The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Title: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Män som hatar kvinnor (2009)
Director: Niels Arden Oplev
Genre: Crime, Thriller
Lead Actor(s): Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace
Rating: R
152 minutes
Swedish

I’m sure this will shock and surprise everyone, but there will be an English adaptation as well. This one follows the book well. Michael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) is found guilty of slander after writing an article for the periodical he co-owns, Millenium. Taking a break from the investigative journalism for the safety of the magazine, Blomkvist accepts a position from wealthy businessman, Henrik Vanger. His mission is to find out what happened to Vanger’s niece, Harriet, when she disappeared in the 1960’s. Blomkvist eventually enlists the help of Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) to follow up on some leads he finds. The truth ends up stranger than anyone ever expected.

Before I discuss the merits of the movie, I feel the need to warn against a fairly graphic rape scene. It is not as long or awful as in the book, but because it is visual here as opposed to words, it is just as rough. The movie is called “Men Who Hate Women” in Sweden and so there are some atrocities. If things like this are hard for you to watch, I advise against seeing the movie.

I think the decision to go with an actor not as gorgeous or chiseled as some of the other Swedish ones actor was a brilliant decision. Michael Nyqvist is not as attractive as, say, Alexander Skårsgard, and that is right for the character. Daniel Craig is slated to play him in the English adaptation and he is a great actor, but I am not sure how I feel about casting this really fit action-y. The stature of Nyqvist helps us feel the danger Blomkvist finds himself in quite often. Nyqvist also has the kind of charm necessary for the character. His eyes are remarkable in their ability to enhance his acting. He has looks that no one could argue was not Blomkvist.

Noomi Rapace is utterly amazing in an extremely difficult role. She is able to control the darkness of the character. That takes strength. She also doesn’t seem out of place when she is defending herself or when being belligerent with a number of people. Her entire body becomes Salander. The way she walks, moves her arms, holds her head are all carefully thought out and consistent throughout the movie. She gives an incredibly nuanced performance with a very terse and complicated character.

I would argue that the biggest detriment to the film would be the score. There are elements in the movie that could have strongly benefited from an appropriate score and there was little to speak of. I am not suggesting that all of the wonderful quiet and tense moments need some sort of music destroying them, but there could have been a little more floating through gently enhancing the emotions of the moments. It also would have been nice to show a little more development between Salander and Blomkvist. They meet halfway through the book and that is ok, but here I think a few more scenes of them interacting would have bolstered the climax.

Overall, this is a very good movie. As of now I somewhat doubt the English version will be as strong as this one. As I mentioned there are some elements that can be hard to watch and the movie is in Swedish, but this movie is just a good movie as well as being a fair adaptation of an intricate book. There are some minor flaws, but that shouldn’t stop anyone who can handle the material from seeing this movie. It is currently streaming on Netflix, so you might not even have to pay extra or wait for it.

********* 9/10

Wall Street

Title: Wall Street (1987)
Director: Oliver Stone
Genre: Crime, Drama
Lead Actor(s): Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas
Rating: R
126 minutes

I had never felt a huge need to see this movie, but with the sequel coming out soon and me on the fence about seeing it, I decided it was time. Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is an up-and-comer in a job involving the stock market. I never know officially what his job is. I guess he’s a stock broker. Anyway, the pressure is on him to hook a whale. That whale is Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas). Bud gets sucked into the luxurious and exciting world of Gekko and as such gets involved in insider trading. The movie then turns into Bud trying to decide from the powerful, capitalist Gekko and his hard-working dad, Carl (Martin Sheen).

I think the only interesting and compelling performance in the movie is Michael Douglas’s. His Gekko is probably one of the best characters on the eighties. He is vicious and greedy and charming and charismatic. He is all the things that moves a good villain to great. Douglas plays the character with vigor and enjoyment. He was a fantastic choice that kept Gekko from becoming a complete sleezeball.

