The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an excellent suspense/mystery/thriller about a troubled computer hacker, Lisbeth, and a disgraced investigative journalist, Mikael, joining forces to solve a 40-year-old murder mystery revolving around a powerful yet eccentric family.  It is a foreign film adapted from a popular series of novels and also set to be remade by Hollywood (Daniel Craig has signed up to play Mikael. No word on who will play Lisbeth yet, but I heard a rumor it might be Carey Mulligan, who is a great actress and could pull it off.)  The film is a dark thrill ride that is full of great twists. It is subtitled, though, in case you are opposed (and even if you are you should suck it up; you get used to them).

What stands out the most for me about this film is the acting.  Noomi Rapace literally transforms herself to play Lisbeth, the dark, brooding, tortured heroine.  More stunning than her physical transformation, though, is her ability to display a vulnerable, gentle femininity hidden deep beneath the grizzly, disturbed character she outwardly portrays.  Through the violent, angry acts she commits, she still manages to keep a gentleness in her eyes that reminds us of her victim hood, and, without it, her character would not be nearly as sympathetic or interesting.  The rest of the cast is also excellent.  Michael Nyqvist reminds me of and, to some degree, resembles Daniel Craig in his role of Mikael. He does an excellent job and sets the bar high for Craig (as well as builds the excitement for seeing him in that role).

The story has its tough moments, but, overall, it’s a great adaptation from a novel.  It manages to introduce and set up everything necessary for the film without it feeling like the film drags on.  We start right in the middle of the story with Mikael, as he is set to go to jail- a very telling introduction to his character.  Lisbeth takes a little longer to set up, but it is done well.  There are parallel disturbing scenes involving her that, at the time, I didn’t quite understand in the context of the story, but actually prove to be crucial towards explaining later, very important character motivation.  Also, we see the connection between Lisbeth and Mikael early and can see how they will be running into each other in the future.  I get the feeling that had I read the novel, I would be saying this set up is done efficiently (and I think it is), but it does take a little longer than normal to really get into the heart of the story.

 

Where I have issues with the story is towards the end.  It appears the filmmakers took the time in the beginning to properly set up the story, but tried to quickly jump around and tie up loose ends at its conclusion (which, given its length, it had to).  There are significant jumps in time as well as a puzzling resolve to the relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael, given how prominent each character is.  I would say that these not so tightly tied loose ends will be investigated further in the sequel, but, as a stand-alone film, there are questions.  (As an aside, there is a foreign sequel and I believe Hollywood plans on completing a trilogy- much like the Bourne Trilogy.)  Also, as with most thrillers, some of the clues seem very convenient (such as someone’s pension for rewearing the same sweater), but I give it a pass because the story is gripping and the reveal of the clues is sincere and truthful enough.

This film is a highly entertaining, dark thriller that is very enjoyable.  I would recommend this film to anyone who is not squeamish or easily rattled.  By this, I mean there are some scenes and images that are disturbingly violent and sexual.  I am not one to be prude, but a younger, less mature audience should probably sit this one out or at least have it screened by a trustworthy adult first.  Also, for those of you who simply do not enjoy such scenes, they very well may ruin the film for you.  However, if that doesn’t bother you and you’re willing to suck it up and live with the subtitles, I highly recommend this film and believe you’ll be very entertained. 

If you like this, check out:  The Black Dahlia (Widescreen Edition) or The Usual Suspects (Special Editon)

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4

Buy The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Wifey's Chick Flick of the Week- Easy Virtue

Easy what?... I know, that’s what I said too when my wife brought Easy Virtue home from Blockbuster.  I checked out the cover- Jessica Biel (well, the guys have something to look at)… in a time period piece (never mind).  Colin Firth and Kristin Scott Thomas are in it (okay, some good acting) and a Chihuahua with a plume feather on his head is somehow being promoted over these two actors (yikes!).  Needless to say, I had my reservations and, alas, they were fulfilled as Easy Virtue tanks pretty badly.

