The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is a bit of a curious film to me; I saw the original Swedish film during 2010's summer and found it to be a completely engrossing thriller, with a mystery that got more perverted the deeper you looked into it. Audiences, whether they like to admit it or not, are obviously fascinated by anti-heroes, extreme rebels, social outcasts, which can only begin to explain why the late Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy (as it has been dubbed) is such a huge hit over here in the states.

Certainly this tale is tailor made for its director, David Fincher, who revels in tales of social misfits and anti-system messages. His Fight Club is one of the ultimate "stick it to the man" films, ending in the destruction of America's financial sector. And I'm sure he was drawn to the material, if only so he could bring the character of Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to life. She is the ultimate Fincher heroine, with piercings, tattoos, and wacky hairdo, not to mention an independent streak that sets her apart from almost any other heroine in film.

Daniel Craig also stars as the film's other protagonist, Mikael Blomkvist, editor of Millennium magazine (where the trilogy no doubt draws its name), who has fallen under a scandal and lost his life savings because of an unfounded allegation he made against a fellow magazine mogul. Labeled with libel, he is whisked to northern Sweden where, on a remote island populated by a wealthy but estranged family, he is asked to investigate the murder of one of their members some forty years ago.

Lisbeth and Mikael stay separated for over an hour of the film as he begins uncovering a string of possibly related women murders, and she has an unfortunate run-in with a piggish social worker who will release Lisbeth's money to her in exchange for favors. Eventually they collide and the film focuses fully on the murders, though one wonders how much this will connect with Harriet.

The original title of the book and Swedish film is Män som hatar kvinnor which translates to Men who hate women. It's an apt title, considering all the content, though a film with that heading would never get recognition in the states (or a book for that matter) and the retitling is a bit more intriguing (though we never do learn the significance of that dragon tattoo). The film has an incredibly brutal rape scene and sex scenes that would have earned an independent feature an NC-17, but such is the Hollywood system that of course this skated by. Maybe its a sign of maturity on the MPAA's half that we can handle more extreme content, but then I remember Shame has an NC-17 rating.

But here's the thing: the film is almost identical to the 2009 Swedish one. Oh sure, it has a bigger budget, a more assured director, and a fantastic cast, not to mention a dynamite opening credits scene with a cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song that was quite the hit back when the trailer first dropped. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who won Oscars for their unique and haunting score for The Social Network (2010) return as composers, but it feels like more of the same. Their style of music certainly lends itself well to the unease that surrounds this film, but at the same time I couldn't help but think back to The Social Network and its score.

There is also a structural problem with the film. It opens with Mikael's problems at Millennium, then introduces with the missing girl Harriet, then introduces with the string of women murders. Then each one of these threads is resolved from the murders on back, but the film suffers in the resolution between Mikael and his foes at the rival magazine. It's a protracted denouement that drags on and on after Harriet's plot is resolved, when we have little interest in what's going on.

The film just feels pointless. The Swedish version was thrilling and engrossed me, and this version felt like the same thing but in English. It's a sign of how lazy we are that we won't see the foreign language version because we don't like reading our movies (though anyone who got through the book should have no problem with subtitles). I feel even Fincher reflects this notion: he doesn't feel like he's trying here, like he simply watched the Swedish one and said, "Well, they did a good enough job, so I'll just make the same version in English, make millions, and call it day." Which I don't fault him for.

The performances are great, especially Rooney Mara as Lisbeth, but I also feel like they aren't too different from their Swedish counterparts. If I had to pick who was better, Noomi Rapace or Rooney Mara, I would have to go with Rapace because Mara's performance is clearly modeled on hers.

Anyone who doesn't know the material will surely be entertained, but anyone coming back to see if anything new was done will be disappointed. It's as pointless as watching Let Me In, the remake of Let the Right One In. At least when Seven Samurai was remade in America, they changed the story to cowboys so it felt fresh (though American samurais are something that wouldn't work anyway). I don't mind a remake if it does something new with the material, or approaches the subject from a different angle. True Grit was hailed as superior to the John Wayne version, though that also may be because forty years means something new can be done with the material.

I'm just tired of these pointless remakes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Which reminds me of Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. He was asked to remake it, so he did. There was very little wrong with that film, and it never felt dated, so Van Sant figured it would be the easiest thing to do. He had the right idea.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Tintin (2011)

Tintin, in America, is almost a niche thing. You have to have accidentally been introduced to it in order to know what it is. In 3rd grade, my classmates began reading the comics in class, and I became so intrigued that I acquired the comics for myself from the library. Out of the 21 official volumes, I have read 19 (somehow never made it to two of them), but Tintin has been something that I have long since forgotten about.

