The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (dir. David Fincher)


I’ve probably gone back and rewritten this review multiple times over the past few hours. I’ve been struggling to come to a final conclusion to how I felt about the film. On one hand it is a hollow crime thriller, all polish and no substance, and on the other it is an exceptionally crafted dark and mysterious tale of sex, corruption and murder that oozes with atmosphere. One could make the case for either, and many critics have argued in favor of one side or the other. After a lot of contemplation, I’ve come to decide that it actually seems to rely on both being hollow and atmospheric, but what continues to conflict me is whether the former can truly be overlooked even if crucial to the final product.

‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ stars Daniel Craig as Mikael Blomkvist, a journalist who has recently come under a lot of scrutiny after being accused of making up a story about a wealthy executive and losing the case of libel brought upon him. Facing financial and credibility problems he is hired by Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) a wealthy entrepreneur  who wants Mikael to solve a ‘cold case’ that has haunted him for forty years, that being the disappearance of his grand-niece Harriet who he believes was murdered by a member of his corrupt family filled with Nazis and recluses. As Mikael delves deeper into the mystery of her disappearance he hires the assistance of Lisbeth Salander, a goth-hacker with a dark past who has her own personal issues to deal with, specifically a financial guardian who wants sexual favors in order for her to access her money. When they are finally brought together they discover the dark secrets of the Vanger family and its links to a serial murderer case that begins to threaten their own lives.

David Fincher, who directed ‘Zodiac’ and ‘Se7en’, is no stranger to graphic and dark thrillers so it is no surprise that he handles the creation of ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ with a level of competence few other directors could have. Along with the help of cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth and being set in Sweden the film has a very dark and cold (often literally) tone, making an atmosphere just as chilling as the subject matter and beautiful to look at. Sadly under the gorgeous and dark visuals and the bleak and mysterious atmosphere there isn’t much to be had. There is a real lack of emotion and soul.

I can only assume that Fincher’s intentions from the beginning were to avoid any real substance, and to make a film just as hollow and sadistic as the story is was trying to tell. There is just about no emotion and so no reason to be attached to anyone except Lisbeth, but our empathy for her stems more from the vial acts we see acted upon her and less from truly knowing who she is, and why she is so emotionally restrained. It is not until the last twenty minutes that she gets any sort of development, but was it too little too late? Again I cannot decide. One could argue that this insight into the character earlier on would have made us care for her more, which I can understand. But I also question whether or not she could have even opened up the way she does at the end without having first gone through the events of the film, in particular the relationship she has with Mikael. Either way, I’m just glad Fincher went with Rooney Mara to play Lisbeth.

It is hard not to compare both film versions of the Lisbeth character, and even harder to choose which was better. This is mainly because both films, although similar in many ways, have very different tones. The Swedish version is a much more straight forward thriller and Rapace’s Lisbeth fits that film in being just a strong and tough individual, though there doesn’t seem to be too much below her surface and most of the development of her past is shown. Mara’s Lisbeth is a much more complex character, and although the film doesn’t give her much depth in terms of story until the very end, Mara gives off hints of a disturbing past just in the way she talks and moves, especially when men get too close to her. In reality she is a much weaker character than in the Swedish version. I personally liked that soft side because it makes her feel more like a vulnerable woman so when she fights back it feels more powerful.

It is this humanization that really helps propel Fincher’s adaptation over the Swedish version in my eyes. Even Daniel Craig, who put on a very good performance, is given a lot more to do and a much more interesting personality. He gives the character a bit of charisma, and wasn’t just a monotonous individual, like in the original, making it easier for us to care for both him and Lisbeth. It also makes their odd but provocative relationship seem more genuine and intimate.

All of this stuff I loved…but then I fall back to feeling like it was all for nothing. I mean it looks pretty, and the mystery is intriguing and the atmosphere is dark and cool, but once it is all over nothing really sticks other than the technical aspects. This isn’t helped by the fact that it over stays its welcome for the last few minutes, even if it adds to the characters. Luckily the pacing is done well enough to never make it feel boring but it does end up being rather anti-climactic. But I feel a second viewing is necessary.

