Hollywood's Uncovered Gems?

There is a rowdy queue of merits associated with the serene art of cinema; perhaps one of the strongest advantages lies in its powerful sense of evocation. For some very privileged people, cinema is able to paint more than just a pretty picture and is fully able to rip into its audience’s soul and juggle with their emotions, their thoughts and feelings. Let me throw some names at you:

Nolan. Tarantino. Spielberg.

Household names; ground-breaking directors who have caused more than a mere stir during their renowned careers and all thanks to one endearing trait; their pure love of cinema. Their contribution has helped make cinema a dominant art form, one which truly caters for everybody with its eclectic style and creative prowess. So it’s really no surprise that the deaths of Tony Scott and Michael Clarke Duncan have packed such a brutal punch.

Tony Scott lived his life in the shadow of his more-critically accepted brother, Ridley (Alien, Blade Runner) yet thankfully, the overwhelmingly positive tributes that have flooded in for the late and certainly great director have focused solely on his aesthetically pleasing body of work. Many will recall the likes of Top Gun, an undoubtedly popular addition to the macho-men volume of Hollywood cinema and far superior to the likes of Charlie Sheen’s Navy SEALS and oh, yes…Iron Eagle.

What Scott lacked in critical backing, he made up for at the box-office. However, unlike film-makers who experience similar critical contrast such as Michael Bay, Scott was a true master of his craft. His ‘on-the-fence’ reviews would usually pin-point a lack of dramatic and narrative resonance (that was attributed so highly to Ridley) yet a picture made to pure perfection. In Poker terms, he was always the Full House opposed to the Royal Flush. His knowledge and dexterous touch as well as sublime craftsmanship were second-to-none and his flicks provided audiences with endless hours of thrills and spills. A truly remarkable, yet severely underrated film-maker.

Michael Clarke Duncan was a unique screen presence. Big Mike stood at 6’ 5” and his muscular frame, imposing stature and deep, booming voice were bizarrely contrasted by his kind, caring nature; or at least that was the way he consistently came across as.

Like many others, the role I’ll always associate him with was that of the (wrongly) convicted child-murderer in Frank Darabont’s The Green Mile. Strongly considered one of the best movies made in the last 20-years or so, The Green Mile was an adaption from Stephen King’s novel of the same name. Duncan portrayed John Coffey (“like the drink, only not spelled the same”), a seemingly uneducated simpleton who had been sentenced to death after being discovered with two dead girls. As the audience learns more about the character in Darabont’s majestic and emotionally charged movie, Duncan himself is a revelation. Never looking like a fish-out-of-water next to co-star Tom Hanks, Duncan was rightly nominated for an Oscar that year for his portrayal which will be remembered for a long time to come.

The point I wish to make is one that rings a beneficial bell in terms of Hollywood. Tributes poured in from all over when the shocking announcements were first made. It quickly became apparent that though neither was considered a household name, both were respected by those who cherish the art of cinema as well as those who perhaps consider themselves casual acquaintances with their local movie theatre. I think it’s a testament to the power of movies and the much-maligned Hollywood that these two figures are being celebrated so much. Scott’s True Romance defined the hyper-stylised and violent movies of the 90s (written by Pulp Fiction’s Tarantino of course) and contemporary film fans hold recent efforts such as Unstoppable starring Chris Pine and Denzel Washington and Man On Fire, again starring Scott-favoured Washington, in such high-esteem.

Duncan also had a varied career; The Green Mile will go down as his magnum opus due to his Oscar nom, but he also starred in many a-blockbuster such as Armageddon, The Whole Nine Yards and Daredevil. He was appreciated by the industry he loved so much and by the fans who flocked to the cinema, even if they couldn’t quite recall his name.

Hollywood is damn-near impossible to break and once you’ve made it, it can knock you back down from whence you came within a matter of seconds. That’s what they say anyway but I believe the likes of Michael Clarke Duncan and Tony Scott oppose that theory. Consistent, efficient, hard-working and reliable; they weren’t stars that shone the brightest and perhaps didn’t always get the recognition they deserved but when it came down to the final haul, both got the rousing send-off they deserved and the industry has suffered a great loss. The beauty of film is that they will always be remembered through their art and cemented within the rich history of cinema forever more.

Tony Scott (21^st June, 1944 – 19^th August, 2012)

Michael Clarke Duncan (10^th December, 1957 – 3^rd September, 2012)

The Dark Knight Rises; Better Later Than Never

There’s little doubt in my mind that by the end of the year, Christopher Nolan’s epic conclusion to his Dark Knight series will be top in box-office takings. I’m not a skilled mathematician in any way, shape or form but I believe if you deduct the extra earnings that The Avengers ripped off took from its 3D advantages (you know, an extra £1.50 for a tainted experience and over-sized glasses), then The Dark Knight Rises comes out on top. I’m sure far cleverer and wiser people than myself will tell you this is not the case though*

*it is.

But it doesn’t matter; at the end of the day people aren’t going to clamber home and divulge their full feelings and thoughts on the movie based on how much money it raked in. The age-old saying about quality and quantity comes into play massively here. Box-office success has never and will never equal critical acclaim – just ask Michael Bay.

Again, it doesn’t matter; no one is going to clamber home at the end of the day and sa—oh, I’ve done this part. Well, forgive my sanctimonious ramblings about film politics. The movie itself is wonderful. It’s a wonderful movie. It’s fantastically ambitious in scope and executed with the deft precision we’ve come to expect from Nolan’s skilled hands. It also brings up an interesting question:

Is it a good Batman movie?

Was The Dark Knight? As far as I’m concerned, Batman Begins represented the character of Batman as I, a comic-book virgin, would expect him to be portrayed. It felt like it jumped right out of the murky pages of a traditionally dark graphic novel with its steam-soaked streets, colourfully off-beat characters and, well…a guy dressed as a bat. Then The Dark Knight came along and, perhaps juiced up by Heath Ledger’s tragic death, the fan-boy community was given a sudden jolt of excitement; anticipation for this movie was sky-high and it delivered on all the right notes. I’m going to shamelessly quote famed movie-critic Roger Ebert on this one because he says it better than most:

“Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” is a haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy”.

So that’s what Roger says and I agree whole-heartedly. It took Batman to a new level (for me at least) and gave us all a healthy dose of entertainment along the way. In a way it’s raised the bar for what many believe a good Batman movie should be (to be straight, I don’t quite agree with this as I really enjoyed Tim Burton’s gothic-inspired effort in 1989).

