Okay, now I am getting angry. First of all, as I have said many times, I don’t mind remakes. Hell, reboots can be alright, if they are actually reboots, and not some lazy, half assed remake-reboot hybrid. This 21 Jump Street thing, I don’t get.

I am a huge fan of the show. I know very little about the film, but I already know it is potentially going the aforementioned Nightmare remake route (Channing Tatum’s character is named Jenko; in the show, the character Blowfish was played by Sal Jenco. There is an appearence from Officer Hanson. Not so subtle references?). Even worse than that, is the decision to make it a comedy. The show dealt with a wide array of serious topics like drugs, AIDS, death, etc. This film also deals with drugs with a storyline that seems remarkably similar to an episode of Strangers with Candy, also a comedy. The reason why Jump Street was so good was that it exposed the plight of high school students and making their problems important and apparent to otherwise unknowing adults. Teens could relate and adults could learn. This film seems like an attempt to use an existing property to get people in to theater seats to remark about how much weight Jonah Hill has lost.

Don’t get me wrong. I like Jonah Hill. I like comedies. I like police comedies. I saw Police Academy 4 in the theater for God’s sake. But, what the fuck does this have to do with 21 Jump Street? The only direct connection that I have noticed so far, is the undercover cops in high school story, which is hardly exclusive to 21 Jump Street. If you listen to any our podcasts that mention remakes, you will hear me time and again compain about using an exiting property to get bodies in the theater, but the final product has nothing really to do with that property. I’m not saying don’t make the picture, but can you please just call it something else? Fuck it, call it “Funny Cops,” for all I care, at least I won’t go into the theater already comparing it to its predecessor. When you name something after something else, you are forever attaching it to the universe of that something. “Hey remember how cool that animated G.I. Joe movie was?” “Hell yeah! You remember how fucking retarted the 2 live action ones were? Now I hate G.I. Joe. I threw all my action figures in the sewer because of those films. I have also slain several children in reaction to those films.”

Please, 21 Jump Street: The Movie. Don’t make me slay children and hate Johnny Depp. Change the name. That’s all I ask.

I suppose this was somewhat covered in X-Men: First Class (though honestly I don’t remember how much), but the film’s main angle is ‘what would you do if you had super powers?’ For Andrew (Dane DeHaan), Matt (Alex Russell), and Steve (Michael B. Jordan), the first answer is to fool around with it, all for fun and games of course. After their chance encounter with an odd foreign object, the trio develops the power of telekinesis and quickly use it to beam each other in the head with chance curveballs, construct Lego towers with no hands, and naturally learn to fly. Yet, as they become more in control of their abilities, tensions begin to rise leading to some rather unexpected turns in the story.

I had no real expectations for this before walking into the theater and even being mostly in the dark about the premise turned out to be a good thing. The first two-thirds of the film work well as a found footage story since the actors are not easily placed (other than that DeHaan looks freakishly like a young Leonardo DiCaprio) and have a comfortable demeanor with each other, mostly while the three are still high on their discovery and just having some dumb fun. It is hard not to feel some excitement when they learn to fly and get anxious when a few of the early stunts go awry.

Most everything in the story is well-established and played out with main exception being one of the boys’ sudden transformation from shy, awkward kid to dangerous superpower wielding psychopath. That part worked but it had very little foreshadowing or build up making the change feel forced. The majority of it though was spot on thanks to writer Max Landis (yep, of relation to John) who effectively taps into the well of angst and adolescence which made me both nostalgic and loathsome of my high school days.

First-time director Josh Trank brings the great story and superb acting together nicely in a package that moves fast without feeling rushed and embraces the genuine feel of a typical found footage tale but with some trickery to eliminate boring shots as Andrew’s consumer camera levitates to give us somewhat cheesy, but pretty impactful shots. The found footage aspect though is hastily dropped toward the end though as multitudes of cell phones, tablets, and news videos are cut together to get a large picture of the destruction. Sadly, this detracts from the otherwise powerful finale as you are missing the personal element of Andrew and his friends shooting that permeates the rest of the film.