I don’t really know where to start so I guess I’ll go to the beginning.  The opening image shows Larita (Biel) winning a car race then making eyes at John (Ben Barnes) then they cut to an artsy, graphic-driven make-out session between the two characters.  So, we know she races cars and they’re a couple… oh, and it’s some time in the early 1900’s.  This opening image proves to be the only true set up in the entire movie, though.  The next twenty or thirty minutes are characters talking out the plot and trying to reveal exposition through dialogue.  A few quips are thrown in, but they’re hard to really appreciate because the characters are not set up well.  They express their motivations, but we never see it… at least not until over half way into the movie.  Much of comedy is set-ups and pay-offs and this film never seems to set up its jokes.  That alone dooms it.

However, that is not the only problem with the film.  The score sticks out like a sore thumb.  It’s a corny, show tune type of horn instrument ensemble that overwhelms every scene and does not come close to matching the action or even contrasting the action so as to create irony.  The film shows stodgy people bickering and then it plays show tunes over it. It could be funny if it is a more lively fight or if the music is subtler, however, neither is true.  It’s calm, dry British type humor and Jessica Biel’s “American” character does little to alter the mood and create the opportunity for a big, loud show tune to be appropriate.  Ultimately, it feels like the music is just haphazardly thrown over the scenes to try to keep the tone light and quirky when the action is anything but.

The storyline is erratic.  There is not real character development or story growth.  Rather, the characters all stay the same throughout the entire film and simply alternate between fighting and trying to make up (or in some cases, just avoiding a fight for a while) until eventually the end occurs, which is both predictable and just strange.  Making matters worse, very little actually happens in this film.  Few characters actually try to do something about what is troubling them, especially our leads.  Larita shows up and complains from the beginning that she does not want to be there and does very little to try to change her circumstances.  There is a brief period about half way through the film in which Larita and her husband’s mother (played by Scott Thomas) get a little back and forth battle going.  That aside, though, Larita just bickers and does nothing until the finale.  The same goes for her husband, John.  He does nothing, other than saying he wishes Larita fit in better.

I could go on, but why beat a dead horse?  Frankly, the film is not very good. 

My ratings so far must show a severe prejudice against chick flicks, but I assure you, my wife has agreed with each rating.  I have given her a hard time about her choices, so far, and she has taken it in stride.   She considers herself 0 for 3, but I think she has good taste in movies and her average is bound to improve, so hang in there with us.

If you like this (or want a better recommendation), check out:  Pride and Prejudice (Restored Edition) 

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 0.5

Buy Easy Virtue

Crazy Heart

Crazy Heart is an excellent film about a drunk, washed up country singer on his path to redemption.  The storyline is a little unoriginal and predictable (I found it strikingly similar to the previous year’s hit The Wrestler), but it gets a pass because it serves a greater purpose for the film, which is to get out of the way of its stronger points:  the acting and the music.

While the storyline is formulaic, it is still well written and very well done.  It follows the story beats you would expect in a story about personal redemption versus substance abuse.  The hero, Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) meets the catalyst to his change in the form of sweet reporter Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal).  A romance buds and, from there, you can probably predict the ups and downs of the relationship and Blake’s struggle.  However, the dialogue and writing is understated nicely and the drama is not blown out of proportion.  Also, it does an excellent job of using simple, but meaningful little scenes to show both sides of the main character:  the sweet, loving man and the destructive substance abuser suffocating him.  These qualities of the writing give the film a much realer feel as well as accomplishing its most important task:  creating a vehicle for great artists to perform.

There are two well-deserved Oscar wins from this film:  Original Song and Best Actor. I’ll start with the acting.  Jeff Bridges is outstanding.  He has an easy manner about him that makes him likeable even when he’s behaving irrationally or destructively.  It is evident in the very beginning of the film, when he gets a drink on his “expense account” only to discover no such account exists… even after he agreed to perform at a bowling alley.  Rather than making a scene, he swallows his pride (and his drink) and pays (even though he’s broke).  While the writing is there with a nice, subtle exchange to show he’s a good guy deep down, Bridges’ performance is what sells it.  The writing is very subtle, and, without the performance, the likeability of the character doesn’t register, and, without that, we have no rooting interest in this character’s struggle, and, therefore, we don’t care about the story (see how fine that line can be?).  In this film, Bridges finds himself square on the correct side of that line, though, and the film shines because of it.