The Dark Knight Rises tries so hard to do this again and upon my second viewing, I noted the scope of the film; what Nolan tried to achieve was amazing; an entire city is ripped apart from inside, both politically and socially, and then stapled together precariously whilst awaiting the heart-pounding climax. It’s what Nolan loves to do and though I don’t think he truly achieved the successes he had with The Dark Knight, you have to stand up and applaud the guy. It’s no easy task and I doubt I could do it*

*I couldn’t.

That being said, I’d hardly label the movie a ‘failure’; its undertones and themes are convoluted and many plot-points are far too convenient and far-fetched. I’ve read thousands of plot-holes related to the movie and though I agree many of them raise an eye-brow or two, I would suggest that Nolan’s movies are perhaps slightly more exposed to quizzical wonderings from the online community due to the director’s stature which has truly polarised some as well as captivated others. I admit I’m a big fan; I wrote my University dissertation on the guy and the way in which he’s crossed the boundary between Indie and Mainstream without as much as a scratch on him. He’s a remarkable film-maker and whilst I will never be as arrogant and pompous to label him one of the greats, his contribution to Hollywood has left a significant mark.

Also, stop asking:

“How does Bane eat?”

Did you ever ask how Darth Vader ate? Perhaps he was a big fan of the suffragette era and took to consuming his daily meals through a narrowly worked straw.

I liked Bane. I liked the music (I like to imagine someone following Bane down the street, beating enthusiastically on a pair of drums slung over their chest). I liked Catwoman. I liked her outfit. I liked Michael Caine crying. I liked the special effects. I liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt being called *SPOILER* Robin and I liked Bane beating people up with a bike-helmet.

There’s a whole collection of great things to like about this movie, but I think love is perhaps an expression too far.  The movie goes places that it perhaps needs to go but I don’t know how much it sacrifices audience entertainment for; the fight scenes are very well orchestrated with Bane matching Batman for physical strength with interest. Tom Hardy has a good time as the muscular and intimidating figure of Bane and his presence is felt throughout the movie, even when he’s sadly not on screen. Elsewhere, Anne Hathaway shoves her previous critics away with a flawless, confident and humorous performance as Selina Kyle (Catwoman is never once uttered) and her role is used well by Nolan as is the role of John Blake, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. A lot of characters, a lot of balancing; I admit I was surprised at the lack of Christian Bale as the Batman. He has quite a journey of discovery in this movie and Bale probably puts in his best performance of the trilogy as a Bruce Wayne completely devoid of hope.

By the end you’ll appreciate the action that has unfolded; as always, it’s second-to-none and the urgency of the film’s events is felt throughout. Nolan has his pacing covered and it’s definitely a movie that you could see more than once without feeling like you need to stealthily check the time on your phone.

The story is rather insignificant at the end – I don’t think many will care for the ‘Save The World’ idea that is thrown about rather lethargically towards the beginning of the film and plot-points seem to follow suit, being branded about left, right and centre until dropped completely for the explosive ending. It’s a movie that deserves its plaudits and the money earned but it never quite reaches the heights set by its predecessor perhaps even Whedon’s Avengers, but it’s worth-watching as always and paints a beautiful picture thanks to the sublime efforts of cinematographer Wally Pfister. 

The Avengers

Note: Spoilers assemble…

A Shakespearean God from the realm of Asgard blasts his way through a top-secret facility, using an oddly shaped sceptre to brain-warp those he decides will be of some use in his scheming plans, and steals a bright blue cube of immense energy and power. This bright blue cube of immense energy and power will destroy our entire world if utilised in the incorrect fashion, and that’s all you really need to know in order to enjoy this film, which for a movie with a running time of over two hours, is remarkably fresh and breezy.

The God in question is Loki (Tom Hiddleston), primary antagonist from last year’s comic-caper ‘Thor’, one of several antecedents for the combined delight that is ‘The Avengers’ (or if you’ll humour me, Marvel’s Avengers Assemble’). It all began in 2008 when Robert Downey Jr’s revitalised career mirrored the start of something new, something exciting. The result is a well-tuned, well-acted, exceptionally-scripted blockbuster which has issued a strong, robust, and loud message, not just to its flocking audiences, but to a certain Chris Nolan. “Your move, Mr. Wayne…”

The task of bringing the outlandish egos of Iron Man (Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans), and The Incredible Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) together to form one cohesive narrative has fallen kindly at the feet of cult-hero (and God), Joss Whedon. You’ll have to forgive me at this point; I grew up on a healthy diet of American pop culture, of which Whedon’s Buffy The Vampire Slayer, was a strong contributor, and to this day, I would gladly give up my first born child for this man. I try to avoid inane bias in my reviews, but sometimes there is too great a force, and this is one such occasion. I shall reliably inform you that the man is a genius. An underrated, relentless, wit-tastic genius.

That being said, this movie should not work. It just shouldn’t. There is so much going on at any one moment in time that it’s very hard to comprehend what one character just said before you’re whisked away on another matter. Take the scene aboard the heli-boat-copter for instance; they’re trying to figure Loki out, figure what he wants, what he plans to do etc, then all of a sudden, we’re thrust into a brand new world where S.H.I.E.L.D, led by the one-eyed Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), are suddenly the enemies, planning on utilising that bright blue cube of immense energy and power in their favour by constructing weapons of mass destruction. However, Fury isn’t exactly up to date on this plan. I know – confusing, right? It’s a comic book film in every sense, and it’s superior to every other comic book film that has taken to our screens (I don’t include The Dark Knight in this instance as it transcends the genre) and if you don’t walk into the screening with your disbelief well and truly suspended…then what’s the point, may I ask?

Don’t compare this film to The Dark Knight Rises – it’ll be like comparing American Beauty to Pan’s Labyrinth – because these are two differently dexterous directors who have engaged in two differently dexterous styles of film. With The Avengers, you will have fun; sublime fun. There are a lot of explosions, but the on-screen action is directed with aplomb and swiftness – Whedon never forgets his constraints on time and space, and is able to move our attention to where it truly matters, delivering one hell of a final act which is brash, loud, and utterly brilliant.