With that said, as conflicted I am about everything else one thing that I can say for certain was fantastic is the score. It was crucial in the creation of the moody and dark atmosphere. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who did the Oscar winning score for ‘The Social Network’, continue to impress and help give the film a pounding and chilling heartbeat. Also the ‘Bondesque’ opening credits, a brilliant animation of dark tar, leather and gothic imagery set to Karen O’s cover of Led Zeppelin’s ‘Immigrant Song’, was absolutely stunning.

So overall I will say that it is an incredibly well-crafted and dark thriller with fantastic visuals and a wonderful performance by Rooney Mara and because of that it certainly deserves a lot of credit but below the surface it is a rather hollow and anti-climactic story making it hard for me to love it as much as I might have wanted to. It also did not help that going into it my anticipation was at an all-time low due to the hype that was built up around it and by how much I liked the original. So for now I’ll just say I enjoyed it for what it was, it certainly is well crafted enough to deserves the praise it is getting, but a second viewing will determine whether or not I truly thought it was a great film. Still I recommend it for those interested.

Tyrannosaur Review (dir. Paddy Considine)


Very rarely does a film so bleak, so prone to trample over its characters until they might not come back up, manage to avoid the usual melodrama and clichés we have come to expect and instead stay an honest, unflinching and powerful glimpse of two individuals, one too hard and the other too soft for the world, just trying to make it through the day. Peter Mullan gives one of the year’s most destructive and powerful performances as Joseph, a widower who spends his time drinking, picking fights and experiencing bouts of anger that tends to come crashing down into paralyzing moments of regret. We understand he wants better for himself and could use a bit of redemption but it isn’t an easy thing to achieve. However, he does find some solace in Hannah played by Olivia Colman who also gives one of the year’s most devastating performances as a thrift store owner and born again Christian. Joseph feels drawn to her glow and the sort of warmth he has been looking for. Sadly she isn’t who she seems because behind her smile is immense pain for she lives with an abusive husband who beats her. Hannah had hoped religion could be her savior but when that didn’t work she turned to alcohol. At times Hannah and Joseph can seem total opposites but yet exactly the same. As we watch their relationship develop there are brief moments of hope and even a few laughs, but for me even they are incredibly emotional and at times almost moved me to tears. Considine’s exploration into violence and rage is so gut wrenching and brutally honest that when good things happen you are glad but also very cautious because moods could change without warning and this fine line they walk is hard to watch.

At the center of it all is Joseph’s anger which comes from a place many films rarely explore unless the main character is a villain, and maybe under other circumstances or a different life he would be. But here he is just your “Average Joe” whose fury isn’t brought on by some terrible event or the result of any wrong doing, it is just his nature. He was born with a fire inside. It caused him to be mean and abusive to his wife, it causes him to rough up kids at a pub, and throw a rock through the front window of a shop. The best Joseph can do is try to control this rage and when it gets the best of him, like in the film’s opening when in a fit he kicks his dog’s ribs in, he shows what little kindness he can by carrying it home, being by its side as it dies and then burying it in the back yard. In any other film is would be impossible to expect the audience to forgive such an act, but Considine understands that. You see he isn’t asking for forgiveness but just hoping to reach an understanding with the viewer. As terrible as Joseph’s actions may be at the time the idea that it is his nature, something he can’t control which is destroying him, and the fact that he tries his best to do good evens out the scales just enough for us to have faith in him.

The most important of these attempts to adjust comes with helping Hannah who he tries to protect even though everything about him says otherwise. This leads to the film’s most shocking moment in which he discovers a truth about her, and perhaps about himself and every human, that rattles him to the core. This truth being that even the most glowing and kind of people are capable of unthinkable violence and rage. Now this might seem to be a totally bleak assessment on life, and maybe it is, but Considine doesn’t allow it to prevail without putting up a fight. Instead he tries to make us and Joseph realize that the best you can do is battle through it all and although you will not always find redemption at least maybe a bit of peace and happiness can be earned, which might mean sacrificing yourself.

