The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009)

The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009)

So here we have the sequel to the Swedish (original) version of the The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (TGWTDT), not the Daniel Craig remake one that for some reason folks are supposed to be excited about. Much like the American version of "Let The Right One In" I am generally uninspired by Americanized versions of films made solely to pander the masses that are either ignorantly unwilling or threatened by watching something with subtitles. I mean I get it, the books are successful, which is great. But the people that are buying the books are obviously literate types who should be able to appreciate the Swedish version of the story right? I mean it takes place IN SWEDEN. Or is there really a multitude of people out there that are all sitting around thinking, "Damn that cover of that book looks mighty intriguing. I can't wait till they make it into a movie despite not knowing anything about it because I stopped reading when it was no longer necessary for school." As per usual, I digress.

The sequel continues where the TGWTDT leaves off with Lisbeth off on a much needed vacation and Mikael continuing to be the "celebrity" author for Millenium magazine. The party is short lived as Lisbeth catches wind that her rapist guardian (of sorts) is neglecting certain respects of their arrangement so she returns to set him straight. Unbeknowst to her, events are set into motion that bring her past into the present and before long we are witnessing a cat-and-mouse game to find out who is responsible for the deaths of a man and woman with ties to Mikael's magazine.

I won't go into much more detail as either you've seen the first flick and you are familiar with certain characters, or you haven't seen the first film, in which case I would be wondering why you'd be starting with the second film of a trilogy. I will say however that TGWPWF shares a lot in common with films like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Namely in the the first film worked as a decent standalone film, and it had a clear-beginning-middle end. You were introduced to the characters and the mystery was the primary story, and despite Lisbeth being an intriguing character nothing (save for the very end of the film) really suggests that the story NEEDS to continue into a trilogy. Much like the first Pirates film. Then you have the second film, with essentially only the characters tied back to the first film, you introduce a new story, new characters, but having dived full on into trilogy mode now, the story lacks punch and quite noticeably an ending. Much like the second Pirates film. Ah the curse of middle films in trilogies.

The good: Lisbeth is interesting enough to warrant a trilogy of films and because of Noomi Rapace's commitment to the character, I guess I just feel that an Americanized version is kind of insulting to her. But good to hear she's getting enough props to be the female lead in the next Sherlock Holmes flick with Robert Downey Jr. The giant borderline albino in the film is also intriguing enough despite the little material the actor has to play with, and the obvious correlations people will make to the DaVinci Code.

The bad: I don't really care for Mikael both as a character and the actor portraying him. We're supposed to believe the guy is a hot celebrity in Sweden but I think they may have different standards of what makes people attractive. Especially since several times we are told how ugly Lisbeth is supposed to be. Um pardon? The story is also hurting from the sequel curse. People are introduced and just as promptly forgotten about, and story threads are left dangling as well. I also didn't find myself very intrigued by the whole premise like I did the first film, which was much more of a traditional mystery whodunit. In this one the only real tension was at the very end, too little too late and only serves to leave on a cliffhanger for the final film.

Final Thoughts: I can't help but wonder the thought process behind wanting to make trilogies. Why not just make two films to tell the story, as inevitably (with very few exceptions) the middle story is usually lacking and subpar to the first and third tales to be told. In literature it's different and you can explore more themes and plots than film allows for, and usually doesn't suffer to the same degree. Also, as far as titles go, this title is wasted on such a mediocre film. With the conclusion being called "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest" it fails on the WOW spectrum as far as titles go.

Add to the Vault? No. Maybe if the 3rd film is insanely good and they are sold as a box set, but as of right now the second film feels like it could have been largely a montage intro to the 3rd film at best. I don't have too much interest in owning the first film either, but I do regard it to be the more superior film of the two so far.


Without further adieu, the trailer for The Girl Who Played With Fire:

The Reflecting Skin (1990)

The Reflecting Skin (1990)

Well folks, you asked for it. I have to start off with an apology though, words do not describe how gloriously f***ed up this movie is. I remember catching this flick originally on some late night channel, probably only 11 or 12 years old, and truly I have never been the same since. This is the one movie, that no matter how many times I watch it, it is pure and simply messed up.

In contemporary film where once brilliant auteurs like Lynch have become veritable hacks of their former selves, I can only imagine that Philip Ridley (who wrote and directed this film) is of the same cloth as Sartre. Lynch could only dream of being as screwed up as this film is.

Well what is so messed up about this film you say? Alright, I will give it the good ol college try here.

The film takes place in rural Idaho (as per wikipedia though I don't recall it ever being mentioned in the film) in the 1950s. We follow our young (10-11 year old) protagonist Seth Dove. Seth is the epitome of a serial killer waiting to happen as the screwed up stuff he experiences and does is definitely there to scar him for life.

But is Seth entirely innocent prior to what he witnesses? Nope, he's already well on his way to being screwed up. We first see him and his two friends inflating a bullfrog they find to the point of rupture. Instead of killing the frog immediately they set it on it's back on a hot rural road where a woman is approaching from the distance. When the woman nears and inspects the frog, our young protagonist Seth takes out his slingshot and shoots the frog, exploding it all over the woman and the road.

