Posts Tagged ‘Daniel Craig’

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

December 21, 2011

The draw of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” David Fincher Edition, is that we just want to see what this director will do with the thing, although we can sort of guess that the main thing he’ll do is make a shitload of money.

It’s still not even three years since the first book in Stieg Larsson’s posthumously published, sensation-spawning “Millennium Trilogy” became a Swedish film, but getting over our remake gag reflex somehow seems easier when the remaker in question is a luxe stylist of serial-killer thrillers. Fincher’s supremely slick opening credits sequence right away suggests a new way to see this: not as merely another unnecessary English-language effigy of European box-office success, but rather some kind of cyber-radical nouveau Bond flick (complete with Daniel Craig), as done by the director of “Se7en” and “Zodiac.”

The whole setup suits Fincher’s pervy predilections all too well: In an atmosphere foul with family secrets, brutal sexual violence and murder, a muckraking journalist (Craig) and a volatile hacker (Rooney Mara) form an unlikely crime-solving alliance. The mood is by turns brooding and cheeky. The method is technically exacting. The temperature is not warm.

It begins with the journalist, one Mikael Blomkvist, summoned to a nest of wealthy Swedish industrialists. They have their own private island and ample skeleton space in the family closets — or basement torture chambers, as the case may be. Their reigning patriarch, an elderly tycoon played by Christopher Plummer, has commissioned a biography of himself, but really he wants an investigation of the presumed murder of a beloved niece several decades ago. He describes the rest of the family, which includes Stellan Skarsgård, as “the most detestable collection of people you will ever meet.” Blomkvist does his legwork and determines this claim to be fair enough.

As for the girl with the dragon tattoo, one Lisbeth Salander, she’s a woman, not a girl. The original title of Larsson’s book was “Men Who Hate Women,” and the movie modification, in any language, doesn’t exactly strike a blow against misogyny. Ms. Salander seems rather lean and lithe for someone who apparently subsists only on Happy Meals, but as she explains, she’s lucky enough to have a high metabolism. In other ways she is less lucky; we may infer her family to be almost as detestable as the tycoon’s, and in any case she is now a ward of the state, whose caseworker also is her rapist. In one scene, her T-shirt reads: “Fuck You You Fucking Fuck.” It is possible that she’s a fan of “Blue Velvet.”

Salander first encounters Blomkvist as the checker of his background. Then she becomes his assistant, then his lover. He already has a lover, who is also his editor, and is played by Robin Wright, but that seems not to matter, just as it seems not to matter that Wright troubles herself with a Swedish accent while Craig doesn’t.

Making good on but not really considering its “Evil Shall With Evil Be Expelled” tagline, the movie works briskly through its coils of retributory sadism, keeping a straight face — neither wincing nor smirking — even during what amounts to an overly explanatory “Scooby Doo” ending. Some credit for its efficiency seems due to screenwriter Steven Zaillian, but as we’ve established, this was a tale promiscuous enough to freely drift between its tellers, and now here it is as a David Fincher film — a very dark space in which actors lurk and give off glints of their charisma.

Fincher’s faith in Mara has been clear since he cast her as the decisively dissatisfied girlfriend who set “The Social Network” in motion. Maybe Facebook can decide how her pixie-punk credentials compare with those of her Lisbeth Salander predecessor Noomi Rapace — recently graduated, alas, to window-dressing Guy Ritchie’s coarsely manful “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.”

Certainly this new “Dragon Tattoo” movie is no disgrace to the arguably more lascivious Swedish original. But what is it really worth? By now the Salander phenomenon has been beaten nearly to death, or at least as near to it as the woman herself has been beaten during the long course of Larsson’s trilogy and its film variations. It goes too far to say Fincher’s crafty resuscitation qualifies as movie mastery, or that profiteering detachment is a moral improvement on coy salacity. Still: It’ll sell. Not all men hate women, of course. But some could learn to love them more.