While the story would have been great even shot conventionally, having Andrew (mostly) manning the camera as he interacts with his friends, his alcoholic father, or his dying mother carries more heart and feeling than the traditional method would. Regardless of my somewhat minor quibbles about it, Chronicle is an unexpectedly awesome film.

If you substitute Haddonfield for this random Louisiana lake and insert sharks for Jason Voorhees, you have a pretty good idea of what to expect from this film. Sara (Sara Paxton) and her college friends come to stay at Lake Crosby for a random weekend of fun and shenanigans. Unfortunately, the good times and fun are interrupted when one of the group is attacked while water-skiing and loses an arm courtesy of a random shark in the lake. Insert “Your arm’s off!” Holy Grail quote here. Fortunately Nick (Dustin Milligan) is pre-med and knows that the one-armed man must be saved quickly. Cut to various attempts to leave the lake-front home that are derailed by shark attacks and that is a good chunk of the film. Well, other than the diabolical villain explaining why sharks are in the lake without really going into how one acquires a shark and deposits it into a lake on a budget.

I appreciate where Ellis and writers Will Hayes and Jesse Studenberg try to go with not so random shark attacks but it did not quite gel for me. While it homages the classic slasher film template often, it is nice to see a horror film with a minimal amount of doucebag characters who aren’t solely interested in sex, drugs, or various poor lifestyle choices. For the most part, all of the characters were smart enough and not annoying other than their proclivity for getting back into the water that has been confirmed as HOUSING SHARKS! Granted, many had good reasons to leave via jetski or boat but when you consider that the main adversaries are water-bound sharks, staying as far away from the water would typically be a good start to stay safe.

As far as the ancillary villain (or villains) go, their motives were all over the place from revenge for a boating accident years ago to just attempting to cash in on the hoopla of Shark Week. And for the first motive, why go through the trouble of capturing or acquiring sharks as opposed to a rusty switchblade or a microwave oven to exact vengeance on someone? Perhaps that was one of those moments so over-the-top that it should be funny, but I was merely scratching my head. Not to mention that if you want to kill someone via shark, why would you first put them into a shark cage? Again, I’m sure there is a completely illogical reason to do this so I’ll move on knowing that I don’t understand it.

Much like Ellis’ previous film THE Final Destination, this was shown in theaters in 3D. While I did not have a chance to catch the extra-dimensional aspect of this film, I did get the silly CGI aftermath as the sharks or debris or whatever was initially 3D looks silly as it juts toward the screen like that random shot of the shark in Jaws 3D. The cast is largely good considering the material they had to work with. I was especially impressed with Joel David Moore who seems to have embraced the fact that he can pull off a college student at 35. I feel like I am being a bit too hard on this film. It’s no cinematic achievement but it did not really strive to be that either. It is a pretty entertaining, if forgettable, 90 minutes of film though.

I chuckle at direct-to-video titles since they seem to fall into the trap of either a) crap that no one should see ever or b) crap that no one should pay to see in a theater but is otherwise manageable. Quarantine 2 is more of the latter even though the direct-to-video distribution model has a stigma attached to it which may lead you to dismiss it more easily. None of the characters from the original return since they are, you know, ‘quarantined’ so this film is about a East coast bound plane from LAX that happens to house the virus, or whatever, from the first. Once an infected passenger starts biting the flight attendants and causing a ruckus, the plane is diverted and the passengers depart into a sealed off terminal. Mayhem ensues as the number of infected grow as the number of decent characters dwindle.

It is clearly obvious that this was always designed as a low-budget affair so I feel bad in picking on the film for that fact. It almost feels like picking on a club-footed kid for the way he walks since it isn’t really his fault. Even though Pogue has a scant amount of titles on his resume (most notable a film I hate with a deadly passion, The Skulls), he is able to use the low-budget pretty effectively even if that means a minimal amount of characters and a dearth of locales to venture in. Fortunately, the bulk of the movie does not take place on the plane but inside the airport terminal (Did you even catch the double entendre of Terminal?) which offers more hiding places for the zombies, err… infected people to jump out of. Even if some of the sets are puzzling (like a barren catering truck that for some reason is on a hydraulic jack), it provides the characters a few different places to hang out in to break up the monotony of run-rest-run that punctuates the story.

