The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Directed by: David Fincher

Produced by: Soren Staermose

Ole Sondberg

Scott Rudin

Cean Chaffin

Screenplay by: Steven Zaillian

Based on: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson

Starring: Daniel Craig

Rooney Mara

Christopher Plummer

Stellan Skarsgard

Steven Berkoff

Robin Wright

Yorick van Wageningen

Joely Richardson

Music by: Trent Reznor

Atticus Ross

Cinematography by: Jeff Cronenweth

Fredrik Backar

Editing by: Kirk Baxter

Angus Wall

Studio(s): Scott Rudin Productions

Yellow Bird Films

Distributed by: Colombia Pictures

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Release date(s): December 20, 2011 (United States)

December 21, 2011 (Sweden)

December 26, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 158 minutes

Country(s): United States

Sweden

United Kingdom

Germany

Language: English

Budget: $90 million

Box office revenue: $141, 725, 000

Seems like my trademark has become talking about reviewing movies, than going off into a cave for a couple of weeks, coming back for a few, and then shrinking back into the night from whence I came. Honestly, I've had as nearly many career comebacks as Terry Funk, and I've only been around for five (that's one for the marks!)! Well, things are going alright, regardless of my being swamped down with creating writing, late medieval literature and, ahem, film studies. I'll have you guys know that I have seem, as well as this film, Kill List, The Way Back (finally), and will be seeing The Artist tomorrow (I will have seen by the time of publication, so excuse the future tense being used for the past). Also, I have a little schedule lined up, so I can guarantee reviews for Source Code, J. Edgar, Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol, and certainly there will be others in there. January is always my busy month, and I've got a good two weeks left before I work on my best and worst of 2011. As ever, I'm working by award calendar, so expect it up in February, and, as ever for you, keep those eyes posted!

Okay, so today's film is David Fincher's adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Unfortunately, I have yet to see the original, Swedish-language adaptation, but have a copy, so I'll get down to watching that at some point. However, I have read the book, which for a long time I avoided because everyone else was reading it, and now I can see what the fuss is about. It is one of the most intelligent and gripping thrillers I've ever read, and Larsson creates rich characters, displaying his grasp of an efficiency of language. Regardless, this is not about the book, this is about the adaptation. When judge a screen adaptation in relation to it's source, sometimes they forget that a film review is not about a comparison between the two: reading the book is merely a context, but where a film review is concerned, it may as well have not existed. Brief plot synopsis of Fincher's Dragon Tattoo; we follow Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), a journalist who has been shamed in the wake of losing a libel case. Wishing to retreat, he gets a lucrative offer from retired industrialist Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), to write the Vanger family chronicle. This chronicle however are a ruse to deter his family, including Martin (Stellan Skarsgard) and Cecilia (Geraldine James), for images sake, as he is really being employed to investigate the disappearance of Henrik's niece Harriet, nearly forty years hence. Meanwhile, Henrik's lawyer Dirch Frode (Steven Berkoff) has hired Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to do a background check on Blomkvist. Without spoiling things we already know, through certain machinations in the plot, Salander and Blomkvist become aware of one another, and begin working together on the Harriet Vanger case.

To start with what is good, I will flag up the significance of the film's opening credit sequence. I know this may not sound like a big deal, but so many other films fail in this department. We are given some very striking images of people entwined and writhing around in what looks to be oil. Honestly, Barbara Broccoli of the James Bond franchise would be jealous! This sequence, featuring the cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song with Karen O on vocals, perfectly sets up what is to follow, and is the most outstanding opening to a film from 2011. Another of the film's great characteristics is the fact that this is a David Fincher interpretation more than adaptation. His stamp is all over the film, and this can be seen in numerous aspects. The cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth and Fredrik Backar is a fine example of cinematic storytelling, because although it is a very wordy story, images say far more than words. Also, since he began his collaboration with Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross on The Social Network, Fincher has carried over some that film's stylistic trademarks and applied it to The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. As such, we get this fantastic synchronicity of the original score and Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall's editing. Each of these elements are great by themselves, but their synchronicity ensures that this story, a long, complex and complicated tale, has a consistent feeling of momentum about it. It's as though from the opening credits, the ball keeps rolling and doesn't let up until the credits roll. This a feature that has been distinctive to both this and The Social Network, and it is something quite unique in that there are no other films quite like them. Fincher's Dragon Tattoo is the fulfilment of his auteur status, in that he has taken an iconic source and made it completely his own. Finally, I'd like to flag up a number of the film's key players, because, as they say, a good cast is worth repeating! Daniel Craig is a convincingly weather-beaten Mikael Blomkvist and in a much smaller capacity, I enjoyed Steven Berkoff's performance as Dirch Frode. Also, Stellan Skargard and Christopher Plummer both deliver great supporting turns in their respective roles as Martin and Henrik Vanger. However, Rooney Mara in particular deserves praise for her tremendous performance as Lisbeth Salander. With Fincher (admirably) by no means pussyfooting around the source's dark content, Mara has the toughest part to execute, and she takes these challenges in her pride. In a convincing transformation, she doesn't so much act as slither into the skin of Salander and make flesh this character. She has a magnetic screen presence which despite being a 'big' character in some ways, comes across as wholly naturalistic and believable. Also, on a side-note, the costume and make-up for Mara's transformation contributes a good bit, but I still do not think it would have been nearly as convincing as it is without Mara. What could have been simply a sulky, moody young woman becomes a three-dimenional, fully-rounded human being, an unlikely heroine who deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Ellen Ripley, and Mara's outstanding performance is a key component of this immortalisation.

