Author: Ben Browne

Back once again on my home turf to review the film that finally dethroned the mighty Avengers from its box office throne. Was the world crying out for another Men in Black? I wouldn’t have thought so, but ticket stubs don’t lie. Plus, anything is a step up from the concentration camp that was the second one.

The original Men in Black is one of my all-time favourite films. I loved it as a kid and I love it even more  now. It combined schlocky sci-fi and social commentary with great special effects and wrapped it up with genuinely witty dialogue and the fantastic central chalk and cheese pairing of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. I don’t know if you remember the ending, but it was pretty final. MIB didn’t warrant a follow-up, but the all important beans (that are counted by the bean counters? I’m being all metaphorical) dictated otherwise. Factor in the fact that in the intervening 5 years Will Smith had become one of the most famous actors on the planet and a sequel was inevitable. Shame it was such a car crash, then. A sloppy rehash of a story, some god-awful writing and most insultingly of all, a complete ignorance of what made the first film so good all added up to something which disappointed audiences worldwide. So, a hefty decade later, we’re ready to do the same dance again. The big question is whether it’s a cheeky little foxtrot with an attractive partner or a frantic, desperate Charleston after you’ve just shat yourself. Well, it’s kind of halfway between, but before you have a chance to fully form an horrific mental image of that, let me try and explain myself as best I can.

“I’m getting too old for this. I can only imagine how you feel.”

The plot goes thusly: one armed alien biker dude, Boris the Animal (played by a virtually unrecognisable Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords) escapes from his lunar prison and makes a plan to go back in time to kill K (Tommy Lee Jones) and get his arm back. After K disappears from the timeline, only his long term partner agent J (Will Smith) has any memory of him. J must then travel back to 1969 to prevent Boris from killing the younger K (Josh Brolin) and changing the future. Watching the trailers, I wasn’t convinced by the whole time travel thing. After the world the first film created where aliens live among us, we’re going back to the cliched ’60s? To pull time travel out of you arse and present an alternate reality is normally the death knell for any franchise (Shrek Forever After, anyone?)  In the film, however, it sort of works. It’s not a runaway success, but it’s a passable plot device, rather than the afeared final nail in the MIB coffin. Splitting up Smith and Jones may seem like madness (and exactly the sort of shit that the second one pulled) but again, it actually works to the film’s credit. Josh Brolin does a scarily good impression of Tommy Lee Jones and actually brings some humanity to the gruff, grizzled character we’re used to seeing. Of the newcomers, Zed’s replacement Agent O (Emma Thompson) is decent enough, although we don’t get to see that much of her and the Mork-like Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg), a being who can see all parallel timelines and future possibilities simultaneously is a nice addition. Clement’s big baddie Boris is a fairly decent villain, but seems like a pale facsimile of Edgar the Bug from the 1997 original. His “thing” is that his right hand is home to a creepy insect-like creature that can shoot sharpened spines at people. What I don’t understand is why Boris is so fixated on getting his arm back. Sure, it’d suck to lose an arm, but he’s got the one that has the special murder bug in it. Did his other arm have one too? It’s never explained.

There are some great ideas on display here. I loved the look of the ’60s MIB headquarters, with the peerless Rick Baker showing off some of his awesome prosthetic creations. The ’60s gadgetry is also well thought out and designed too. J being black in the still struggling with civil rights 1969 is an interesting concept and close to the social satire of the first, but apart from a couple of scenes is largely ignored. The finale with the Apollo 11 is well done and I even liked the ending (which has been used as a stick to beat the film with by several joyless critics) which adds a genuinely moving aspect to J and K’s relationship. It’s a shame they felt the need to signpost so thoroughly throughout the film, ensuring I wasn’t accidentally surprised or intrigued.

My main gripe is that the film needed to be funnier than this. Most of the jokes fall flat and the (hate this word) banter between Jones and Smith at the beginning seems really forced. There is the occasional funny line or quip, but the film seemed frightened to let go of some of the entertaining jokes from the first that were ploughed into the ground with MIB II. A cursory glance at the background screen at MIB HQ will inform you that Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber and Tim Burton are all under surveillance as undercover aliens. Plus, the series favourite “worm guys” make their contractual appearance. There are a few cameos too, with Bill Hader popping up as Andy Warhol and Will Arnett giving an eager turn as AA, J’s alternate future partner.