Now the rest of the cast is mostly trash. I will say I liked Martin Sheen as Bud’s dad and John C. McGinley as one of Bud’s co-workers. Charlie Sheen, however, has the emotional range of a chalkboard. He fakes inner conflict in an extremely obvious way. He is not invested in the character like he should have been. His performance, which could have been dynamic and good, comes across as wooden and uninterested.

Daryl Hannah is supposed to be Darien Taylor, Bud and Gekko’s love interest. Her acting is really just inappropriate. She seems to find levity in scenes which are supposed to be serious and intense. Her chemistry with Sheen in practically non-existent. This woman who is supposed to thrive in these rich and powerful circles and be desirable to titans of industry comes across as a blonde bimbo.

I also think that there were some problems with some of the cinematography. Specifically, there were several tight shots that made thing unnecessarily choppy and seem disorganized. There was also the opposite problem, oddly long shots that served no purpose but muddied the view and distracted from the story.

I don’t think there is any point in buying the movie. Overall it is not good enough due to the weakness of the protagonist and the love interest for the two characters. Douglas’s performance is though a must-see. I would tentatively argue it is the best of his career. Since the only returning character with much screen time appears to be Douglas and the movie has some actors I like, I will most likely see the sequel. I am weary of the casting of Shia LaBeouf, but I will give it a chance. It is a shame though that this amazing performance by Douglas is stuck in such a mediocre film.

**** 4/10

The Other Guys

Title: The Other Guys (2010)
Director: Adam McKay
Genre: Crime, Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg
Rating: PG-13
107 minutes

While not a classic comedy by any means, this movie is certainly better than the majority of the “comedies” Hollywood gifted us with this summer. After two star detectives in the NYPD die, there is a hole for the new it guys. Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg) very much wants that spot for him and his partner, Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell). They are both jokes around the office. Hoitz for shooting Derek Jeter and Gamble for being a “paper bitch.” After Gamble tries to make a dull arrest on a man in violation of scaffolding permits, the two stumble upon a big case and think that this could be their chance to be something other than “the other guys.”

Will Ferrell is as he almost always is. An ADD 12-year-old who just keeps poking his 16-year-old big brother. I think that if Ferrell had been a bit more reined in, the movie could have been better than it is. Most of the parts I didn’t like heavily featured him. Many of his jokes were beat to death and became “how much longer are they going to stick with this bit.” His interactions with his wife (Eva Mendes) particularly suffer due to this. There are some that last more than others. The odd attraction Gamble has to attractive women is one that actually works, but it is not a joke that last five minutes. A hot girl looks or comments at Gamble, and Hoitz is baffled. I also found the bit about Gamble in college annoying and jarring. It really drug me out of this comedy that had a good amount of satire on cop movies and made me acutely aware that I was watching a movie. Ferrell is actually pretty adept at playing dull Gamble who loses real gun privileges and gets wood gun privileges. It is when his part goes to the more extreme aspects that I lose interest in the movie.

Considering the extreme behavior of his co-star, Mark Wahlberg manages not to simply fade into the background, which would have been very easy to do. Instead he is just as visible in his flaws as Gamble. He is hated by just about everyone in New York for his shooting of Jeter during the World Series. He is the stereotypical cop who doesn’t know how to be anything but a cop and has an odd obsession with drug crimes. I don’t know if there is a single scene until maybe the end where he is not wearing his shield around his neck. He also has a really short fuse. Wahlberg manages to, for the most part, keep his character from going into the heavy-handed Scary Movie territory. It is also very interesting to compare his Detective Hoitz with his Sgt. Dignam in The Departed. There are many similarities between the characters despite being opposite styles.

I briefly want to say how much I loved the beginning with Samuel L. Jackson as P.K. Highsmith and The Rock as Det. Danson. These are the two star cops who die in a spectacular and rather funny way. I thought the roles were cast perfectly and utterly hilarious. I also think it was a great idea to cast Ice-T as the narrator. Morgan Freeman he is not, but for this movie he was perfect.

