Can't find a big enough facepalm pic for this post. Just get the cliff notes and go back to watching the fast and the furious 12.... 127 Hours : 8/10 - Man that is a seriously disturbing movie, especially when you read about the real story it was based on. Amazing performance by Franco. It cant' be easy being the only actor on the screen for an hour.
The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo, American Version. 7/10 - Solid movie overall, some tense moments, the climax was rather quick (LOL sounds like im describing something else). I was a little lost through out but that was probably my own fault for doing some other things during the first 10 mins.
About what I thought. My wife is a big fan of the novels and she thought it was slightly underwhelming. Rooney Mara sure got naked a lot.
I watched the original foreign version on Netflix a month or so ago, and finally got around to watching the new English remake with Daniel Craig. I have not read the books, so I don't know which one is 'closer' to the source material, but in my opinion, I think the original is better. Some of the changes in the remake I felt did not improve the story, but in fact trimmed off too many of the more satisfying sharp edges, and others were simply unnecessary. Spoiler The changes which were head-scratchers: Changing Lisbeth's real-life interest from caring about her invalid mentally-ill mother, to caring for her previous case-worker who is recovering from a stroke? Why? (I think I know, more in a moment) Michael not being sentenced to jail time? Why? Totally lowers the stakes. It just became about money. Adding a devoutly-religious daughter into the mix? Why? (again, I think I know) Having the lawyer direct Michael to find Lisbeth, instead of her revealing herself (and her hacking/spying) to him? Why? Ok, here's my take on the 'why?' questions above. In the original, Lisbeth hacks into Michael's computer and watches what he is doing, for not particular reason other than she finds him interesting, and probably feels sorry for him, as she states he was innocent of the charges against him, and that he was 'a good man'. As she spies on him, she realizes she knows the answer to one of the riddles he is trying to solve, and she also knows that he will never find the answer on his own. So, she emails him with the answer, revealing herself to him, and that she was hacking his computer and spying on him. In the original, he accepts all this rather meekly, without much fuss, and simply moves on to the next part of the story. It's a bit far-fetched, but it does allow their relationship to grow in a more natural and satisfying way. In the remake, I suspect that whole vital plot-point was something Fincher just couldn't get around. In his mind, he couldn't allow her to be spying on him on her own, because in this modern day and age, he would have blown his stack at the invasion of privacy. So, they had to come up with this whole arcane way of having a religious daughter make an off-hand remark about the 'Bible Codes' he had tacked to the wall. This then leads him to discover some of the coded meanings in Harriet's diary, but not enough to give him the answers he needed. So he goes to the Vangers' lawyer and asks for a research assistant, and the lawyer suggests Lisbeth, as she was the one who investigated Michael himself. Michael insists on reading the report, whereupon he realizes his computer had been hacked, as much in the report could only have come from someone hacking his emails and private files. So, totally unlike the original, Michael is very angry and in fact threatening to Lisbeth at their first meeting, but he magically wins her over to his cause shortly thereafter. It was all frankly very convoluted and ponderous, just to get the plot to the same point the original did far more clearly and efficiently, and frankly I think it was a mistake to go to all that trouble just because of the notion that people here would not go along with the idea that someone could not be totally disturbed by a hacker. Next, in the remake, there was no hesitation for Lisbeth to crawl into bed with Michael, which just felt.. wrong. In the original, it was clear that Michael very quickly began to develop feelings for Lisbeth, and he had to literally coax her to actually stay in his bed longer than just being a 'F-buddy'. But in the remake, he was just happy to have her humping him regularly, but he emotions were ambivalent, and in fact he still felt strongly about his married co-editor at the magazine. Not nearly as satisfying character development. ON that note, why all the extra bs about the magazine, and about the co-editor with whom he was having an affair? Totally changed to tone of the ending. Next, why did Henrik have to 'offer' Wernerstrom to Michael? Much better to have Lisbeth do her magic all on her own out of her devotion to Michael while he served his jail sentence, rather than to basically do it just because he asked her to. The character of Martin was much more scary, and the interaction between him and Michael at the end was much more frightening. The remake's Martin was just not unhinged enough, didn't drag the confrontation out long enough. Lastly, why did they eliminate Lisbeth's flashbacks altogether? This is why they replaced her mother with the old guy and the stroke. But why? In the original, it becomes clear why Lisbeth was a ward of the state - she had attempted to kill her father by trying to burn him alive, for having been horribly abusive to her mother (and possibly herself, it's not clear). This ties nicely to the end as Lisbeth allows Martin to die in fire rather than having to kill him herself. As it was, in the remake, it just sort of happened, and it was only mentioned in passing. I know this comes across as me not liking the remake, but I did. It was good, and had I not seen the original already, I probably would have liked it even more. Several other changes as well, most of them minor, but I liked the feeling and overall effect of the original better. Of course, the remake is slicker, much higher production values, there is no doubt of that. That's my feeling having watched the original first. I would be very curious to know what you think if you decide to watch the original now, after having seen the remake first, and wondering how your feelings would be on them having seen them in the opposite order? Please post your thoughts if you happen to watch it, I think it would be very interesting.