I could talk forever about the script which is full to the brim with witty one-liners and dripping with banterous dialogue. Fans of Whedon will know how strong a writer he is, and his style has not been diluted by the money-starved executives behind the scenes. The film is really quite hilarious, and one of the only negatives I could come up with for the film is that you may occasionally struggle to hear the dialogue through the raucous laughter sounding out around you.

Take a film like Inception – I know I said not to compare to Nolan, but I’m not comparing styles – it doesn’t utilise all its characters, it fits them into the story well enough, but we never get a true sense of who they are. Why on earth is Ariadne helping out Cobb? What does she stand to gain? Eames? Is he in it for the money? The Avengers’ main strength is its character moments, even the smallest nuance of a smile or gesture – it gets it absolutely spot on, and is what makes the film so enjoyable. A film about characters that will never exist in our world suddenly become so relatable, so easy to connect with, that we root for them to the very end, part with our well-earned money, and eagerly anticipate the inevitable sequel.

I can’t stress enough how good this movie is; for fans of Joss Whedon’s existing works, I’d be stunned if you hadn’t already seen it, and for those who have little idea of who he is, get ready to have your minds completely, whole-heartedly, unequivocally…blown.

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games is not another Twilight Saga, not in any way, shape, or form. For one thing, the female lead is a strong, resilient character who doesn't lust after the stoic aid of a glitterball 'vampire', nor do her adolescent affections drive the franchise forward.

Based on the first young-adult novel of Suzanne Collins's 2008 best-selling trilogy, The Hunger Games isn't particularly new in concept, but manages to create a wonderfully vibrant pastiche, featuring strong imagery and effective satire of a world obsessed with violence and the impact of reality TV.

For those that have read the novel, many with find the movie, directed by Gary Ross of Seabiscuit fame, to be remarkably faithful, capturing the beauty of the coveted 'Capitol' city, displaying a kaleidoscope of quirky designs, colourful arrangements, and grandiose, towering structures. On the other side of the spectrum, there is the unfaltering brutality of the war-torn nation, which annually watches as 24 children, or 'tributes' (aged 12-18), are flung into a computerised arena and forced to murder each other until just one stands victorious.

For those new to this post-apocalyptic dystopia that Collins has created, the plot revolves around 16yr old Katniss Everdeen (played by the sublime Jennifer Lawrence, channeling every aspect of her Oscar-nominated turn in Winter's Bone), a resident in District 12 of the nation of Panem (a menacing futuristic vision of North America post-war). Each year, the 'Reaping' will take place and one boy and one girl from all 12 Districts will be chosen to compete in that year's Hunger Games. After Katniss's sister, Primrose, is reaped, our heroine takes centre stage, fiercely volunteering in the place of her younger sibling, and she and the male tribute, Peeta (played by Josh Hutcherson, a performance that hits back at his critics) are quickly whisked off to the Capitol to begin their training.

There is nothing bland about The Hunger Games, and each second of screentime is used to great effect, whether it be the scene meticulously depicting Katniss's supreme hunting ability, or the pure, unadulterated joy and intent on the faces of those who reside in the Capitol, free from the terrifying apprehension of the Reaping. Exposition is never spoon-fed; Ross respects the intellect of the audience, efficiently allowing us to piece together his jigsaw by showing us, rather than telling us (for the most part).

The Hunger Games may be taken as a literal understanding that outside the gluttonous Capitol, each District is repressed by poverty and despair, an image certainly fitting to District 12, a place completely devoid of colour, and where food such as bread is a rare and wonderful treat. Though Collins, nor Ross, go into much detail about the Capitol in this outing, its self-degradation from consumerism and over-indulgence in a life of lavish luxuries are hinted at on occasions, painted in the inhabitants' faces, prevalent in their need for mindless entertainment. In a world dominated by Big Brother, artificial thrills are generated from behind the scenes by head gamemaker, Seneca Crane (an ignorant, yet assured, Wes Bentley) and whilst teenagers slaughter each other, those outside the arena view it as nothing but a mere game on which they are able to bet on, invest in competitors, alter the Games to their liking, and care little about mundane topics such as ethics and morality. There is no line to cross here.

Though the novel sticks closely to Katniss (it's written in first person), the film doesn't waste its talented supporting cast, each of whom embrace their role wildly, bringing the words to life with zest, ambition, and strong individuality. Woody Harrelson as District 12 mentor Haymitch is particularly memorable, playing his character with slightly more warmth and humour than his literary counterpart, but his affection for Katniss when he recognises her ability and her gutsy intent is never downplayed. Elsewhere, Elizabeth Banks is blissfully unaware and bubbly as Capitol appointed District 12 representative, Effie Trinkett. Lenny Kravitz is the kind-hearted stylist, Cinna, whose goal is to help Katniss in making an 'impression', and Donald Sutherland shows hints of his ruthless leadership as the nation's leader, President Snow, a role that, as the final scene suggests, will loom larger in the following films.

The Hunger Games is an intense affair, dominated by raw emotion and brutal action. The violence is toned down through quick-fire cuts and editing, perhaps to accommodate a larger audience, but the movie is resoundingly bloody, particularly the first scene inside the arena where blades, swords, knives and arrows are wielded, culminating in disturbing shots of lifeless children lying bloodied and battered whilst others rush around, no time to think about what's right and what's wrong. It caters to those going in fresh-minded and will satisfy those with high expectations. It's a film unlike any other, and though it borrows heavily from other works, it's a postmodern success, kept fresh by creatively minded architects, bright performances, and dazzling displays of refined popcorn-entertainment. A must see.

The 84th Academy Awards

And so it comes to that grand old time again -- the Oscars. The biggest awards ceremony on the planet, and by far the most watched. Even with dwindling ratings, millions of people across the globe tune in to catch a glimpse of their A-list idols, and see who snags the biggest of big prizes.

2012 sees the return of Billy Crystal, back to resume his love-affair with the Academy and show James Franco and Anne Hathaway how it's done.

In terms of nominations, Martin Scorsese's Hugo leads the way with 11 nominations, but I think the more prestigious categories may elude Marty this time around.

So here's my rundown of the main events -- these are purely my opinions so don't criticise or belittle me in any way, shape, or form.


Oh, and one one more note -- I haven't got around to seeing The Help yet -- nothing against them, I just haven't done it yet. Soon. Soon....


