Review: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

I've been trying to come up with a way to discuss with some cohesion the so called 'serial killer' films of David Fincher, a category in which Se7en and Zodiac are now joined by The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. But there is no way to do that because these 3 films could not be less alike. Se7en is considered by many (myself included) to be a modern classic of the crime genre. Its dark, foreboding portrait of urban and moral decay is the setting for a fascinating investigation in to the nature of sin. Zodiac is about obsession, about the way some mysteries have no solution, but some poor folks can't stop searching for one regardless.

And so what is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo about? 'What was the book about' might be a better jumping off point, and from there we can leap to lingering anti-semitism in Sweden, or that children really get their values from their parents, or perhaps simply that sometimes, one bad turn deserves another. Oh and violence against women is bad, both because, well it just is but also because god help you if Lizbeth Salander finds out. As the heroine of this story, Lizbeth draws our complete attention, no matter the terrible circumstance.

If you've read the novel, then you know this already: rape figures centrally as a crime committed and then revenged. You will see rape, more than once, if you sit down and watch this, and I won't bother saying whether you should or shouldn't shield your eyes - that is irrelevant. We've all got different thresholds for this kind of thing. I can say that I don't pale easily at the movies, and some of the scenes here made me profoundly upset and uncomfortable. That was clearly the intention, no punches pulled.

Fincher has cast this take on Stieg Larsson's novel wisely. The subject matter has the potential to be pulpy, but the stars here are just too credible to conduct the current of the story in any way that other than earnestly. It's no surprise that Daniel Craig, Stellan Skarsgard or Christopher Plummer are up to the task, so the question lies with whether relative newcomer Rooney Mara can match the chops. The answer is: And then some. I said Lizbeth holds our attention, and playing her, Mara immediately has pushed herself into a deserving spotlight. We last saw her portraying Mark Zuckerberg's girlfriend in the rapier opening scene of Fincher's The Social Network and it's an understatement to say she has completely transformed herself here. She is more than capable of all the ferocity and vulnerability demanded of the character, no small feat.

That is the best reason to see this film. So overwhelming is the character of Lizbeth Salander that it makes the main plot of solving a 40-year old missing person case, and tracking down a serial killer seem like mere window dressing. Having not read the novels, I think I might now understand some of the fascination.

As for other elements of the film - it is breathlessly paced, and thoroughly well realized from top to bottom. The feel is consistently cold and lonely, and the score, once more a collaboration between Nine Inch Nails front man (or only man I guess) Trent Reznor and producer Atticus Ross is another great addition to the recent increase in non-traditional scores. This is electronic, but also somehow organic, and the textures all suit this story well - it's all short moments of warmth amidst horrible expanses of cold.

Like most David Fincher films, this is easy to recommend or to not recommend - those who read the novel or who typically like his style will find lots to like. For some, though, this is certainly unpalatable.

Review: Shame

Professionals cannot agree on what constitutes sex addiction, or whether it is a real disorder, but don't tell that to Brandon (Michael Fassbender) - he's not a well-adjusted man, no matter how you might label what's wrong with him. Sex is meaningless for him, just a means to an end - and even the ends are joyless here. Shame concerns itself with the way Brandon lives day to day, if you can call it living, and what happens when his private world is infringed upon by his younger sister (Carey Mulligan).

Another film about addiction might look very similar to this one - with a central character who sneaks away on breaks at the office to do a line in the men's room, to stay out late shoving chemicals into his body, whose personal relationships are perfunctory or else nonexistant. But the vice here is sex. So Brandon is at all times preoccupied with getting his next 'hit' - he does sneak off at work - to the men's room - but to masturbate. He chums around with his boss (James Badge Dale) to troll for his next lay. He is out all night, screwing wherever and whoever he can. At one point this is not limited to women, and only in this film would that not be a comment on homosexuality. To Brandon, sex has no character, let alone orientation.

Fassbender has been described as courageous for taking on his role in Shame, a second collaboration between himself and director Steve McQueen, and that may be an understatement. There are long, long takes of him doing little, but they gradually steep the audience in his colourless, soulless existence. Fassbender is nude a lot, having sex a lot, and it never ever looks like fun, even a little. He clashes painfully with his sister because she is as much extroverted as he isn't. She interrupts his life of hiding and he deals with it badly. We have seen flashes of this type of performance from him in films like Jane Eyre, or (surprisingly) X-Men: First Class - he's a terrific choice for a tormented anti-hero. He pairs very well with Carey Mulligan, whose performance is not angry, but frustrated. She perfectly captures the way you can love family, the way you have to, because who else will? Of course she needs her brother, too.