I just watched The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (English one) last night and I thought it was excellent. I'd give it a solid 9/10. I haven't seen the original or read the book, so they played no part in how I felt about the movie. I highly enjoyed it.
Finally saw Crazy, Stupid Love and thought it was great. 9/10. Excellent job all around, although giving the pics in the end was a tad bit on the creepy side. Also a random comment, but they did a great job with the previews because too many movies these days give away too much, but they did a great job keeping to to stuff that you see early on. The Hunger Games 7/10 I wasn't crazy about it but the adaptation of the book was good overall. I didn't like how Katniss was played by the actress in the intense scenes, I felt like she just started yelling
The American - 6/10: Decent spy drama with lots of t*** and ass. I loved the setting and Clooney was okay although he seems to be one of those actors who basically plays the same character in every film (Denzel, Aniston, etc.). I thought more should have been made about the friendship with the priest. The ending was pretty undramatic and kind of cliched.
Not a movie but: Prison break: 9/10 I really enjoyed the whole series although I thought the ending was sad. What series should I watch next? Breaking bad?
Bad Teacher As a teacher I'm offended by the film. As a movie lover I'm offended by the film. It does a whole lot to make you dislike and downright hate Cameron Diaz's character, and then forces you to like her. A few pretty good gags keep it from being a total failure though. 4/10
Tucker & Dale vs EVIL 8/10 I had heard of this movie, but didn't know much about it other than it was a 'comedy-horror' type of movie. But when I saw that Tudyk was in it, that sold me enough to pick it up and watch. Tudyk never disappoints. Anyway, the basic premise is the same as just about every other generic 'Hillbilly Horror' movie: a carload of snooty college kids heads into the boonies and comes across some wild-looking hillbilly redneck types, and all sorts of mayhem ensues. And that is exactly what happens, I really don't want to spoil the fun, but the comedy comes from the fact that the story is told from the POV of the rednecks, who are really just a couple of nice and reasonably intelligent guys, and they don't seem to quite understand the fact that the college kids are completely terrified of them. So I will just say, it's a boat load of fun, and surprisingly sweet as well. There is no shortage of gore, but none of it is intended to be serious, it is more funny than scary, even my 11-year-old son was laughing all the way through it. Highly recommended.
Laputa Castle in the Sky - 8/10 - I was looking for a movie to watch with my son. I only briefly remembered this movie from my youth but I basically enjoy all Hayao Miyazaki movies, so chose this one to watch again. Just as good as I (kind of) remembered it. Puss in Boots - 7/10 - Enjoyable enough. Not as good as Pixar or even the Shrek movies but I liked it. Killing Fields - 8/10 - Of course I didn't watch this one with my son. I remembered when my parents went to watch this in the theater and we had to go watch some other movie instead. Nearly 30 years later I finally got around to watching it. It's a gruesome reminder about the nastiness of war and the repercussions on the people long after we leave.
Scott Pilgram vs. the World: 5.5/10 had its moments, laughed at times... Boys and Girls Guide to Getting Down: 6/10 silly movie about all the cliches about dating and banging..laughed out loud a lot... Adjustment Bureau: 6.5/10 It was alright