Best Picture

The Artist
The little black and white picture that has taken the world by storm. Is this film a serious contender? Yes, and not just because it features a strong yearning for a classical period of Hollywood. It's a great story, featuring strong performances, reminiscent of a golden era, and is smartly told, beautifully orchestrated, and never loses focus or interest. I'd encourage you all to see it -- dialogue is not necessary, and it's easily the best film of last year. Except for maybe Rango...

Chances of Winning?: Bang on the money.


The Descendants
Featuring the performance of Clooney's career, this little gem stands a real chance. Its complex subject matter is simplified through its recurring theme of family, and what that means to those involved. Everything is put firmly in place with effortless style and significance, and the movie hits the audience hard, tugs at their emotions and is a charmingly smart, funny, and heart-wrenching tale.

Chances of Winning?: Very good. Strong contender.


Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close
Again, this is my opinion, and clearly the Academy disagree with me. But this movie should not have been nominated. Yes, it has Tom Hanks, and it deals with 9/11 in some capacity, and therefore, feels like Oscar fodder, but it's rubbish. It's insanely dull, features an incredibly irritating protagonist, and doesn't seem to reach any discernible conclusion (for me) -- it's place should have been taken by Drive or even We Need To Talk Above Kevin. Both are superior in every aspect, and this film severely falters in comparison to the names it's listed with. And I hated that fucking tambourine. Still...Tom Hanks ftw.

Chances of Winning?: Lol.


The Help
My girlfriend thought it looked good. She didn't like Real Steel though...(or E.T.).








Hugo
Real movie magic. That's what Hugo has to offer. Created by a man with an obscene amount of love for the art, and featuring a story about the birth of cinema, it almost can't go wrong. Fortunately, Scorsese is well-equipped for his first foray into 3-D, and makes efficient use of the format, providing the audience with a world in which they are able to fully immerse themselves, and get lost, along with Hugo, in the intricate mazes of Scorsese's beautiful tale.

Chances of Winning?: Good. Perhaps in the shadows of The Artist/The Descendants.


Midnight In Paris
From one love letter to another. Midnight In Paris is a top return to form for Woody Allen who has noticeably struggled recently. He's back on path with this latest offering, a dainty and sweet depiction of Paris through the eyes of an American Romantic. It's a remarkable feel-good movie (even for someone like me, who bloody hates Paris) and will leave all with a smile on their face and a distant wish to visit the Eiffel Tower in the near future. Plus...Marion Cotillard.

Chances of Winning?: Very meh. Possible, but would be punching above its weight.


Moneyball
Penned by Aaron Sorkin, fresh off his 'Social Network' success, this film is snappy, succinct, and gripping. As traditionally expected with most sports films, it features an underdog tale, but like its main characters, it does it with style and an unexpected method, working with statistics rather than rousing music and last-gasp victories. Pitt proves his acting credentials once again for any of those niggling doubters, and the movie fully deserves its place among the best of last year.

Chances of Winning?: No, not really, but a great film nonetheless.


The Tree Of Life
Perhaps the most polarising film of last year. A traditional marmite situation; you either loved it, or you hated it. I, unfortunately, dislike it immensely. That's down to personal taste. What I can't deny though, is its beauty. It features some truly stunning shots and the 'creation of the universe' segment will grip you entirely. Brad Pitt, yes him again, is in top form, and the coming-of-age story is well told, paced, and intriguing. Sean Penn, however....

Chances of Winning?: Perhaps TOO polarising. It's a darkhorse.


War Horse
When people ask about Spielberg's greatest film, expect responses like 'Jurassic Park', 'Schindler's List', 'E.T.' -- timeless classics. Can I say the same for War Horse? Probably not. It has great beauty, and stunning shots (the full-on pelt through the trenches), but I don't think it has the winning formula employed so successfully by Spielberg on other films. It's slightly uneven at times, and ever so contrived, but it has emotion, a plethora of good performances, and all the foreigners have the decency to speak in English.

Chances of Winning?: Doubt it, but the Academy does love Spielberg.



Best Director

Woody Allen -- Midnight In Paris

Has whipped back into form with this latest picture, creating a world which worships culture seemingly with ease. Well constructed, and deftly directed, it's great to see him nominated again. He doesn't actually show up to the Oscars nowadays though, but will perhaps be coerced this year.

Chances of Winning?: I'd love to see him up there, but this won't be his second Directing win.


Michel Hazanavicius -- The Artist

Very little known about this guy before The Artist (at least for me anyway), but he's made himself known with this daringly creative picture. Stretching back the years, and channeling a forgotten era into modern day Hollywood, Hazanavicius has achieved something quite remarkable here.

Chances of Winning?: The Oscar is his.




Terrence Malick -- The Tree Of Life

I'm not great with Malick's movies -- I've seen two of them, and neither completely gripped me; but it's clear he has a strong affinity for cinema and the way it appears on screen. The sheer beauty of Tree Of Life may be interpreted as pretentious by some, but I don't think that's what he was going for, and his achievements with this film should be commended. It's the most beautifully visual film of last year.

Chances of Winning?: Unlikely, but remains a dark horse, akin to his movie.


Alexander Payne -- The Descendants

Payne is hardly a household name, but take a gander at his track record, and you'll realise how hugely talented this guy is. Following on from his successful Sideways, The Descendants is a remarkably ambitious film which is made to look effortless (in a good way) by the sheer skill which the director demonstrates in manipulating events so very delicately in order to tell his story. He's rewarded by a host of great performances, but he keeps the story tight and compact throughout and stands a real good chance of winning.

Chances of Winning?: Second favourite behind Hazanavicius.


Martin Scorsese -- Hugo

The winner of the Golden Globe for Best Directing, and easy to see why. One of the greatest movie directors in history, Scorsese creates a love letter to cinema in a similar vein to Hazanavicius, but blends old and new with his venture into 3-D. It has a wondrous effect, and it's a world unlike any other. It's a film which no one can really dislike, and an effort that may find more fans among the Academy than some of his grittier features.

Chances of Winning?: The dark horse.



Best Actor In A Leading Role

Demián Bichir for A Better Life as Carlos Galindo

I haven't seen all of A Better Life. Not that it was boring or anything, I just wasn't in the right frame of mind, and will get back to it ASAP. What I did see what quite captivating though -- and Bichir, popping so suddenly into our lives, has done well to put himself on the radar with a performance that oozes desperation. Though I don't know how it ends, he shows himself as a lowly immigrant gardener, struggling with American life, and does it with so much conviction, that I can imagine it was hard for the Academy to overlook him.

