The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo ****

Director: David Fincher
Cast: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara
Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, Yorick van Wageningen
Robin Wright, Joely Richardson, Goran Višnjić, Joel Kinnaman
Embeth Davidtz, Steven Berkoff, Geraldine James
Julian Sands, Josefin Asplund

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo takes place in a godless land, where what once was mystical and spiritual, has been replaced by an omnipresent respect for technology. For a director that has explored the viciousness of modern society with such an emphasis on the machinery - both literal and figurative - behind the human psyche, this adaptation of the Stieg Larsson bestseller, might very well be his most personal work to date.
In it, David Fincher once again establishes himself as the master of all things "procedural" but he also seems to be reaching out towards questions that lie outside the realm of computer chips and science. This is the first movie in which he acknowledges the fact that some people truly believe there are things that are inexplicable and that there just might be a god.
Of course, Fincher doesn't rely on the sensuous scope of a Terrence Malick movie, or even the aggressive interrogations of Lars von Trier, instead he explores this notion through the elements that have always worked for him. This is why the heroine in this film, Lisbeth Salander (Mara) is an expert hacker with serious social disabilities. She sits on the outskirts of a society that has made her feel foreign (that the movie opens with a cover of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song" is a strike of genius) and has made the conscious decision to rely specifically on her knowledge.
Lisbeth's job is to do research, which in less fancy terms means she hacks people's computers, bank accounts and any other sort of electronic device in order to figure out who they are. This obviously helps her decipher people's economic and social behavior, but it doesn't really help her connect with them, discover who they are behind the public facade.
That's why when she is asked to comment on the personality of Mikael Blomkvist (Craig) - a fallen from grace journalist she's been investigating - she can only add that she thinks he should perform more cunnilingus on his lover. Isn't our bedroom behavior, the one thing not everyone can have access to?
Blomkvist is hired by aging magnate Henrik Vagner (Plummer) to help him discover what happened to his niece who disappeared mysteriously more then four decades before. The reluctant journalist takes on the mission and soon his path will cross with Lisbeth's.
Larsson's novel shocked worldwide audiences because it revealed a portrait of Sweden that wasn't "conceivable". One where technology moguls and former Nazis (always the Nazis!) controlled the business world and constantly violated the widely accepted notion that Sweden was one of the happiest places on earth.
Where Larsson commented on the corruption that flowed within the structure of his country, Fincher observes it not as an overpowering force, but as a series of conflicts between vastly different currents of thought. Superficially every battle in the movie can be summed up as a juxtaposition of the old with the new, but this of course remains entirely subjective as you discover the ramifications of each of the parties.
Perhaps the most obvious dichotomy is the one found between religion and technology, it's as if Fincher is asking if it's impossible for god to exist in a world where technology has made humans almost omnipotent.
While some people might think of organized religion as something normal, most characters in this film react harshly towards displays of faith. Blomkvist's teenage daughter Pernilla (Asplund) reminds her father that she is not dangerous when he sees her say grace before a meal and a member of the Vanger family casually wonders "can you imagine one of us being religious?" as if it was something to run away from.
This is tightly connected to another conflict in the movie, that of civilization vs. nature. Almost every scene set in exteriors is filled with endless menace, from snow storms, to the creepy shadows cast by a forest...it's as if these people have stopped trusting the outside world.
Most scenes set outside of houses and buildings place the characters close enough to a door, as if they need to be prepared to run from something dangerous. This is even more persistent in scenes shot on interiors in which the marvelous DP Jeff Cronenwerth, always tries to keep nature outside. In several scenes glass plays an essential weapon against the perils of nature, especially when Cronenwerth uses it as a reflective surface which fools the characters into thinking that there is nothing to distrust outside.
This can also be linked to what was supposed to be the central theme in the novel, the eternal battle of the sexes, especially that which evolves into misogyny. Blomkvist and Lisbeth run into the possibility of finding a killer of women who not only relies on nature to destroy them, but also seems to be targeting religious people. When to this, you tie the constant mentions of a "new" and "old" Sweden represented by both the denial of the past and the fast evolution of technology, and you realize that Fincher's film was able to go past the lightness of its literary source. For what can an old world mean if not one ran exclusively by patriarchs? One in which women in power were to be feared and destroyed at all costs. During a key moment, Blomkvist and Lisbeth have sex. She is on top and shuts his mouth as she tries to achieve orgasm. His face turns into a canvas on which discomfort and shock are displayed; who does this woman think she is and why is her orgasm more important than mine? Lisbeth may not realize that what she's doing goes against the chauvinist ways that have always ruled the world and throughout the film we are reminded that technology and so called evolution may not be but more tools to maintain this prehistoric nature. Fincher's movie is just as thrilling and pulpy as any audience member would want, but beneath the smooth seal of its auteur lies a twisted study of how we are forever doomed to repeat history.