While the timeline that sets up the film betrays it, the story actually ties in nicely with that of the first film with one of the characters knowing a bit more about the sequestered apartment building than the rest. It is yet another deviation from the story of the original and its ‘sort of’ sequel [REC] 2 even if the human villain is a bit too expository than I would have cared for. Even though the story is rather clunky, the actors in charge of delivering it are good, or at least as good as you can get for a $4 million budget. Mercedes Masöhn turns in a good performance as the reluctant stewardess who steps into power after the other crew members are, well, rendered ineffective while Josh Cooke as the love interest/weird teacher guy is pretty one-note for the most part. I enjoyed Ignacio Serricchio as the random airport employee the most even though he does not have much to do other than lead the group to different places to try escaping.

It’s not Oscar-worthy or even worth a purchase but I will admit to having a case of the jumps or the creeps in appropriate scenes. Pogue uses the set-dressed terminal quite well in portraying a claustrophobic, yet open environment. Since it is available for $1 and change in Redbox or for free on Netflix, it’s worth giving Quarantine 2 a try. It’s not the best, but it’s far better than most zombie-esque movies available in the same venues.

Even if you are Amish or have short-term memory problems, or have otherwise not seen the entire narrative spoiled in the previews, the story in Warrior is so expected that you can see it coming from two summers ago. Hardy plays Tommy Conlon, an angry and bitter man who has suffered through many hardships in life, many from his estranged father Paddy (Nick Nolte) who was drunk and abusive before finding religion and sobriety. Edgerton plays Brendan Conlon, brother to Tommy, who left his family at sixteen to be with his would-be wife. Brendan has not seen Tommy since then and is still hesitant about any contact with his father.

Tommy’s past is a mystery since he is emotionally withdrawn and does not talk about it to anyone, especially his prying father. We learn in bits and pieces about him fleeing with his mother only to watch her painfully die later on as well as his heroics in the military and a promise made to the widow of one of his fallen compadres. Brendan on the other hand has a beautiful wife and two girls but is in a bad financial situation to the point that he is about to be removed from his house without a substantial amount of money. With that, both brothers sign up for a MMA tournament against fourteen other top fighters in the world for a chance to win $5 million.

It is odd that a film like The Fighter, which is good but very predictable, can be nominated for Best Picture along with a slew of other awards and the only Oscar nomination for Warrior goes to Nolte. Granted, Nolte is great with his performance as the outside man desperately seeking redemption from his remaining family. He carries the knowledge of his past failures and is humbled because of them but both sons mostly cast him aside except for Tommy who clearly specifies he needs Paddy as a trainer and nothing else. Hardy also turns in a criminally under-appreciated performance as Tommy who hides years of physical and emotional trauma behind a steely facade with nothing but rage and aggression poking through when he is in the cage.

Rounding out the trio of emotionally scarred Conlon men is Edgerton as Brendan who I first noticed and became a fan of from Animal Kingdom. Edgerton’s character has a good amount of time devoted to him but his character lacks the stress of Tommy or the rejection of Paddy rendering Brendan the more plain character out of the three. He still does a remarkable job though as Brendan is the underdog throughout the process and is given the most material to sympathize with. For most of the film, Tommy comes off almost as an ungrateful punk who doesn’t give a damn about anyone so connecting with him is a bit more difficult.