Now, don't get me wrong, I thought that Fincher's Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was a great film. However, I cannot say that it is a masterpiece and that there a few problems with the script by Steven Zaillian. While certainly it must be hard to nail all the characters in this labyrinthine plot, I really don't feel that you get to know any of the characters outside of the main leads. This is an issue because a number of the supporting cast get the same amount of screen time, but some of them aren't given a sufficiently crafted part to play. Also, this is detrimental to the performances, specifically Robin Wright and some of the others playing members of the Vanger family. Speaking of the actors (on a quick side note), where is the consistency of accents? It can be irritating and make the other performers look weaker if some of them have an accent and other don't! Anyway, back to the script, I also thought that the final twenty/twenty-five minutes was something that needed working at. I liked the ending, but those penultimate moments came across as rather rushed and contrived, which was very disappointing given how much I did like the film.

Regardless of the numerous script problems, David Fincher's version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a great film. He follows through with his uncompromised vision, and once again Reznor and Ross' score synchronises well with the editing, giving the film a feeling of continuous momentum. Also, the cinematography is a great example of a film, though wordy, telling it's tale cinematically. Finally, with one of the greatest credit sequence in film and some stellar acting turns, particularly the quite brilliant Rooney Mara, we have one of the most satisfying thrillers of 2011.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.6/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Good (uni work out of the way, I can get down to some hardcore reviewing!)

The Thin White Dude's Movie Of The Month: December 2011 - Hugo

Martin Scorsese's latest continues a trend since his Oscar-winning The Departed in making very different films than those he is normally associated with. Once again, he succeeds, giving the audience a visually beautiful film, with some excellent production design by Dante Ferretti, sublime art direction and costume design. Finally, Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace Moretz, Sacha Baron Cohen and Ben Kingsley top off the most enjoyable film of the Christmas releases.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.5/10

Runner-Up: 13 Assassins - Takashi Miike's film is full of life and has more breathtaking moments than all of this years' Hollywood action movies combined.

Second-Most Deadly Disease: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 - Aside from a long-winded title, it lacks the genuine substance that it so promises.

Avoid Like The Plague: Age Of Heroes - Danny Dyer is embarrassingly bad in this terrible, murder-by-numbers film that has no reason to exist

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - 13 Assassins

Directed by: Takashi Miike

Produced by: Toshiaki Nakazawa

Jeremy Thomas

Takashi Hirajo

Screenplay by: Daisuke Tengan

Story by: Shoichiro Ikemiya

Based on: Jusan-nin no shikaku by Eiichi Kudo

Starring: Koji Yakusho

Takayuki Yamada

Yusuke Iseya

Goro Inagaki

Masachika Imamura

Mikijiro Hira

Music by: Koji Endo

Cinematography by: Nobuyasu Kita

Editing by: Kenji Yamashita

Studio(s): Sedic International

Recorded Picture Company

Toho Company

Distributed by: Toho Company (Japan)

Artificial Eye (United Kingdom)

Magnet Releasing (United States)

Release date(s): September 9, 2010 (Venice Film Festival)

September 25, 2010 (Japan)

April 29, 2011 (United States)

May 6, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 141 minutes (Japanese version)

126/120 minutes (International versions)

Country(s): Japan

United Kingdom

Language: Japanese

Production budget: $6 million

Box office revenue: $17, 555, 141

Okay folks, so this is my last review for the month of December 2011, and after I file in my Movie of the Month, I'll be moving swiftly onto January 2012. As mentioned in my previous review, I have seen The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, but I promised you I would see some more films. As such, I have went out and managed to see Kill List, a British horror film that has got a great degree of acclaim and debuted at FrightFest in 2011. Also, having got myself into a better routine so I can review and do work for university at the same time, updates on the blog will be fairly regular, so keep your eyes posted!

Today's movie is one that I have been looking forward to seeing for some time. 13 Assassins is the new film from Takashi Miike, though of course when it comes to Miike I mean 'latest release in the UK,' as he has since made three films. Competing for the Golden Lion at the 67th Venice International Film Festival alongside other notables such as Black Swan and winner Somewhere, 13 Assassins has been critically well-received, and certain in the Western world it has become Miike's most commercially successful and well-known film, being compared to Kurosawa's 1954 Seven Samurai. I have been a fan of Miike for a number of years, for much of my own personal education in international cinema came from recent East Asian movies from Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea. Of these films, the film that arguably has had the most impact on me was Miike's Audition, a film that at once had me cowering behind a cushion in horror and fighting tears at its beautifully understated and poetic melodrama. For me, Audition is indisputably one of the greatest films ever made, and one of the rare perfect movies that comes along every four or five years. Along with Audition, Miike has proven adept at bouncing between many genres, as displayed by The Happiness Of The Katakuris, Visitor Q and Ichi The Killer, all made in the same year (how anyone could manage that task is beyond me)! So, needless to say I was looking forward to witnessing Miike's take on the samurai film genre. In 1840s Japan, the shogun era is reaching its end, and the sadistic Lord Naritsugu Matsudaira (Goro Inagaki) rapes and pillages for his own amusement, but is free to continue at his will due to his being the son of the previous shogun and the brother of the current shogun. Naritsugu being next in line is of great concern to Toshitsura Doi (Mikijiro Hira), a senior government official, who hires a group of assassins, heading up by Shinzaemon Shimada (Koji Yakusho).