Thor ***

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman

Stellan Skarsgård, Tom Hiddleston, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba

Renee Russo, Anthony Hopkins,

Superhero movies can be divided into three main kinds: the obnoxiously preachy ones (Watchmen, The Dark Knight), the blissfully entertaining and therefore more memorable ones (Spider-Man 2, X2: X-Men United) and the Daredevil ones (i.e. the worst kind).
Directed with unusual glee and un-selfconscious gravitas by Kenneth Branagh, Thor falls into the second category. Breakthrough star Chris Hemsworth plays Thor, son of the Nordic god Odin (Hopkins) who has maintained peace in the world for millennia. When Thor is about to succeed his father as king of the realm of Asgard (imagine a Pink Floyd album cover turned into an 80s amusement park) they are suddenly attacked by their dormant enemies: the Frost Giants.
After the crisis is averted, Thor, encouraged by his sneaky brother Loki (Hiddleston) goes against his father’s wishes and attacks the Giants’ kingdom: Jotunheim. After learning of his son’s disobedience, Odin has no choice but to strip him of his godly gifts, exile him from Asgard and send him to a place so hideous that he’d spend the rest of eternity trying to ascend back to the heavens: Thor lands in New Mexico.
Lucky for him, his father out of some Shakespearean whim (can’t have Branagh without the Bard) also throws Thor’s mythical hammer Mjolnir to Earth, in the hopes that, sooner than later, his son will regain its power. Thor is discovered by scientist Jane Foster (the absolutely ravishing Portman) and her colleagues Erik Selvig (Skarsgård) and Darcy (a scene stealing Dennings) as they study wormholes and strange storms in the desert.
Like an alien version of Tarzan, Jane has to teach Thor about the ways of the world but in the meantime, watching Hemsworth in all of his brutish glory is a true spectacle. He enters pet shops demanding horses, calls New Mexico a realm and kisses the hands of the delighted ladies. Darcy’s comments about Thor’s undeniable hotness are hilarious (Dennings’ dead pan delivery is comedic wonder) and soon enough Jane has developed a crush on this man from the stars who might just prove her scientific theories right.
The film tries to stress this out a bit too much (people from different worlds learning from each other) without ever realizing that the more it points us to this, the more we’ll question the film’s motives and discrepancies. How many different gods from how many different cultures coexist for example? Or is the film choosing Nordic mythology as the one?
This is why the movie works best when it’s simple fun. The action sequences are done with just the right amount of kitsch (a 50’s inspired robot attacks a small town!) and the characters are interesting enough without being overdone (Hiddleston’s slimy Loki is the right mix of angst and silly comic book evil). Branagh shines in scenes where he gets to make the actors truly act: Hopkins’ Odin is King Lear minus the actual tragedy and the director is kind enough to give comic book enthusiasts a peek at upcoming projects as well as filling the movie with references only some of them will get.
Interestingly enough, with all of its fun and seeming silliness, the film also works as a fascinating study of gender dynamics and homoerotic identification. There is one particular scene in which Thor, who seems ignorant about the attractiveness of his physique, takes his short off revealing a perfectly chiseled torso. Branagh lingers in this moment more than any heterosexual filmmaker would dare to (directors like Nolan for example prefer showing the ugliness of masculinity) and then cuts to reactions of Jane and Darcy who literally open their mouths in disbelief.
However in doing so, Branagh also forces audiences (heterosexual males included) to embrace the beauty of another male body and heck, even admire and envy it.
When the year comes to an end, this will still remain one of the most talked about scenes of the year and if Branagh manages to make strictly heterosexual and even homophobic audiences talk about Hemsworth with the same spark Jane Foster does in the movie, he’ll have achieved something slightly divine.

Another Reason to Hate Piracy.

Kirsten Dunst better start practicing her damsel in distress screams from the Spider-Man franchise. She's just been cast as the lead in Lars von Trier's Melancholia.
You know I'm a sucker for anything that springs out of the mad Dane's imagination but this news also means something bad for me.
Kiki is set to replace none other than Penélope Cruz! (I'd written about this before)
The most awful thing about it all is that Pe passed on Lars to star in the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie!
The paycheck must be amazing and a movie star needs her couture and all, but how does someone in their right mind say no to Lars for Pirates?
Cruz reportedly said that she was just so excited to work with Rob Marshall again after Nine but has she seen the Pirates movies? The last two were silly excuses for making a buck and robbing audiences everywhere of the chance to reason as they were full of plot holes, inconsistencies and some of the worst written dialogue this side of James Cameron.
Not cool Pe...not cool.
But just how awesome is this for Kiki on the other side? She's been away from the screens for quite a while and truth be told her acting chops haven't really been developed in the way we expected after her work with Sofia Coppola.
When I first heard rumors that she had been cast in a von Trier movie I was ecstatic thinking that she had been cast as the third lucky actress to play Grace in The U.S. of A trilogy and that Lars had finally gotten started on Wasington.
I mean aesthetically it would make total sense that Kiki be the successor to the vastly superior Nicole Kidman and the surprisingly good Bryce Dallas Howard right? (The red hair and virginal all American looks...)
Either way this project is still very much in my "must watch" list, while Pe just made the first post-Volver choice I'll probably be passing on.
Read the full story here.