This is one of the better buddy cop movies that has come out in recent years and elements of it are really funny. It just gets bogged down in certain points and I really think the writer needs to take to heart, “brevity is the soul of wit.” I wouldn’t pay full movie theater price to see it, but definitely suggest renting it off redbox or netflix and decide what you think about it.

***** 5/10

The Departed

Title: The Departed (2006)
Director: Martin Scorsese
Genre: Crime
Lead Actor(s): Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon
Rating: R
151 minutes

I have watched this movie on DVD, but most recently I watched it on fx. It was quite interesting how they changed the 237 fuck words or deviations. The movie is very complicated. Jack Nicholson is a Boston crime lord, Frank Costello. He takes a very young boy under his wing and gets him to go through the police academy. Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) quickly rises in the state police and is put on the Costello investigation. On a parallel Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) comes from the same neighborhood. He also goes through the police academy. He, however, is asked to go undercover for the Costello investigation. He is put in prison and eventually works his way to the inner circle. Sullivan is trying to find the rat in Costello’s organization and Costigan is trying to find the rat in the police.

I like Matt Damon in these kind of roles. I am not as much of a fan when he is the dashing hero. I like him much more as the smarmy ass. His character in this film is a more sinister version of his role in The Informant! I would really like to see him in more roles like this than roles like the Bourne movies. He is fine in those, but I think Damon really stands out in roles like these. He is so good at appearing to be a good cop. Sullivan is as vanilla as a crooked cop can be. That is what makes him so interesting.

This is another movie where Leonardo DiCaprio manages not to smile throughout the whole thing. I am not saying he has to go and do a comedy or a feel-good movie. He can be in the types of movies he likes but still have occasion to smile. This lack of smiles does not mean that his performance suffers. It takes a certain type of man to be willing to be arrested, spend time in jail, and delve into the underground that he so strongly hates. DiCaprio plays that character extremely well. Costigan begins to lose himself in this persona that he has had to build. DiCaprio walks the line between making the character so brutish as to be cartoonish and so moral as to be unbelievable.

Jack Nicholson is a major badass. I adore him as an actor. He has fun with this role and owns it in such a way that only Nicholson could. He is so good at making an awful character oddly likable. I can’t help but think that Eric Roberts got some of his inspiration for Salvatore Maroni from Nicholson’s performance.

Scorsese understands these types of movies. This is not the first gangster film that he has directed. He knows how to emphasize the elements central to a character like Costello in such a controlled way.

This is a great movie with great performances all around. Despite the fact that we as watchers know from the get-go who is the mole in each operation, we are filled with worry and tension for the characters. It is almost worse to have the information gnaw at us for the 2.5 hours.

********** 10/10

Goodfellas

Title: Goodfellas (1990)
Director: Martin Scorsese
Genre: Crime, Biography
Lead Actor(s): Ray Liotta
Rating: R
146 minutes

The word fuck is said 296 times in this 146 minute movie. If there had been any less, it wouldn’t have been as truthful a movie. The plot follows the true story of mobster Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) turned drug dealer turned FBI informant. The whole movie can really be summed up in the line “as far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.”

There are a lot of amazing actors in this movie. The first being Ray Liotta. He can very easily look like a sleazebag which works great for the kind of mobster that he was. I think, however, he was best when Hill was hopped up on drugs and the last scene. During the former, he utterly possessed this chaotic energy and seemed like he was actually on cocaine. I assuming Liotta wasn’t while filming. The last shot is of Hill in his new life in witness protection and for this man who has only ever wanted to be in the mafia, it is no surprise that he looks utterly dejected and lifeless in his suburban lifestyle. It means a lot when a quick shot sticks in someone’s mind so strongly and this definitely does.