Starting off with what is good, I must say some kind words about director Miike. Once again, he adapts his very distinctive directorial style and puts his stamp on a film. Interestingly though, while there are recognisable trademarks, Miike displays much more modesty and control than in his previous films. 13 Assassins is very reminiscent in its quieter moments of the dialogue scenes of Kurosawa's work. Also, during the film's much talked about forty-five minute action sequence, Miike actually avoids the freneticism that often punctuates his work. It is a wise choice, given that his usual techniques wouldn't be appropriate here. At fifty, Miike is beginning to approach seniority as a filmmaker, so it is nice to see him showing us aspects of his directorial style that we have yet to witness. Other main elements of the film that deserve credit are the technical departments. Despite potential ludicrousness, we never at once don't buy the action onscreen. The village set that becomes the mousetrap for Naritsugu's is an extraordinary bit of production design, in that it is clearly a physical set that has been built, even if it has been built to bear witness to much wanton destruction. Also, the prop and costume designers have paid extraordinary attention to detail, in a job that deserves to be commend alongside The Lord Of The Rings film trilogy. Furthermore, the stunts and choreography in that battle sequence is nothing less than spectacular. Not only is it remarkable that they are able to keep this sequence of scenes going on for that long, but even more amazing is the fact that my interest was sustained throughout. I followed everything that was going on, knew who every character was and their place on the screen. Also, the film contains more outright 'Holy Shit!' moments than every other action film I have seen this year combined. In the landscape of mainstream American action cinema, the figurehead of which is Michael Bay (much to my chagrin: like it or not, he is the bar by which all contemporary action films are to be compared), 13 Assassins is a refreshing needle to the heart, giving hope for this often maligned genre and breathing life into this cynical bastard of a film critic. Finally, the film does contain three strong acting performances. Koji Yakusho's Shinzaemon is the film's anchor, and Yakusho delivers a fine performance. In playing the stock character of 'old gun brought out of retirement,' he elevates the character above the stock cliche. Also, good was Masachika Imamura, whose subdued head guard to Lord Naritsugu, Hanbei, is dogmatic in his devotion to his master. Despite never outright saying he disagrees with his Lord, or making so much as an emotional incline towards this train of thought, we still understand through his acting the character's internal conflict. The scenes with Yakusho and Imamura are comparable to De Niro and Pacino in Heat, two men on conflicting sides but with the same code of honour, and are the film's best 'acting' moments. However, the film's best performance belongs to Goro Inagaki as Lord Naritsugu. Instead of playing him up as the traditional film sadist, Inagaki plays Naritsugu as a bored child who attempts to gain pleasure from wanton destruction and extreme violence. Employing the 'less is more' acting technique, Inagaki's lack of expressiveness is an intimidating sight, and anytime he does show any semblance of emotion besides boredom, it speaks volumes. Finally (again), by the end of the film, this monster is revealed to be a three-dimensional creature, and as such Inagaki's Naritsugu is a memorable lead villain.

So, believe it or not, I did like 13 Assassins. It is a wonderful addition to Miike's already voluminous filmography. However, there are problems with it ensuring that it does not reach the peaks of true greatness. For instance, although the screenplay by Daisuke Tengan is not bad, it is seriously unbalanced. It is unfortunate that a number of the scenes stand out as filler before we get to the big action sequence. The primary problem is that there are too many characters: I hate to bring up the old dog, but lets compare this with Seven Samurai. 13 Assassins is 120 mins long, with forty-five devoted to an extended action sequence, so I make that roughly sixty to seventy-five minutes of character development with about twenty main characters. Seven Samurai is 207 minutes long, with about fifteen main characters at the most, and the final hour to the action scenes, so I make that the best part of two-and-a-half hours character development. I might be saying this in the most long-winded way possible, but the point is that while characters like Shinzaemon, Hanbei and Lord Naritsugu are well-wrote, virtually everyone else is wrote on the basis of 'this character has a spear, this character blows things up, this character is our Toshiro Mifune/Kikuchiyo type.' Also, structurally, it is a problem when your film is essentially like two different pictures, depending on what half of the film you are watching, and it is obvious that more care and attention has been put into the second half, so why should I care to watch the first to get there again?

Despite these scriptural problems that deny 13 Assassins from reaching the upper echelons, even of Miike's own catalogue, it is still a very good film. The mise-en-scene we are presented is nothing less than incredible, harking back to the tradition of action cinema that wasn't all CGI. Incidentally, the worst part of that sequence is the burning CGI buffalo, although obviously it would be animal cruelty to burn a buffalo, so the solution is get rid of the buffalo. Anyway, I though that this forty-five minute sequence was the best series of battle scenes I can remember seeing since The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Believe me, after watching cavalry do a 90-degree turn in two seconds (I counted) in Barbarossa: Siege Lord, this is a refreshing shot in the dark. Also, you have three pretty good acting performances, and director Takashi Miike adapting his often frenetic style rather modestly and doing his earnest to ensure that his audience to engage with the film and bathe in the blood of the fallen. It is not a great film, but it is still very good, and I am happy that people outside of Miike's cult fanbase are starting to view him as not just an agent provocateur, but a highly versatile filmmaker.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.9/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Good (working towards my Best and Worst of the Year - still an open playing field!)

P.S. Take note that the version I have seen is the 120-minute Western release, so if you have seen the original 140-minute Japanese release, please take this into account. Also, if possible, fill me in on which of the two versions is better, if indeed you are one of the few out there who have seen both.

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Stake Land

Directed by: Jim Mickle

Produced by: Derek Curl

Larry Fessenden

Screenplay by: Nick Damici

Jim Mickle

Narrated by: Connor Paolo

Starring: Connor Paolo

Nick Damici

Dannielle Harris

Kelly McGillis

Sean Nelson

Michael Cerveris

Bonnie Dennison

Music by: Jeff Grace

Cinematography by: Ryan Samul

Editing by: Jim Mickle

Distributed by: Belladonna Productions

Dark Sky Films

Release date(s): September 17, 2010 (Canada)

October 1, 2010 (United States)

June 17, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 98 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $625, 000

Box office revenue: $33, 245

So, Happy New Year to everyone! Of course, me being my usual disorganised self, am reviewing movies from December 2011 in January 2012. Therefore, this review and the one I am doing for Takashi Miike's 13 Assassins will be as part of the month of December, and in due course followed by my Movie Of The Month for December. Also, January is my final month of reviewing of the year, so some cramming is in order. I have already seen David Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo adaptation, and plan on seeing Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol, The Artist, The Descendants, J. Edgar, The Way Back and Source Code. Of course, I will try to get in some others if I can. It may well end up that I have to do some capsule reviews, for I do intend to have my Best and Worst of 2011 done before the February 26 Academy Awards, so keep your eyes posted!