While Bridges is extraordinary, he does not do it on his own.  Gyllenhaal is excellent.  She is charming and likeable from the second she appears on screen, which is crucial to her being the catalyst for Blake’s change.  The rest of the acting is excellent as well and I must say I was impressed with Colin Farrell.  Since Miami Vice, it seemed like he had dropped off the face of the planet and his previous pension for high concept flops made me wary of his acting ability (or role selection) heading into the film.  However, he is very good and, surprisingly, pulls off being a pop country star despite having a real life Irish brogue (not in the movie,).

What really sets this film apart for me, though, is the music.  I’ll admit I’m not a country music fan, but I’m a huge T-Bone Burnett fan (producer).  The man just seems to get music and he is in top form with the soundtrack for Crazy Heart.  As you might expect, it is pretty crucial for a film about a country music star to have some good music in it.  Some films would try to skirt around the issue and play as little original music as possible because, well, not all actors can sing and it’s hard to make hit songs.  In this film, though, music is embraced and celebrated, as it should be.  The only thing that has lasted as long in Blake’s life as alcohol is his music.  It’s integral to his capacity to change, so, in order for this story to make sense, we (the audience) need to see his connection and love of music.  Thanks to Burnett and the great work by the music department, this film delivers on that front.

Crazy Heart is a touching film of redemption with solid writing, great acting, and great music.  Even people who don’t have a taste for country music (like me) can appreciate it in the film and even enjoy it.  Further, all the aspects of the film are sound and it is a very entertaining, enjoyable experience.  I highly recommend it.

If you like this, check out:  The Wrestler or Walk the Line

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4

Buy Crazy Heart

or Buy its soundtrack Crazy Heart: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack (Ltd. Deluxe Edition)

Wheez's Vintage Movie of the Week- North by Northwest

I’m going to start out by being honest… I don’t think North by Northwest is that great (collect yourself…. Good.)  I’ll now qualify that statement by saying it’s not great by today’s standards.  However, for its time, it clearly was a masterpiece as elements of the film can be found in the bedrock of today’s action/thrillers.  Much like Citizen Kane, North by Northwest should be viewed with the restraints of its era in mind.  If you watch it through that perspective, you’ll be awed, if you watch it through a modern perspective, you’ll be entertained, but not blown away.

The story is excellent.  It carefully crafts a mystery, thriller of government and international intrigue that is full of action, some suspense, and comedy.  I say some suspense due to a pet peeve of mine that is prevalent in films of this era:  talking out the plot.  The film does a great job of not letting on to what’s happening early on until, finally, it gives in and has a government alphabet soup agency meeting in which someone dryly states all the painful exposition.  It’s actually pretty comical because the character is literally saying exactly what everyone in the room commonly knows.  I couldn’t help but think of Basil Exposition in Austin Powers.  However, the film avoids prolonging the exposition as it blurts all or most of it out in that one scene, which makes the rest of the film enjoyable, but not too suspenseful because we already know what to expect. This is what kills it a little for me- being on the edge of your seat results from not knowing what to expect and, well, you know what to expect.

That aside, the story is fabulous and parts of it have been parodied and copied in films over the past fifty years.  Some of the more memorable scenes include a dive-bombing crop duster and a suspenseful chase down Mount Rushmore.  More impressive, Alfred Hitchcock and writer Ernest Lehman are way ahead of their time on how to construct the storyline for a mystery/thriller.  The film masterfully navigates twists and turns to keep the audience hooked while also progressing the story and not losing the audience.  It sets up crossing and double-crossing characters.  It makes us question if the lead character is crazy or everyone around him is.  It does what a good action/thriller should do.

Further, the film mixes in some relevant themes of the time.  Being a government thriller from the late 1950’s, the Cold War is involved in the storyline. Further, the film  uses the traces of the Cold War in the film to question how far is too far when it comes to war- a theme that is definitely still applicable today.