“I used to play a fun game with my dad, it was called “catch”. You see, I’d throw the ball to him and it would hit the wall cause he wasn’t there.”

Thankfully, Men in Black III isn’t the shitbomb I had prepared myself for. It’s not great (and for the people out there saying it’s the best one, I’m all for difference of opinion, but you’re just plain wrong) but it’s not terrible either. It plays out like an amalgamation of the previous two films and produces the mixed results one would expect. It’s simply average, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that it really needed to try harder, especially in terms of humour. Chances are, you’ll probably walk out content, but whatever you feel, feel it quickly and exit the screen before the aurally offensive theme song by Pitbull starts. The credits just aren’t the same without a Will Smith rap over the top.

As it comes out at the end of the week, I thought I’d share my review of Titanic 3D on my own blog. It originally appeared on The People’s Movies, where I also do whatever it is I do.

I suppose any review of the 3D re-release of Titanic, still one of the highest grossing films ever, is a bit pointless. Chances are high that you’ve already seen Cameron’s “disasterpiece” and have already made up your mind whether or not to watch it with stupid specs on. Having only seen Titanic on VHS several eons ago, it was an interesting experience to see it all on the big screen and I felt I could view the film with fresh eyes, feeling like I needed a new pair after 3 hours of headache-inducing dimensionality.

As Titanic is one of the most famous films ever, I know you don’t need a plot summary, but I like the way my keyboard clickety-clacks when I type so I’ll give you one anyway. We join a group of scruffy treasure hunters searching for the Heart of the Ocean, a hugely valuable blue diamond necklace, amongst the sunken remains of the Titanic. During their fruitless search, they come across a nude portrait of a woman wearing the sought-after jewel. Turns out this woman’s still alive and is choppered out to the salvage vessel where she tells a tale of true love between her 17 year old self (Kate Winslet) and grimy dreamboat Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and her personal experience of the tragic sinking. It’s not hard to see why this was the planet’s favourite flick at one time. It’s a classic love story that clearly struck a chord with audiences worldwide. Thing is, both DiCaprio and Winslet are pretty wooden as the leads. They’ve both evolved into great actors, but I was surprised at how bland they both were here. Still, great acting is not required in Titanic. Many characters are as broadly painted as they come in order for as many people as possible to buy into the central romance. Billy Zane’s rich fiancée Cal, for instance, is basically a Disney villain, specifically Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. He’s an easy hate figure, being insanely rich and a douchebag to boot. He starts off as a snobby jerk but soon descends into moustache-twirling territory later on when he hits Rose, frames Jack and uses a lost, crying child as a ticket onto one of the lifeboats.

The love story doesn’t gel with me, but I get that it’s a romantic fantasy. Just because I can’t stretch my suspension of disbelief that far, doesn’t mean other people can’t . It’s not a documentary. It’s basically Romeo and Juliet where Verona sinks. To me, Titanic works as a hallmark of epic filmmaking. I am loath to use the increasingly devalued word “epic”, but I use it in its correct sense, not in the sense that you and your squealing, vapid friends had an “epic” weekend. The scale of the film is really impressive. Whilst some of the then-ground breaking CGI looks slightly dated, it still doesn’t spoil the overall grandiose feeling . The actual sinking of the ship is still as awe-inspiring and horrific as it ever was. It’s all incredibly well handled by Cameron, who keeps everything as practical and as realistic as possible, despite the heavy use of effects. The last half of the film really pulls things together. It becomes tense, exciting and affecting. If you don’t feel something when the band plays “Nearer My God to Thee” and we see an old couple hunkered down in their bed as the seawater fills the room or when we see a mother reading her kids a permanent bedtime story, you’re dead inside. It’s rough stuff.