Cowboys & Aliens

July 28, 2011

Once in a while, even the most tried and true narrative formula needs repackaging for retail-friendliness. Or so it must seem at least to those bottom-line minders who cut checks to Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford.

So let’s do this: a thing and another thing…but not the other thing you expect! And the thing is cool, and the other thing is differently cool, so as to convey a vibe of maybe just being plum crazy enough to work. This being a delicate art, it’ll involve some trial and error. Like so.

Spaghetti and meatballs: Classic.

Spaghetti and glass shards: No thank you!

Spaghetti and Gummi Bears: Keep talking….

And before we know it we’re in the Old West, but with invading extraterrestrials. “Cowboys & Aliens” may sound conceptually obvious, but in fact it is obvious in every other way, too. For instance, Craig and Ford don’t play the aliens. And if this is not exactly what you expect from director Jon Favreau and an original movie-ready property by comic book industrialist Scott Mitchell Rosenberg, it must be because you’re not sure who those guys are anyway. No matter.

The stars look great, but unfortunately that’s no matter either. If anything could redeem this, it would be the sense of a kid gathering all his random toys together, non sequiturs be damned, into one sincerely urgent, internally logical superstory. What “Cowboys & Aliens” lacks, aside from the better execution we’ve already seen more than once in Pixar’s “Toy Story” franchise (not to mention Ford’s own frolic with Gene Wilder in “The Frisco Kid” some 30-odd years ago), is an attitude of abandon.

All the cheerfully winking genre enthusiasm Favreau brought to such fun romps as “Elf” and the first “Iron Man” is not readily apparent here. “Cowboys & Aliens” feels like a perfunctory, mercantile exercise — sagging misshapenly under the weight of its way too many producer and writer credits, which include some big shots whose demands may well have simply worn Favreau down.

Neither homage nor satire, quite, it’s more like a brainstormed shorthand checklist of plot points and payoffs. The characters got sketched in at some juncture, and since then everyone seems to have just decided to leave them sketchy, letting stereotype pose as archetype. There’s the loner hero (Craig) with no past, and no fear. The crusty rival-cum-ally (Ford) with a heart of gold. The irksome whelp (Paul Dano) on whom the hero puts a beating, to comic effect. There’s the hero surrounded: by thugs, by Apache, by aliens, and the surprise cavalry-arrival rescue(s) just when all seems lost. There’s the creature all up in your business, with body parts within its body parts. The uncertain but timely weapons proficiency. The boy and his dog. The manly speech. The humbling. The vision quest. The warrior honor bullshit. The woman (Abigail Spencer) who gets to make out with Daniel Craig. The other woman (Olivia Wilde) who gets to make out with Daniel Craig. There’s the blah blah and uh huh and whatever.

Some scenes begin promisingly but most just tend to stall out. We’re invited to do the dramatic (or occasionally comedic) legwork ourselves, but not at all required to, so it’s doubly insulting. If you’re sick of cowboy cliches, Favreau seems to be saying, just wait for the space-invader cliches. If you’re sick of those, it’ll be over soon.

Sam Rockwell brings some less contrived humanity to his tagalong supporting part as a docile shopkeeper, and the movie seems happy to have him, so that’s nice. But of course it’s a movie whose principal achievement probably is the stoic array of straight faces it has managed to gather under its own silly circumstances. Just about everyone who appears here does seem wholly convinced that he or she populates and Old West being invaded by extraterrestrials. There is some squinting, what with the scorching southwestern sun and the interstellar trespassers’ probing beams, but winking at the audience? Next to none.

That leaves us and the bottom-line minders standing glumly in a pile of packaging. “Cowboys & Aliens” really is just a hooky premise in search of a paycheck. Don’t let it abduct yours.