I really have to hand it to Paddy Considine who most know from his acting in such films as “Deadman’s Shoes” or “In America”. For this to be his first feature is quite impressive. He shows a level of maturity and confidence you would only expect from a veteran director. This could have easily become a preachy or overly stylized independent film that drowned in its own melodramatic miserablism but instead Considine wasn’t afraid to be dark, gritty and realistic and stay true to his characters, caring for them and their emotions in a way that didn’t feel artificial, and making a real connection with the audience. To say it is an easy watch would be a lie but its profoundness in its exploration of violence and anger along with two of the year’s best performances make it a must watch and one of my favorite films of the year.

Beginners Review (dir. Mike Mills)


I noticed that Lisa had posted a quick review about this, but I saw it recently and have been wanting to review it because it was something I connected with and really wanted to share my opinion.

I honestly cannot think of another film I have seen this year that I found as charming and heartfelt as ‘Beginners’ which stars Ewan McGregor as Oliver, a middle aged man who has just lost his father Hal to lung cancer. Oliver reveals to us, through narration, that after the death of his mother a few years back his father came out, having been gay throughout the 40 plus years of his marriage. Oliver’s life following his father’s passing is a lonely one that often leads to him talking to Arthur, his father’s dog. One night at a party he meets a beautiful actress named Anna. The two hit it off quickly and the rest of the film follows the development of their relationship, set among flashbacks of Oliver’s parents and his father’s new life as a gay man in the years before his death. Through these memories we get a better understanding, as to why Oliver has been alone, and why his time with Anna may be short lived; he has had 4 relationships in the past, but left them all. The result is a film about being open and honest, and finding love and happiness through from it.

This idea of being honest was difficult for Oliver because of his parents. Their hollow marriage cast a shadow on his view of love. Wanting to avoid what they had created, this constant uncertainty and sadness caused him to think love was doomed and so he would break relationships off in fear of what he thought was their inevitable conclusion.

Luckily Oliver is able to find inspiration in his father who was able to be open and honest in the final months of his life. Through the memories of Hal, Oliver is able to take those steps towards true joy. One reason being that when he found out his father was gay it finally dawned on him why his parents’ marriage seemed so empty. It wasn’t genuine and so not a good example of how things really are. Which brings up another important theme, that being change and starting over.

The title ‘Beginners’ refers to both Oliver and Hal being at the beginning of their new respective lives. Anna points out towards the end of the film, after reading a funny but sweet personal ad Hal had made, that Oliver’s father “Didn’t give up”. Even facing death, in his 70’s, Hal wanted to be happy and be himself by embracing his sexuality. It is in remembering these moments, seeing how happy his father was, that Oliver is able to look forward in a positive light, with a new perspective on love and an understanding of why his mother was always so sad. Oliver too has a new beginning and like Hal can now be open and embrace his love for Anna.

What held this whole story together for me were the characters, and more importantly the chemistry between them. I felt the dynamic between Anna and Oliver, the feelings and time they shared was incredibly sweet. Upon first seeing him Anna instantly recognized Oliver’s sadness. She too felt alone, having spent most of the past few years going from one hotel room to another. It is the sort of relationship in which the one thing that makes the love between them so poignant is that they can save each other, filling the voids in each other’s hearts. This makes it harder to watch as Oliver’s misconceptions on love cause a divide between them. At the beginner Oliver worries, like he did in his previous relationships, where this one is heading. He fears Anna will become his mother, unhappy and bitter. But when Oliver does change, and get her back, the result is an incredibly sweet ending.

All of this is done with a collection of small, genuine and heartfelt moments that build upon one another to form something much greater. On top of that were three wonderful performances. Christopher Plummer was so lovable as Hal, and clearly had a lot of fun with the character. Melanie Laurent was mesmerizing and sweet, she is so beautiful and easy to fall for. Ewan McGregor was also fantastic, and the real stand out here, carrying a great deal of pain adding depth to his performance in a way I’ve rarely seen him do. The structure and visual devices also worked incredibly well, helping to give it a unique feel. I really loved the use of photographs, montages to the 50’s and how it handled the history of the gay rights movement. The music was also lovely and fit the tone perfectly. It is a score that I’ve listened to a few times since watching the film.

