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.

Oh Ye Olde Gods

Okay, enough of that; back to actually SEEING movies, and not just talking about them. Summer officially kicked off this past weekend with the arrival of expected cinema superstar Thor as it hit the big screen. Though the expectations were obviously high for the blockbuster leading off the year's hottest season, there were a few obstacles standing between Thor and automatic box office dominance. First of all, the obvious: a comic book movie is being directed by Kenneth Branagh. That's right, the film's helmsman is the guy best known for his film adaptations of Shakespeare plays Henry V and Hamlet. Say all you want about comic books being art (and I'd agree) but the difference between colored paper and the written word of the Bard is a big one, no matter what your feelings on the matter. Secondly, who in the hell heard of Chris Hemsworth before he was cast in the film's lead role? Sure, the Australian actor has the proper physique to portray the God of Thunder, but who knew anything about him before he played Jim Kirk's ill-fated father in J.J. Abrams's Star Trek reboot? Unknown actors don't carry the same weight as known quantities like Will Smith or Matt Damon. Finally, the character of Thor created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby back in the 60's is not exactly a known quantity to fans outside of comics. Based on Norse stories and popular in Marvel Comics' heyday, Thor was a result of Stan's obsession with mythology, which resulted in several myth-based superheroes, including Thor, Hercules, and The Forgotten One/Gilgamesh. Unlike more grounded heroes like Spiderman or the X-Men, the character of Thor was never one meant to connect with the similarities of his audience. Instead he was supposed as an icon, an unreachable pedestal for other heroes to look up to. This hardly lays the groundwork for a film franchise, but Thor was one of the few untapped Marvel Comics properties, and introducing him to theater audiences was crucial if he was to star alongside Iron Man and Captain America in 2012's Avengers film. Being a mid-level comic fan myself, I still had high hopes despite these lingering concerns, which helped me to check out Thor in its opening weekend.

Apparently, Thor's working on the railroad... all the live-long day

After his hubris results in war between the noble city of Asgard and their ancient enemies the Frost Giants, Thor (Hemsworth) is exiled by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) to Earth and stripped of his godly powers as punishment, to learn humility. Once on our planet, Thor meets Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a scientist theorizing of gateways and bridges connecting intergalactic destinations. Now she has her biggest piece of evidence, but before things can move forward her work is confiscated by the government agency S.H.I.E.L.D. and its operative Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg). Meanwhile, things are not all well in Asgard, as the ailing king Odin falls into a coma, leaving his wicked son and Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) as the sole heir to the throne. Soon, Thor's allies are attempting to get him back to Asgard as Thor himself attempts to prove worthy of harnessing his godly powers while becoming smitten with Jane in the process.

Hey, it's "what's-his-name"!

I needn't have worried about Thor disappointing. In the same vein of similar recent Marvel adaptations, it manages to be a complex mix of action, drama, character and comedy, a delicate tightrope that is managed thanks to respect for the source material and assistance from comic creators like J. Michael Straczynski who have been a huge part of Thor's presence in pop culture. While Branagh might have been expected to play up the seriousness of the story, he does a masterful job of actually making the experience a lot of fun, especially involving a liberal dose of humor that catches the audience off guard while never feeling out of place. This should have been expected, since the original comics did much the same thing, but it manages to be a pleasant surprise, especially when the comic timing of film is impeccable. The interaction between characters never feels forced, with the perfect casting done to make these characters feel real whether they live on Earth or in a different dimension.

Twenty years later, the fallout of the father-son three-legged race still rages on

That cast is what really makes the film fall in place. Hemsworth proves himself as the next generation of action star with not only raw physicality and force of presence, but a lot of legitimate acting talent to boot. Stepping lightly between action hero, hilarious comic and romantic lead, Hemsworth is asked to wear a lot of hats in what might be his largest ever role, and he manages to juggle these different bits into a strong character that will hopefully translate into a real franchise and not a one-hit wonder. Portman seems to be everywhere this year, as Thor is her third film released so far in 2011. The actress may never again reach the critical acclaim that netted her an Oscar nomination for last year's Black Swan, but she's never less than amazing in any film she chooses to be seen in, and her role here shouldn't be construed as simple love interest. Jane Foster is a genius, a strong woman in her own right who keeps herself going despite lack of support or notoriety. Tom Hiddleston got the role of trickster Loki from having worked with Branagh in the past, and it's a good thing, too; I can't think of anybody who could match his delivery and look that perfectly captures Thor's enemy and yet loved brother. Probably the best role in the film, Hiddleston will most likely get a good, long look from major studios after this.

Hiddleston got the part by being seven years late for a Severus Snape audition

For the secondary characters, there is a lot of talent boasted between both Asgard and Midgard (that's Earth, for you mortals out there). Stellan Skarsgard plays Jane's scientific advisor and friend of her father's, bringing a sense of professionalism to the cast. His near-humorlessness is perfectly foiled by Kat Dennings, who plays Darcy, Jane's intern and gofer. Dennings has some of the funniest dialogue in the script, but her humor is not just confined to the spoken, as her actions often illicit the same amount of chuckles. Gregg is no star, but his character, introduced in Iron Man and something of a connecting piece between the films, is interesting enough to compensate for his lack of actually doing anything. As the leader of the evil Frost Giants, Colm Fiore adds to a list of compelling antagonists under his resume. Though not his best role, his convincing work does wonders for the film's tale as a whole. Perfectly cast are Thor's friends, Sif and the Warriors Three. Jaimie Alexander, Ray Stevenson, Tadanobu Asano and Joshua Dallas are all excellent and perfectly capture the essence of these characters from the comics, though I honestly wish more had been done with them, especially their backgrounds, which are largely absent. Alexander in particular demands interest, since in the comics Sif is romantically interested in Thor, though that is ignored here. Racists might have had issue with Idris Elba playing the Asgardian Heimdall, but I had no problem with such a talented actor taking the role. As the all-seeing guardian of the realm, Elba has an unexpectedly strong part, and it was nice to see the Wire veteran getting a meaty role in a successful film. The only real disappointments are Thor's parents as Hopkins overacts his way through a stunted role, and Rene Russo does nothing of interest as Frigga, Thor's mother.

Elba shows the Council of Conservative Citizens where to suck

Speaking of disappointments, beware how you watch Thor in theaters. I saw this film on an IMAX screen and in 3D, and I can't honestly recommend it for most viewers. While most scenes and special effects look great in these conditions, it is ironically the film's few action scenes that suffer from the 3D conversion. Fights are disjointed and blurry, with so much mashed together that you find yourself squinting to try and see what exactly is going on. I've heard that he 2D showings clean up nicely, and I'd have to suggest that you don't pay the extra dough to see it in 3D, since it's just not polished enough to be pretty. Most theaters should have that option open to you, so if you can, avoid the crowds and go low-tech.

Seriously, where did this guy come from???

Thor might not be everyone's cup of tea, but at #5 for 2011 I honestly can't understand why not. Like most of Marvel's recent comic book adaptations, Thor is easy for non-fans to appreciate and enjoy but truly rewards the comic fan, a trend that keeps geeks waiting for the inevitable Stan Lee cameo, secret scenes of famous characters and nods to the superhero universe around the film, making it feel like a part of a whole instead of a stand-alone clunker. I had a lot of fun at the theater, and I think if you give Thor a chance, you'll be happy with the results no matter your disposition to the genre.