Robert De Niro is a practiced mafioso actor. In this film he plays the role of Jimmy Conway. He is dedicated to the family, but can never become “made” due to his heritage, or rather lack there of. This fact does kind of pain Jimmy. I would say even more than Hill, Jimmy lives for the mob. De Niro is wonderfully dedicated to the character. I would argue that Jimmy was the most realistic character in the entire movie, despite being one of the few characters with a living counterpoint who was not given pointers from him. I think that his performance in this film was woefully overlooked. Jimmy is not as loud or brash as some of the other characters, but is instead more nuanced.

One of the most brash and loud characters is played by Joe Pesci. Tommy DeVito, no relation to Danny, is responsible for half the “fuck”s in the whole movie. He is a full-blood Italian with a not-so-healthy connection to his mother. Peschi is wonderful in the role. He actually wrote and directed his most famous scene, “What do you mean I’m funny.” I can’t imagine another actor playing this hot-headed character. His final scene is tragic. Despite basically being a jerk, you do feel for this character.

There is a reason that Martin Scorsese shows the movies he does. He understands the roughness of these types of characters, but also sees them as complex. He makes enjoyable movies out of really harsh stories. I particularly like the trunk shot in the opening scene. I wouldn’t say it is his best, that would go to The Departed in my opinion, but I would say that it is a tie for second with Gangs of New York. Scorsese isn’t afraid of showing every gritty thing to make the movie real.

This is an excellent film and one of the best mob films ever. The acting, especially from the three male leads, is pitch perfect. The only person I am not completely wowed by is Hill’s wife, Karen (Lorainne Bracco). I feel that her performance is merely ok, especially when compared to the three men I have discussed. I would not advise seeing this seeing this if you are uncomfortable with profanity or violence. Both are very prevalent and there really is no point in watching this if these things easily affect you.

********** 10/10

Edge of Darkness

Since it was father’s day, I watched this movie with my dad instead of going to see Toy Story 3. I am hoping to see it sometime this week so the review should be up soon, although I am sure it is amazing.

Title: Edge of Darkness (2010)
Director: Martin Campbell
Genre: Crime, Drama
Lead Actor(s): Mel Gibson
Rating: R
117 minutes

I am not the biggest Mel Gibson fan. He is a decent actor, but I strongly believe there are better ones out there. This, however, is Gibson’s first leading role since Signs. The movie begins with his character, Thomas Craven, a Boston homicide detective, at the train station to meet his daughter, Emma, a trainee at a nuclear energy facility. She gets horrible sick during her first dinner home and as they head out the door to go to the hospital, a man yells, “Craven” and blasts her away with a shotgun. Although initially thought to be the intended victim, Craven eventually realizes that it doesn’t make sense and delves into his daughter life to find her killer.

As I said I am not a huge fan of Gibson and I have not been around too many Bostonians, but it seems like he did a good job replicating the accent, especially considering he was raised in Australia. I also have to admit the man can stare blankly. He only did it immediately following his daughter’s death, but it seemed the perfect reaction. There were times I questioned his cop personality and part of it was the actor and part of it was the director (for instance when he finds his daughter’s apartment was broken into, he immediately rummages through her stuff without gloves, not very cop-like). His reactions to certain other moments are also a bit too civilian for a veteran homicide detective. He isn’t bad, just not great.

The actor I loved in his role was Ray Winstone as Jedburgh. I can’t completely explain what the character does. He seems like a cleaner, but I can’t be sure. He has his own sense of morality and seems to thoroughly enjoy his job. He had this perfect quietness about him. I love actors that seem to hold this immense power while sitting perfectly still, sipping Brandy. I also particularly liked how he threw the line “Pills, pills, pills – not like when we were kids – it was pills, pills, pills of a very different context” to straight-laced, Catholic Craven.

I had a problem with the editing and some of the choices made by the filmmakers. There were a lot of editing missteps, in my opinion. It felt like they got rushed on time and then decided to cut the last hour of story into 30 minutes. I also feel like they pushed Craven seeing Emma after his death too much. There were also a lot of simple inconsistencies that could have easily been taken care of.