The film has a distinct Hitchcock feel as well, even though it’s not a typical Hitchcock genre.  The directorial style mirrors other Hitchcock films, but doesn’t rival the direction of his better films, such as Psycho.  The acting for me is hot and cold.  There are scenes that are excellent and very well acted.  However, there are other times when the film cuts back and forth between actors in a conversation, who appear to be reading off cue cards.  Cary Grant is a classic actor, but in this film he really bombs some scenes.  While some scenes are great (like when he acts like a dopey drunk), in other scenes, he seems to rely solely on his accent to present charm and he doesn’t put much into his performance other than saying the lines he memorized (or is reading).

North by Northwest is a classic film and groundbreaking for its time.  It’s not Hitchcock’s greatest, but it’s still an entertaining Hitchcock film, and that says something.  It’s both a great trip back in time to the foundations of modern filmmaking as well as an entertaining film to watch in your living room.  It’s a must see for film enthusiasts, but is closer to just another film for the casual movie viewer (especially for younger viewers).  Either way, it’s a classic and is worth checking out.

If you like this, check out:  Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (Special Edition) or Strangers on a Train

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3.5

Buy North by Northwest (50th Anniversary Edition)

Babel, and why it's way worse than Crash

Babel is an attempt at an international version of Crash in which a group of intercontinental characters are all loosely connected through fateful events, but all suffer as a consequence of fate and the harsh realities of the real world.  As the title hints, it uses language as a means to show division between people and cultures.  However, despite its clever premise and lofty aspirations, Babel falls flat due to a disconnected, meandering story, impersonal characters, and extreme melodrama.

The story is a mess.  It jumps around amid three places and groups of people:  Morocco, Japan, and California/Mexico.  In order to show simultaneous suffering that does not happen sequentially, the film shows these three stories that occur at different points in time as if they are occurring simultaneously.  Even by the end of the film, I wasn’t quite sure what the timeline was. 

Further, the three stories drag on too long and are quite unrelated (even the common theme of communication isn’t common as there’s no language barrier in the U.S./Mexico story, just prejudice).  Where Crash is successful, is in not hanging around too long in a scene unless something very dramatic is happening, and even then it moves quickly.  Babel, contrarily, indulges in countless, documentary-style, unnecessary establishing shots for EVERY scene that just slow the entire pace of the movie down to a crawl.  Further, the film lingers with one story for way too long so that when the film cuts back to another of the three stories, it takes us (the audience) out of the film because we’ve been engrossed in the other story for so long.  There is no sense that these three stories are all working collaboratively towards some similar, relevant conclusion as in Crash, rather, it seems like there are three, disconnected short films being jammed all into one using the cliché theme that “the world’s a cruel place” as the excuse for doing it.

Now, a big reason it is easy to criticize the story is because we (the audience) have no rooting interest in its characters.  Keeping with the Crash comparison, the (only) reason Crash is such a great film is because it saved the cat… a lot.  “Save the cat” is a term coined by screenwriter Blake Snyder and it refers to a scene or part of a scene in which the (main) character or hero/heroine does something endearing (like saving a cat) that defines the character and also gives us reason to like him/her.  Some examples from Crash are the racist cop (Matt Dillon) helping his father to the toilet in the middle of the night and the locksmith (Michael Pena) giving his young daughter the invisible, impenetrable cloak. We see these scenes and we think, “Oh, Matt Dillon is such a pr**k because he’s up all night helping his dad deal with his enlarged prostate” and “That locksmith isn’t a gang banger, he’s just a hard working father trying to provide the best for his family”.  In other words, we’re hooked. We care what happens to these characters now.  In Babel, there’s no trace of saving the cat, which makes it difficult for us (the audience) to care about any of the characters because the film is too busy juggling three stories.  Further, all the characters are markedly flawed to the point that the tragedy that befalls them is less tragic because their issues, to some degree, cause it:  the Moroccan boy is dumb, his father is negligent, the Mexican nanny is weak-willed and cracks under pressure, her nephew is brash, sarcastic, and drives drunk, the Japanese girl is a weird sexual deviant, her father is negligent, Brad Pitt is aloof, and Cate Blanchett is arrogant.  I’m not saying characters shouldn’t have flaws, but they should have redeeming qualities, shouldn’t they?  As the story progresses, we see some of those redeeming qualities, but not enough to outweigh the flaws that got them into this mess in the first place (except for with Pitt and Blanchett, but their story is so stagnant that it is boring- they literally sit in the same place doing nothing for the majority of the second half of the film.)