Chances of Winning?: No, Dujardin has this one.


George Clooney for The Descendants as Matt King

Guy's having a good year -- having recently made the transition from acting to directing, Clooney has also had a busy year, directing films like The Ides Of March. The Descendants sees him at his very best though, and conveying a host of emotions, he manages to juggle the aspects of drama and humour with relative easy, proving once again how talented an actor he is.

Chances of Winning?: Good. Probably a two-horse race between him and Dujardin.


Jean Dujardin for The Artist as George Valentin

Have you seen this guy off-camera? He's arguably the most charming bloke like EVER. He made a Benny Hill crack at the BAFTAs which was a hoot. Had the audience in the palm of his hands. It's almost a shame he wasn't born in the 1900s, because he is made for silent movies. He has a range of expressions and gestures, which are fittingly apt for silence. He also has an incredibly strong french accent, which is used to amusing effect towards the end (watch the movie). He channels figures such as Douglas Fairbanks in this performance, and it's refreshing to watch. There are no negatives in his performance.

Chances of Winning?: The favourite. Deservedly so.


Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy as George Smiley

It's pretty great to see Gary Oldman nominated for his first Oscar. It's long overdue, and though he won't win it, it's probably a great honour to have his marvelous work recognised by his peers. His work in Tinker Tailor is relatively simple it seems, but this is down to Oldman's precarious approach to the role, his effortless ease at moving around the camera, and essentially becoming one with the misty canvas (fuck knows what I'm talking about, but there's a real meaning in there somewhere) -- it's a brilliant performance in a brilliant film.

Chances of Winning?: Not much. But hooray for England.


Brad Pitt for Moneyball as Billy Beane

I hear a lot of crap about Brad Pitt from some people. In a nutshell, 'he's a pretty boy who can't act' seems to just about cover it. This is, of course, bullshit. Though he hasn't had a lot of success in winning awards outside the usual MTV Movie Awards arena, he's been nominated for an Oscar 3 times now, accompanied by a host of other big nominations. Whilst this won't be third time lucky, you just have to watch the film to see how he gives such a zest to the script, and brings the film to life in an entertaining way. I really enjoyed the film and its subject, and he deserves his nomination.

Chances of Winning?: Naaaah.



Best Actress In A Leading Role

Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs as Albert Nobbs

She plays a dude.

I hadn't heard anything about this movie until the Oscars. She won't win. But it's nice to see her nominated for a movie -- as far as I know, she's been playing around on TV shows for the last few years. Damages any good?

Chances of Winning?: Albert No.... (not my best)





Viola Davis for The Help as Aibileen Clark

She won the SAG award, which is usually a great indicator, so damn, I don't know. This category seems wide open. Although she was also in Extremely Loud...







Rooney Mara for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as Lisbeth Salander

Never have I seen an actress commit so much to a film role. Total transformation here. Forget Black Swan, this was quite a horrific turn from Rooney Mara, who was featured ever so slightly in Fincher's 'Social Network' in 2010. She doesn't 'make the film', because it works on so many levels, but she is captivating, unafraid, and really fuckin' odd. Mara gives it her all, and succeeds in every aspect. She is deserving of her nomination, and in the group she's in, I'd personally give her the award, but for some inane reason....I'm not in charge of Hollywood. One day...

Chances of Winning?: No. The Academy hates Fincher and goth sex...


Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady as Margaret Thatcher

Haven't seen the film. Have no intention of seeing it, so I shall instead talk about Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice....

She was well good.

Chances of Winning?: Probably. Everyone loves her, and she's a mighty fine actress.




Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn as Marilyn Monroe

I wasn't exactly around at the time of Marilyn Monroe, but from what I've gathered, she was the kinda' woman that you fell in love with...just like 'that'. So, I assume Michelle Williams had quite a difficult job on her hands. But fuck it, I fell in love with her, so success in my book. What she does is exceedingly good; she portrays a Hollywood icon as an almost stereotype, but because it invokes such a strong sense of nostalgia, it works, and she's my choice of winner (even though I've said that twice...).

Chance of Winning?: I hope so.




Best Supporting Actor

Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn as Laurence Olivier

Acting royalty in this film. His job is to make his presence known and everything he does he does with sublime character. Again, I know little about Laurence Olivier, but I know a great performance when I see one, and it takes quite something to stand your own against Marilyn Monroe. Maybe not a winner this time, but yay for England again...

Chances of Winning?: Sadly not.




Jonah Hill for Moneyball as Peter Brand

Whilst I'm fully behind Brad Pitt's nomination, Jonah Hill's nod was a slight surprise. Not to say he's not deserving, because I think he was great. It's just the last time most people saw him in a movie, he was crudely declaring to Michael Cera his intentions of fucking Emma Stone. Now he's being nommed for Oscars. Good for him. His performance was great; he was ever so slightly awkward. A genius. He grew into his role well, and was never over-the-top or sentimentally mundane. G'wan, Jonah!

Chances of Winning?: He's going home empty-handed. Unless he turns up with a girlfriend/wife...


Nick Nolte for Warrior as Paddy Conlon

I think Warrior was an underrated film. If Extremely Loud... was nominated, then I'd like to think Warrior should have been too...

Well maybe not, but it was still a lot better. And Nick Nolte delivers a performance that only he could. A drunk, wreck of a man... -- that's harsh, he's trying to recover, but when he's pushed, he goes through a dramatic change and it really twangs at the heart-strings. It's an amazingly powerful movie and performance. Definitely worth watching, and well worthy of the nomination.

Chances of Winning?: Nah. This category has an easy winner.


Christopher Plummer for Beginners as Hal Fields

The easy winner. He's picked up all the awards so far, and for bloody good reason. He's incredibly funny as the gay elderly man, dying of cancer. It's a film that a lot of people haven't seen, but has a truly unique feel to it, so I implore y'all to see it. Christopher Plummer (who you should all know) has been around a while, but never won an Oscar. This will be his first time, and after throwing himself into the deep end in such an amusing, yet emotional way....well deserved.

Chances of Winning?: YEEEEESSSSSSS (Imagine Michael McIntyre screaming that)


Max von Sydow for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close as The Renter
Urgh. I like this guy as an actor -- I think he's wonderfully...weird. But I can't get behind anything representing this movie. I think I don't like him because he genuinely thought it'd be a good idea to follow this kid around the city, even if he was his (SPOILER) grandfather. Blah blah blah.