Today's film is Stake Land, a post-apocalytic vampire horror film from director Jim Mickle. There has been a bit of a cult build-up around this film, as it has been critically well-receieved and emerges from a particularly barren period of transition in American horror cinema. Vampires are running rampant throughout the United States, and Martin (Connor Paolo) is spared from the same fate of his family by a mysterious vampire hunter known only as 'Mister' (Nick Damici). Mister takes Martin under his wing, and the film follows their travels as they meet a number of people during their quest to 'New Eden,' a place surrounded by myth, due it's supposed absence of the vampires that populate the United States.

To start with the good with Stake Land, I must compliment the film's overall look. For a low budget film, it is surprisingly realistic in the extent of the design of its post-apocalyptic world. All of the details suggest decay and age, while little things such as the use of vampires' fangs as currency add to the believability of a vampire-run United States. Also, the costumes and props of the characters, mostly used and nearly all dirty, contribute to our idea of the 'Stake Land.' With elements like these, it helps to have strong technical filmmaking, and the cinematography by Ryan Samul contributes to our buying this fantastic concept. Much of his work consists of unbroken shots with the camera in a well-placed position, surveying the fallout of the vampire's carnage. Also, there is a fantastic three/four-minute shot involving a party (of which I will not go into details) that stands out as both a fine example of cinematography and choreography. Director Jim Mickle exudes tact and modesty in his roles as both director and editor. He lets the audience appreciate the chaos that presents onscreen, as opposed to heavily implying chaos by chaotically misjudged cutting. As such, his film ends up being a lot more contemplative and less disposable than so many similar post-apocalytic films of this nature. Finally, there are certain plot elements, such as the religious fundamentalist group The Brotherhood, who sacrifice humans to appease the vampires, that add to the atmosphere of Stake Land.

While there are good things about Stake Land, I am disappointed to say that this is a classic case of all style with no substance, or perhaps as a lowrider customiser might say, all hoods and no goods. As ever, the script is especially problematic, ensuring that beyond the film's central concept, there is not really much to be enjoyed. I mean, structurally it is not bothersome, it has a pretty consistent momentum, but the characters on the page and the dialogue written for them is rather base. Mister could be interesting, and is clearly the character who we are meant to have our chips in for, but he ain't no mysterious stranger in the vein of, say, Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name (a falsity in itself, I know, but for sake of argument). Also, every other character is written on the basis of tried and tested principles combined with a serious lack of development. These issues also translate over into the performances of the actors. While no one gives bad performances, they don't stand out as performances that make us care about these people. This is especially problematic with lead actor Connor Paolo. A couple of years ago, before he did The Social Network, Jesse Eisenberg did a similar role to much greater effect in Zombieland: better script or not, it is more or less the same role as Paolo's in Stake Land, the only difference being you do not care about Paolo's Martin. Speaking of Martin, the narration was a silly way to go. Cinema is a visual medium, and while dialogue is good, too much can be a terrible thing. Stake Land's mise-en-scene is a treat and speaks volumes, so why do we need Paolo's Martin telling us how everything is so barren, so horrible, so desolate etc, things we have gathered already? Also, the score by Jeff Grace is way too overt for a movie of this nature. It continues more or less throughout the film, and we do not need to have every moment punctuated by either score or narration, lest we actually get a bit of silence coming in. The better examples of the post-apocalytic film genre, such as Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later and John Hillcoat's adaptation of The Road understand that silence is golden. While there are loud moments (particularly 28 Days Later) both directors understand the balance of sound and silence. I know I've went off on one, but Stake Land, while a good film, is one very, in your face, 'tell, tell, tell' picture that is as irritating as it is good.

Don't let the greater amount of words dedicated to the negative aspects of the film cloud your judgement, my fault entirely. It's just that whenever there are parts of Stake Land that are so good, particularly the overall conception of the film's mise-en-scene, a great achievement considering the low budget, it is nothing less than frustrating to see it fall on its face in so many other areas. A shoddy script, murder-by-numbers acting, and some silly artistic choices prevent Stake Land from being as good as it could have been. That said, it is a good, watchable flick worth at least one go round.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.3/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Content (well-slept, getting over a horrible virus I had over the Christmas holidays, looking forward to re-reading Frank Miller's Batman: Year One and then beddio! Toodles!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Hugo

Directed by: Martin Scorsese

Produced by: Johnny Depp

Timothy Headington

Graham King

Martin Scorsese

Screenplay by: John Logan

Based on: The Invention Of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick

Starring: Asa Butterfield

Ben Kingsley

Chloe Grace Moretz

Sacha Baron Cohen

Jude Law

Christopher Lee

Helen McCrory

Michael Stuhlbarg

Emily Mortimer

Ray Winstone

Francis de la Tour

Richard Griffiths

Marco Aponte

Music by: Howard Shore

Cinematography by: Robert Richardson

Editing by: Thelma Schoonmaker

Studio(s): GK Films

Infinitum Nihil

Metropolitan Filmexport

Distributed by: Paramount Pictures (United States)

Entertainment Film Distributors (United Kingdom)

Release date(s): November 23, 2011 (United States)

December 2, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 126 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $150 million (approx.)