So then, the 3D. Well, it’s the best post-conversion job I’ve seen. Everything from the title to the icy finale is all sticky-outy. After Avatar, James Cameron has become the easily-punchable face of 3D and it’s clear he didn’t want to merely run it through a computer like 2010′s Clash of the Titans rush-job, post-conversion scam. Some actual thought has been put into this, but with all the things now sticking out at me, the one thing that was most prominent was the question “why?”. I can sort of understand the recent Star Wars re-release (although it doesn’t mean I can’t hate it as much as I do) as it’s a big sci-fi with space battles and the like. But Titanic is such an odd choice for 3D-ifying. Director/studio greediness aside, it doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t add anything to the film at all. If anything, it makes the effects look worse. There’s a big, sweeping shot of the ship where it’s clear CGI versions of the actors are traversing the deck, plotting the ship’s course and chatting to each other. Thing is, 3D makes things look smaller and messes with your sense of scale. As a result, this particular shot looks like a clip from The Sims: Disaster Edition.

Titanic is a weird one, whilst I’m not convinced by the central romance or the acting, it still manages to be an entertaining disaster epic. Having said that, am I the only one who finds it a bit tacky to base a fictional love story around a real-life disaster? Are they going to do a buddy picture set in the Hindenburg next? This wouldn’t really be a problem, but I feel this is further cheapened by the fact that it’s now being re-released in gimmicky 3D to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the ship’s sinking. It’s a blatant, naked cash grab, not a heartfelt memorial. I’m not getting all moral on you or anything, just a thought. So, to recap: Titanic good, 3D not needed, the film clearly shows the door couldn’t support both of them- that’s why he’s in the water.

I’m back, baby! After a few months concentrating on selling out, I’m ready to rejoin the obscure bloggers’ ranks once again. That’s not to say I’m not going to continue infecting other parts of the ‘Net. There’s plenty of me to go around, guys. Well, if my BMI is anything to go by.

 The Hunger Games (2012)

Much like the Twilight series before it, it seems that The Hunger Games has tapped into the lucrative young teen market and made a goddamn bundle in the process. That’s where the Twi-likenesses end though. On the subject of comparisons, let’s get this out of the way.  Yeah, there are similarities to Battle Royale but it’s not the Americanised rip-off some people have been decrying it as. To my eyes, the film shares DNA with not only Battle Royale, but Lord of the Flies, The Running Man, The Truman Show and I even saw a little bit of First Blood in there (Katniss reminded me of a female Rambo or “Rambette”, if you will.). Don’t piss on things because they’re popular, piss on them because they deserve it. Fact of the matter is, The Hunger Games doesn’t deserve it. It’s genuinely great.

The Hunger Games is set in a futuristic, dystopian version of the United States called Panem, where the country is split up into an extremely wealthy capital and surrounded by 12 impoverished districts. As punishment for a working-class uprising over 70 years ago, a barbaric, televised gladiatorial battle called The Hunger Games is held each year in which 24 young people or “tributes” (a male and female from each district) are chosen by a lottery and forced to kill each other until only one victor remains. We join District 12’s Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), who volunteers to enter the games in place of her younger sister, and follow her journey to the Capitol along with male tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) as they prepare to fight for their lives. The overall plot is solid. I loved the backstory, the post-apocalyptic setting and the ideas and issues the film tackles. From the opening, there’s a palpable sense of dread as we build up to the games themselves. This isn’t some lunkhead action where the main character finally has an outlet for their mad brutality skillz (à la Ah-nuld in The Running Man). Whilst not helpless, Katniss is still vulnerable and we are scared for her. Speaking of Katnip Everyteen, Jennifer Lawrence is really impressive as the lead. She plays Katniss with a determined resignation, rather than slipping into ball-busting, female badass clichés. Josh Hutcherson was alright as Peeta, with most of his lines muted in my head due to his jaw being one of the squarest I’ve ever seen,second only to that guy in Michael Bay’s 1996 masterpiece The Rock. Woody Harrelson pops up as a past champion with an understandable drinking problem. Donald Sutherland mumbles a few lines through a white beard, Elizabeth Banks changes costume a lot and Lenny Kravitz successfully pulls off gold eyeliner. Most of the adults are inconsequential. The focus here is on the kids and rightfully so.