Chances of Winning?: No. Albert Brooks should be here. GROSS MISCONDUCT.





Best Supporting Actress

Bérénice Bejo for The Artist as Peppy Miller

Similar to Dujardin, she carries a lot of charm and grace with her throughout the movie, and I don't really get why she's Best Supporting Actress when she was very much the main actress in the film...I think. Either way, she stands a real chance, as I don't think there was too much difference in performance levels between her and Dujardin. She is as beautiful as she is talented, and never looked out of depth.

Chances of Winning?: Very good, I reckon


Jessica Chastain for The Help as Celia Foote
Again. Haven't seen. YET.











Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids as Megan Price

Ha, what a great nomination. I'm surprised the Academy went with this as it doesn't seem their style. I guess it would have been prudent to award the year's funniest film in some way. Best Supporting Actress seemed a safe option, and so we have Melissa McCarthy. She got more laughs than Zach Galifiniakaiskis did in both Hangover films and was unashamedly brilliant. She won't win -- the Academy wouldn't let it get that far, but it's a testament to the film's popularity and success that she was nominated for a hilarious performance.

Chances of Winning?: I severely doubt it.


Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs as Hubert Page

See Glenn Close.

Good for her though.

Chances of Winning?: Nope.





Octavia Spencer for The Help as Minny Jackson

The favourite in the category, and I back her to win it.









I'mma put the predicted winners in BOLD.




Best Writing -- Original

The Artist – Michel Hazanavicius
Bridesmaids – Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo
Margin Call – J.C. Chandor
Midnight in Paris – Woody Allen
A Separation – Asghar Farhadi

As nice as it would be to see Midnight In Paris pick this one up, The Artist will win. Those who complain that it doesn't have any dialogue need to learn a thing or two about scripts. It's not all about the dialogue (if you've seen Drive, you'll know that).


Best Writing -- Adapted

The Descendants – Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash from The Descendants by Kaui Hart Hemmings
Hugo – John Logan from The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick
The Ides of March – George Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Beau Willimon from Farragut North by Beau Willimon
Moneyball – Screenplay by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin; Story by Stan Chervin from Moneyball by Michael Lewis
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan from Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by John le Carré

Christ -- any of them could pick this one up. I'm going for The Descendants because I think it's the most appealing of the lot, and probably the smartest.

Best Animated Feature

A Cat in Paris – Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli
Chico and Rita – Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal
Kung Fu Panda 2 – Jennifer Yuh Nelson
Puss in Boots – Chris Miller
Rango – Gore Verbinski

If Rango doesn't win, I'll pack up, move to Hollywood, and kick some serious Academy ass.

Best Foreign Language Film

Bullhead (Belgium) in Dutch and French – Michaël R. Roskam
Footnote (Israel) in Hebrew – Joseph Cedar
In Darkness (Poland) in Polish – Agnieszka Holland
Monsieur Lazhar (Canada) in French – Philippe Falardeau
A Separation (Iran) in Persian – Asghar Farhadi

People be loving it. Haven't seen it myself, but I will check it out soon-ish. Maybe you should too.


The other nominations are a mixed bag. Anything that sees fit to nominate Transformers 3 for an Award is barely worth thinking about. Expect Hugo to really ramp up the technical awards though.

For those interested, the Academy Awards will be on UK TV on Sunday night. Sky Premiere and E! Entertainment will be hosting.


Should be a good 'un.

Carnage -- Review

Carnage is perhaps a hyperbole. The implied connotations may give you different expectations of this movie, and not all of them will be met. It’s remarkable how so much damage can be inflicted through mere words, and this film explores that, accompanied by a quartet of bitingly sharp performances from its leads.

Though the movie takes place in a Manhattan apartment, it was in actual fact filmed in Paris, due to Roman Polanski’s inability to step foot in the USA. This has never prevented him from working with the best actors available, and making some of the greatest films of the last 50 years. Though his magnum opus remains Chinatown, made almost 40 years ago now, his work is as relevant today as it was back then.

The movie is a screen adaptation of Yasmina Reza’s play ‘God Of Carnage’. This is evident in the way Polanksi has bizarrely made use of space and time. With the exception of the opening and closing credits, the movie doesn’t stray from the apartment of Mr and Mrs Longstreet (John C. Reilly and Jodie Foster). Reluctantly joining them is upper-class couple, Mr and Mrs Cowan (Christophe Waltz and Kate Winslet). The reason for their occupying the same space is their children. Zachary, belonging to the Cowan’s, has smashed Ethan, belong to the Longstreet’s, around the face with a stick. The conversation flows politely in its early exchanges, a brief moment of silence here and there, or whenever Alan (Waltz) is ‘forced’ to remove himself and answer his incessantly-ringing cellphone.

The power here is how it develops. We open with a shady state of equilibrium; a state that has to smoothly cross into the realms of the eponymous carnage. This is orchestrated with masterful work from Polanski, giving his actors just that little bit extra to work with, deftly timing each event that takes place to occur precisely when it needs to. The running time of the movie is just over an hour, as is the on-screen narrative.

It’s a character study of considerable depth; at first, each of them displays signs of accustomed social conventions. Nancy (Winslet) feels inclined to enquire about the apartment she finds herself in, as well as the different displays of culture which Penelope (Foster) has laid out, primarily on her luxurious coffee table. Alan and Michael (C. Reilly) discuss their jobs, picking apart each other’s livelihood through polite, yet slightly strained dialogue, which is to lead someplace darker.

Bit by bit, shot by shot, Polanksi manipulates happenings to his will, sparks begin to fly, and tempers begin to flare. Put together by their children’s childish behaviour, the four parents exhibit their own infantine dispositions by hurling verbal put-downs at each other. They belittle, they snarl, they vomit, they drink, they scoff, they drink more, they sob, they turn on their own spouses, they drink even more, they smoke. It doesn’t ever reach what I would call ‘carnage’, but it certainly inhabits a space nearby.