 

Some films such as This Is Spinal Tap are dubbed mockumentaries because they use a fictitious story in a documentary-style to make fun of documentaries. Well, I would call Babel a melomentary because it uses a fictitious story in a documentary-style to dramatize a news story they couldn’t get actual footage for and never happened.  The film tries so hard to be poignant and dramatic in every scene that it smothers you (and smothers you without you having a rooting interest in the characters).  What’s worse, in doing so, when the final, really dramatic scenes present themselves, they just get lost in the fold as another melodramatic scene instead of standing out as the climax of the rising action.

This film has a good premise, but comes across as a haphazard splicing of three short stories.  It isn’t really worth checking out unless you are the type that really wants to fight for the cause and are already incensed at the happenings of the world (and the U.S.’s activities therein).

If you like this (or want a better film), check out:  Crash (Widescreen Edition)

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 1

Buy Babel

Wifey's Chick Flick of the Week- Remember Me

Okay, so, Remember Me technically wouldn’t really qualify as a chick flick, but my wife was fooled by the cover with Robert Pattinson hugging the Australian chick from Lost (Emilie de Ravin).  Clever marketing if you ask me.  Anyway, the film is a drama (melodrama) about two characters that have undergone tragedy in their lives meeting and falling in love- all within the perspective of the “bigger picture” as revealed at the end of the film.  I love the concept the film goes for, but, unfortunately, I found it to be too haphazard a screenplay with too little character development to really unlock its potential.

The problems start with the film’s set up.  First, Ally, the child version of the female lead (played by de Ravin), witnesses her mother murdered in the New York subway.  Obviously this is haunting for a child and, as it turns out, her father is the police officer assigned to the case. He simply picks her up and walks off. That’s it. Next time we see her, she’s in college and a normal, well-adjusted girl whose father has become an abusive, aggressive cop. The father’s character makes sense- his wife was murdered, he’s pissed. The girl, on the other hand, makes no sense based on what we saw. How and why is she so normal? As the film progresses, she comes across as a strong, street-savvy woman who can see through Tyler’s tricks (Pattinson) and whose only emotional hang up is taking the subway (which I’d assume would be an issue for many solo young women in New York).

However, that isn’t my biggest issue with the film.  Ally isn’t the main character and, as far as I’m concerned, she shouldn’t even make an appearance until ten to fifteen minutes into the film.  The bigger issue is the introduction of Tyler, the main character in the film.  He is introduced AFTER the flashback to Ally’s mother’s death. This is a big issue for me.  If we’re not going to see our main character first, there better be a very good reason, and, as I said earlier, the flashback scene doesn’t even really explain Ally’s character so how good of a reason is it?  Anyway, once we do finally see Tyler, we see him drinking and having a smoke on his fire escape.  The phone rings and he stumbles inside to answer it after a few rings.  Pop quiz: what do you know about this character?... (my answer:  he’s like 95% of guys his age in New York… we know nothing unique about him).  Next, he’s at a graveyard (the deceased is not revealed until later) and then lunch with his family where his dad’s being a jerk.  Basically, without the necessary introduction to explain who this character is and what he’s all about, we’re left trying to piece together clues (very obvious ones in retrospect) throughout the film as to why he acts the way he does.

As a result of the audience not understanding the main character, everything he does comes across as very melodramatic for at least the first half of the film.  Further, just about everything everyone does borders on melodramatic (except for Tyler’s roommate, who provides much needed comic relief). 

