Girls With Dragon Tattoos

Usually I read the book before I watch the movie.  The biggest problem with this is the book is almost always significantly better than the movie and this makes the movie less enjoyable to watch.  I thought I would try something different this time.  With the book eagerly awaits my attention from its spot on my bookshelf, I decided to watch the movie first.  To top off everything else, there are two versions of this film, not just one.  I watched the Swedish version earlier this week and went to see the American edition today.  Keep in mind as I compare these two films that I have not read the book and I do not know which is a more faithful translation.

I was totally prepared for the American version to be a watered down, weak, faded copy of the 2009 Swedish film.  That was definitely not the case.  The Swedish film was more of an old fashioned suspense thriller.  While watching it, it seemed a patient, detailed, terrific film.  The American version is faster paced and seemingly more fleshed out.  The Swedish edition spent more time and effort on the investigation of the crime that lead character Mikael Blomkvist was hired to look into.  Its American counterpart tends to delve into the characters a little more – not only the two leads but some of the other characters as well.  The American movie also has a more satisfying wrap-up.

The essential storyline is the same in both films and I assume it is the same one as in the book.  Several details differ in the two versions but none really affect the plot at all.  They are indeed two versions of the same story.  I enjoyed both of them as I watched them separately and their tone and pace are their own.  In my mind, I have a hard time picking one over the other because they each offer key elements which I like – the patient, detailed storytelling in one and the great character development in the other. 

I will say one thing about both.  Each had a couple of brutal rape scenes in them.  To be honest, I was sure the American version would soften these scenes and probably leave most of them to our imagination.  To his credit, director David Fincher did not waiver in presenting these scenes in a tough, gritty, unflinching manner, just as Niels Arden Oplev , the director of the 2009 film, did.  Bravo to both men.  These scenes were not easy to watch but they were imperative in the development of Lisbeth’s character. 

I thought Michael Nyqvist was better, if slightly, than Daniel Craig in the lead role of Mikael Blomkvist.  Rooney Mara surprisingly delivered a credible performance as Lisbeth, even in comparison to Noomi Rapace’s brilliant work.  The role of Erika Berger was a much bigger role in the American version than the Swedish version and so there isn’t much to compare.  I won’t compare some of the other key roles because I want to do nothing to that tips off the ending for those who haven’t watched either film or read the book.  Let’s just leave it at that both set of actors performed extremely well. 

If I were forced to pick one over the other, at this point I would choose the American version on the simple fact that its wrap up was much more complete and detailed.  The end of the Swedish version left me a bit confused as I felt that Lisbeth acted out of character.  It felt incomplete.  The Swedish film did a better job at building up the relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael but the American film was better about showing the extended results of that relationship.  If you choose to watch just one, you really won’t go wrong with either one.  Both were really good.  Both a terrifically made films and are enjoyable in and of themselves.  Now, one or the other may gain an advantage once I read the book.  We will just have to see.

I always like to add a note to parents.  Neither version is suitable for children.  Both feature brutal rape scenes, violence, nudity, and a disturbing plot.  They are rated R for very good reason and I strongly recommend caution when deciding about letting children under the age of 16 or 17 view these films.

Thanks for reading and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

View my sports blog at jawssportsandstuff.blogspot.com and get twitter updates @jawsrecliner

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

I have to admit I was totally unprepared for the first Sherlock Holmes movie a couple of years ago.  I was not educated enough on the character himself and that made me react negatively to that film.  Since then, I have acquainted myself better with the Holmes persona and I liked the first movie when I watched it a second time.  When Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows was announced, I was excited for its release.  This time, I wasn’t disappointed.

The movie is even quicker and smarter than the first.  It is a rare sequel that surpasses its predecessor.  It’s not that A Game of Shadows doesn’t have its warts; it does and some of them are the same as those that plague the original.  Most of these are relatively minor flaws that do not dent the many good things that make this a terrific flick.

I hate it when writers and directors dumb movies down for the audiences.  This is a great insult to me.  They are assuming we are too stupid to understand a smart and complicated storyline and dialogue.  Director Guy Ritchie doesn’t make that mistake here.  The plot twists and turns, doing justice to a brilliant hero and a genius villain.  The action and dialogue are quick and edgy.  There are no lulls or boring parts and this keeps our attention on the screen at all times.

Robert Downey, Jr. is at his quirky, manic best.  He has always been a terrific actor and he seems more at home in this role than as Iron Man.  He does have a tendency to mumble a few of his lines and his accent makes him hard to understand clearly at times.  This may be the quirky character of Holmes in and of himself but Downey, Jr.’s personality probably isn’t too far from Holmes’.

Jude Law, who was the best part of the first film, follows up as the perfect foil, Dr. Watson, who must be the sane, but loyal voice, to Holmes’ ungoverned behavior.  Law is as smart and snappy as his literary counterpart, downplaying his importance to Holmes’ process.  Jared Harris (Mad Men, Fringe) is eerie and creepy as the villainous genies, Professor James Moriarty.  Harris just exudes intellect and evil in a quiet, subtle way.  His voice is always calm but his words seem to drip hidden venom.  Moriarty is almost an evil intellectual twin for Holmes’ genius.  They are evenly matched and that is the main thing that kept this film smart.

Noomi Rapace gains some post dragon body art exposure as “the girl”.  She plays a mystic gypsy named Simza Heron, who is trying to rescue her wayward brother from the mental clutches of Professor Moriarty.  She joins forces with Holmes and Watson ands holds her own in the action scenes.  Her character lacked levity and I would have liked to see less stoicism from her but for the most part, she held her own against her talented cohorts.

At times, the film felt herky-jerky.  This is due to Ritchie’s preferred directing style. He has a penchant for numerous slow motion segments.  He especially loves to slow down the action scenes and drag them out with overly dramatic slow frames and close ups.  At times, this works just fine, as when are heroes flee through a dense forest.  The slow motion frames of bullets and artillery shells ripping through trees are pretty cool but other times it is just distracting.  It is a nifty signature but he uses it just a little too much.

At times, the dialogue and plot felt just a tad bit too clever; almost like it was being clever just the sake of being clever.  The more I thought about this, the more I think this is a good thing.  It kept the movie intelligent but also served as homage to the character of Sherlock Holmes.  It would be a big mistake to dumb down Holmes, his sidekick, or his villains.  Hopefully, if any more films are made for this series, Ritchie will be at the helm because he gets it.

I enjoyed this movie thoroughly and it garnered applause from the audience as the credits rolled.  There is some violence and salty language but most young teens would find this movie entertaining.  There is enough to draw audiences without falling back on cheap tricks like sex and nudity.  Holmes doesn’t need it and this film doesn’t use.  This film is just fine for any child used to seeing typical PG-13 movies.

Check out my sports blog at jawssportsandstuff.blogspot.com and get twitter updates @jawsrecliner