Honestly, it had me smiling from start to finish. It just had this emotional resonance that clicked for me in a way that can hardly be explained. I ended up watching it two nights in a row just because I loved it so much the first time and I just wanted to watch the characters again soon after. It saddens me that so few people seemed to have seen it. I can easily say that ‘Beginners’ is a charming, smart, funny, sentimental and quirky film, one of my new favorites and I loved every single moment of it.

Hugo Review


‘Hugo’ is not only an old fashion and heartfelt adventure with enough whimsy and fun for all ages; but also a love letter to cinema, by one of this generation’s masters, and a plea to support film preservation.

Most of the credit for the its success has to be given to Martin Scorsese, who in an attempt to tell the story about the value of art and the dream like and important nature of films, managed to not only capture the magic of moving pictures but in doing so make one just as magical and beautiful as those he admires. The story follows a young boy named Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield). He lives among the gears and machinery within the walls of a grand train station in Paris where he keeps the clocks in working order. He is alone in this task and spends most of his free time trying to fix an automaton that his father found rusting away in a museum, and attempted to fix before he tragically died in a fire. With his father dead he was sent to work in the station with his uncle, a drunk who has gone missing leaving Hugo to live alone, stealing food from the shops to survive and avoid the orphanage. One morning Hugo gets in trouble with the owner, George Melies (Ben Kingsley), of a toy shop located within the station. Hugo had been stealing small trinkets for parts so he could use them in fixing the automaton, which he believes contains a message left to him by his father. The shop’s owner forces Hugo to hand over the stolen trinkets along with a notebook detailing the machine he was trying to fix. Oddly his drawings cause Melies to get emotional and he takes it. In an attempt to get it back, Hugo ends up getting help from the shop owner’s goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Moretzs), who is a lover of books and desperate for some kind of adventure. Together they try to unravel the mystery behind her godfather’s reaction to the notebook and the automaton’s message. It is a slow moving, but richly detailed journey that leads to them discovering George Melies’s sad past, which has important ties to the history of film.

Scorsese’s love for cinema is front and center here. Hugo’s loneliness mirrors his own. Scorsese suffered from asthma growing up and wasn’t allowed to play with other children. Like Hugo, Scorsese looked to machines and cameras to occupy his time, turning to art and film to express himself. Hugo’s automaton, a machine like a camera, which played a key part in Melies’s life, only works with a heart shaped key. It is no coincidence that the heart, love and a sense of wonder are the key to creating art and opening one’s imagination. Scorsese, perhaps more than most directors around today, understands the importance of film, especially for younger audiences and in a way this definitely seems like an attempt to get children to appreciate the medium as much as he did years ago.

My favorite aspect of the ‘Hugo’ would be the world created. It is fleshed out fairly well, with many supporting characters given a good deal of attention. The most important being the station inspector played by Sacha Baron Cohen who when he isn’t out trying to catch potential orphans, is trying to woo a beautiful florist, played by Emily Mortimer. It reminded me of ‘Amelie’ in a way, which I guess also had a lot to do with the tone and setting.

The stuff about Melies is incredible and as informative as it is disheartening. The man was one of the early pioneers of films. One of the first to truly understand its capabilities to enchant the audience with dream like settings. Learning the history of his career, how after making over 500 films he was forced to destroy most of them and his old sets when the popularity of his work dropped after the Great War, is tragic. Luckily for us some of his films survived, like “A Trip to the Moon” which is a highly recognizable and frequently referenced short.

The direction, the long shots in particular, are breathtaking. The opening is one of the year’s best and most spectacular scenes. It is arguably Scorsese’s most beautiful film. The fantastical portrayal of Paris is enhanced by 3D that is utilized better than anything I have seen. The use of depth, especially in scenes towards the end in which some of Melies films are recreated in flashbacks is stunning. For once it doesn’t feel like a gimmick. The score is also beautiful and luckily not overwhelming. It is one that is there but not noticeable because it fits the atmosphere of the story so well. Honestly, everything about ‘Hugo’ feels like one complete and perfect work of art, created with a great deal of passion. The only complaint I’ve really heard is that it is too slow at times. Personally I highly disagree with this. Even at its slowest points it is still totally mesmerizing because this isn’t just a love letter to film, or just a historical depiction of the life of one of its most important innovators, it is also a heartfelt story. It earns its emotions and nothing fells forced, and it does this by taking its time, to flesh out its characters and plot.