Now here comes Spielberg, making a movie I would have desired 12 years ago, and one that I was skeptical about. Tintin came to Spielberg's attention in the 80s, when his Indiana Jones was compared to the intrepid reporter from Brussels. I'm thankful he didn't make the film then, even though he received Hergé's (Tintin's author) blessing to adapt it. But he didn't need to do another Indiana Jones then.

The formula of Tintin is almost Hitchcockian as he accidentally stumbles across trouble and then it gets worse from there (although unlike Hithcock's ombudsmen, he is a very resourceful and intelligent reporter). Tintin (Jamie Bell) himself is a one-dimensional character with no flaws, in both comic book and celluloid form. This is a bit unfortunate, but I guess I'm happy the screenwriters didn't try and saddle him with some made up backstory. Fans of the series will forgive this, but I'm not so sure newcomers will be as quick to accept the character.

Of course, this is why Tintin has a fairly strong array of supporting members, most notably the drunk, alliterative curser (though his vocabulary doesn't include anything that would make the film PG-13) Captain Archibald Haddock (Andy Serkis). Captain Haddock is a nice, dark contrast to the always optimistic, never-do-wrong Tintin, and his incompetence can be a bit predictable, but he shines at the right moment. There are also Interpol cops Thompson and Thomson (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) and Tintin's dog Snowy.

I guess I should back up and give a brief summary of the story. Tintin purchases a beautiful ship model in a market, and is immediately harassed for it by two interested buyers (one is the villain, Sakharine (Daniel Craig)). He soon discovers a scroll hidden within the ship which contains a riddle, and sets out on a globe trotting quest to solve the Mystery of the Unicorn (the name of the ship the model is based on).

Probably one of the largest concerns with the film comes down to the use of Motion Capture, rather then just letting animators freely create the movements. It's a controversial format that has only been successful in James Cameron's Avatar (2009), and even that blended the Mo-Cap with live actors (and the mo-cap aliens had big eyes, so it was easy to erase the dead eye effect). Tintin is so far the best use of Mo-Cap I've seen (full use), and actually seems to address a lot of the dead eye effect issues. I still think the format needs some tweaking, and I still believe letting animators create the movements is the best way, but it still works really well in this film. Andy Serkis gives the best performance, and is a master of the art form, having portrayed Gollum, King Kong, and most recently Caesar in the last Planet of the Apes movie. His performance adds a lot.

But what it comes down to, besides story, besides character, is how much fun the film is, and I haven't been this exhilarated by a film in a long time. It takes its time getting going as Tintin gets a lot of scenes where he just speaks out loud to no one in particular (except his faithful dog Snowy) about the mysteries he is pondering, but once Haddock is introduced, the film takes off. From a thrilling sea plane ride through a thunderstorm, to an unbelievable 5 minute unbroken shot detailing a chase through Morocco, to a final battle involving shipping cranes. Spielberg takes the form of animation and uses it freely, and the result is pure...awesome.

At that's really the best justification for it: Spielberg does things in this film that could not have been achieved in Live Action without a significant amount of CGI, which would have made it look like a cartoon. The Moroccan sequence is particularly spectacular, but throughout the whole film Spielberg's camera moves freely, as if he's a child delighted by a new toy he's discovered. Granted all this movement might become a little sickening in 3D, but in 2D it is perfectly amazing (though I would like to see this on IMAX).

The film opens with a sweet scene where a man modeled after Hergé's visage (the creator of Tintin), sketches a portrait of the young lad that is exactly like the comic book drawings. We are then introduced to the "real" Tintin, and this is a memorable introduction for longtime fans of the books. But how this film will do in America is beyond me. It received an end-of-October release date across Europe and won't hit our cinemas until Christmas (in case you're wondering, I was in Europe when it came out, so I saw it then). The producers are hoping that it will do well enough in Europe that it will generate some interest in America, and if the film does well enough Peter Jackson will helm the sequel (once he's done with The Hobbit).

I highly recommend you all see it. It's a good family film as well, though some families may take the lampooning of Haddock's alcoholism as something that isn't appropriate for children (though I think they can handle it). It may not be perfect, but it's a damn good time at the cinemas. It's what Indiana Jones IV should have been.