Box office revenue (as of publication): $52, 618, 914

Updates, updates, updates. So, in the wake of it being that time of year, and my buying my gifts for everyone on the 26th (hey, unemployed student living at home: i'm not minted you know!) has led to a number of new purchases. Along with my copies of The Way Back and Stake Land, I have acquired Source Code and 13 Assassins (finally), so expect reviews for them. Also, I can guarantee next month a review for The Artist: being a fan of silent cinema, this is more or less essential viewing, so here's a proposal: if I don't keep my word on seeing The Artist, I quit as a reviewer! No, really, I mean it, how many times have I made promises I don't follow through with? With my professional (a bit rich using that term, I know) reputation at stake, I know I will definitely go and see it, so keep your eyes posted!

So, the film up for dissection here is Martin Scorsese's latest picture Hugo. As same of you may know, one of my regular readers asked me to review Shutter Island last year, and I didn't get down to it but managed to see it to ensure it's consideration in my best and worst films of 2010. Now, I will be writing a full review at some point, but in short I think that it is the best thing he has done since Goodfellas, and sees Scorsese venturing successfully into uncharted waters. In the case of Hugo, I get the impression that Scorsese is bored with making conventional films, for once again he enters unexplored territory, this being his first 3D film. If I'm truly honest, I must say that I have a testy relationship with 3D film's. The only trump card in the argument for 3D's artistic prowess is Avatar, for the only other time I have genuinely enjoyed 3D in a film was it's use as a novelty/gimmick in Final Destination 5. There are so many movies, such as Toy Story 3 and this year's final Harry Potter film which prove that less is more, and that 3D is, for the most part, an unnecessary eyesore. But, 3D or no 3D, there is still a story and film to discuss: in 1931, young Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) lives in the walls of a train station, stealing food and parts for the automaton he is attempting to repair, all the while attempting to avoid the gaze of Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen), the station's Inspector. However, Hugo is caught by toy-shop owner Georges (Ben Kingsley), and, while developing a friendship with his goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), works for him in order to regain the notebook Georges has taken from him.

Taking into account that it is a 3D film, I saw it in 2D, so this is a review that correlates specifically for the 2D version. To start off, it is a visually gorgeous film. Cinematographer Robert Richardson and editor Thelma Schoonmaker's teamwork is a tremendous example of technical synchronicity, from the amazing opening series of shots into the train station that flow into one another to the final frame. Also, the film has perhaps the best mise-en-scene I have seen in a film this year. Someone (to my shame I forget who and couldn't find out through research) once said regarding the sets for Scorsese's for Gangs Of New York that we'll never see production design like this anymore. I would have agreed, but after seeing Hugo it seems that Dante Ferretti has said an emphatic 'NO!' to this statement. Ferretti has most certainly equalled his work on Gangs Of New York, particularly with the brilliantly imagined train station, its colour palette both realistic and like something, well, beautifully cinematic and hyperreal. Also, the walls of the station are intensely detailed and layered, so it is as though we are following Hugo through the pipes, ducts and clocks, obviously a metaphor for the intricacies of the human brain. Another aspect of note in the film's mise-en-scene is the costume design and make-up, which help transform the film's actors into characters that believably inhabit the film's time-space of Paris 1931. Considering all of the roles that these actors have previously played (Butterfield, the son of a prominent Nazi in The Boy With The Striped Pyjamas, Kingsley, Ghandi, Moretz, Hit-Girl in Kick-Ass, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ali G, Borat, Bruno et al), it is a serious plus that you can buy them as a homeless urchin, an elderly toy maker, a well-off young girl and an eccentric security guard respectively. Speaking of which, these actors all give fine performances. Butterfield anchors this film, delivering a performance that ensures a likability in a lead role that could have been irritating. Also, Moretz (a 'Thin White Dude' award winner) is ever reliable, and Sacha Baron Cohen delivers a batty performance that matches his meticulously chameleonic previous efforts, utterly slithering about in a role that is as funny as it is at turns surprisingly moving. Christopher Lee also graces the film with his presence, and Ray Winstone (recognisable in voice only) delivers a good bit part. However, the film's best performance is definitely that of Ben Kingsley as Georges. Kingsley is at an interesting stage of his career, because for a number of years he has been playing these really overt, scenery-chewing roles that threaten to implode both his and everyone else' in a given film. 2008 though, with his generous, naturalistic performances in Transsiberian and Fifty Dead Men Walking, marked a turning point, for he seemed to understand this, and thus, his work from then has been positive, benefiting himself and others in this reviewer's eyes. One occasionally forgets he is Shutter Island that he is so subdued. In Hugo, 'Papa' Georges is the consummation of this period of transition. Kingsley depicts all of the layers of this secretive character with great understanding. Georges is a grumpy and often intimidating old miser, but we also detect an intense sadness in Georges, who is at heart, just like Hugo, a dreamer. Never at any point do we question Kingsley as Georges, and he gives us an onscreen character to both adore and be afraid of. Finally, much of the film's triumph and control comes from the man himself, Martin Scorsese. Along with Clint Eastwood, he is a reminder of everything that is good about Hollywood cinema. Scorsese, like Columbus, is unafraid to explore uncharted waters, and is constantly coming up with new challenges for himself as a filmmaker, and once again, he breaks through to the other side and triumphs. Despite having new toys to play around with, he thinks of his audience, never one to overindulge himself. The control he exhibits here, over a picture that is both unlike and similar to his back catalogue, is nothing short of amazing: let's see any other director make two films as different as Taxi Driver and Hugo! Also, while he is of course paying tribute to cinema, Scorsese is first and foremost a storyteller, engaging the audience and with Hugo, delivering us a picture that slots itself firmly into his great filmography.