Even though the story seems a tad unoriginal, co-writer and director Gavin O’Connor infuses the film with so much energy that I feel comfortable in saying that you too will want to tackle someone at parts of the movie. The fight scenes, of which there are many, never feel overly staged or choreographed and the typical handheld camera shots are not overdone to risk confusing you as to what is going on. Punctuating the fight scenes are conversations between Tommy and his father, Brendan and his wife, and so forth but those don’t feel like filler or padding the way some sports movies throw in “heavy” scenes. Even if you are not a fan of martial arts or sports movies, it is close to impossible to watch this film and not get teary-eyed when appropriate or otherwise invested in the characters. I haven’t seen a lot of the heavily lauded films from last year so I can’t proclaim this is the best but I am disheartened that this top-notch drama did not receive a bit more recognition.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, essentially a stand-in for Reiser, who learns he has a rare form of cancer along his spine in the peak of his life. Seth Rogen, from reports who basically plays himself as he did to Reiser, is the supportive, opportunistic, and (of course) foul-mouthed friend to help along the way. We also meet Adam’s super-supportive girlfriend Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard), his overbearing mother (Anjelica Huston), and his new-to-the-field therapist (Anna Kendrick) as they try and support Adam though the diagnosis, treatment, and aftermath.

While the previews mostly portrayed this film as more comedic in tone, 50/50 is primarily a drama with a sprinkling of comedy, usually courtesy of Rogen. There is only so much light you can make of a film about a debilitating illness without it coming across as inappropriate or crass. Fortunately, Reiser’s script walks a pretty fine line between making a mockery of the suffering of millions and taking what comes from life in stride. The film succeeds on this front as it is not a heavy-handed “live your life to the fullest” affair but also addresses the hardship that comes with the plights of Adam’s fellow cancer buddies played by Philip Baker Hall and Trashcan Man Matt Frewer.

Not many actors can pull of such a varied performance as Gordon-Levitt did as he hits every stage of the process in perfect form with scenes filled with joy, anger or grief and some all combined together. I would say it is an award-worthy performance but apparently the powers that be do not agree. The rest of the actors merely revolve around Adam in some shape or form with Rogen not breaking too much new ground and Kendrick playing the same young and sensitive, yet inexperienced role that she has in other films. Huston in minimal screentime had quite an impact as the mother that Adam purposefully distances himself from yet relies on when everything comes down to the wire.

Director Jonathan Levine takes what you would anticipate being an ensemble effort and focuses superbly on Adam and his struggle. From the first diagnosis when the “State University” doctor remarks that his cancer is quite interesting because it is rare and yada yada yada, Levine pulls back and focuses solely on the ear of the patient as he tries to comprehend the words being causally tossed at him. We follow Adam throughout the entire ordeal as he has his first chemotherapy, gets high on weed-laced macaroons, and comes to terms with the probable outcome that he will die. The emphasis on Adam and the events in his life during his treatment put you in the mindset of someone in that situation. It is not a joyous, “to hell with rules” mindset but one of reason, despair, and sorrow.

On one hand, 50/50 is not a feel-good movie as it evokes many emotions that most (including myself) would disregard while watching a film. But it is not only a strong movie off the back of Gordon-Levitt’s great performance, but also one that can help you see the bright side in even the worst situation.

Downy’s performance is successful in delivering the quirky, intelligent, animated, lovable performance that we received from the first film. With Law bringing his cynical, realistic outlook on life attitude back they are a match still made in heaven. There’s been some time since such a male pair shared such charisma and elegance on screen together. They both put their best feet forward. The only downside, for the writing more so than performance, is there was no depth given to Holmes’ character. There were instances where you know there is going to be more than his intellectual insanity but it fell away as quick as it appeared. Watson seemed to see through the exterior but it was never delved into further than him acknowledging non-verbally that it there. Frustratingly, there is an entire underdeveloped subplot with Watson being married at the end of their adventure that would have left Sherlock alone in the flat which could have been used to really define Sherlock’s need for companionship. The loneliness behind his smile should have been given some room to be explored. However, It was still a very well put together action film.