As you’d expect, the script is solid enough to keep an audience satisfied for 70minutes, but the four actors, Winslet and Foster in particular, exude unmatched ability in being able to distort themselves over and over again, finely treading, but never crossing, the line between radical depiction and parody. They are all cynics, expecting next to nothing from their opponents; they won’t budge on their opinions, and a considerable amount of care is put into the way they act within the different circumstances Polanksi throws their way. It’s a refreshingly honest piece of work, but not funny enough to be considered comedy. It’s a movie worth watching, but don’t expect to be enlightened, amused, or entertained. This is a movie about character; it’s peculiar and comes off with an odd taste, but it’s impeccably acted, and masterfully directed.

Golden Globes 2012

It's that time of year again. The Golden Globes are one of the more prestigious awards events, hosted by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, and is an event that rewards outstanding achievement in film and television. After the Oscars, and the Grammy awards, the ceremony is generally considered to be the 3rd most watched awards show in the world, hinting at its significance for those within the 'biz.

For some, it is a 'watered-down' version of the Oscars, which are due to take place at the end of next month, but I'd disagree with that sentiment, and maintain that the Golden Globes does have its merit. It's not a clear indicator of who is going to take home the gong next month, and should not be considered an Oscar warm-up in any shape or form. Its method of splitting film into two categories (Drama and Musical/Comedy) gives a greater opportunity for brilliant yet understated films to recieve some form of awards recognition.

It's not without a little controversy, however. Giving praise to the little man is an admirable trait, but nominating 'The Tourist' (as it did last year) seemed slightly out of the blue, considering the film had been critically condemned, and performed below-par at the US box office.

And then there's Ricky...

For a third consecutive stint, Ricky Gervais is returning to host the awards. Generating more controversy than any of his stand-up gigs combined, many thought that he'd finally severed the bond between himself and the HFPA, yet here he is again, and when it was announced, you could probably feel Hollywood's butt clench with the anxiety of having the British comedian return once more, utterly packed with witty anecdotes, biting remarks and I'm sure, one or two new Charlie Sheen-based zingers.

Anyway, on to the nominations.

Film

Best Motion Picture -- Drama
The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
The Ides Of March
Moneyball
War Horse

Again, you can never be sure with the Globes, and though I'm yet to see 2 of these films, I'm going to go with the general buzz and predict The Descendants to come out on top of an otherwise impressive looking group of films.



Best Motion Picture -- Musical/Comedy
50/50
The Artist
Bridesmaids
Midnight In Paris
My Week With Marilyn

Again, some heavyweights here; Bridesmaids was the smash hit, and could, like The Hangover did, shock some and take home the gong. Woody Allen's best film in years, Midnight In Paris, will be a definite contender, but I don't think I can look past The Artist in this group. I'm positive it'll win.



Best Male Performance -- Drama
George Clooney -- The Descendants
Leonardo DiCaprio -- J. Edgar
Michael Fassbender -- Shame
Ryan Gosling -- The Ides Of March
Brad Pitt -- Moneyball

Arguably, the top 5 male stars in Hollywood at the current moment in time -- and an incredibly close knit race. Gosling has had a terrific year, as has Pitt, both starring in at least 2 critically acclaimed hits. Fassbender continues to cement his A-list status, whilst DiCaprio is as popular as ever. However, Clooney will win here.



Best Female Performance -- Drama
Glenn Close -- Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis -- The Help
Rooney Mara -- The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep -- The Iron Lady
Tilda Swinton -- We Need To Talk About Kevin

This one, I'm less sure about than any of the others. Again, cases can be made for each of them, and it's anyone's guess who's going to bag it, but going with the buzz, I'd have to pick Davis after she secured the Critics' award.



Best Male Performance -- Musical/Comedy
Jean Dujardin -- The Artist
Brendan Gleeson -- The Guard
Joseph Gordon-Levitt -- 50/50
Ryan Gosling -- Crazy, Stupid, Love
Owen Wilson -- Midnight In Paris

Withstanding any major shocks, Jean Dujardin has this in the bag.



Best Female Performance -- Musical/Comedy
Jodie Foster -- Carnage
Charlize Theron -- Young Adult
Kristen Wiig -- Bridesmaids
Michelle Williams -- My Week With Marilyn
Kate Winslet -- Carnage

Wiig surprised many in Bridesmaids, and was the driving force behind its success, I have no doubt. But I don't think she did enough to put off Hollywood's darling, Marilyn Monroe, aka Michelle Williams.



Supporting Actor
Kenneth Branagh -- My Week With Marilyn
Albert Brooks -- Drive
Jonah Hill -- Moneyball
Viggo Mortenson -- A Dangerous Method
Christopher Plummer -- Beginners

Split between three here, but do you remember Marlin from Finding Nemo? Do you remember Ross Cargill from The Simpsons Movie? Well, imagine the guy behind those playful voices as a psychotic mafia boss. Albert Brooks to win this one.



Supporting Actress
Bérénice Bejo - The Artist
Jessica Chastain - The Help
Janet McTeer - Albert Nobbs
Octavia Spencer - The Help
Shailene Woodley - The Descendants

My rule regarding The Artist didn't last long. This isn't a category I admit to being an expert in, but expect Shailene Woodley to garner some praise here.



Best Director
Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris
George Clooney - The Ides of March
Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist
Alexander Payne - The Descendants
Martin Scorsese - Hugo

Personally, I'd like to see Allen or Scorsese take this one home, but I believe it's a two horse race between Payne and Hazanavicius, and whilst I have a niggling feeling that Payne will win the Oscar, expect this to go to Hazanavicius.



Best Screenplay
Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris
George Clooney, Grant Heslov & Beau Willimon - The Ides of March
Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon & Jim Rash - The Descendants
Steven Zaillian & Aaron Sorkin - Moneyball

Take my rule about The Artist, and apply it to The Descendants as well, because Payne, Faxon and Rash (Dean Pelton from Community) have this in the bag, for me.



Best Animated Feature
The Adventures of Tintin
Arthur Christmas
Cars 2
Puss in Boots
Rango

Rango. Rango, Rango, Rango, Rango. RANGO...maybe Tintin.



Television

Best Series -- Drama
American Horror Story
Boardwalk Empire
Boss
Game of Thrones
Homeland

Ruling out the good, but severely overrated Game Of Thrones, and the perhaps slightly extreme American Horror Story, we're left with three. Boss, I know little about, but sense it's more about Kelsey Grammar's performance. Boardwalk Empire is always a safe bet, but I think the emergence of Homeland is something to be reckoned with this year.