These siblings are implied to have shared a past responsible for their deep sadness and dysfunction - Brandon, more quietly, while Sissy stands in lounges and sings her pain aloud. Never will you hear the lines 'I wanna be part of it, New York, New York', with more heartbreak. Their past isn't illuminated for us, the film isn't concerned with that.

The emotions Brandon exhibits, as barely as he does, inform the shape and colour of every scene as executed in camera, editing, and direction. Long takes where the camera barely moves for 7 minutes arrest us while Brandon goes through his day. Similarly, a single shot follows him while he goes for a late night run. We get no reprieve. That contrasts sharply with the moments when he is manic, frustrated and unfulfilled. The editing jumps, suddenly nothing can be done fast enough. The whole experience pulls your feelings around with detachment and volatility. McQueen traps us with Brandon, doesn't let us look away.

If your good moods are fragile, this is impossible to recommend. Roger Ebert put it best when he gave the film four stars then said he could never watch it again.

For more on Shame, listen to this week's Sticks + Stones Podcast, available on the internet (which is everywhere!!) - Also discussed: The Muppets, Take Shelter, Melancholia, and the films we're looking forward to this month. Listen here!

Review: Contagion

Contagion is a scary movie because it depicts a situation that could happen. I'm no scientist, but I was left thinking that while the virus depicted here isn't real, one like it could be, and there's little comfort in that. It's also scary because as a pandemic takes hold through the film, we see many people die, and many more become frightened and violent. Social services are weakened and in some cases collapse, there are looters, and the social contract generally goes out the window for a while. The scariest part is how close it all is to reality; Contagion is one of those films that transcends science fiction and becomes science possibility.

The film has been described as 'Traffic, but with a virus' which is apt mostly because Steven Soderbergh directed this, too, and lends it his detached view, and his complex interweaving of multiple story threads. The narrative jumps about from person to person and gives us information at a steady, manageable pace, despite its relative complexity - relative to a film like Outbreak, which I also enjoyed, but which took contrived pains to explain viruses to the audience in layman's terms. In Contagion, no one slows down to say things twice, or to say them with great clarity, other than to deal with those characters who aren't scientists - thank god for them because the WHO and CDC only ever speak in shorter words to deal with Homeland Security, and the odd press conference. These scenes play genuinely - when news of a virus is on the real CNN - we may not understand everything (or anything) the talking head says about the science, but there is inevitably that part of their commentary explaining how likely we are to catch the disease, how likely it is to kill us, what the numbers are in the big picture. The gravity of the whole thing shines through like a terrible beacon.

Contagion is close to being documentary in its style - it depicts situations which are difficult, emotional, impossible - but it does not overdo it, it does not tap us on the shoulder with music cues or loose editing to emphasize the tragedy or the panic. The narrative is well-balanced between the grand view of things as they unfold worldwide and the intimate way it affects the characters and the people they love. A surprising number of A-listers are in this film, but it speaks very highly of its execution that despite excellent, underplayed performances from just about everyone, this film would not have been worse off for casting nobodies and newcomers. The big names are just here to sell the package.

Matt Damon is the most human thread running through the film - he loses his wife and step-son early on and struggles to make sure he doesn't also lose his daughter. Much of the plot unfolding around him speaks to our immediate concerns about family when a calamity like this unfolds - parents trying to protect their children while society is falling apart around them. Most of the major characters, even the ones like Lawrence Fishburne who serve to lead us through the institutional procedure of dealing with the virus, have a strong human element that more than anything allows us to trust them and like them. We need to have something to latch on to because the plot is constantly presenting a bleak landscape - the virus spreads fast, kills fast, contracts through touch and air, and is a mystery to medical science when it shows up.

A great deal of research and consultation fuels the way the plot unfolds - Soderbergh and writer Scott Burns do not create drama by contorting the science or the realities of how governments work - they instead keep things grounded by finding the stories that would certainly take place at a time like this. Again, it compares favourably to something like Outbreak - there is no showdown here where one person risks his life by flying a plane or making a big speech - the heroism in Contagion is mostly quiet, patient. Characters take risks, but they are played matter-of-factly, not sensationally.

The detached style of the film won't appeal to everyone, so be warned that there are no car chases or convenient twists. This is an unnerving, steady take on how we all might experience such a disaster - maybe one day, but we hope never.

A young journalist implodes (or maybe he just quit)

This is what I'm talking about.

I couldn't possibly get behind a lot of what Kai Nagata has to say, or else I'd be ready to take my hat and go, too. But I understand. He's even younger than me, but to him the state of TV news is untenable, and in quitting with this very public dispatch, he's articulated what many of us might feel in our most cynical moments. Cynicism in this industry is peculiar because, as Nagata demonstrates, it runs hand in hand with a kind of idealism for what it could be.