The Hunger Games deals with some dark stuff. Children pitted against each other in a battle to the death is a terrifying concept. There’s something deeply unsettling about how psyched Panem’s 1% are for their annual crueltyfest. The thing that sent shivers down my spine is merely alluded to in general conversation between Katniss and hometown hunk Gale (Liam Hemsworth), where it transpires that if you are starving, you can get food from the government in exchange for another entry into the lottery with some people having to rely on this system so heavily, being picked is a damn near certainty. Brr. Despite being rabbited about endlessly, I didn’t find the violence that shocking. It’s pretty strong for a 12A, but Quantum of Solace had the same rating and had the unbelievably grim scene where the CraigHulk stabs a man in the neck before shanking him in the back of the thigh. He then proceeds to lie the man down, all the while checking his pulse and patiently waiting for the poor bastard to bleed out. My point is, hand-wringing parental groups and Daily Mail readers have (unsurprisingly) got it wrong. The film shouldn’t be a 15. As a parent, you should just pay extra attention to the “A” bit in the 12A rating. The film sidesteps the gore anyway with liberal use of the Bourne shakycam, which can get distracting. However, at least its use here is justified given the already established fanbase, rather than just a cheap technique to make the film look “edgy” and “dynamic”. The deaths are harrowing though. It’s just some of them smack of compromise and considering the bleak, grim world we’re presented, shying away from kiddie deaths at the last minute seems a bit pointless. I wasn’t gunning for decapitations or anything, it’s just really noticeable at times. Especially the fight with the psycho knife girl who (invisotext for spoilerphobes) seemingly just ups and dies after being slammed against a wall a few times.

I really liked the whole “playing up for the cameras” angle. Katniss is constantly reminded that it’s a TV show and to court the sponsors who can aid her in battle with little gift packages like much-needed medicine. The fake relationship she has with Peeta is well handled and takes a few sideswipes at reality TV while it’s at it. There are a few things that didn’t make sense to me though. Why is she known as “The Girl on Fire” when Peeta was wearing the same outfit? Secondly, did Cinna just create this new technology of fake fire? Thirdly, what was the point in sucking up to the sponsors when Haymitch was the only one sending her stuff? FUCKING STOP RIGHT THERE. I know what Hunger Games fans are going to say: (adopt a grating nerd voice”) “It’s explained in the book blah blah blah” /nerdvoice. I don’t care. A film adaptation is a tabula rasa as far as I’m concerned. It’s the film’s job to explain these technicalities if it includes them and it’s the film’s fault if it doesn’t do that well enough. Having the commentators (Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones) explaining the rules of the games is a neat touch, but they are overused and soon become irritating. Also, Peeta’s camouflage “skill” is laughable and raises more questions than it should. I felt the ending was rushed too, with some shonky CGI undercutting the drama somewhat. Still, (invisotext) I really liked Cato’s last scene. Instead of just a psychopathic hulking brute, it turns out he had some humanity left in him too. Whilst in spoiler territory, Seneca Crane’s (Wes Bentley) last scene was darkly brilliant. 

I thought The Hunger Games was great. It’s dark, exciting and enthralling. It’s a good, solid film that mostly sticks to its guns. Bring on the sequels.

Been a bit busy recently, so haven’t updated in a while. I saw the Steve McQueen (not that one) film Shame a few weeks ago and will now let you all know what I thought about it. Since it’s predominantly about sex, I’ll try to ease up on the childish jokes, but I can’t promise anything.

I’m going to blow my reviewing wad early by starting off with the admission that I didn’t like Shame. It’s a grim, angsty bit of filmmaking that feels its really meaningful, but actually comes across as a student film with a much higher budget complete with predictable depressing ending. I realise that calling a film everyone’s having a massive intellectual wank over “pretentious” may make me look bad by comparison, but sod it. I’d much rather watch something dumb but fun like The A-Team than this rusty bucket of spunk.