Noomi’s character should have been given more of a role than just a plot device as her talent was not used to the best of her ability. I guess when coming from such a spectacular trilogy maybe it was a personal choice to cross over to the American cinema with this type of role. She is not bad by any means and she still works well with what she was given but there should have been more provided for her character. When you take such a strong actor and give them a mediocre role it shadows their true talent. Harris kicks in the door with his performance. I have never loved and hated a character so much. He is a genius in his evil, super villain with pizzazz role. You began to root for him and his despicably absurd ploy for financial world domination. With what we know of Moriarty I was shocked that it look so long for the hand-to-hand combat to come. His devilishly handsome and overly confident self meets Holmes move for move to leave us holding our breath as they get close to the edge of the falls.

The entire film is action and adventure sprinkled with dialogue and great direction. There are moments like when they get to the Summit that seem a little dragged out to make up for too many fighting sequences. The attention to detail is lacking in the action sequences and some may never notice but I did. Sherlock Holmes resides in Britain for most of his life, so why is it that he has an Eastern fighting style? I understand it is what most movie goers these days expect but that little anachronism changes the way I see the Guy Ritchie franchise of the great detective. It is why there is so much action in the movie bringing the film more current than the actual setting to appease the audiences. If some of the extraneous scenes were dropped the two-hour-plus movie wouldn’t have felt more like three. Ritchie stayed true to his form with the slow motion this-is-what-went-down technique and flash backs to cover what had previously happened but was skipped temporarily in the film. Over all it was a very enjoyable film and I would say it is slightly better than the original but sets expectations higher for a third installment to set itself apart from this film.

Perhaps that is too harsh. Perhaps Hangover II is in fact funny but I was too biased to notice. I don’t think that is the case though unless you equate lazy storytelling with funny. Much like the last film, there is a wedding involved, the “Wolfpack” getting into trouble with the locals and the authorities, a missing member of the group, a new addition to the group (this time there are three in fact), and shenanigans as our leads attempt to piece together the previous night’s events. And there is even a random song from Ed Helms and an appearance by Mike Tyson. What a coincidence! At this point, I can’t tell if writer/director Todd Phillips and co-writers Craig Mazin and Scot Armstrong are merely trying to emulate the first film or just have nothing else for our trio of Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Helms to do other than recreate the first.

My chief concern for this film, even just hearing about it during production, was that it would be a soulless cash grab missing any of the “charm” of the original. The fact that the main cast members (except Heather Graham, sad) returned was remarkable to avoid a painful recasting or written-out character. From the acting front, everything still clicked as Cooper, Galifianakis, and Helms have a good chemistry together which makes the events fairly easy to watch. Ken Jeong randomly reemerges as Chow but he was quite entertaining in his brief screentime. Even Doug (Justin Bartha) returns although he is left out of the fun and games but not because he is the missing person. That honor goes to Mason Lee as Teddy, who is Stu’s soon-to-be brother-in-law but his interactions with the gang are few thus making his disappearance not as impactful as Doug’s in the first.

So while the cast was good enough here, the really issue lies with the story which is just a shameless rip-off of the original. Many of the scenes that originally drew big laughs from myself and I’d imagine many others are almost painstakingly recreated here which just leads to a yawn and fond rememberance of a film that was wild and unpredictable, as opposed to this film that was unpredictable only in how many callbacks to the first it could jam into the 1 hour 40 minute running time. While I didn’t pick up on the location of Teddy like Stu did (although that seemed a bit forced as well), pretty much everything else in the film is so predictable and easy to see coming. That is of course unless you haven’t watched the original.

Everything else on a technical level was sound with quite impressive shots of not only the gritty, urban Bangkok locale but also of the remote private Thailand island where the wedding is to take place. Honestly, it was the end of the film which solidified that I did not care for this movie with the random realization of where Teddy is, followed by Alan taking control of a speedboat to get back to the wedding (nothing can go wrong, right?), and then Stu finally standing up to his douche of a father-in-law. It all seemed so forced and convenient since the rest of the movie has established that everything will happen just like the first so we know that Stu’s nuptials are not in any real danger.