Lastly, the performances all around are wonderful. Butterfield gives Hugo a great deal of emotion and depth, as well as the level of maturity needed for the character. Ben Kingsley is absolutely magnificent as George Melies. He makes him a clearly sad man, with a long history that troubles him deeply. Chloe Moretz is also great, doing a surprisingly good English accent, and makes the character easily loveable and fun. Even Sacha Baron Cohen, who toned it down, brings his character to life in an almost classically funny way.

Overall to say I loved the film would not do my feelings for it justice. It is so exceptionally crafted, so fun and smart, and most of all it captivated me like few other films have in recent years. It truly is a magical experience, a must see and one of Scorsese’s best.

Drive Review


This review is not one filled with spoilers but I’d just warn that one can better understand the points I’m trying to make if they have seen the film. Obviously everything I say below is my own opinion and interpretations of the film and many will disagree. I’m writing this second review because in order to sustain my recent obsession with Nicolas Winding Refn’s latest film ‘Drive’, I have been reading a lot of interviews with the director so that I could both  better understand the motivation and ideas surrounding its creation as well as to better appreciate its style and themes so that I can add that onto my already huge admiration and love for the film to better articulate how I felt and express why I think it is the second best film of the year, the first being ‘The Tree of Life’ which was the only other I have seen in 2011 that has caused me to do a second write up like this one and although ‘Drive’ might not be as “deep”, I do believe it is much more complex than some make it out to be and a second viewing caused me to think about it none stop and there are just something’s I need to say.

Since this past weekend when I did see it that second time, the thing that I have come to understand that really caused me to view the entire film in a much different perspective was that my very simple explanation in my other review of it being some sort of character study in the vein of ‘The American’ mixed with ‘Taxi Driver’, though in some ways true, does not even begin to acknowledge the fact that what ‘Drive’ really is, and what Refn decided to create, is a film with a fairy tale archetype guided by an old fable whose themes of love, nature, brutality and heroism shed a new light on the character’s romance and exploits, as well as makes the stories ending that much more emotional.

Refn considers this idea of it being a fairytale to be true, and has said it multiple times, because that is ultimately what he wanted to create. In his words ‘Drive’ is a fairytale set in Los Angeles, whose characters are larger than life figures representing “pure emotion” as he put it; which explains why the love is so pure and the violence is so brutal and there is rarely a middle ground, they are exaggerations of real emotions to add to its fantastical tone.

The first half is the serene and pure story of the innocent young maiden lost in the woods who falls for a “Knight in shining armor”. When evil appears and violates their world of purity and love and threatens the young maiden’s wellbeing, they must be punished by the Knight which brings out a much darker side to the story, in the vein of the Grimm fairytales. The young maiden of course being Irene (Carey Mulligan), a single mother raising her son alone while her husband is in prison. The Knight she falls for has no name but is referred to as simply the Driver (Ryan Gosling). A quiet and mysterious man who is a mechanic and stuntmen by day and a getaway driver by night. He is lonely and most enjoys being out on the road, but easily falls for the beautiful Irene and her son, who offer a chance to be human and evoke emotions he rarely feels. This simple story of love is interrupted when Standard (Oscar Isaac), Irene’s husband, reappears. Not only does he cause a divide but his past resurfaces which has connections to two dangerous gangsters (Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman). In order to do whatever he can to protect Irene and her son, the Driver offers his services to Standard for a heist. It ultimately goes horribly wrong and the two gangsters look to cover it all up by getting rid of all involved, which includes the Driver and Irene.

From here that much darker side appears as the Driver is forced to fight back and protect the things he cares about. This half of the story is guided by the fable of “The Scorpion and the Frog”, about a scorpion who asks a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid to do so because he does not want to be stung but the scorpion tells him that if he were to sting the frog they’d both drown, so the frog agrees. Halfway across the scorpion does in fact sting the frog dooming them both and when the frog asks why he did so the scorpion replies that it is in his nature. The idea being for some creatures their behavior is irrepressible and so cannot be controlled no matter what the consequences. For the scorpion his nature was to sting, he does things instinctively and without much thought. When in a situation where this instinctive nature must come to the surface, when cornered or in this case when those people the Driver cares for are threatened, he reverts to that aggressive scorpion nature and stings, hard and violent no matter the consequence which in this case means losing himself or the ones he cares for.