Shame is the story of Brandon (Michael Fassbender) a 30-something man living in New York. Brandon suffers from sexual addiction and is finding it harder and harder (fnarr, fnarr) to keep it from bleeding into his professional and social life. Things change for Brandon when his wayward sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) comes to stay, forcing Brandon to come to terms with how he’s living his life. I like the overall idea of Shame. Off the top of my head, I can’t remember many films dealing with sex addiction and this certainly seems like the most realistic portrayal of it. Both Fassbender and Mulligan give really strong performances, although I think Mulligan has been better elsewhere (cough Drive cough). Fassbender’s Brandon reminded me of Oldman’s George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, where you know despite the cool exterior, there’s some serious emotional juice bubbling just beneath the surface. The film is well shot and there are some really interesting flourishes here and there, including one shot where Brandon is frantically binning all his nudie mags and DVDs and we get fast, flickering shots of naked flesh, ending on an arsehole (not a dig at Fass, that’s actually what happens). It’s like a pornographic version of the Marvel Studios logo and is my new forum avatar on several Christian websites.

I get what Shame is doing. I just don’t find it that compelling or interesting. The opening 10 minutes, with Fass strutting naked around his modern, threadbare apartment and eye-fucking the shit out of a girl on the subway reminded me of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. In fact, the opening 20 minutes could easily be the start of a serial killer film, right down to Brandon’s cold, removed way of ghosting through life and seeming alone, even when in a room full of people. The film perks up a bit when Sissy comes to town and inadvertently holds up a mirror to Brandon’s life. Is he as damaged and needy as she is? I didn’t care. I didn’t feel sorry for either of them. I really liked a bit near the end where Brandon seemingly gives up trying to fight his addiction and becomes an unapologetic poonhound, but I found this to be funny, rather than tragic.

There’s one scene that outlined Shame for me. It takes place in a swanky bar where Brandon and his boss are watching Sissy perform. She sings an excruciatingly slow version of New York, New York and everyone agrees it was brilliant. Mulligan has a nice voice, but I can’t stand those long, drawn-out jazz renditions of popular songs. I know some people solely want to fill their ears with that stuff and consider it a purer, stripped-down form of music, but I need something with a little bit of oomph to it- and it’s the same with film. I don’t mind character studies or ruminations on the human condition, but don’t give me this sort of toss and tell me it’s “deep”.

So here’s Hugo‘s biggest rival at the Oscars, The Artist. Most of the night will be dedicated to overpaid, undertalented bellends all slapping each other on the back and smiling like they’ve never slaughtered a sex worker or five in their time. In case you haven’t guessed, I don’t really like award season. Especially when deserving films like Drive, for instance, are almost completely overlooked in favour of mediocre “racism iz bad” flicks like The Help. The Golden Globes are a joke, the Oscars are a sham, but I quite like the BAFTAs. Anyway- here’s a film that actually deserves the praise lauded upon it.

 

With the Oscar nominations announced, I was made aware that I hadn’t even seen the two frontrunners, Hugo and The Artist. So, I organised a trip to the nearest place with a pulse and a multiplex and remedied the embarrassing situation I found myself in.

 

The Academy are a funny old bunch, aren’t they? To me, they seem like a typical elderly man character in a bad sitcom. For instance, they frequently show how out-of-touch they are, overlooking culturally important flicks in favour of schmaltzy toss. Also, they seem to forget things only to remember them much later, such as Scorsese’s Oscar for The Departed and Gary Oldman’s “oh, fucking finally!” type nomination this year. Coupled with The Artist, a more cynical man than I would point out that both these films are just pandering to the Academy, knowing full-well that the voters fucking love films that boil down to talking about how bloody brilliant films are and how movie-making is, like, really important, yeah? However, I’m not that cynical and am happy to say Hugo and The Artist both won me over with their charm and general rocking of the shit.

Asa Butterfield plays the titular Hugo, an orphan boy who secretly lives in the walls of a bustling Parisian train station, constantly having to duck and avoid Inspector Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen) who would like nothing better than to send our grubby hero off to the orphanage. Things change when Hugo meets Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), an adventurous bookworm who is in possession of an unusual key that may unlock the secret to Hugo’s prized possession- a broken automaton left by his father. I hate to sound like I’ve read the official namby-pamby PR blurb for Hugo, but it actually is a magical, fun-filled, family film. I’m sorry, I can’t think of anything more fitting than that. It doesn’t talk down to its kiddie audience and actually deals with some pretty adult stuff. The performances are all great, with Asa Butterfield doing his wide-eyed best as Hugo. Chloë Moretz aka the foul mouthed Hit-Girl from Kick-Ass, is charming as Isabelle, also nailing the British accent that everyone in 1930s Paris seems to have. Sir Ben Kingsley is predictably good, but the surprise for me was Sacha Baron Cohen. After initially dismissing his character as childish slapstick giggle fodder, I was taken aback at how much I warmed to his friendlier take on the Child Catcher. 

