sophomore movie (her first, the family tragedy/drama "The Greatest" is available on DVD) and if she can sharpen her storytelling skills, her career may continue. Unfortunately, that's a tall order in the film industry. You've got to make money when given the chance or at the very least create something a core audience and critics will like.

I'm glad I saw this movie, it was a lot better than expected. However, it made me long for better crafted (country) music movies like "The Thing Called Love" or "Nashville". If you have or had any interest, rent it. If you never cared, you may be surprised but you're more likely going to like something else.

HANNA-sassian

**** (4.5 stars)

I went to a screening last night and fell in love, almost immediately, with “Hanna”. Every scene is important to building the story of a young girl trained to fight, and fed on revenge for the death of her mother.

Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) and her father (Eric Bana) have lived in the arctic woods since she was a child. In that time, he has expanded her education past the World Books they read nightly, to include hunting, fighting, and survival. All of this is in preparation for the day she decides she is ready to face her nemesis, Marissa Weixler (Cate Blanchett); a CIA operative that killed her mother.

There have been movies before, and I'm sure after, that follow the struggles of a person raised away from society. The introduction of new words, new friends, music, animals, places; but here it never feel like a gimmick. Through the brilliant acting of Saoirse Ronan and great writing, we feel almost as if we're experiencing these things for the first time as well. While on the run, Hanna meets up with a family of British tourists who take her in. These are the first friends and people she has had real, true contact with in her life. It’s heartwarming and heart wrenching at the same time.

There's a bit of a divot in Cate Blanchett's performance, but I'm not sure it's her fault. How do I criticize what I also loved about the movie? That is, it's refusal to fill in the holes and missing pieces of the back story. We know what we need to know to move the story along, no more, no less. Still, I wish I knew more about what motivated her. Why, after all these years is she still stung by the one that got away? Why is she so evil? And, she really is. Blanchett plays her like a Southern mother that spits venom.

Director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride & Prejudice”) breaks out of his sober shell to create action sequences that rival the Bourne movies. The stylized fight sequences are brutal, though the mix of camera techniques could be distracting to those of us that pay attention to such things. DP Alwin Kuchler (“Morwan Caller”, “Sunshine”) has perfected this style of tight shots that seem to drift down to the audience. We never feel preached too, though we know exactly who is testifying. However, the editing keeps the action tight and on line. It’s violence that acts itself out, but is never gratuitous.

That the Chemical Brothers scored the movie seemed a bit weird to me at first, like a watered down “Tron: Legacy”, but I have to say they did an exceptional job. The music alerts us to the action ahead, but doesn’t over take it (hello Bourne) or foreshadow too greatly.

All in all, I highly recommend this movie to everyone. Go see it!