The L.A. Film Critics Have Spoken

Posted on December 13, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

A whole lot of critics’ groups announced their picks for the best films and performances of the year today and the New York Film Critics are voting as I type. I’m on lunch from work right now so a full list will have to wait until later tonight. For now, I’m just going to share the choices made by the Los Angeles Film Critics. The L.A. Critics are one of the big three as far as critics groups are concerned.

As I’ve said before, I think professional film critics are overrated but I just love awards. And, of course, all of these December awards tend to serve as a precursor for who and what will receive Oscar nominations next year. At their best, these groups can remind Academy voters of films and performances that they might otherwise overlook. Certainly, if Jacki Weaver receives a deserved nomination for Animal Kingdom, it’ll be largely due to organizations like the National Board of Review and the L.A. Film Critics.

Anyway, since my time is limited, I’m going to simply post the winners and then add a few comments on my own.

PICTURE:

“The Social Network”
Runner-up: “Carlos”

DIRECTOR:

Olivier Assayas, “Carlos,” and David Fincher, “The Social Network” (tie)

ACTOR:

Colin Firth, “The King’s Speech”
Runner-up: Edgar Ramirez, “Carlos”

ACTRESS:

Kim Hye-ja, “Mother”
Runner-up: Jennifer Lawrence, “Winter’s Bone”

SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Niels Arestrup, “A Prophet”
Runner-up: Geoffrey Rush, “The King’s Speech”

SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Jacki Weaver, “Animal Kingdom”
Runner-up: Olivia Williams, “The Ghost Writer”

SCREENPLAY:

Aaron Sorkin, “The Social Network”
Runner-up: David Seidler, “The King’s Speech”

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:

“Carlos”
Runner-up: “Mother”

ANIMATION:

“Toy Story 3″
Runner-up: “The Illusionist”

DOCUMENTARY / NON-FICTION FILM:

“Last Train Home”
Runner-up: “Exit Through the Gift Shop”

CINEMATOGRAPHY:

Matthew Libatique, “Black Swan”
Runner-up: Roger Deakins, “True Grit”

MUSIC/SCORE:

Alexandre Desplat, “The Ghost Writer,” and Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, “The Social Network” (tie)

PRODUCTION DESIGN:

Guy Hendrix Dyas, “Inception”
Runner-up: Eve Stewart, “The King’s Speech”

NEW GENERATION:

Lena Dunham, “Tiny Furniture”

DOUGLAS E. EDWARDS INDEPENDENT/EXPERIMENTAL FILM/VIDEO:

“Film Socialism”

LEGACY OF CINEMA AWARDS:

Serge Bromberg, “Henri-Georges Clouzot’s Inferno,” and the F.W. Murnau Foundation and Fernando Pena for the restoration of “Metropolis”

CAREER ACHIEVEMENT:

Paul Mazursky

The main news here, I guess, is just how well foreign language films did in the voting. I haven’t seen Carlos and seeing as how I’m basically in fly-over country, I doubt I’ll get a chance to see it before the Oscar nominations are announced. I do have Mother on DVD and I’m going to watch it sometime before the start of the new year. It’s also nice to see some attention being given to A Prophet.

Obviously, I’m disappointed not to see more love for Black Swan but I guess it’s to be expected as Black Swan is one of those films that people either love madly or hate with a passion. I think that’s why The Social Network will win big at the Oscars this year. It’s well-made and offensive only if you’re 1) female or 2) Mark Zuckerberg.

The National Board Of Review: I Give Up!

Posted on December 2, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

The rather enigmatic National Board of Review announced their selections for the best films of 2010 today. The NBR is traditionally considered to be the first precursor to how the actual Oscar race will shape up. Typically, those honored by the NBR are, at the very least, nominated by the Academy. Strangely, nobody seems to be sure just who exactly makes up the membership of the NBR. As far as I can tell, it appears to be a collection of film professors and cable tv executives. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the NBR is actually some sort of Illuminati conspiracy or MK-Ultra experiment designed to keep American filmgoers from thinking for themselves.

Anyway, as I look over this year’s award winners, all I can say is that I give up. If my reaction to Avatar indicated to me that I’m totally out-of-step with mainstream opinion, then the current Pavlovian acclaim of the Social Network proves it. I will never be a part of the mainstream and it’s not by choice. It’s just I am apparently thoroughly incapable of understanding how the mainstream brain works.

So, that’s what the National Board of Review taught me today. I am destined to always be alone, railing against the dying of the light. Thank you for the insight, assholes.