I know I sound harsh right now, but the reason is that this film is very close to being very poignant and very good.  I think if the characters’ motivations are sorted out earlier, and it’s done through action rather than forcing it in through dialogue, this film could have been great.  Like I said earlier, it has a great, romantic premise of two wounded individuals finding each other and finding love when they least suspected it.  There is definitely heart in the film, and, while I’m not a Twilight fan, I’d say Pattinson is effective.  Ditto for de Ravin (I am a Lost fan). Their performances won’t take your breath away, but they definitely have a believable chemistry working on screen. What’s more, the film has a great theme that really would have hit home if it had been set up properly.  Instead, the final resolve seems cheapened to me- like the filmmakers put it in there to manufacture emotion when it really should have worked within the context of the film.

Overall, my review may be overly harsh, but it’s because I see potential in the film that, sadly, I think was lost.  Too many of the beats in the film seem to be a means to the filmmakers’ end rather than explicable actions by the characters. In other words, the characters are underdeveloped and, therefore, their actions seem random and not well defined.  The film is watchable and somewhat enjoyable.  If you like indie, melodramatic types of films, you might want to check this out.  Otherwise, save it for a rainy day… a very rainy day and maybe check out one of my suggestions instead.

If you like this (or want a different suggestion), check out:  Donnie Darko - The Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Edition) or Across the Universe

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 2

Buy Remember Me

Snatch

Snatch is Englishmen Guy Ritchie’s second feature-length directorial gig and, as with most of his work, deals with the English crime underground.  In this film, gaggles of seedy mobsters find themselves chasing a gigantic diamond, somehow getting mixed up with an unlicensed boxing kingpin, a pair of boxing promoters, and gypsies in the meantime.  As I’m sure you can tell from this description, the movie is a light-hearted (albeit violent) jab at the English organized crime underground.

As with most of Guy Ritchie’s other films (such as Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Rock ‘N’ Rolla), he utilizes a unique directorial and story-telling style.  The story is non-linear, but does involve some symmetry from beginning to end in this convoluted maze of characters chasing a diamond.  Despite its lengthy list of characters, Ritchie does an excellent job of making sure we (the audience) keep everyone straight by using mainly two techniques.  First, he gives at least one character in each group a distinctive trait to set them apart:  the boxing kingpin as the bug-eye glasses, the “Jewish” diamond dealers wear their Yamakas, and the gypsies have their accents (and Brad Pitt). Second, Ritchie makes sure to introduce and reintroduce characters using his first person voice over by the main character (if you could really say there is a true main character), Turkish (Jason Statham).  This technique fits within the style of the film, but is really used to cheat in some dry exposition and explain the story for us- not really great writing, but effective and stylistic nevertheless.

Also similar to Guy Ritchie’s other films is the sense of humor.  Despite the story involving multiple murders, feeding human bodies to pigs, theft, arson, cons, and boxing without a license, Ritchie finds a way to make the whole story seem laughable.  He makes the characters so goofy and such Lehman, that we Lehman (the audience) actually can sit back and laugh at their stupidity.  Every ill that befalls the characters seems to be directly attributable to that character’s individual idiocy.  As a result, we laugh at them, just like we laugh at someone who angrily punches a wall and hurts his hand.  It’s funny because they did it to themselves.  It’s not quite that simple, though.  In order to keep this light tone, Ritchie carefully avoids showing anything too gruesome or gory, often not even showing people being killed, but just letting us assume it based on characters’ reactions.  It may seem trivial, but not actually seeing the dead person makes all the difference. Seeing pain and suffering inherently elicits emotion in people. Knowing pain and suffering occurred just doesn’t have the same visceral response- something Ritchie uses to avoid drama and keep the story light.

Another talent of Ritchie’s that shines through in this film is writing very interesting characters with great, quirky banter.  While these characters can all basically be considered similar or the same when you boil them down to their motivations and shake off all their bells and whistles (such as accents, appearances, which group they’re with, etc.), they are still very entertaining to watch.  Mickey (Pitt), the scrappy, gypsy boxer, shines through for me.  His slick, country dumb manner mixed with his hideously incomprehensible accent make every scene he is in both hilarious and challenging (only to understand what he’s saying), and Pitt does a great job in the role. 