The elevator scene is really that tipping point where the stinger comes out and not surprisingly one of the best scenes in the entire film. It is when he puts his human emotion and love aside in order to fully protect Irene. After he kisses her goodbye he knows he is about to reveal his true nature. After viciously killing the man who had put him into that corner he looks at Irene and knows it is over which is his ‘great sacrifice’, letting the one he loves go in order to protect her, and what makes him a true hero. The elevator door closes and the two are separated for good. He must now do whatever he can to distance himself and all this evil from Irene and her son.

What is interesting about the idea of the Driver as being a hero is the sort of duel personalities he evokes. One could say he is human by day, working a normal job, shopping and falling in love but a “hero” by night, though not helping the right people. When the story really becomes interesting is when he has to blend the two personas to become something more which is why Refn and Gosling have described it as their ‘superhero’ film. He is a man with the capacity to be a “real hero” and it is only when he can bring his human emotion to that more aggressive and skillful side that he does become this sort of superhero-like character. Obviously it is difficult for him. It isn’t a smooth transition and at times he has trouble controlling it, which comes through as he shakes as his anger and adrenaline builds when talking to Nino on the phone and of course when he brutality stomps the life out of one of Nino’s hitmen in the elevator scene mentioned earlier. This is that scorpion nature coming through, this aggressive nature is the key to his power, and why it is most fitting that his ‘custom’ is a jacket with a scorpion logo on the back.

Though his actions seem necessary he still does not want to lose his ‘human’ side and puts on the mask towards the end because he must fully embrace this more aggressive side to get the job done, to quell his emotions and settle the battle raging between both persona’s and essentially become a lifeless and aggressive vessel with one objective. This way he can do what needs to be done, evoke a bit of fear from his target, but cover up and shield his human persona and not completely lose himself. Throughout this he becomes someone we empathizes with, even if his methods seem to be so extreme. The outcome to it all, although somewhat ambiguous, is a fitting and emotional conclusion where some people do in fact live happily ever after.

What makes this all work so effectively is the fact that ‘Drive’ is a film in which things don’t need to be spoken to be said. One where characters express more through silence, short but poignant dialogue and the interactions they have together. Refn brilliantly creates a dreamlike and contemplative exploration of the serene and the hyper violent set within a fairytale like story that happens to be a slow burning character study of the ‘scorpion’ where everything is just below the surface and it all builds up, through a series of quiet and calm moments, only to erupt into brutal violence. Nothing is handed to you, there is no blatant exposition, you don’t always know what is going on in a characters head and it helps create a level of tension and actually requires one to think. This isn’t some sort of mindless action thriller, it’s much more contemplative and complex than one would expect. He polishes it all off with a retro varnish evoking a different time, helping to set it apart from reality and add to its moody atmosphere, but still keeping it grounded enough to feel real and have that emotional punch. Add onto that all of that the fantastic performances: Ryan Gosling’s brilliantly effective and charismatic performance as the Driver, Carey Mulligans charming and sweet portrayal of Irene, Ron Perlman’s brutish and aggressive Nino, Albert Brooks as the ruthless but understandable Bernie, Bryan Cranston as the downtrodden but humorous Shannon, Oscar Isaac as Irene’s husband who needs help to avoid his past; and what you are left with is a masterful, beautiful and complex film. It truly is a modern day fairytale, perfect in every way, and a film that I couldn’t help but fall in love with.