As you can see, there was a lot that I liked about Hugo. However, there is one notable flaw that, while certainly not detracting from it's status as a great film, bars Hugo at the doors of The Upper Echelon Club of movie masterpieces. I am referring to, once again, the script. John Logan is a good screenwriter. After all, earlier in the year he scribed one of the year's best scripts in Rango. However, his script for Hugo, while not being a bad piece of work, is troublesome and problematic. For starters, the film's structure is seriously misjudged. My good friend Daniel Kelly (Danland Movies) made a great point on the flabbiness of the first two acts, and while I think he argued more eloquently and was irritated greater than I, it would be a lie if I said I didn't agree with him. As such, while the final act of the film is as good a bit of cinema as you're going to get, the first two acts have a sluggish pacing, which didn't bother me at first, but by the time you reach the one-hour mark and the film has gone from Point A to Point A, it starts to get annoying and boring. Also, the dialogue is by no means outstanding, and does give the film an air of contrivance, which is a shame considering how natural, well-timed and judged Rango's dialogue came across. As mentioned, this does not take away from Hugo's status as a great movie, but it does deny it the opportunity to get that bit greater.

Aside from the film's troublesome script, Hugo is a great movie. It boasts good acting performances, particularly from Ben Kingsley. Also, there is a strong technical synchronicity between Robert Richardson and Thelma Schoonmaker, which gives the film a solid visual style. Furthermore, this is one of the, if not the best mise-en-scene I have seen in a film this year, with some excellent production design, make-up and costumes. Finally, Martin Scorsese is at that stage of his career were he has seen it all, done it all, and wants to try something new. Following on from the enigmatic genre thriller Shutter Island, Hugo is Scorsese's great endeavour into the medium of 3D cinema and stands as a good, traditional kid's adventure film. Daniel Kelly, in his own words, told me if he was a kid taken to see this movie he "would have a shitfit," referring to it's laborious pacing. Although I think it is an occasionally badly paced film, I'd like to think that one of my cousins would appreciate this fine film as opposed to trying to convert me to the Transformers cause. Words of advice: take your kids to see Hugo, because I have a hunch that they'd love a kid's movie that treats them with respect and does not patronise them. It's easy for me to jabber on about this being 'a great kid's movie,' but the fact is I'm not a kid. Please, take them to see Hugo, and I hope they enjoy the film as much as I did.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.5/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Content (Uni work and Reviews up to date. Booyakasha! Proof you put enough beer in a man, he can do anything!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1

Directed by: Bill Condon

Produced by: Wyck Godfrey

Karen Rosenfelt

Stephanie Meyer

Screenplay by: Melissa Rosenberg

Based on: Breaking Dawn by Stephanie Meyer

Starring: Kristen Stewart

Robert Pattinson

Taylor Lautner

Music by: Carter Burwell

Cinematography by: Guillermo Navarro

Editing by: Virginia Katz

Studio(s): Summit Entertainment

Temple Hill Entertainment

Sunswept Entertainment

Distributed by: Summit Entertainment

Release date(s): November 18, 2011

Running time: 117 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $110 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $649, 192, 542

Ok folks, updates! On Saturday, I will be going to see Sherlock Holmes: The Game Of Shadows. Also, in case you didn't know, it is that time of the year, and I have regressed into my default mood of "Bah, humbug!," so you'll have to excuse the occasional bit of cynicism in my tone. Of course, I will be seeing a number of films in the coming weeks, with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (whose source novel I am enjoying greatly) coming out on the 26th, so keep your eyes posted.

Right, it's about time I got to putting words to my opinions, this movie having been out for a month, so let's get down to it. "Forever is only the beginning" runs the tagline for Breaking Dawn Part 1, an appropriate phrase that describes my feelings regarding The Twilight Saga. I have watched (and reviewed) every one of the films, of which I've had mixed feelings: I liked Twilight, hated New Moon and thought Eclipse was a very good film. Saying that, having now read two of the Stephanie Meyer novels, I have come to the conclusion that while there are good elements in the books (as well as catering to an untapped readership of young girls that is seriously under-catered), as I was finishing New Moon, I felt that if I had went through the book with a red pen, I could have edited this five-hundred-plus page book to closer three-hundred: Meyer is a consummate over-writer who waffles way too much and envelops the reader like a suffocating, overprotective mother, and doesn't give her children enough independence to develop their own thoughts. Anyway, this isn't a discourse on Meyer, but one of her book's adaptations, so here comes the synopsis: Bella and Edward are getting married, but on their honeymoon in Peru, Bella gets pregnant, and the foetus is growing at a furious rate, consuming her from the inside. Thus, tension is caused between Bella's new family and in the Quileute tribe, with the impregnation of a human by a vampire the final straw that broke the camel's back, or rather the vampire/werewolf pact in Forks, the Quileute's declaring war on the Cullen coven.

To start off with what is good about Breaking Dawn: Part 1, I must credit the three leads. Pattinson (who I have liked in other films) has never been good as Edward, but this is as good as he ever has been playing the role, but Kristen Stewart continues ascending the upward scale of gradually improving performances as Bella. She really has grown into the part that she was initially very awkward playing, and portrays a rather empowering female character, putting her all into the absolute hell that Bella goes through. Once again, Taylor Lautner is the glue that holds this cast together. Often slagged by some critics, I find him to have a great expressive range that is appropriate for the character arc and a strong range of emotional palette. Still a young actor, I feel Lautner has the makings of something special. I must also praise the cinematography by Guillermo Navarro. The Twilight Saga has a real lack of consistency in terms of its crews, so I do think it is good that despite the film's being the same tonally, Navarro's colour palette is still very distinctive and gives Breaking Dawn a unique flavour. Finally, I would like to congratulate the film's make-up department for their transformation of Kristen Stewart. In a movie that reeks of absurdity in parts, you can't help but wince as you watch Bella's degradation as her spawn consumes her energy. Also, Modus FX has done a wonderful, subtle bit of work in adding to Bella's pregnancy, although their work here would make one think that her pregnancy was more like a giant tumour (I mean that in a good way). Furthermore, (spoiler alert) the whole birthing scene is done excellently, capturing a deep-grained fear of pregnancy and childbirth that despite being more part of a young woman's psyche, I found very intense. The quick jump cuts, Bella soaking in sweat, terrifically overbearing sound editing, and to top it off, the nastiest caesarian birth I have ever seen, with as much grot as A Serbian Film (I kid you not), and you've got one of the most memorable scenes in a film this year.