Anyway, here’s this year’s award winners:

Best Picture: The Social Network (Don’t get me wrong, the Social Network is a good movie. It’s just not that good.)

Best Director: David Fincher, The Social Network

Best Actor: Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network (I am so sick of hearing that this is Jesse’s “breakthrough” role. Jesse’s breakthrough was in Adventureland, long before the mainstream ever decided to embrace him.)

Best Actress: Lesley Manville, Another Year (Haven’t seen it yet)

Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, The Fighter (Another movie that I will see when it opens later this month. Still, Bale should have been nominated for American Psycho back in the day.)

Best Supporting Actress: Jacki Weaver for Animal Kingdom (Yay! This award gives me hope.)

Best Animated Feature: Toy Story 3 (yay!)

Best Documentary: Waiting For Superman (Yes, my favorite movie of the year —Exit Through The Gift Shop — was totally ignored.)

Best Ensemble Cast: The Town (Bleh. So I guess that would include Jon Hamm, who gave such an amazingly bad performance in this film?)

Breakthrough Performance: Jennifer Lawrence, Winter’s Bone (Another yay but you know all the mainstream is going to offer her is a role in a Twilight rip-off and maybe a Maxim cover shoot.)

Best Adapted Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin for The Social Network (Fuck Aaron Sorkin and his elitist, sexist, technophobic script.)

Best Original Screenplay: Chris Sparling for Buried (which I didn’t see, mostly because I’m claustrophobic and the movie is called Buried.)

Ten Best Films Of The Year (in alphabetical order):

Another Year

The Fighter

Hereafter (which sucked!)

Inception (yay!)

The King’s Speech (I’m actually really looking forward to seeing this)

Shutter Island (kinda bleh but enjoyable)

The Town

Toy Story 3

True Grit (another one I can’t wait to see)

Winter’s Bone (yay!)

Yep, you read that right. No awards for such presumed favorites as James Franco and 127 Hours, Black Swan, or The Kids Are All Right. But you better believe they found room to honor a shallow, pandering film like Hereafter.

Finally, here are the Top Ten Independent Films of 2010, according to the toadsuckers at the National Board of Review:

Animal Kingdom (yay!)

Buried (Now I guess I have to see it)

Fish Tank (yay!)

The Ghost Writer (yay — kinda)

Greenberg (bleh)

Let Me In (another kinda yay)

Monsters (shrug)

Please Give (yay!)

Somewhere (going to see it when it opens down here, Sofia Coppola is my role model)

Youth in Revolt (shrug, it’s neither bleh nor yay)

You can read the full list of winners at The Wrap.

Anyway, in order to show just how exactly I feel when confronted with mainstream thought and opinion, here’s an old picture of me with a tampon stuck up my nose.

Film Review: 127 Hours (directed by Danny Boyle)

Posted on November 13, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Last Friday night, my friend Jeff and I went down to the Plano Angelika and saw Danny Boyle’s new film, 127 Hours.

I have to admit that I was a little bit uneasy about seeing this film. First off, it’s a movie based on the true story about a mountain climber who spent 5 days trapped in a narrow canyon. I am intensely claustrophobic, to the extent that I’ve had panic attacks just from finding myself trapped in a crowded grocery store aisle. (Seriously, why does everyone in the world have to go shopping for La Choy Sweet and Sour sauce at the same time I do?) Secondly, the trapped climber eventually escaped by using a dull knife to saw off his right arm. I mean, ewwwwww!

But I knew I had to see the film for three reasons. Number one, it stars James Franco who I’m kinda in love with. Number two, Danny Boyle is one of my favorite directors. And, finally, 127 Hours is probably going to be nominated for best picture. So, I worked up my courage and I tried not to think about the various news reports about audience members passing out while watching the film, and I went to the movie. And I’m glad I did because 127 Hours is one of the best films that I’ve seen in quite some time.

James Franco plays Aron Ralston, a cocky but likable guy who decides to spend the weekend hiking across some place called Blue John Canyon. (Sorry, I’m not really an outdoorsey type of girl.) He tells no one of his plans and the only people who know he’s even at the canyon are two girls that he meets while there. The girls have gotten lost in the canyon and they accept Aron’s help in finding whatever grand archeological thing it is that they’re looking for. (See previous apology.)

I have to be honest here. As I watched these two girls go off with a perfect stranger, a part of me wanted to be all like, “Oh, I would never do something as stupid as go off with some stranger I met out in the middle of nowhere.” But, then again, this isn’t just some stranger. This is James Franco. So, I’ll refrain from passing judgment. I just hope that the girls had their pepper spray with them.