Best Series -- Comedy
Enlightened
Episodes
Glee
Modern Family
New Girl

I love Zooey Deschanel, but New Girl is her vehicle, and only works because people want to see Zooey Deschanel. It's amusing at times, and she is a gifted comedy actress, but it doesn't hold up against Modern Family, which will deservedly win again. And again. And again...



Best Actor -- Drama
Steve Buscemi – Boardwalk Empire
Bryan Cranston – Breaking Bad
Kelsey Grammer – Boss
Jeremy Irons – The Borgias
Damian Lewis – Homeland

I've always rated Damian Lewis as an actor, and he undeniably rocks on Homeland, but this award may as well be called the 'As Long As Breaking Bad Is Airing, Bryan Cranston Has This In The Bag' award. I'd still expect Lewis to be nominated though. NOTE: Buscemi won it last year, but Breaking Bad has had its best season to date (which is saying a lot considering it's unmatched quality).



Best Actress -- Drama
Claire Danes – Homeland
Mireille Enos – The Killing
Julianna Margulies – The Good Wife
Madeleine Stowe – Revenge
Callie Thorne – Necessary Roughness

See above. Replace Lewis with Danes, and Cranston with Margulies.



Best Actor -- Music/Comedy
Alec Baldwin – 30 Rock as Jack Donaghy
David Duchovny – Californication as Hank Moody
Johnny Galecki – The Big Bang Theory as Leonard Hofstadter
Thomas Jane – Hung as Ray Drecker
Matt LeBlanc – Episodes as Matt LeBlanc

How they keep nominating Galecki for awards over co-star Kunal Nayyer is beyond me. Either way, I'd be surprised if he won, and am going to have to credit Matt LeBlanc with this one. It's been too long.



Best Actress -- Music/Comedy
Laura Dern - Enlightened
Zooey Deschanel - New Girl
Tina Fey - 30 Rock
Laura Linney - The Big C
Amy Poehler - Parks and Recreation

Not a clue. Zooey Deschanel would be my stab in the dark, considering she's universally adored.




The Golden Globes air tonight, January 15th. For those in the UK, I believe they're showing the Red Carpet and Ceremony on E! Entertainment. If you don't have it, I suggest you google or twitter a stream (if you're desperate).

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo -- Evil Shall With Evil Be Expelled.

I'd argue that with the canvas a bleak and dreary shade of grey, David Fincher produces his best work (I'm of course talking about the brilliant 'Se7en' and the unnerving 'Zodiac'), yet his 2010 Oscar-darling, 'The Social Network' remains a stumbling block in this ill-conceived theory. 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' doesn't quite step up to the formidable bar set by the tale of Mark Zuckerberg and his nifty invention, but what it does do, it does intensely well. Based on Stieg Larsson's best-selling 'Millennium' trilogy, and the subsequent Swedish movies, Fincher is efficiently able to give the story a classy polish, and really ramp it up a notch. It's brutal and unyielding and all the more better for it.

I'm unfamiliar with the literature, but the plot within is fairly 'police-procedural' -- Daniel Craig is Mikael Blomkvist, a disgraced journalist, reeling from the loss of a court case with a high-ranking Swedish businessman. This is essential to the plot as it gives Blomvist an excuse to vanish, escape the accusatory leers of those around him. Enter Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer, Captain von Trapp to many of you), retired CEO and the patriarchal figure in a dizzying family line-up. 40 years ago, his niece, Harriet, disappeared in mysterious circumstances from their family island, separated from the mainland by a single bridge. The murderer is a member of this excessive Vanger family which mirrors a who's who of sinister human beings (Nazis, some of them). Eroded by obsession, Henrik's mind is no longer lucid enough to continue his half-baked investigation. He knows all about Mikael, having had emo/goth hacker extraordinaire Lisbeth Salander pick apart every aspect of Blomkvist's life, gaining enough insight to know that despite his recent losses, he is 'clean'. Mikael takes up the offer, and delves deep into the murky past of the Vanger family, interviewing them one by one, uncovering their sordid past, and teaming up with Salander along the way.

There are many different narratives at work in this piece. The Vanger investigation features prominently, but there is nothing particularly fresh here. Fincher choreographs each scene with deft precision, using lighting and sound to sublime effect. It's incredibly eerie, the steep snowy hillsides shrouded in a dark mist, that is representative of the family that occupies the houses on top of the hills. No one speaks to one another, and when they do, it is harsh and enigmatic -- Mikael will have to keep digging. Yet, what brought life to the original, directed by Niels Arden Oplev, was the inclusion of Salander's character, portrayed then by Noomi Rapace, and portrayed here by Rooney Mara.

The girl with the dragon tattoo. Emblazoned on her back, spread carefully along her taut, pale skin. A ward of the state, she has been thoroughly rejected from every orifice of life. Yet, she is resilient, fiercely intelligent, and astonishingly strong. Mentally and physically. Rapace's depiction was of a woman beaten down, but determined to pull through, and come out the other end. She hid away behind her 'colourless' features, whilst Mara holds back no punches. Here is an actress that has gone all out, total role commitment, 100% -- she's extraordinary and steals every scene she's in. Doesn't matter if you're James Bond.

As with 'The Social Network', NIN frontman, Trent Reznor is back (with Atticus Ross) behind the film's soundtrack, and I fully expect him to receive another Oscar nod for a score which becomes a secondary character throughout the movie. You may not notice it, but alone on those dark, dank slopes...keep an ear out. Low at times, thumping at others, it aptly supplies the tense thrills Fincher is looking for, and Reznor's upgrade of Zeppelin's 'Immigrant Song', with lyrics provided by Karen O (from the Yeah Yeah Yeahs), is astonishing. The opening credit segment is truly stunning. A plethora of dark metallic figures, whirling around in a bath of hauntingly beautiful sequences, pumped by the incessant chords of 'Immigrant Song', and Karen O's resounding wails.

The film is better than its Swedish counterpart; an assured director at the helm, it is able to tighten up the narrative and complete the jigsaw. I read that the last segment is actually the epilogue of the first novel, and though it is barely touched upon in the 2009 Swedish film, Fincher devotes time to incorporating it into his picture, and flesh his characters out further. The final shot threatens to throw the film wide open, begin a new chapter in Lisbeth's life. Just as, for once, she might be able to explore a new happily ever after, Fincher slams the book shut firmly, right in her face, and I hope he returns for the second film. A master at work here.