A lot of good can come when someone with promise tips out the door so early, and so loudly, reminding us that the status quo is not mandatory. I hope a lot of people with pay grades higher than mine take his criticisms and at least ponder them a while.

Review: Transformers - Dark of the Moon

Strike three, Harry Knowles.

His perspective on film being entirely dependent on the screening's circumstances, Knowles winds up with some weird conclusions about the movies sometimes. Last year, I read in disbelief as he tried to pass off the credibility of a negative review of Inception with the caveat that he hadn't slept the night before and was barely mentally present during the screening. Still, that was last year, so 2011 was a clean slate. Briefly.

This year, he gave a glowing pass to X-Men First Class, which was not a bad movie, but also not a great movie, and not even the best of the X-Men films (for me, that title still belongs to X2). Prior to that, a review that came down favourably on what I thought would be the worst movie I'd see this year - Sucker Punch. But it's still 2011, and I'm now hard pressed to say which Harry Knowles-approved film was worse - Sucker Punch or Transformers 3.

It's subtitled 'Dark of the Moon', which ties into the plot, but I think some better names might have been 'the third, longer, one' or 'Frances McDormand needs a new summerhouse'. Michael Bay has a way of getting good actors into terrible films - I can't believe that Ewan MacGregor is at once the actor who starred in The Island in 2005 and also the one who starred in Beginners this year. I know Bay also casts bad actors - or models, when actors point out how bad his movies are and have to be cut loose.

Transformers 3 takes a problem I experienced with X-Men First Class and amplifies it considerably. Lurking within the over 2.5 hour chore of this movie is some good entertainment. Not great, but certainly the entertainment I had hoped to find once again, it having been missing from this series since the first film in '07. The original managed to be way more fun than either sequel, possibly because the first level of exposition in this universe is way less convoluted than the plotting developed since. But here, even worse than in the previous sequel, whatever good fun was to be had is utterly buried. There is about an hour of this movie that could have been left on the cutting room floor. An HOUR. That means that you could have taken, say, $70 million of this movie's near $200 million budget and just made another, big budget film.

All that is to say that by the time this movie made it to the setpiece destruction/occupation of Chicago, I was already checked out. As one friend pointed out to me, this is going to give a number of people exactly what they want from a trip to the big robot show - there are robots, and they're big, and it's all very showy. In a very un-Michael-Bay style, a great number of the shots in this film's action sequences are longer, to allow the eye time for the much-insisted upon 3D effect (someone must be insisting on it, but it's not me, and it's not anyone I know). The result is that you have many more opportunities to stare at the lavish, almost impossible to conceive effects.

Along that point, my last point, I guess I should thank Michael Bay - he has completely quenched my appetite for mindless effects pictures. I haven't walked out of a movie feeling this exhausted in - ever. In the whole run time of Transformers 3, there was not one second where I cared about any character, ever. That has become completely required for me to enjoy this kind of thing on any level. Not that long ago, I caught Super 8, and that movie was full of spectacle - but it also had a ton of character in it, and was magical in that way that requires you to have a sense of wonder, to share it with someone on screen. Maybe that's what's so tiring about Transformers now - in the past two movies, no one's ever stopped to go 'wow! - huge talking robots!' - it's all been there, done that.

Break the Cycle

I promise this will be a short hop on the soapbox.

Canada has found itself in a federal election this spring. It will be the fourth since 2004. That fact alone paints a very divisive picture of our country. So it's no surprise that a lot of people are tuned out. The reasons I hear are common and, in a way, not unreasonable; none of the major party leaders resonate, unfamiliarity with the issues, a sense that heir vote is unimportant (because after all, the big parties aren't THAT different - the last government led by the Liberal Party fell due largely in part to the sponsorship scandal, and this Conservative government has been found in contempt of parliament).

I wouldn't throw my endorsement behind anyone at this stage, for many reasons. But I would like to make a recommendation, especially if you've found yourself deeply unmotivated by this election.

As important as it is to get familiar with the platforms of each federal party, for the people who aren't finding much to get excited about there, I implore you to visit the websites of, or otherwise learn about, the candidates running in your riding. Learn as much as you can, and give your vote to the person - the MP - who you believe will best represent you in Ottawa.

Many people simply vote for a party when it comes to these things - meaning they don't pay much attention to their local representation, just the big debates and issues of the party leaders. But that's not how a robust democracy should work. More emphasis needs to be placed on the person who represents you - because it is their job to convey what you want out of your government to their party leader.

I've spouted a lot of the criticisms that I hear coming from most people these days - especially younger voters who sense a lot of disconnection in the major party leaders. Party politics will figure into your decisions, but please try and factor in your local MP. I may be an idealist - but I strongly believe that if more voters did this, and did so honestly, then the make-up of our parliament wold change drastically. And that would be a very good thing, no matter what party you favour.