(The two girls, by the way, are played by Kata Mara and Amber Tamblyn. I loved Joan of Arcadia. Can you believe they cancelled it for Ghost Whisperer? Not cool, CBS.)

Anyway, after frolicking in an underground pool, Aron and the girls part company. They invite him to come to a party the next night. They tell him to just look for a big, inflatable Scooby Doo. Aron agrees, walks off, and promptly finds himself trapped in a canyon when a boulder falls on top of him and pins his right arm against the canyon wall. As quickly as that, Aron goes from being a carefree adventurer to literally being a prisoner, isolated and alone. As Franco screams for help, Boyle pulls the camera upward from Aron until eventually he’s a barely noticeable speck surrounded by a barren (and otherwise unpopulated) desert. It’s a moment that you know is coming but it’s still shocking and devastating because it stands in such stark contrast to the film’s first 20 minutes when both Boyle and Franco filled each scene with a sense of constant motion. Suddenly, everything has stopped and we’re as trapped as Aron.

The rest of the film is pretty much a one-man show. We watch as Aron spends the next five days fighting to just survive. He tries to chip away at the rock with a knife (yes, that knife). He talks to his camera, keeping a diary and leaving messages for his family. He fights off hungry ants and tries to conserve his water. He even manages to invent a pretty neat little pulley system to try to move the rock. Finally, he starts to hallucinate, seeing everything from his family disdainfully watching his predicament to a gigantic inflatable Scooby Doo stalking him in the canyon. And finally, of course, he starts to cut off his arm.

He also finds some time to think about the life he led up to the moment he found himself trapped underneath the rock. This is where Boyle really shines because, in the hands of most directors, these scenes probably would have been very maudlin and heavy-handed. However, Boyle presents these scenes in an almost impressionistic style. We see hints of the life that Aron has led but Boyle never comes out and blatantly says that, up until this point, Aron never been willing to truly connect with others. We sees scenes of Aron’s ex-girlfriend breaking up with him but we’re never specifically told what led to her leaving him. And we don’t need to be. Boyle presents us with the evidence and trusts us to draw the correct conclusion.

I am very proud to say that I watched the entire film without once having a panic attack though I did start to feel a little bit light-headed when Aron really started to get into sawing off his arm. At this point, I did end up burying my head in Jeff’s shoulder and watching the scene out of the corner of my eye. At the same time, it’s an oddly exhilarating sequence because we know that the only way Aron will survive is by cutting off his arm and, as a result of Franco’s performance, we really do want Aron to survive.

In retrospect, 127 Hours really is the ultimate guy film in that the film basically celebrates a guy who gets stranded in the desert for five days yet manages to survive without ever once having to ask for directions. However, as a result of the whole experience, he comes to realize he should have been nicer to his ex-girlfriend which means that chicks like me can enjoy the movie as well. My main concern is that the film is such a total guy flick that we might see a sudden epidemic of men amputating their limbs in order to show that they can handle it as well as James Franco did. As we left the theater, I assured Jeff that he didn’t have to chop off his hand just to impress me. Hopefully, he listened.

James Franco is generating a lot of Oscar buzz for his performance here and he should be. Franco is one of those performers who is so pretty that it’s easy to forget that he’s actually a pretty good actor. I thought he deserved a nomination for his performance in Milk. He deserves the Oscar for his performance here.

Along with a best actor nod for Franco, it seems likely that 127 Hours will also pick up nominations for best picture and best director. Interestingly enough, Boyle will probably find himself competing with the man he beat two years ago, David Fincher (previously nominated for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and a probable nominee this year for The Social Network.) This is somehow appropriate as Danny Boyle has consistently proved himself to be the director that David Fincher is supposed to be and, by being a massively hyped film that lives up to all the praise, 127 Hours is the anti-Social Network. While The Social Network uses a “true” story as an excuse to judge and ridicule, 127 Hours uses its true story to celebrate humanity, flaws and all. Whereas Fincher seems to only celebrate film, Boyle celebrates life.

127 Hours.

See it.

A Quickie With Lisa Marie: The Social Network (dir. by David Fincher)

Posted on October 21, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Let’s keep this short.

The Social Network is not, as I originally feared, a terrible film.

At the same time, it’s not, as so many are rabidly insisting, a great film either.

It’s a good film that takes a lot of liberty with the truth and, in the process of telling the “story” about the founding of Facebook, reveals that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin doesn’t really get the whole Internet thing.