Hugo is a love letter to cinema. It’s a tribute to the early innovators of the art and in particular, the work of Georges Méliès. This is done tastefully and isn’t the frantic, uncoordinated suckjob I expected all of this “love of cinema” stuff to be. I got the feeling Scorsese has genuine admiration for these pioneers and it permeates the film. However, as enthralling as I found all of this to be, the thought occurred that all of  this may be a bit too boring for some kids. There are no “comedy” CGI creatures that run into walls or fart, for instance. There’s also a nightmare sequence where Hugo turns into the metal faced automaton which may disturb the wussier kids in the audience. Still though, what the hell do I know? Haven’t been a kid for a long time and don’t plan on becoming a parent any time soon.

So, the 3D. The fucking 3D. I hate to say it, but it was good. Before I start telling you about how well Scorsese handled the technology and the like, I want to make it clear. Hugo has still not sold me on 3D. It’s still an overpriced gimmick that I cannot wait to see the back of. Having said that, this is the best 3D integration I’ve seen. The opening shot is of a snowy Paris, with snowflakes falling before your eyes and the film continues impressing from there. That’s not to say it’s in your face the entire time. Like the best 3D, you sort of forget you’re watching one until the next thing gets all up in your grill. Whilst added dimensionality usually adds something between “fuck” and “all”, I get the feeling Hugo might not be quite as much fun without all the whizz-bang 3D when it comes to DVD. Time will tell on that one.

I left Hugo with a big smile on my face. It’s an immensely enjoyable family film that manages to be a fun kiddie flick and a film fan’s wet dream at the same time. It’s genuinely affecting at points too, which has made me think I was too soft on War Horse and all its forced sentimentality. I hope Hugo is the start of a smarter breed of kids films and that studios realise that 3D can be used to great effect when a) you have a great director in charge or b) when it suits the mood of the film. I realise I may as well wish for fucking wings, considering Ice Age 4 and Madagascar 3 are farting into your local multiplex soon, but I can dream, can’t I?

In true Popcorn Bucket fashion, the film world is buzzing about awards and y’know- films that actually matter and I toddled off to see an action film with lots of punching, kicking and the occasional sexy chokehold.

Yup, a review of a current film you won’t struggle to find showings of. This means you can consider this consumer advice if you wanted to. I could actually save you money. Well, unless I end up giving this film a rather schizophrenic review and award it an average three stars or summat.

Back with my first post of 2012. May as well start the year as I mean to go on, which means I have a pile of films to talk about like anyone wants to hear another nerd’s justification for why he doesn’t go out and meet someone nice.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

2012 has an abundance of films I’d put off my own grandmother’s funeral to see. 2011 didn’t. There were films that interested me, but nothing that made me leap off my seat and start scratching at the door like a dog wanting to go walkies. The only film that came close was David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Why? Well, I liked the Swedish original, my perpetual man-crush Daniel Craig stars and it’s directed by David Fincher, a man who could direct a film called Ben Browne Loves Scrotum and I would still be clamouring for a ticket on opening day.

“You will be investigating thieves, misers, bullies, the most detestable collection of people you will ever meet – my family.”