Angels & Demons **1/2

Director: Ron Howard
Cast: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer
Stellan Skarsgård, Nikolaj Lie Kaas, Armin Mueller-Stahl,
Pierfrancesco Favino, Thure Lindhart, David Pasquesi

"Angels & Demons" is like being served a historical conspiracy with your Big Mac.
It knows it doesn't have the background and facts to sustain the implications of the things it has to say about the Catholic church and science.
But it also knows that its real purpose was exclusively to be entertaining. And how it succeeds in that.
Unlike its 2006 predecessor, "The DaVinci Code", this adaptation of Dan Brown's eponymous novel doesn't take itself so seriously. Instead it squeezes every drop out of Brown's pseudo-erudite theories, the Indiana Jones qualities of its hero and the exquisite production values at the director's hands. Call it Catho-exploitation if you like.
Hanks repirses his role as Professor Robert Langdon, Harvard's expert in symbology, who is asked by the Vatican to assist them after four cardinals are kidnapped in the middle of a papal conclave.
The kidnappers have identified themselves as members of the Illuminati, a secret society once persecuted by the church, who have come back to take revenge for crimes committed against their group by the Vatican.
They announce they will kill one cardinal every hour up until midnight in one of the altars of science spread through Rome.
Added to this, the Illuminati have also stolen a vial of antimatter which they plan to use as an explosive device to eradicate the entire Vatican city.
Langdon teams up with sexy scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer) to stop them before it's too late. Why the Illuminati don't just nuke the thing to begin with is never fully explained, nor questioned, because it would leave us without any dramatic situations, and no popcorn movie, to begin with.
This is one of the many things you will have to forgive "Angels & Demons" for in advance, otherwise you won't be able to delight in its excesses.
Those not willing to leave their "brains" at the door will see this as an insufferable attempt to feed previously digested intellectual material to the masses.
However, those who fully comprehend the grasp of Ron Howard's successes at achieving any sort of intellectual stimulation in the past, will know that this time obviously won't be any different and are propense to enjoy it while munching on their snacks.
They will however be surprised to see that Howard doesn't completely screw up this time. He obviously has a talent for creating suspenseful situations (even if he reccurs too much to quick cuts and flashy editing as if to hide any possible errors) and there isn't a single sequence in the film that doesn't at least get your heart pulse racing.
Sadly the film works mostly as a series of thrilling individual sequences that never come together as a whole. It feels as if every scene was directed by a different person, but you'll be immersed into the plot before you even begin to notice this.
If there is something Howard still fails to achieve is subtlety and the first half hour of the film represents this perfectly. Langdon is often made to state the obvious ("Illuminati" means enlightened, "sede vacante" means empty seat, which paired with the image of an empty chair feels just plain insulting) and his character sometimes becomes obnoxious in his need to teach.
It doesn't help that he's played by Hanks with a disturbing smugness he tries to pass off as charming cockiness.
But despite Langdon's didactism, Howard actually puts less of himself into this film than he did in "The DaVinci Code" (which arguably had one of the worst finales in memory as it tried to please everyone), therefore we have one of his only films where the ending doesn't suck!
It certainly helps that his ensemble is grounded by some fantastic actors including McGregor who plays the late Pope's Camerlengo and who somehow makes his preachy discourses work.
Skarsgård who is always a joy to watch, here playing the Swiss Guard's commander and does some satisfying job playing someone whose faith is committed to his job.
Mueller-Stahl brings gravitas to his role as an elderly Cardinal who we immediately suspect as a villain (those who haven't read the book will have a fine time trying to solve the mystery) if only because of his strict dedication.
And it's pleasing to see that the film belongs to several less famous actors who make every scene worthy, including Lindhart as a reluctant Vatican officer, Favino as a police detective and the fantastic Kaas who creates a Hassassin you can't take your eyes away from. It would have been interesting to see him portrayed as the sexual beast of the book, but the screenplay completely removes that element, as if Howard was trying to keep away from more controversy. The actor however brings this lust to life with his movements and eyes.
As usual, any sort of controversy spiked by the film is merely an exaggeration. One that should be expected from anything that brings religion and science face to face.
Howard tries his best to balance the two of them and avoid trouble and it's true that audience members will decide on their own on which "team" they belong. This is highlighted splendidly in the very last scene of the film that sends everyone with a smile on their face.
Howard however forgot that film being above all a visual medium, plot machinations sometimes come to mean less than what we see and most definitely the story sometimes becomes obsolete under the weight of images.
Therefore "Angels & Demons" might have chosen a position without even trying to as it features some breathtaking work in order to recreate the Vatican (Howard was denied permission to shoot there for obvious reasons).
The art direction is stunning, but what results more haunting is the work of CGI which sometimes makes your jaw drop in terms of its precision, realness and beauty.
If computers can easily reproduce spiritual temples who needs to actually go to the Vatican? And what does this say about religion in the face of technology? Without meaning to, Howard's film gives a nod to the power of evolution and technological advancement, which pardon the pun, are nothing short of miraculous.