Defiance

January 12, 2009

defiance

From Nechama Tec’s book, the true-story-based drama of three Jewish brothers (Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber and Jamie Bell) who mobilized a small militia of their own people in Nazi-occupied Belarus in 1941. Just watch how earnestly they endured both their own infighting and dubious assistance from the Russian army–not to mention the banal characterizations, tin-eared dialogue and war-movie action clichés cooked up by Clayton Frohman and director Edward Zwick, who co-wrote the script. Here Zwick’s saggy direction isn’t good for much more than composing shots of the wintry European woods, and therefore undermines the movie’s needed urgency. The actors’ way of reveling in their stagey gestures, sooty makeup and silly accents becomes increasingly pitiable. Not recommended for sufferers of Holocaust-movie-fatigue.

Quantum of Solace

November 5, 2008

quantumofsolace

What red-blooded, fun-loving, popcorn-munching movie loyalist wouldn’t want Quantum of Solace to be good?

After all, it reunites us with a certain stylish Ian Fleming character (what was that name again?) who as of this outing will have graced (or, OK, sometimes Moonraked) the silver screen 22 times — though only twice yet as embodied by a bracing Daniel Craig, now tangling with a nefarious business mogul played by the great French actor Mathieu Amalric. Sounds promising, right?

And how about the poster — with him just dashing and impeccably dressed enough to class up that ludicrously gangsta-lethal machine gun? That seemed so promising that some Britons even tried to ban it. Now that’s anticipation.

If nothing else, Quantum of Solace could even compete with screenwriter Charlie Kaufman’s directorial debut, Synecdoche, New York, for the distinction of having the headiest tries-too-hard title of the season. It’s less important that the former title does in fact derive from Fleming’s fiction, apparently, as the movie itself generally does not.

Which is to say, unfortunately, that it feels like a misfire.

It’s hard to admit. But there were clues even during the anticipation. Like the signature song, that Jack White-Alicia Keys duet, getting diluted through overexposure in movie-theater Coke commercials. Or our buried mixed feelings about the fact that we all now live in a Jason Bourne world. For red-blooded, fun-loving, popcorn-munching movie loyalists, that fact is great news — but what, now, for poor James Bond?

Quantum of Solace is quite specifically a sequel to 2006’s Bond reboot, Casino Royale, which means keeping up with this movie’s plot (inasmuch as it’s even possible, or necessary) will require remembering what went on in that one. What matters most is that Bond’s self-assigned mission here is to avenge Vesper Lynd, the one true love among his many many many lovers (who betrayed him, but you know).

Craig’s pretty clear on his motivation here. Yet for all its ministrations — about Amalric’s Euro-villain destabilizing the Bolivian government (and getting in bed with the CIA) so he can hoard natural resources — the script, by Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, just doesn’t seem to have Bond’s back. Nor does it offer enough material of substance to Craig’s best supporting players: Judi Dench as Bond’s boss, Jeffrey Wright as a watchful, cautiously helpful CIA man, and of course Amalric, doing his best, with beady eyes and uncorrected teeth, to make his bad guy register.

The real problems most likely have to do with the direction. That’s from Marc Forster, currently well-established as a maker of art-house fare that tends toward the slushy (Finding Neverland, Stranger than Fiction, The Kite Runner), and perhaps simply out of his element here.

Forster doesn’t skimp on the action-intensive set pieces, but doesn’t stage them very coherently or compellingly either. As a result, Quantum of Solace is so constantly climactic that it’s anti-climactic. From the cliff-side car chase to the rooftop parkour parade to the tough guys in tensely brutal, to-the-death, hand-to-hand combat, it’s all a little too hard to follow or to want to — just as it’s hard not to think that maybe Bond helped invent this sort of stuff, but now Bourne owns it.

Quantum of Solace is a mean little movie, grim and single-minded, without the pleasure or mischief that has made Bond so endearing or contemptible depending whom you ask. The closest it comes to that old frisky spirit is when his Bond Girl du jour (Olga Kurylenko), quite literally an accessory here, tells him, “There is something horribly efficient about you.” To which, meaning it, he replies, “What a compliment.”