Review: ‘The Tree of Life’


Once again after a while of not posting anything I’m pocking my head back in with a review for a film that I’m more interested in hearing what others think rather than telling them what I thought. That film being Terrence Malick’s fifth feature film “The Tree of Life”, which received the Palme d’Or at Cannes and has been receiving quite a lot of praise from critics. But is it all warranted? Well of course that is up to the viewer to decide, but here are my thoughts…

“The Tree of Life” is a mystifying and contemplative cinematic experience with a focus on the nature of good and evil, grace versus nature, god and his absence, love, grief, innocence, reconciliation and human existence all observed at times at a cosmic scale but mostly with intimate detail. Though far from containing a conventional narrative, the story within the enigmatic pondering of “The Tree of Life” revolves around Jack O’Brien, first seen as a wary middle aged man in modern times. He awakes one morning after he apparently dreams of his parents on the anniversary of the death of his brother who he loved deeply, a death that still troubles him. As he goes about his day working his corporate job the death of his brother weighs heavily on him. Jack then begins, as he has probably done countless times before, to search for answers to that overburdening question ‘Why? Why do we die and what is the purpose of life’. Questions asked in hopes to better understand his loss and reconcile his grief.

The search for the answer, which inevitably questions god’s existence, starts where one tends to look for something, the beginning. We are quickly transported to the very first moments of the creation of the universe and travel forward through time to the formation of earth, the dawn of living organisms at a microscopic level and eventually complex life forms. Next we get to the real center of the story as we witness the birth and childhood of Jack. All of this story is observed through Jacks memories of living in a small town in Texas during the 50’s. I believe it is very important to consider that these scenes are told through his memory and so contain a dreamlike and visceral atmosphere. We are not watching it play out as a narrative would in any other film, instead we get fragments of his childhood, each an individual memory strung together as they flow through Jack’s mind. The fact that these are memories also helps in understanding the view of his parents and the way in which they represent the sides of grace and nature to such extremes; as in Malick’s “Days of Heaven” one questions whether they are a true representation of the characters or just how Jack remembers them so many years later.

Jessica Chastain plays ‘Mother’, the way of grace, as a free spirited, caring and nurturing guide who teaches love, forgiveness and the enjoyment of life. The dueling force is nature, played incredibly well by Brad Pitt, as the disciplinarian father figure who runs his family with an iron fist in an attempt to instill toughness and a yearning for achieving greatness through any means. Together they reflect the inner workings of the cosmos and have a profound influence on Jack and at times he struggles to find a balance. As he grows he witnesses the harshness of the world around him, experiencing jealousy, lust, death and is often tempted by evil and sinful thoughts. At the same time however these struggles help him to grow and understand life and he comes to express a deep love and fondness for his family, especially his brother, though his mind still questions many things as it does for us all.

As expected with any Malick film the events in Jack’s life are not a direct depiction of reality, and Malick really doesn’t care much about their outcomes or how the story unfolds in a literal sense; instead what matters is making the audience experience these events through the inner mind and consciousness of the characters. As with his other work he relies heavily on voice over narration to convey the intimate thoughts of these characters , but this time they seem to be speaking for us and not just for themselves. All of this is constructed within a very visual backdrop with breathtakingly beautiful imagery utilizing lights, shadows, sounds, CGI, nature and settings with such perfection only a true artist like Malick could achieve giving even the most simple images complex meaning.

Together it is all truly poetry in motion and though it is a term I have used many times before it has never been more fitting. The entire film is unlike any other I have seen, one that will rattle your perspective on the world. Personally, the entire experience challenged me emotionally, mentally and spirituality; I’m not a religious man and I understand the examination of Christian values and Gods part in the story but the spiritualism at play I believe transcended religion or faith and although it looks to god for answers and at times tries to explain his actions, the thematic outcomes are open to so much interpretation that to claim you know the answer would undermine the films intentions. In the end there are no definitive answers; in the bigger picture of things we live but a small moment in time. One of the final scenes depicts what is seen to be ‘heaven’ but not in a literal sense. God does not show his presence, and it isn’t located among the clouds. One does not encounter angels and no answers are given, instead there are only the ones we love as we remember them. Heaven is merely the place within out hearts where we cherish the memories of the past and it is in those memories and through those people we live them with that we find a meaning and a reason to love and live. It is there where one finds true reconciliation, understanding and peace and by films end that is what Jack and the audience get.