It isn’t a bad movie. It’s not particularly good, but not bad. Not for the queasy due to the particularly gory scenes. I wouldn’t own it, and wouldn’t pay to see it. It was nice to watch with my dad and grandfather for father’s day though.

***** 5/10

Judgment at Nuremberg

I must apologize I thought I had posted this early Tuesday morning.

Title: Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)
Director: Stanley Kramer
Genre: Drama, Crime
Lead Actor(s): Spencer Tracy, Maximilian Schell, Richard Widmark
Rating: NR
186 minutes
B&W

I guess by now it is no surprise that I love dramas. I especially love the dramas that deal with tough subjects in a direct and honest way. This movie is based on the trials held at Nuremberg for the German judges that sentenced various people to sterilization or concentration camps or death. The film focuses on the chief justice, Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy), and his desire to understand the defendants and the German people’s ability to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed.

Spencer Tracy is older than I have ever seen him and he does an outstanding job in this role. When in the courtroom, he is remarkably unbiased in his rulings sometimes ruling for the German lawyer, Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell), and sometimes ruling for the American lawyer, Colonel Tad Lawson (Richard Widmark). When not in the courtroom, Tracy actually seems as interested as his character in the mindset of the German people and the effects that the War had on them. Tracy understands the mindset of the judge and lets his emotion or his attempt at non-emotion show on his face. Tracy is able to be guarded and yet have the strength of the arguments and events wash over him and affect him.

One of the two hardest roles in this film is that of Hans Rolfe. He has to vehemently defend these people that the majority of the world has already written off as not just guilty, but also evil men. Schell is wonderful in his role. He is fiery and passionate, no matter how he personally feels about his defendants. I would argue that we never know how Rolfe truly feels about the events discussed. When giving his statements and particularly when questioning Irene Hoffman Wallner (Judy Garland), he displays such intensity that Schell could actually have been OJ’s lawyer or Manson’s lawyer. He has the charisma and conviction that makes a great defense attorney. I would not be surprised to learn that Schell had once considered becoming a lawyer.

The second hardest role is that of Irene Hoffman Wallner. She is beautifully portrayed by Garland. Wallner was an Aryan young woman who was connected with a much older Jewish man and thus he was arrested and executed. She is now much older and married. She is asked to relive the horrendous events that led up to the arrest of this man that she didn’t love as a boyfriend, but instead thought of as a surrogate father. Due to the previous trial, referred to as the Feldenstein Case, she has become a broken woman. She hides away from people and has married so she can change her last name. She has done everything she can to remove herself from society and any memory of the case, but revisits it due to the importance of the trial and a final chance at justice. Garland plays Wallner as a woman who looks incredibly spooked all the time. The way she carries herself is as a broken woman. She is hunched and uses that stature as a physical element of her mental protection. She so fully encompasses the character you forget that it is Garland.

There are several other great performances in the film including Marlene Dietrich’s Mrs. Bertholt and Burt Lancaster’s Dr. Ernst Janning. The film is shot very smartly. The film needs to be in black and white. It wouldn’t have the strength and would be greatly detracted by the color. It was also a great risk, though a rewarding one, to include actual footage that American soldiers had shot in the concentration camp. It is important to note that the film is based on the Judge’s Trial in Nuremberg in 1947, not a retelling. Several of the names have been changed and certain fictionalized elements have been added. The film at time can be a bit hard to watch and it does deal with very sensitive topics, but it is a strong and marvelous film.