Whereas I liked the first Hangover because it was crass, silly, and unexpected, I dislike its sequel because it has all of those same characteristics but nothing else to bring to the table. Was it funny learning that Stu has “semen in him?” Quite. The random monk beating Helms and Cooper with a cane? Pretty funny. But there are so few moments in this film that are not almost directly lifted from its predecessor to make it anything more than Hollywood’s poster child for churning out sequels that no one (well, maybe just me) wants to see.

The synopses part of these reviews almost seem rote now but if you’ve seen any of the previous films, you know the gist. In this case, Sam (Nicholas D’Agosto) has a vision of a cataclysmic bridge collapse on the way to his company’s team building retreat. He manages to get everyone off the bus only for them all to get made dead via collapsing bridge decks, swinging suspension cables, or random sailboats. Fearing his premonition, Sam manages to get his girlfriend Molly (Emma Bell), friend Peter (Miles Fisher) and other company folk off the bridge before it collapses. From then, they all die. This is not a spoiler. This is expected for this type of film.

With five films in the can now, the main hook of the Final Destination series is undoubtedly the deaths and the almost far-fetched yet somewhat conceivable ways that people can die. On that front, FD5 is almost tame in respect to some of the other films as many of the deaths are fairly straight-forward bad luck such as the flying wrench to the skull or crushing blow to the head from Buddha. Only one sequence really sticks out as the typical Rube-Goldbergian style that the series is built on. This scene though in a gymnasium is full of misdirection and red herrings (not sure that this applies here but we’ll go with it) that make the final outcome completely out of the blue, especially since this part was featured heavily in the trailers.

In the review for FD3, I remarked: “it is clear for me that what makes a Final Destination good as opposed to just mediocre are the characters.” FD4 (or THE Final Destination if you must) was shit because it completely disregards characters entirely for stupid gross-out gory moments and deaths. FD5 though walks the thin line not seen since the second between characters you actually care about and over-the-top death scenes. Here we have a good few minutes to get introduced to the characters and their histories and dynamics before they are almost playing on death’s swing set. While it might seem minor, the fact that Sam and Molly are on the rocks or that Olivia is self-conscious about her glasses are far more beneficial than just padding the film’s runtime. Unlike the last film, we can connect with these characters to some extent and can appreciate their relationships or worries which make their inevitable deaths just a bit more impactful.

It certainly helps greatly that we have professional actors in the film as opposed to the bottom-of-the-casting-barrel detritus that turned up last time. I don’t know why but I am a fan of D’Agosto, probably stretching back to his performance in Election. #pbf’s unrequited love Emma Bell is no slouch either as the love interest and final girl of the group. And Jacqueline MacInnes Wood is quite fetching. And a good actress to boot! In fact, all of the cast including Courtney B. Vance and David Koechner are believable in their respective roles even though Vance’s random agent seems a bit ridiculous since he is trying to blame a natural bridge collapse on Sam.

Vance’s role seemed to be a not very well conceived callback to the first where Alex is suspected of involvement in the airplane blowing up. That worked, to an extent, in that film but the notion that a mild-mannered guy could cause a freak natural disaster bridge collapse is stretching things a bit. There are other underlying callbacks to the first with the mentions of Paris and occurrences of the number 180 but there was no moment where the survivors figured out how their situation tied into the first film which was almost a staple in this series (the last film notwithstanding to my recollection.) Yet, without giving too much away, the final sequence ties in nicely with Devon Sawa and Kerr Smith from the original in a way I was pretty happy with.

At this rate, there isn’t too much new that can be done with these films but I was pleasantly surprised with how effectively Heisserer and Quale are able to balance the characters with the expected death scenes. Given that this was an online rental, I did not have the benefit of 3D while watching it but the effects sans one dimension were great (especially with the opening bridge collapse) so I was not missing too much. If I had to pick, I’d probably put this entry on par with part 2. It’s amazing how having realistic, albeit someone douchey, characters can make a mindless movie like this so much more enjoyable.