That said, as with the other instalments of The Twilight Saga, for all the good that it has to offer, equally there can be as much bad elements that we have to swallow. For instance, Carter Burwell, whose musical compositions I do like (and with regards to the series, has been a more consistently decent composer than his New Moon counterpart Alexandre Desplat), reek of the same stench that the series emits, in that we are told everything, as opposed to figuring it out for ourselves. It's a case of 'in case you didn't know how you're supposed to feel, here's how it is.' Even the great Howard Shore suffered the same issue in Eclipse: with all these talented composers on hand, with multiple awards and nominations between them, those bastards at Summit still felt like breathing down their neck, and forcing them to work with the notorious Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra. Great job guys! Also, despite Bill Condon directing the film, if anything, the closest The Twilight Saga's adaptations has to an auteur is Melissa Rosenberg. Her screenplays have been at an inconsistent level, corresponding to the quality of the films (Twilight/Eclipse = Good:New Moon = Bad). Granted, part of the problem is the source material, but Meyer's books, as messy as they can be, have far more structure than Rosenberg's screenplay for Breaking Dawn Part 1. Structurally, the whole story revolves around certain plot points, i.e. wedding, sex, pregnancy, birth etc. These points are well developed (although I would have went further myself with the sex scenes, but hey, it's a 12A film), but they only take up about thirty to forty minutes of screen time. As such, you would think with over an hour in between there would be some decent filler, but no, everything in between is written as though they are attempting to rush from plot point A to plot point B to... you get the (plot) point. Also, being a 'talky' film, with lots of heated discussion, you would think that there would be some decent dialogue, especially regarding Bella's pregnancy. But once again, nada: the dialogue sound like something from a propaganda film. I'm not getting a bee in my bonnet about the so-called pro-life themes, but all verbal sounds in the film sound base, forced, and above all, highly patronising. All semblance of an argument is lost in the fact that the dialogue is so terrible you can't help but notice how terrible the dialogue instead of being able to pay attention to what is going on. Furthermore, speaking of plot points (this won't be a spoiler for those who haven't seen it, but those who have will know what I talking about), the whole imprinting incident is bullshit: we never quite buy 'a major character's' instantaneous transformation, and it makes the film's ending completely anticlimactic. Speaking of the ending, why rip your last shot straight out of the last shot of Avatar? How contrived does one have to be? No spoilers, just saying! Finally, while I'm still on my high horse and my Napoleon complex maxed out to eleven, I've never ever bought those CGI werewolves. They've always looked like big, furry, blobby teddy bears, as opposed to the nasty killing machines they're meant to be. Also, there is a scene with the wolf pack in a heated discussion ('heated discussion' seems to be the default Twilight mode), but they are in their wolf form and the actors depicting their human form are delivering voiceover dialogue. I'm sorry, but I was the ignorant git laughing at the back of theatre, because this scene was funnier than the entirety of Zookeeper and had me thinking about Alpha, the dog with the malfunctioning collar in Up. It was good in all the wrong ways and was a classic example of misjudged filmmaking.

I know, I know, I went off on one there, but The Twilight Saga is something that I am highly opinionated about. As much as there is devoted to the bad about the film (granted, probably too much, I got a bit carried away), there are also some enjoyable elements in Breaking Dawn Part 1. The three leads, particularly Stewart and Lautner are good, Guillermo Navarro's cinematography really elevates the status of this picture, and the transformation of Bella by the makeup and CGI teams is an astounding bit of work. Finally, the staging of the birth scene is one of the most memorable scenes in a film this year. However, by no means is it faultless, and in terms of the film adaptations of The Twilight Saga, it ranks as the second worst.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 4.9/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Contented

P.S. Dear Stephanie Meyer, I know the opinions of a (slightly) pretentious film critic will have no effect on you or your significant financial income, but please take these figures into account: over four books (not including The Short Second Life Of Brie Tanner), The Twilight Saga comes to 2492 pages. I make that an average of 623 pages per book. The less successful (but infinitely better written) vampire series The Saga Of Darren Shan, has a total of 2499 pages over it's entire series. I know, it's exactly seven pages more than your Twilight Saga, but take into account that this is over twelve books, and not four, with an average 208 pages per book. So, in conclusion, you write roughly three times as much as you should, and the primary reason for your series' continued success is because there is a massive gap in the market were teenage girls are concerned. There is good material in your books, you just have a serious tendency to waffle!

With Kind Regards

Callum 'The Thin White Dude' McCready

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Adjustment Bureau

Directed by: George Nolfi

Produced by: George Nolfi

Chris Moore

Michael Hackett

Bill Carraro

Isa Dick Hackett

Joel Viertel

Screenplay by: George Nolfi

Based on: Adjustment Team by Philip K. Dick

Starring: Matt Damon

Emily Blunt

Music by: Thomas Newman

Cinematography by: John Toll

Editing by: Jay Rabinowitz

Studio: Media Rights Capital

Distributed by: Universal Pictures

Release date(s): March 4, 2011

Running time: 101 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $50.2 million

Box office revenue: $127, 869, 379

As ever, I seem to take an age between reviews, finding some lame-ass excuse to not continue with my endeavours and simply sit around (rather ironically) with cans of beer and packets of crisps watching Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me. Anywho, I have seen The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn and Hugo, so expect to see reviews for them soon. Also, as mentioned in my previous post, I will be starting a new blog in which I cast myself as a sort of despotic producer with every tool at his disposal, and proposing to you my fantasy adaptations from a number of sources into the medium of film. My first post will be my 'adaptation' of Metal Gear Solid, so (in keeping with the buzz-phrase of the new blog), keep your eyes open!

