Men (Directors) Who Hate (Don't Really Understand) Women

Welcome back to Hello Mr. Anderson. I have two things I wanted to say to my faithful readers today One: I hope you all had a Merry Christmas and will have a happy New Year. Two: you don't need to spend your well-earned money and see David Fincher's adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Why not? Wasn't this one of my more anticipated film releases, as it had been for thousands of fans of the literary trilogy by Stieg Larsson? Well, I guess you can say that I feel as though I've been spoiled. The Millennium Trilogy of books, consisting of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and its sequels The Girl who Played with Fire and The Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, have become international bestsellers, and it was back in 2008 that I read the first in the series and understood why. Though one could argue that Larsson was not perhaps the best fiction writer on the planet, his ugly look behind the scenes of Swedish society and his obvious vocal activism against violence against women made him a one of the more unique authors of the modern age. The success of his novels was followed in 2009 by the Swedish film adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, directed by Neils Arden Oplev. The film was not only a near-perfect retelling of the novel, but it was also one of the best movies of 2010 when it came to the United States in limited release. It made superstars of Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist in the leading roles, and both have been seen in American cinema thanks to their starring turns in that trilogy. Between the great read and the excellent movie, there was really little reason to think David Fincher could bring anything new to the table in his quickly-made follow up to his overrated-but-still-good The Social Network that could really surprise me. He does, but perhaps not in the way that was best for reintroducing the series to an American audience.

Sure, she's a little odd, but she's a freakin' genius

Michael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is in trouble. The co-owner and also a writer for Millennium Magazine in Stockholm, Sweden, has just been found guilty of libel after being tricked into reporting with falsified evidence, most likely planted by the company he was trying to expose in the first place. Losing his life's savings and scandalized in the press, Blomkvist has no choice but to go into hiding while he tries to figure out what to do next. That is answered quickly, as the estate of Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) hires Blomkvist to delve into a forty-year-old murder mystery. Henrik's great niece Harriet disappeared from the island home of the Vanger clan while just about every member of the family was in attendance. Sure that she could not have simply run away (an accident had rendered traffic to and from the island impossible that day), Henrik wants Blomkvist to dig deep and discover which of his unsavory brood is responsible for her murder. In return, he will provide evidence proving that the company Blomkvist had been investigating was indeed corrupt. As Blomkvist delves into the history of the Vanger family however, he realizes that he needs help. And so he is introduced to a fierce, strong-willed and brilliant researcher named Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara)...

As James Bond triggers the trap... oh, right...

Obviously, the biggest challenge for this film was to take a character so iconic as Lisbeth Salander (and in such a short period of time, too) and match her with a performer worthy of that level. Don't be surprised if you're not familiar with Rooney Mara, whose biggest roles to date have been in 2009's Youth in Revolt, and 2010's Nightmare on Elm Street reboot and The Social Network. Don't remember her, or don't recognize her in the photos here of Lisbeth? That's because Rooney Mara looks in real life like she's about twelve years old; thirteen at most. Besides the major aesthetic transformation turning Mara into the dark, tattooed super-heroine, Mara had to get to an emotional understanding of Lisbeth in order to convincingly BE her, and the actress does a fantastic job in pulling it off. It's impossible to describe exactly what she does in becoming this character, but when Lisbeth Salander walks into a room, all eyes are immediately drawn to her presence. This allows Mara to steal just about every scene in which she appears. She's certainly deserving of the Golden Globe nomination she just received, though time will tell whether she'll be able to completely avoid comparisons to Noomi Rapace's 2009 Salander.

There it is, folks

Besides Mara's casting, Finch's version of the film does do a few good things right. The rest of the cast were mostly well-picked, most notably Plummer and Stellan Skarsgard as the major players in the Vanger family. Robin Wright also appears briefly as Erika Berger, Millennium's co-owner and Blomkvist's main love interest. The problem is that most of these minor characters get little face time outside of introduction scenes. If they're important, they'll come back. If not, well... Craig himself seems slightly out of sync as Blomkvist, as while the character's serious investigative nature is obviously playing to Craig's strengths as a performer, his charisma is not to the level I would have liked for the role he played. Fincher also tries his hardest to get in every last major detail from the novels, and with only minor trimming he churns out a still-long 158 minute film that doesn't lack for the information you need to understand exactly what is happening. The clues are parceled out evenly, and even if you have memorized the book cover to cover there are a few surprises waiting to make your acquaintance. And don't worry, people; I'm not forgetting the soundtrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Finch. To say it's awe-inspiring would be an insult to sunsets and rainbows, but it's a damned great collection of music that perfectly captures the mood of the story.