(Every major news outlet will have their election coverage running at full throttle now - so just pick your flavour, really. If you have the time, read or watch more than one source of news, since every outlet is biased, in one way or another)

Tron: Legacy

Quick notes about Tron: Legacy, in case you're looking for the speedy version:

1. It's worth checking out.

2. If you decide to shell out your hard-earned dollars, IMAX 3D is the way to do it (if you're already spending $12, why not another $5) - not only is the sound superior, but like The Dark Knight, sections of this film were actually shot in the IMAX format, which means they fill up that entire, insanely large screen.

3. Check your brain at the door and enjoy the light-cycle battles, music, and general ooh-ah factor. Over-thinking this one left me in a pile of trouble.

I think I'll begin every review like this from now on! Especially on the blockbuster types, which to me are getting to a point where they're only worth it if they offer something at least a little unique. This one does, without a doubt. Still, it's far from perfect, so let's have a look.

About 20 years ago, as the story goes, Kevin Flynn disappeared from his role as the big boss at a world-renowned software company, called Encom. He also disappeared off the face of the earth - leaving his son Sam an orphan, and his company in the hands of greedy, evil board-member types (the only good one asks, "what is different about our product this year?" "This time we put a 12 on the box", is the reply). That one good guy is Kevin's old pal, who tells Sam he's gotten word from his absent father - go to the arcade and check it out. We get to watch Sam do the 1-minute reversal from his flat-out no to a reluctant yes, and soon enough he's at the arcade getting beamed up, or in, or however it works, and WHAM. He's in Narnia on a circuit board. Here's where Dad's been hanging out all this time.

Tron: Legacy is much like a fairy tale, but rather than being set in a fantastic world of lush, otherworldly beauty, it's set inside a computer. Never mind that most people have no romantic sentiment whatsoever for technology - the film works hard enough to depict the real world as more appealing than 'the grid', the specific system where this story takes place. The grid is beautiful in its own way - it has a cool, clean, neon sheen, and we're mostly supposed to find it dazzling, not cozy.

The actors, too, are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing - the ones who aren't strictly speaking human do a good job of acting that way - Olivia Wilde in particular has a great knack for behaving just outside of normalcy - I wonder if the direction given to her was 'act like you're 8 years old, and have never seen another real person before'. The relatively new Garrett Hedlund is a good leading man for us to follow through it all, and Jeff Bridges is fun to watch as both a deeply patient Kevin Flynn and am evil program bent on taking over the world. Yes. Yes, that's what it was...

That lands us at the part of this whole thing that didn't work for me. I found myself thinking back to The Matrix, wishing for a little clarity as far how this world is supposed to work, what the rules are, etc. Technically, The Matrix had an advantage, in that it was a world within a computer designed and programmed to be indistinguishable from reality. People may not have thought about it, but MAN does that cut down on time. Characters in that film and its sequels only ever had to slow down to explain that rules can be bent or broken, but by and large, as the audience watches, most of the questions they have are answered - why is there gravity, sunlight, why can people die, and how. The Matrix got complex enough to allow for the distinction between people and programs, and we understood that clearly enough.

Tron: Legacy kept me at arm's length, because I always had questions. And I am normally a film goer who is eager to suspend my disbelief, but for some reason, this one just asked too much of me. That is not to say there weren't large stretches of this film that I enjoyed a lot - as I pointed out above, light-cycle battles, the whole aesthetic, daft punk's score, and all the performers had me going, but - well. There's a point in the middle of this picture at which Jeff Bridges has to deliver a lot of exposition about what has happened to keep him trapped in this world all this time. He speaks long enough to bring up something called 'isomorphic algorithms' and then stopped before he explained what they were. Sam's reactions informed me that they are special, and it's inferred that they are alive (they better be, or else the ending makes even less sense). Still, when characters have to get out some necessary exposition, you should be less confused than when they started talking, not more.

Those characters also have to work pretty hard to step through some of the clunky scripting while still appearing to have much life in them, and there were a few missed opportunities. For one thing, it's suggested that time moves more quickly in the grid, relative to the real word - and while they gave a solid figure somewhere, the real revelation that they blew past, and that Sam never seemed to register, was that the 20 years he experienced without his dad may have seemed like hundreds or thousands to Kevin. I would have greatly enjoyed a moment or two on that point, rather then more talk of isomorphic so-and-so's.

The film's knack for being obtuse aside, I'm still glad I saw it. There is a tradition being carried forwards here that I may be reading in to a little too deeply - but it strikes me that somewhere at its core, Tron films are about the reverence for all the good things that technology can do. There are lines about the potential to change just about every aspect of human life in here, and I only wish this film's reach equaled its rhetoric. Oh well, enjoy a fresh ride on the light-cycle.