********** 10/10

Léon

Title: Léon (The Professional) (1994)
Director: Luc Besson
Genre: Drama, Crime
Lead Actor(s): Jean Reno, Natalie Portman
Rating: R
The good version is 133 minutes

I adore this movie. It is an amazing film. Jean Reno is Léon, hitman extraordinaire. He lives down the hall from Mathilda (Natalie Portman) and her family. When a group of drug dealers/cops murder Mathilda’s entire family while she is at the store, Léon takes her in a bit unwillingly. Mathilda begs Léon to take her under his wing so that she can get revenge on the people who murdered her little brother. Eventually Léon relents to an extent and the two develop a friendship although Mathilda seems to want more.

Natalie Portman was 11 when she made this movie and yet I don’t think she stirred up as much controversy as Chloe Moretz in Kick-Ass. Mathilda is shown smoking, trying to seduce a man 33 years older than herself, and training to become a “cleaner.” Portman is astounding in this role. It is only her second film credit and her first starring role and she is able to hold her own with actors like Jean Reno and Gary Oldman. There is some heavy subject matter in this movie, but Portman handles every mood and event like a pro. She is intelligent and strong and sure of herself. Natalie Portman is a wonderful and strong actress and has been ever since this role. It is so hard to fathom the ease with which she goes through the wide array of emotions and odd events in this movie.

Jean Reno is just as wonderful as the titular Léon. Despite being almost a ghost as a hitman, Léon is a sweet guy. He didn’t have to open his door when Mathilda knocked while the murders were still in her apartment. He also did not have to allow her to stay with him. Reno’s Léon is kind of stuck in his system. He is being taken advantage of by his boss/bank, but that doesn’t stop him from being the best at what he does. He also has strict principles. No women, no children. Reno is an expert in his role. His facial expression are so on point whether he is taking down a room full of armed men solo or fending off the advances of Mathilda. My favorite part is when he and Mathilda are basically playing charades and he tries to be a cowboy. He is so entranced by films and it just so fitting that he goes straight to a cowboy.

Gary Oldman is the head of the cops that slaughter Mathilda’s family. What I love about Oldman is that no matter if he is in an amazing movie like this or a horrible movie like Hannibal, he is an excellent and devoted actor. He is so creepy as Detective Stansfield. When murdering her family, he is humming Beethoven. He pops a pill every time before he goes batshit crazy. Where Léon seems to turn off when he is “cleaning,” Stansfield seems to love it. He thrives doing it. He has no problem pointing a gun at Mathilda or murdering her 7 or 8-year-old brother. Gary Oldman can be the villain that you want to see take one to the hear or the one that you root for with all your heart (Commissioner Gordon). He is a marvelous actor and his performance in Léon is one of the best that I have seen.

A word of caution: there are two versions of this movie. The one usually referred to as the “American” version has over 20 minutes cut from it. Most of the cuts are of Mathilda trying to start and relationship with Léon and her training as a cleaner. As such, it cuts a lot out of the characterization of those two characters. While some may feel uncomfortable watching Natalie Portman coming onto Jean Reno, if you can think of them as the characters and not the actors, I think it is important to watch the “International” version of the movie. Luc Besson did a wonderful job at handling these delicate subjects and really just directing the movie in general. The scenes of Léon’s hits are shot with such precision. This really is a completely amazing movie from every side. There are elements of drama, comedy, crime, elemental good versus evil. It is a well-rounded and well-produced film that everyone should see once in their life whether it is the watered down version or the full version.

********** 10/10

A Fish Called Wanda

I was thinking about going to see Kick-Ass this weekend, but instead I was a good little student and wrote my first draft of my cognitive lit review. I plan to see it next Saturday so a review for it should be up a week from today.

Title: A Fish Called Wanda (1988)
Director: Charles Crichton, John Cleese
Genre: Comedy, Crime
Lead Actor(s): John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline
Rating: R
108 minutes

I love this movie. It is hilarious. Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline play Wanda and Otto, thieves who with George Thomason, played by Tom Georgeson, have stolen $20 million worth of diamonds. Wanda and Otto inform on George so they can take the diamonds themselves. George had hidden the diamonds though and to find out where they are, Wanda tries to seduce George’s barrister, Archie Leach (John Cleese).