Ultimately, though, Ritchie’s films are the type you either hate or you love and Snatch is no different.  It has an interesting, convoluted heist story line that is surprisingly easy to follow, some slapstick humor poking fun at gang related violence, action, and hordes of colorful characters all with similar motivations.  If you’ve never seen a Guy Ritchie film, it’s worth checking one out and Snatch is a great example (although I slightly prefer Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking  Barrels).  However, if you’ve seen a Guy Ritchie film and you thought once is enough or you absolutely detest profanity and violence, then maybe you should pass on this one.

If you like this, check out:  Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Layer Cake, or Pulp Fiction

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3

Buy Snatch (Widescreen Edition)

Wheez's Vintage Movie of the Week- The Hustler

The Hustler follows “Fast” Eddie Felson (Paul Newman) as he hustles his way through pool halls on his path to become the greatest pool shark in the country by taking on and beating the great Minnesota Fatts.  The film (1961) comes from a different era of filmmaking, which is a bit of an adjustment, but one thing that transfers across any era is great acting and an intriguing character study.

Paul Newman is incredible in this film.  The story follows his character and his bull-headed resolve to become the greatest pool player in the country no matter the costs… and there are great costs.  So, just from the premise alone, you know Newman’s going to be on screen a lot.  Compounding that is the era of filmmaking in which this story takes place.  There are large gaps between cuts and a lot of shots that solely consist of following Paul Newman as he does something as mundane as walking from a train station locker to the bar, ordering a drink, and walking over to a table to sit down.  This type of direction would tend to be boring and would be blasted if it were done today, but Newman is so good and so interesting, that you hardly notice the simple direction when you’re watching.  It is literally easy, better still, preferable, just to watch him on screen rather than cutting away (and I have no physical attraction to the guy, so just think how the ladies must feel!)

Aiding Newman’s great performance is his very interesting character, “Fast” Eddie Felson.  What makes this character so interesting is, ironically, the simplicity of him.  The filmmakers establish early on and very clearly what this character’s need is:  to be the best.  It’s that simple, but knowing that simple motivation allows the audience a window into the character’s mind when he faces a dilemma. We (the audience) know throughout the entire story what drives Eddie so we can understand that every action, every word he utters comes into context with that motivation.  Every mistake he makes, makes sense to us because we know why he does it. We can appreciate his mistakes because there’s nobility in being true to yourself in spite of all the chips stacked against you.  We (the audience) get that and can relate to that struggle, which makes for a very intriguing, interesting character and a great launching pad for character growth.

Despite the great character, the story does stall slightly in the middle, which I attribute to the romance in the story.  I’m not opposed to romance, but it just seems forced in the context of this story.  It seems like the story hops off its linear path and on to a side street to set up this romantic relationship, only to pick up right where it left off and use this relationship as another opposing force for Eddie.  In the end, it pays off, but I think it could have been set up better and more efficiently so as not to pull so much focus from the main storyline.

That small critique aside, the story is written very well.  There is a great arc to it and the character development is fantastic.  In some parts, the story skips ahead in time (mostly from the start of a pool match to its conclusion).  I let this pass for two reasons:  the story introduces what hustling pool is in its first two pool scenes so there’s no need to keep beating a dead horse by showing it over and over again and, also, it’s pool- not exactly a spectator sport, so go ahead and skip some pool to keep the story moving. 

Also, the dialogue is great.  It’s very punchy with many witty quips back and forth between pool sharks or Eddie and his romantic interest.  The only exception to the great dialogue is when some exposition is forced into the story.  There are definitely times when you hear a few lines and just think, “Well, you had to get it in there, I guess you just bit the bullet and spit out all that bland exposition you needed to.” Other than that, though, there's great dialogue that adds to the story and helps build the characters.

Overall, The Hustler is a very enjoyable film about a very interesting and very well acted character.  The subject matter may seem a little dry to some, but the film does a great job of focusing on the characters so as to keep the story entertaining and interesting.  Should you watch it?  Well, it was good enough to warrant a sequel directed by Martin Scorsese (The Color of Money with Newman and Tom Cruise), so what do you think? (Just to be clear, I think you should rent it.)