And that is pretty much the end of all semblance of reality in this film. Seth becomes obsessed with vampires after hearing his dad speak about a novel he's reading. More importantly, Seth becomes convinced that the woman from before, Dolphin Blue is her name, is a vampire herself.

In a nutshell, Seth experiences religious zealotry, self-immolation, murder, possible remnants of infanticide or a still-born baby, dead angels, possible pedophilia peripherally, homophobia and radiation sickness. Jury's still out on the whole vampire angle and I am sure entire papers can be written on the murmuring chirping twin ladies.

That's not a synopsis, you say? Fine. Seth is the central figure to a mysterious set of murders that begin with the children of his small rural community. Seth's brother Cameron returns about half way through the film (played by Viggo Mortensen) and is definitely affected by his time in the war, hinting at being in or near Japan after Nagasaki or Hiroshima.  This is not the 1950's of "Greece" or "Happy Days" this is more like the 1950's of the apocalypse meets the twilight zone.

Some readers on IMDB boards seem to suggest that the imagery in the film is an allegory for Seth's innocence slowly becoming lost, which is an admirable take on the whole thing, but I don't think that explains enough. I think Seth is already a lost soul, there is nothing absolutely nothing redeemable about any of the characters. Each are bitter, twisted shadows of human beings, but life has been a long time gone from these folks.

If you want purgatory, this is my definition of it. These is bleaker than The Road in many respects.


The good: Well, I've mentioned that the film is bleak and messed up, but is it any good? Yes, it still is. This is a film I could never fully de-construct. I would challenge both many of my former University peers, and established film critics alike to try and make sense of this film. I would love to have lengthy discussions about what transpires in the 95 minutes on screen. Standouts though? Seth. Creepy creepy Seth. Viggo is always good (*coughRolandtheGunslingercough*) and just for sheer absurdity the Sheriff is great too. Oh and creepy dead angel babies. Yep you read that right.

The bad: Sanity as we know it, has no place in this film. That can make for a paradoxical viewing experience in which you simultaneously are revolted, apalled and intrigued by what happens next.

Final thoughts: Not one for mom and dad or your kids. Know that if you put this into your dvd player or watch it on your computer (Authors Note: I don't condone that!) you will bear witness to one of the greatest wtf moments in film that I have ever known. Forget Eraserhead, forget Gummo, forget Blue Velvet. You'd have to go as far back as Un Chien Andalou (1929) for a film on par with The Reflecting Skin.

Add to the Vault? You know what? Yes. For the mere fact that this film is like a drug. How I imagine heroin would feel, getting under your skin and forcing you to want more despite the horrors you experience from it. Perhaps too strong of an allusion but I don't care, I have never done heroin and never will, so I will invoke creative license here. This film definitely should not disappear, but rather serve as the proverbial bar for films aspiring to be messed up pieces of art.

Red (2008)

Red (2008)

No this isn't the Bruce Willis/Helen Mirren flick about retired assassins. Instead this is a hidden gem that probably never made it to a movie theatre near you. A story about a man and his dog, a dog that gets killed after a robbery that goes awry.

In any other Hollywood movie, such a plot would result in the old man (here played by Brian Cox) building up an arms cache before going all Rambo on those who wronged him. Instead we have a fairly realistic telling of a wronged man, trying to go through all the normal channels of trying to get justice for those who killed his dog. I liked the small town portrayal. It wasn't unrealistic of today's society and how even small towns can have bad apples. The youth portrayed in the film came across as types I knew as I am sure everyone knew in some capacity. You have the bad seed that is a crap-disturber because life is too good. He's never really been disciplined, knows no boundaries and is overly praised so basically sees no wrong to his ways. You have the younger brother who plays the the proverbial good kid mixed in with a bad lot because of direct association and knows that what they do is wrong but doesn't know how to change it. And you have the fringe kid that is really only a punk because of life's cards that were dealt to him.

Nothing new or groundbreaking, but played subtly enough to feel real here. Brian Cox, enjoyable in nearly everything he has ever done, is the old man who has plenty to be angry about but plays it with the patience of a monk.

The climax of the film can seem a little far fetched, but is kept reasonably plausible. The one thing that felt a bit off was Tom Sizemore's character as the father to the errant youth. At first he seems reasonable, sitting down and listening to Brian Cox's story of woe, and you can see that the father does not disbelieve the story and that his kids could be capable of such atrocity. But taking the word of his kids alone, he suddenly turns into a legal action threatening, gun toting a-hole. The turn from a complex character to a one dimensional one is a little abrupt and never really explored further to justify the turn.

The good: Brian Cox was great as the patient, subdued elderly man to whom you would totally expect and rationalize with if he suddenly went postal, but instead demonstrates the quiet rage that is unnerving to witness as you wish him to enact swift and well deserved justice.

The bad: Not much. Again it is a simple story, nothing ground breaking. Interesting as a one off. No performance was bad, and the pacing was decent enough.

Final thoughts: I appreciate having recorded this flick on the PVR. I read the synopsis and expected something much more contrived, but was actually happy with the realistic portrayals of the people in this small community.

Add to the vault: No. It may be a hidden gem, but I don't believe it warrants repeat viewing. I am honoured to have had the chance to appreciate it once and I would encourage you all to do the same, but one viewing is enough.