Actually, Mara had to change for everything else she's done; in GWTDT, she just plays herself

It's those few right things that make the rest of the film's missteps all the more painful. The limited CGI use is extremely fake-looking, and Fincher's continued insistence on its use can easily be described as a gross irresponsibility on his part. But the worst mistake the film makes is the depiction of the developing relationship between Salander and Blomkvist. I remember reading the book and thinking that when these two characters got together, great things happen. That was most of the book's second half, and it's a feat Stieg Larsson never really recaptured in the subsequent novels. Unfortunately, Fincher seems to have missed that idea, as the film does its best to keep these two characters apart, only bringing them together for truly kinky sex scenes. And of course, the lack of character interaction between the two means that said sexual relations have no basis in reality. It's almost as if it was a vehicle designed to film Mara topless as much as possible. There are also some character inaccuracies, most notably one (SPOILER!) in which Salander asks Blomkvist's permission to kill the bad guy, an act the literary character would never abide. Even when Salander warmed up to Blomkvist, she would never ask for permission from ANYONE to do whatever she thought was necessary. (SPOILER END). The film's end is also over-long, as what should have taken no more than five minutes is instead spread out over the course of about three times that many. It's a poor finale to a relatively exciting main story, and when the final credits roll you'll be shaking your head and asking what happened.

And that's where the crazy girl makes the incision...

It's not that I think The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a bad movie. I don't; It's a perfectly okay movie, with the slick visuals that Fincher is known for and an excellent acting lead in Rooney Mara. There however exist about a dozen errors between her and what could have been an excellent film. It's even a relatively faithful adaptation, right down to the visceral sexual assault scenes, which I wasn't sure I could expect from this director. Unfortunately, there's just too much wrong for me to tell you that this is a "must-see" film, when the "must-see" adaptation of this film was available to you just last year. Considering that the original Swedish film is available on Netflix as we speak, you'd be much better off paying 8 bucks a month to see that and others than paying four bucks more to see the newer interpretation on the big screen. Of course, the story isn't the only reason I've heard people are interested in seeing this title. Yes, I'll say again that the soundtrack is amazing. So buy or download the soundtrack, skip the film, and I promise you; you're not missing much.

Overdue for Confession

Last year, in Hello Mr. Anderson's (at the time still called The Latest Issue) first annual Worst Films competition, the ultimate winner was a small sci-fi horror film many won't remember since it was overshadowed by juggernaut Avatar. Legion came in second at the box office on its opening weekend in January, but was nowhere close to the quality of the film it failed to out-gross. Marred by a flimsy plot, lousy storytelling, poor camerawork and a complete mismanagement of a legitimate big-name cast, the film was a disaster in the making, and hardly a strong start to the directorial career of Scott Charles Stewart, a jack of all film trades who specialized in visual effects before creating this particular trash. Normally, when a film is this bad, no studio is clamoring for a director with this particular lack of talent to rush to make more movies, let along give him a little more rope with which to perhaps hang himself. But with a positive audience draw (who actually paid money to see this in the theater?), the film made enough money to confuse someone into paying him to adapt the relatively unknown Korean graphic novel Priest into a full-blown film. Endowed with an even bigger budget, Stewart proceeded to make a film that sure looked pretty in the trailers (and in ho-hum 3D, no less), but with the lingering taste of Legion on my tongue, I could hardly state that I was excited in the least when it came out this past weekend.

Bettany got tired of those "pull my finger" vampire jokes quickly

For untold centuries, there has been war between normal humans and the animalistic vampires, who are ruthless killing machines but thankfully are kept in check by the sun. That is, there WAS a war, until the human side somehow developed Priests, holy warriors, out of seemingly nowhere. Gifted with supernatural strength and skills, Priests turned the tide of the war and ended the vampire threat, supposedly once and for all. Years later, the vampires seem to have returned, and one unnamed Priest (Paul Bettany) has a personal vendetta when they attack his brother's farm and kidnap his niece Lucy (Lily Collins). Despite the ruling of the Church (who govern the few human cities left) that there is no real vampire menace, Priest gathers what few allies he has and gives chase to stop a new human/vampire war before it can begin anew.

That's a big gun; compensating for something, are we?