I don’t read a ton (read: any) books, thus I was largely unaware of Larsson’s trilogy until the original Swedish film debuted in 2009 to much acclaim. The bulk of the praise as I recall centered around Noomi Rapace‘s portrayal of the unstable, anti-social, brilliant researcher Lisbeth Salander to the point that there was some general worry due to the casting of Rooney Mara as Fincher’s Lisbeth. Mara showed her acting chops perfectly in the first segment of Fincher’s last film, Social Network, but would she be able to pull off this challenging role? And how does Daniel Craig as disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist factor into it? And will Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross win another Oscar for their score? So many questions. Let’s get to the answers.

If you’ve read the books or seen the original, from what I hear there will be few surprises in this version as it is rather faithful to the material. Blomkvist is hired by Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to investigate the forty-year-old murder of his granddaughter. Meanwhile, Salander is busy trying to make ends meet by her assigned duties of investigating and/or computer surveillance while battling a grotesque pig of a “guardian” who uses his control over her finances to some, well, rather horrible means. A long stretch of the film goes by with Blomkvist doing his thing and Salander doing hers (you can take that in a number of ways) before they finally join forces and discover that the murder of one lone girl ties in with a string of murders previously undetected.

All the talk of Fincher being a difficult director seem to be warranted (he even confirms as much in the commentary for Se7en) but the man certainly has a clear vision and is unstoppable at achieving it. Much like most of his work, Dragon Tattoo is a dark story with many heinous acts shown or spoken throughout. Yet, there is a sense of beauty in the visuals as Fincher and his DP Jeff Cronenweth use the slow pan of a room with pictures tacked on the wall or of the serene landscape to almost offset the horror in the story’s details. Much like Se7en, this film centers around the hunt for a serial killer but this is not an action-packed affair with shootouts and car chases throughout that would permeate such a film normally (although those do happen infrequently here). It is more of a quiet reflection on the dark side of human behavior and unraveling the mindset behind a man who can rape, murder, and dismember another human being.

If nothing else, Fincher is an actor’s director as I cannot recall a horribly miscast or performed character in any of his movies (yes, even the much maligned Alien entry). This film is no different with Craig, Plummer, and Stellan Skarsgård as another of the Vanger clan turning in superb performances that shy away from typical Hollywood style of overacting. Most of the performances are done well enough that sell the characters as real life people, not simply James Bond trying to portray a normal person. Mara though outdoes them all with her performance as Salander. The internet is rife with debate between Mara and Rapace as the better Salander. Again, having not seen the Swedish version in its entirety, I cannot comment so much other than to say Mara was fantastic. A nomination of some sort is required after seeing this seemingly normal girl envelope the role so much that she donned her own genuine body piercings and is able to simultaneously embody an apathetic woman toward life in general as well as a woman so determined that she will put herself in harm’s way to stop a murderer. The dynamic between Craig and Mara is surprisingly authentic and their interactions engross you more into the story.

If you’ve seen the assembly cut of Alien 3 or either version of Zodiac, you know that Fincher is no stranger to movies that are quite long. Dragon Tattoo takes the cake though with a more than two-and-a-half hour runtime that could have been easily excised if Fincher, or writer Steven Zaillian, had a bit more control over the story. The best part of the film is when Salander and Blomkvist are paired up investigating the murder of almost a dozen Swedish women from decades ago. Unfortunately, there is a lot of questionably important backstory to get through before that happens. Likewise, after the murder mystery is resolved, the film still has a quite unnecessarily long coda of Blomkvist regaining his reputation. This is the one thing that hurts the movie as the best part, namely the investigation, is bookended by portions may serve the characters’ and their arcs but disrupt the narrative to do so. I hear this is the same in the novel and the original film as well but a good portion of the runtime could have been trimmed from these outskirts which are neat, but nowhere near as entertaining as the main plot.

Even with the assembly of a great cast and bringing his talent to this film, Fincher’s Dragon Tattoo is bogged down by the underlying uneven story. Everything else is undoubtedly great including Reznor and Ross’ second collaboration together on the score. Despite the effort though, Dragon Tattoo is merely a solid film, not as spectacular as I had hoped.