If you like this, check out:  Color of Money, Wrestler, or Crazy Heart

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4

Buy The Hustler (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)

Seven

Seven is an all-around excellent film.  It starts with a great premise:  what if a serial killer decided to target victims based on the seven deadly sins (as in the sins that early Christianity deemed Hell worthy).  Throw in a well-thought screenplay, great acting, great direction, and a stylistic film noir feel and you have all the makings of a great film.  I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir for many of you, but this film is 15 years old (hard to believe, I know) and is worth revisiting for those of you who haven’t seen it for over a decade or those of you too young to have heard of it.

Director David Fincher (who apparently is a big Brad Pitt fan seeing as how he directed him in this film as well as Fight Club and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) directs an excellent film.  He presents an interesting visual style:  sprinkling in dirty shots (shots in which something is out of focus in the foreground) and interesting angles, particularly with close-ups.  Rather than just filming what you see, he adds some interesting visuals to enhance the story.  He also uses a unique, semi-noir style.  The film cannot be classified as a true film noir since there is no “femme fatal”, however, the film has a bleak, dreary, colorless look to it and several shots have distinctive contrast between dark and light, which are trademarks of film noir.  This very interesting visual style works in accordance with the themes of the film and contributes to its dark mood.

The cast is excellent as well.  As I mentioned earlier, Brad Pitt stars alongside Morgan Freeman (and his voice, I swear I could listen to that man read the dictionary), but the big names don’t end there.  Supporting them are Kevin Spacey, a young Gwyneth Paltrow, and several excellent, recognizable character actors (like Dr. Cox from Scrubs).  Much of the character development of this film (especially Brad Pitt’s character, David) is accomplished through dialogue, which requires good acting to be effective.  Fortunately, that acting is present and the characters’ feelings (mostly those of Pitt and Freeman) shine through conversation (most often through the subtext).

The idea that the characters develop heavily through dialogue in an action/thriller may seem odd, but that is directly attributable to the story being more than just action.  The film has its fair share of suspense and a well-crafted story with several twists, but it’s clear that the murders and action are meant to be more than just entertainment. It’s meant to make you think.  I mean, why else would you choose a premise with such a heavy religious overtone?  Ultimately, as the detectives proceed through their investigation, we are left wondering, ‘Are these the desperate, meaningless actions of an attention-seeking psycho, or can they actually be considered justifiable by even the slightest amount?’ If the seven deadly sins are a direct ticket to Hell, does it give someone the right to stamp that ticket a little early?  These are obviously dark, morally ambiguous ideas, but interesting to consider in a fictional setting. 

Driving these ideas home is the intermittent conversations between the detectives.  Somerset (Freeman) being the one who won’t just write off the killer as being entirely insane and without purpose and David (Pitt) being the detective who cannot find reason or logic in such heinous crimes. Their banter throughout the film helps to raise many of the aforementioned questions, and, just in case you didn’t pick up on the theme throughout the film, its conclusion drives the point home.  While there’s some forced dialogue preceding it, the conclusion is an excellent twist and a great, fitting end to the film.

This film is fantastic.  It executes its premise masterfully and really maximizes the potential of the story in my opinion.  It’s entertaining, but also works on a level beyond shear entertainment, which at times approaches being a little forced but is saved by the acting.  If you haven’t seen this film, rent it. It’s easy to sit down to watch and very enjoyable, regardless of your religious views. If you’re not Christian/Catholic, there’s enough exposition to explain what’s going on, and if you’re like me and you don’t think we should kill everyone who makes a mistake, well, I still liked it, so there ya go.  If you have seen it, maybe it’s time to pop it in your DVD player again for another viewing.  I did, and it didn’t disappoint.

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4.5

If you like this, check out:  Boondock Saints (Unrated Special Edition) or The Silence of the Lambs [Blu-ray]

Buy Seven (Single Disc Edition)