Okay, today we're getting down to reviewing The Adjustment Bureau. I've been talking about reviewing The Adjustment Bureau for a couple of months since picking up a copy for £5 in Tesco a while back, but before I get down to it, here's a bit of a preamble to give you some context. The film is adapted from the short story Adjustment Team by Philip K. Dick, who is probably hands-down my favourite author. I first fell in love with his work via A Scanner Darkly, and have been nothing than entranced by his singular visionary and accessible style. Readers, do yourselves a favour at get some of K. Dick's work, because it is pure gold dust. With a (primarily) science-fiction author as it's source, Matt Damon as its star and having emerged in the wake of Inception, the geniuses of film marketing have promoted The Adjustment Bureau under Total Film's silly buzz phrase "Bourne Meets Inception." For starters, whoever came up with that editorial wonder seems to have come up with it so that it makes the UK DVD cover. The big problem though is that it gives the completely wrong impression of the film itself, so readers, go in with an open mind and do not give in to preconceived ideas you may have got from this. The Adjustment Bureau follows David Norris (Matt Damon), an up-and-coming politician, whose campaign crashes whenever photos of him mooning former classmates at a reunion party emerge. On the plus side, he meets Elise (Emily Blunt), a woman who he immediately engages and becomes infatuated with. However, after the two cross paths again, a group of men (the eponymous Adjustment Bureau) threaten David to never see Elise again, as it is not part of 'the plan.' As such, the plot advances from this point on.

To start off with my review for The Adjustment Bureau, it must be said that despite the "Bourne Meets Inception" label, at heart this film is first and foremost a romance. In this aspect, Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are terrific. I've always liked Matt Damon, and his role as Norris, both as the lover and the charismatic politician, shows yet another layer to his talent. In the case of Emily Blunt, it's easy to understand why Norris becomes so infatuated with her: she oozes charm and sexuality, not in an overt manner, but in the way that actresses such as Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman did, through naturalism. You can't help but feel good every time the two share the same space onscreen, as their romance comes across with conviction and genuine, which is more than can be said for most romance films. They deliver their dialogue as though everything is pure improvisation, and it makes for some great cinema. Also, George Nolfi, who had previously scribed The Bourne Ultimatum, handles this, his debut feature, very well. It would have been easy to overindulge in certain aspects of the story, but Nolfi keeps it fine, and has a great sense of pacing. Throughout you get this feeling of a momentous forward drive that doesn't stop the film's conclusion. John Toll's cinematography also contributes to this. It has a wonderful look about it, capturing the film's drama and the romance between David and Elise, but also having the ability to switch tones/moods. The lighting in the scenes with the Adjustment Bureau are suitably dark and expressionistic, while David and Elise, quite literally, bring light to the lives of one another. Finally, the production design is to be noted, for despite this being a 'science-fiction' film, it is only science-fiction in the loosest sense of the term: the design and locations embed the film firmly into the real world, adding to the paranoiac tension that is prescient throughout.

As much as I like The Adjustment Bureau, there are a number of issues involved with this production. Although Damon and Blunt deliver their dialogue well, George Nolfi's script is very flawed. Admittedly, this movie is a tough sell, and it is admirable in it's attempts to do something different, but the script tries to cover too many different topics and doesn't end up bringing much of substance to the plate. It deals with romance, politics, paranoia, free will, predestination, Christian themes and the idea of omnipresent forces behind the scenes. In dealing with that many topics, while catering to a certain audience, there are times when The Adjustment Bureau falls flat on its face. Too much is shoved in to deal with in ninety-nine minutes, and they are not dealt with in any great detail. If it had been made to be a 130-140 minute film, it may have worked better and they could have a stronger story, as opposed to presenting us something that feels like an oversized suitcase. Also (without spoiling the film), the ending is an anticlimactic, botched affair that just stops as opposed to giving the film any true sense of conclusion. Finally, I was not a fan of the use of Thomas Newman's compositions. Hear me out: I did like Newman's work, I just wasn't a fan of how it was implemented in the film. In the post-production process, I feel there was a lot of watering down done, and in the finished product, which remains a challenging movie (in a good way) no matter how much tinkering has been done, this sense of artificiality comes through. I think that they simply were stuck between a rock and a hard place, dealing with a tough sell and compromising to try and make it appeal to a mainstream audience. Nowhere is this more prominent than in the use of Newman's music, which is placed in scenes 'appropriately' to imply, rather overtly, what we should be feeling. Once again, EHO (Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra) makes an appearance, gouging an otherwise great movie.

It's a shame, because I think The Adjustment Bureau is a very good film. Damon and Blunt give the audience one of the most legitimate screen romances I have seen in some time. Also, George Nolfi has an efficiency about his direction, and the film has some great cinematography and production design. However, the script comes across as watered down and compromised, while the use of Thomas Newman's music (not the music itself) ensures that we are being told what we are meant think and what to feel. Much as I like it (how can you not like a film with Terence Stamp pitching in a great bit part?), The Adjustment Bureau will not rank among the great adaptations of K. Dick, such as Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report or A Scanner Darkly. That said, it is certainly not in the category of 2003's abysmal Paycheck, and while I feel it may be forgotten about, deserves to be remembered as a good solid film.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.0/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Excited (off from Uni, lots of films to review!)

P.S. Dear Total Film, please don't use silly 'poster phrases' like "Bourne Meets Inception" to describe this film: it is nowhere near as much a science-fiction film as Inception, and is only a science-fiction in the basest sense. Also, it is a bit stupid to put Bourne onto any film that stars Matt Damon. That's like marketing The Departed as 'Bourne Meets Goodfellas' or Invictus under 'Bourne Meets Mandela!'