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is based on the first novel in the best-selling Millennium trilogy (original title Män som hatar kvinnor- i.e. Men Who Hate Women) by Steig Larsson. In it, we follow disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) as he is drafted in by retired industrialist Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to solve a 40 year old case of the murder of his great-niece. Blomkvist soon finds himself way over his head and hires a research assistant in the form of prickly, motorbiking, Goth, master hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to help with the case. If you haven’t read or seen this story before, there are enough twists and turns on the standard murder mystery formula to keep you guessing. The main strength of the film is the crime solving double act of Blomkvist and Salander, a chalk and cheese pairing that simply works. Daniel Craig is Daniel Craig, but you get the feeling he was hired due to his starpower and the fact that he’s the current Bond- a point I’ll come back to in a bit. Rooney Mara is undoubtedly the talking point in this film. She manages to nail both the damaged vulnerability and simmering rage elements that make the character work. This is a star-making turn for her and I look forward to seeing her in plenty of films in the near future. Of the supporting cast, Christopher Plummer gives a surprising performance as the frail Henrik Vanger and Stellan Skarsgård uses his big, friendly face to his advantage as Martin Vanger.

You may be asking what the point is in remaking a film that’s barely three years old and was perfectly fine to begin with. It’s a good point, but there’s more to this than simply remaking it to be all American-like. For starters, there’s a big debate on whether this film is a remake at all, although some of the shots and performances certainly indicate the production team have at least seen the 2009 film. If you were planning on avoiding this one on the principle that it’s an American retelling of a successful foreign film (like The Grudge or The Ring) I implore you not to. A lot of effort has been made to make it true to the original story. The only real difference is that everyone speaks English and the film has bigger name actors. The Swedish locales and everything that made the first one a breath of fresh air (thank Christ this wasn’t reworked to be set in Los Angeles or New York) are kept. It’s important to remember the original films were made for TV and as such could benefit from a cinematic upgrade, especially handled by David Fincher.

I’m a bit of a meathead when it comes whats I likes. I found 2009’s Dragon Tattoo, starring the traffic-stoppingly beautiful Noomi Rapace, to be a very entertaining, if tough, watch. I’m not sure whether it was the sheer number of characters mentioned (the Vanger family and their relationships to each other are central to the plot) or what, but I wasn’t completely taken in by it. Fincher’s version is more streamlined that the 2009 one, with Steven Zaillian’s screenplay chopping and changing certain characters to make the film flow better. I’m not sure whether this is a good thing or not, although I understood the intricacies of the plot more in this ‘un. The film is still very similar to the 2009 one but with a different feeling to it. It’s certainly better shot and made. There’s even a trippy Bond-like title sequence (which you can see here), which whilst awesome, is slightly at odds with the quiet menace of the rest of the film. By the way, if the makers of that don’t get the call to do the Skyfall opening titles, I will be shocked.

Actually, talking of Bond, I feel we are meant to take Craig’s 007 persona into account in his role as Blomkvist in one way, but disregard it in another. The character of Blomkvist is a womaniser, something that’s not really explored in the Fincher film, but we take it as read, because, hey- the dude’s James Bond. On the other hand, Blomkvist isn’t meant to be accustomed to the danger he finds himself in and is, in a way, the male damsel (mansel?) in distress, which is obviously very un-Bondlike. I have no problem separating characters from actors, it’s just that Craig’s Blomkvist is a bit of a blank slate, which makes it easy to project onto. Sure, lots of things happen to him, but I’m not sure I could write a quick paragraph outlining his character. I could write a whole sodding book about Mara’s Salander though. Whilst I think both Mara and Rapace play the role well, I think Mara has the slight edge. Rapace played her as someone you just wouldn’t mess with, whereas Mara’s vulnerability is a bit more apparent, which makes it easier to understand why people try and take advantage of her.

“Rape, torture, fire, animals, religion. Am I missing anything?”

Most of the good in the film is also the good in the 2009 version. There’s some genuinely disturbing scenes, a fantastic retribution scene which is so unpleasant, yet air-punchingly cathartic it’ll be etched on your brain like a sloppily done tattoo. As with previous incarnations, when the mystery starts unravelling, it’s all bloody compelling. Still, if you’ve yet to experience the Millennium trilogy in any of its forms, now’s the time. I’ve got big hopes for the already announced sequel. It’s not the most necessary remake/reinterpretation/whatever, but I enjoyed it for what it was- a populist, pulp murder-mystery made by a team of talented filmmakers at the top of their game. Which version is better? I’m not going to get into that argument now, but each have their merits. Recommended.