“The Tree of Life” will undoubtedly divide the general film going audience. In the showing I attended I saw one couple walk out while at the same time as the final scenes began to play a woman in front of me was in tears. No one will be affected in the same way as others; those with no previous experience with Malick’s work might find the whole thing pretentious, difficult to understand and hard to sit through which is very understandable. Those with a bit of patience and an open mind will bear witness to what might possibly be one of the most ambitious, beautiful and best films in a very long time that will stick with you long after you leave the theater and will be discussed and analyzed for years to come.

For those of you who have seen the film, what were your thoughts and have you seen Malick’s previous work? For those that haven’t see it, do you plan to or did the trailer and whole idea of its structure turn you off?

Possible leads for Bourne Legacy


After joining this site smack dab in the middle of a two month internship followed by my final semester at college I have not had much time to make a post. Luckily for me things have slowed a bit and I have found time to do things other than study…like blog, as I’m about to do now.

I caught this bit of news on a few websites and I couldn’t help but voice my opinion on the matter, which has to do with the casting of the lead for “Bourne Legacy”, which is in essence a spin-off of the original Bourne trilogy. It is being directed by Tony Gilroy who previously directed Oscar nominated “Michael Clayton”, and the quirky rom-com-spy-thriller…thingy, “Duplicity”. However; he is most notably known by fans of the Bourne franchise for working on the screenplays of the first three.

Little is known about “Bourne Legacy” as far as the plot is concerned other than it takes place in the same universe, at roughly the same time (most likely following the events of Ultimatum), and is not a reboot/remake, will not contain Jason Bourne’s character, but his presence in the world will be known by characters within “Legacy”…hence why I consider this to basically just be a spin-off…just one not containing any previously known characters.

I’ve always been skeptical about “Bourne Legacy” and the closer and closer this project gets to actually being made the more and more I wish they would just not make another film tied into that universe, or wait for Greengrass and Damon to come back for a fourth. But this being Hollywood, where studios love to milk popular franchises dry, it is going to be made whether fans or non-fans like it or not. So, the best I can hope for is that they don’t totally mess it up.

I think what has many worried, including myself, is the actor who will be cast in the lead role. More recently speculation as to who the studio might go for has increased with many names being thrown around and at one point Shia LaBeouf’s name was mentioned and I had almost lost just about all faith that they could pull of anything comparable to the original trilogy. (I think it is pretty obvious that I’m not a fan of LaBeouf…) Luckily it seems that he will not test for the film. Within the last few days it seems that the list of possible actors has gotten shorter and below are four guys who the studio want for testing:

(Garrett Hedlund, Joel Edgerton, Dominic Cooper, Luke Evans)

Personally, as a big fan of the first three, the only guy on that list that I can even remotely see playing a character similar to Bourne is Edgerton. He has an edge to him, and doesn’t have the “pretty boy” looks of the other three, a characteristic that I do not associate with Jason Bourne. Not to mention that from what I have seen from these four, Edgerton is the better actor, but of course that is just my opinion and I really haven’t seen enough from any of them to draw any strong conclusions.

Anyway, they will be testing for the role in the first week of April, not sure when we will get an official announcement as to who they pick but it is a decision I eagerly await. I’m trying to keep some faith in this project, hoping they keep the franchise alive long enough for possibly Damon and Greengrass to team up once again.

Personally, I would love for them to cast Edgar Ramirez who was phenomenal in Carlos, and continue the story with his character, who played Paz, a fellow spy tracking Bourne down in the third film where he got little screen time and just about zero lines. I think the best route to take with the story of “Bourne Legacy” would be to start up right after his interactions with Bourne’s character in Ultimatum and have him investigate a bit about the conspiracies below the surface, which eventually leads to him being chased down as he tries to figure it all out, focusing on what happened with Bourne and other Treadstone/Blackbriar agents. This way they could actually set up the return of Matt Damon as Bourne because of course it would all eventually lead back to him.

But who knows. Tony Gilroy is a competent director and great writer, so “Bourne Legacy” does have a chance, it is just that my love of the original Trilogy that has me worried. Still I’ll probably be there opening day…having watched the first three the night before.

What are your thoughts on the short list/”Bourne Legacy”? Who, out of the four, would you choose? Which actor would you choose who isn’t on that list?