Of course, we see precious little of the actual war. What we do see, besides an early half-remembered dream of one Priest vs. Vamp mash-up, is displayed using terrible animation as a precursor history to the film's story. I can't help but wish they had come up with a better way, as the imagery is brutish and ugly; while that might have been what Stewart was going for, it doesn't paint a good first impression for those who paid for their tickets. Actually, none of the special effects are particularly effective; while some of the visuals are undeniably pretty, very little else looks remotely realistic. The supposedly-dangerous vampires LOOK like CGI entities instead of flesh-and-blood monsters, and many of the slow-motion camerawork meant to make the fight scenes more comprehensible instead draw the eyes to the film's faults. These are even more exacerbated by the producers' apparent insistence on converting the film to 3D, technology which had already become stale by the end of 2010. The worst thing about the 3D that I can think to say is that you don't even NOTICE it by the halfway mark, and there doesn't seem to be anything so special that it ever benefits from the "enhancement."

Attack of the one-legged she-wolves, anyone?

Of course, that half-assed approach to the visuals permeates into the rest of the filmmaking process as well. You'd never think Stewart knew what he was doing with all the storytelling foibles that are packed into a film that runs only an hour and a half. Scenes feel half-finished and don't blend into the next; it's almost as if the entire film was chopped down from an unbelievably longer cut; nothing seems to gel, and too much is in fact too little, with silly little things like "character development" and "plot" swept under a rug, never to be seen again. What results is film that instead of transporting us to a new universe does us the disservice of stranding us in the desert with only a broken compass and a thumbtack to survive.

The newest Disney ride has a few kinks to work out...

Paul Bettany returns as Stewart's leading man (he also headlined Legion), and while it's good to see him treated as the star he should be, I wish he could be cast as such in a good film. Rightfully praised for his support work in films like A Beautiful Mind and Master and Commander, Bettany definitely has the talent to be a star. But, Paul, I'm begging you: step away from the edge, man! It's fine if you want to do more action-oriented sci-fi films; I'm actually of the opinion that there aren't nearly enough of that genre made these days. But Stewart is simply mishandling Bettany's talents, wasting horrid dialogue on Bettany's voice, who had a deeper role as the artificial intelligence J.A.R.V.I.S. in the Iron Man films. The supporting cast is maligned as well, mostly talented performers delivering rote lines and grim humorless expressions. Probably the best is Collins, whose small role as Priest's niece has the broadest range of all the characters involved. Karl Urban is another underloved talent, like so many from the Earth's Oceanic region. It's a shame when your best-known role was made famous by another actor, and Urban's Dr. Bones McCoy will probably be long overshadowed by DeForest Kelley, even if his performance was well and truly spot-on. As the film's vampiric villain Urban does his best but is hamstrung by his character being one-dimensional and uninteresting. Cam Gigandet is okay as a small-town sheriff who joins Priest, but like everybody else plays a cliched role. I don't even know if I'm supposed to be impressed by Maggie Q; the closest thing the US has to a modern action starlet outside of Angelina Jolie does action okay but is again struck by a complete inability to show emotion. Stephen Moyer, Christopher Plummer and Brad Dourif are similarly unmotivated, playing typical roles meant for unknowns in need of a paycheck, not established actors. That's the problem with Priest, however, as one can't imagine what was presented to the actors to make them take these roles in the first place. You never get the impression that anyone is having FUN on the set, and that's a sobering experience.

Cheery fellow, isn't he?

And that's really what Priest is; a film that didn't need to be made. While Dylan Dog suffered through a lousy opening weekend, at least that could be blamed on lack of a push from the studios, as the similarly-supernatural title failed to make an impact because nobody heard about it. Priest got all kinds of attention, not to mention a shiny 3D conversion to drive up ticket sales, and will probably be remembered as a bust when it finally exits theaters. So why is this? The easy answer is that it's simply a bad movie, but to be fair, the sci-fi genre doesn't often get a big show of support from even die-hard fans, and the big hits are often descended from popular comics or books that developed followings from decades past. That still doesn't excuse Stewart from making yet another contender for the year's Worst Film list, and one has to wonder why he's being given another chance, adapting Cassandra Clare's popular Mortal Instruments book series into a scheduled 2012 release. He's already shown that he doesn't have what it takes, and if he continues to eek a career out of this level of shoddiness, I'm sure I can expect to hate his upcoming work for years to come.