My favorite character is Otto. Kevin Kline is at his best as the ridiculous, Italian-rambling, Nietzsche-reading con artist. The funniest scene is easily the sex scene between he and Wanda. Every time I watch that scene I burst out laughing. His actions, facial expressions, and dialogue are hilarious in that scene. He is funny during the entire film. When he is torturing poor, stuttering Ken (Michael Palin) no one is too uncomfortable watching it because he is shoving fries up Ken’s nose. Otto constantly has a pretentious air about him that fits his personality so perfectly. He is definitely the best part of the movie.

Jamie Lee Curtis is a wonderful comedian. Her character, Wanda, is rather complicated. She has to be a sweet, sexy law student with Archie; Otto’s sister and George’s lover with both Ken and George; and Otto’s lover with Otto. She portrays each of these personalities with equal skill and comedy. My favorite persona is that of the law student. Often she is so obvious in her attempts at seduction, but Archie never really notices and it makes for a great scene.

Archie Leach is the most surprising of the characters. He lives a very beige life before meeting Wanda. He has an annoying, nagging wife, a self-absorbed daughter, and not much else in his life. He comes to life once he meets Wanda. He becomes a man who speaks random Russian in a friend’s apartment while nude, he pretends to rob his own house, he gets dangled out a window and deadpans an apology. John Cleese stays very true to his type of humor in the movie and he is good at his humor.

The script is wonderful. Although there seems to be a fair amount of improvisation, the foundation is hilarious and strong. There is not a completely unfunny scene. The only part of the movie that really falls flat is the character of George. He is an important character to the plot, but he doesn’t have much substance.

This is a wonderful and hilarious movie. Just about every aspect of the movie works like a perfectly oiled machine. The only problem is the important character of George. If the character were reworked, this movie could have been a nine. It is, in my opinion, Kline’s best picture of his career and a highlight in both Curtis’s and Cleese’s.

******** 8/10

The Krays

Title: The Krays (1990)
Director: Peter Medak
Genre: Biography, Crime
Lead Actor(s): Gary Kemp, Martin Kemp
Rating: R
119 minutes

This is an awful movie. Absolutely atrocious. It does not have a redeeming feature that I can think of. It tells the story of the Kray twins. They were basically mafia men who ruled London in the 50’s/60’s.

The Kemp twins play the Kray twins very unsuccessfully. Reggie is the more down-to-earth twin and is portrayed by Martin Kemp. Martin Kemp is ok, but he was far too stiff in the role. Yes he was the more logical brother, but he was still in the London club life. They were known to hang around with Frank Sinatra and Judy Garland. Martin’s Reggie is completely devoid of life and energy. Ronald Kray was a paranoid schizophrenic and basically bat shit crazy. Gary Kemp somehow is more ridiculous than the character actually calls for. The character is shown sticking a long sword through someone’s hand and Gary still seems absurd in the role. His facial expression are too exaggerated. In fact all of his mannerisms are oddly exaggerated. There is a way to do crazy without becoming a complete caricature.

My biggest problem with this movie is the score. A score in a film is meant to enhance the film without being obtrusive or overdone. This score never stops. It seems like it starts at the opening credits and continues til the closing credits. It also is oddly loud and at times completely inappropriate. The score actually angered me after watching it. The director seems like he wants to make an art film, but fails miserably. There are a strangely large amount of close-ups in the movie also at inappropriate times. The director is also very heavy-handed with symbolism. He wants the audience to read so much into these leaden monologues and instead the audience feels insulted by the lack of faith the director has in them.

This is an awful movie. It is likely I never would have watched it if my teacher hadn’t showed it to us in my bandits class. The characters they are based off of are interesting and different, but the film makes them caricatures of themselves. The Kemp brothers should stay away from acting. The director needs to rethink his film-making and learn to have faith in the viewers. We don’t need everything spelled out for us.

* 1/10