That’s the spirit, old boy. We’ll be waiting for number 23.

Infamous

August 12, 2006

People will be asking why the world needs another Truman Capote movie. OK, fair enough; timing has fated Infamous as a tough sell. But shouldn’t they be asking instead why the world needs, for just one example, another Jackass movie? Hey, maybe there’s a connection—something about ignorance of the cautionary Capote tale enabling a culture so sociopathically hungry for fame that all it creates are procedural chronicles of that rutting, self-degrading compulsion?

Blah, blah, right? Well, the good news is that Infamous wouldn’t dare affect a tone so archly allegorical. And that sets it apart from Capote right there. Not that it should be this movie’s duty to live down the piety and chilly rigor of its commendable predecessor, but Infamous’ looser, less reflexively sermonizing stance makes a real difference. It affords its protagonist safe passage from voracious self-centeredness into naked self-awareness and affords us an opportunity to adore the man and reproach him at the same time. Chalk that up to the world wisdom of writer-director Douglas McGrath (working from George Plimpton’s book). McGrath knew, regardless of any precedent, that for his movie to work as a human tragedy, foremost it would need humanity.

And because the tale’s essence is indeed a tragedy, it absolutely should be fair game for multiple stagings. So, yes, the two films cover the same ground, but that’s because it is the important stuff: how, in 1959, the author left his highly pampered haute-couture Manhattan nest for rural Kansas to write a “nonfiction novel” about two men who murdered an entire family there. How he won the community’s trust, and the killers’, and then arguably betrayed it. How he required many years to finish the book, partly because he had to wait for the men to hang in order to have an ending. How, in the meantime, he fell in love with one of them. And how the whole experience left him shattered.

Where Capote had unimpeachable credentials, Infamous has unexpected delights. Take the opening, which probably makes better, more efficient use of Gwyneth Paltrow than any other movie ever has. Her short, sharp turn as a nightclub singer who breaks down mid-song launches the movie and confers its priorities beautifully. After that act of good faith, why not accept Sandra Bullock as Harper Lee? As it turns out, she’s quietly terrific. Most of the supporting actors are.

Truman is taken up here by the excellent, appropriately pug-faced English actor Toby Jones. You won’t need to know who he is; just recognize that in Capote, you thought, “Wow, that’s Philip Seymour Hoffman.” In this one, it’s, “Wow, that’s Truman Capote.”

Really, though, the more important Infamous performance comes from Daniel Craig—that is, more important to the structure and meaning of this film and possibly more important to Craig’s career even than his inheritance of James Bond.

Here, as the murderer Perry Smith, he’s a man with a strong sense of himself, discovering that his sense isn’t complete. The revelation comes in fits of fury and need. Without telegraphing it, Craig makes clear the significance of Perry and Truman’s prison-visit transactions—which, though not ever innocent of mutual exploitation, nonetheless contain many mutual blessings. It’s a riveting, deeply unsettling courtship.

Of course, it should be Perry who delivers the truly perceptive literary criticism: “I thought the writing lacked kindness,” he tells Truman in a letter, cutting the maestro’s inflated ego to its quick. That matters, and McGrath is right to track it. When Truman gets fussy over his opus-in-progress—he wants it to be dazzling, he says, “like a Faberge egg”—the movie recognizes something essential and takes the trouble of dramatizing his efforts toward that end. McGrath moves the action around to Truman trying out lines of prose anecdotally on his society friends, revising for impact, relinquishing any fidelity to the facts.

It’s the only absolute betrayal in the movie, and the most costly, but McGrath isn’t wrong to treat it so breezily. That’s his way of respecting your intelligence, saying he knows you’ve already seen the other picture and thanks for seeing this one anyway. Mostly, though, it’s his way of saluting the homespun wisdom Truman gathers from a Kansas farmer—only, tragically, to ignore it: “We’re in control,” the man says, “until we’re not.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.