David Fincher directs like a man who still can’t believe he didn’t get an Oscar for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. In other words, he doesn’t do anything that might be too far out of the mainstream. Face it, folks. The man who directed Fight Club has grown up. And, as they say, when you grow up, your heart dies.

The main problem with The Social Network is that it is essentially a very mainstream movie being made about a grindhouse topic. Hackers, like the best grindhouse directors, do what they do because 1) they can and 2) it’s a way of telling the rest of the mainstream world to fuck off. Unfortunately, both Sorkin and Fincher are members of that mainstream world so instead of celebrating Facebook and the Internet as a revolution, they instead try to convince us that the only reason Facebook exists is because the founder’s heart was broken by his ex-girlfriend.

That ex-girlfriend is portrayed by Rooney Mara, who will be playing Fincher’s version of the girl with the dragon tattoo. The film presents her as being a shallow bitch but then again, the film presents every woman in the world as being a shallow bitch. Then again, this is a mainstream movie and the mainstream hates women who actually think for themselves. Certainly, that’s been the case with everything else that Aaron Sorkin has ever written.

Still, Mara is presented as just being insensitive and not evil or crazy. If the movie has a villain, it’s Sean Parker (played by Justin Timberlake) who is presented as being the evil Iago-like figure who ruined Facebook. If anything, the film mostly seems to hate him because Parker co-founded Napster and therefore cost the mainstream media a good deal of money.

Admittedly, it’s a well-acted movie. Both Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield are excellent as the soon to be estranged founders of Facebook. Armie Hammer actually plays two characters — twin brothers — and he creates two unforgettable and unique characters. Justin Timberlake is a bit less convincing as Sean Parker but then again, by the film’s logic, Parker is less a human being and more a demon sent from Hell to keep David Geffen from getting another few thousand. Finally, Rooney Mara does what she can with a demeaning and insulting role. I didn’t see any signs of Lisbeth Salander in her performance but then again, this isn’t a film about strong women. It’s a movie about weak little boys.

Anyway, to return to my original point, the Social Network is a good film. It’s well-acted, it looks pretty, the story moves quickly, and Trent Reznor’s score is excellent. Unfortunately, the movie’s being presented to us as a great film and anyone who disagrees is running the risk of being lynched by the same obnoxious fascists who, last year, demanded that everyone bathe in their own cum while watching Avatar. The main reason these people are so over-the-moon about this movie is that it’s the epitome of the type of film that pats the viewer on the back for being so smart without actually requiring that viewer to prove it.

So, if you watch this movie, realize that you keep your mind open at your own risk.

Good luck.

A Few Thoughts Before Actually Seeing The Social Network

Posted on October 3, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Hi there. Lisa Marie here. I know that usually when I show up on this site, it’s too either toss up 6 more exploitation trailers or to present a review of a film that’s been unfairly dismissed (or foolishly overpraised) by the mainstream media. It’s what I love doing and I hope everyone gets at least a little occasional pleasure out of it. (If you don’t — well, please don’t tell me. I’m surprisingly sensitive.)

Last week, I expected that, at this time, I would have posted a review (probably negative) of the mainstream’s latest attempt to make an art film — David Fincher’s The Social Network.

Unfortunately, life in general — and my body in specific — had other plans. I’ve been sick since Wednesday and, for the first time in over a year, I did not spend my weekend at the movies. It’s enough to make a girl cry.

(That said, I did spend most of the weekend lounging about in various states of undress so maybe concentrating on that image will help to lessen the sting of no Social Network review…)

However, while I may not be able to give you my Social Network review, I do feel that I can give you my Social Network pre-viewing review.

Just based on the evidence presented to me so far, the Social Network sucks.

Consider the evidence:

1) Peter Travers of Rolling Stone says that the Social Network will make me “believe in film again.” Excuse me? Francios Truffaut coming back from the dead — or at least Jean-Luc Godard making one more vaguely entertaining movie before dying– will make me believe in film again. I refuse to join a religion based on a movie about fucking Facebook. Sorry, Mr. Travers.

2) Andrew O’Heir at Salon.com has compared The Social Network to — wait for it — Citizen Kane. Hopefully, when the zombie apocalypse comes, Zombie Orson Welles will eat Andrew O’Heir first.

3) According to Rotten Tomatoes — the web’s greatest resource of Mainstream Opinion — The Social Network is the best-reviewed film of 2010 so far. For a film to be that loved, it must be really needy. And what do needy things do? They manipulate, they lie, and they go out of their way to beg you to like them. A great film doesn’t give a fuck what you think.

4) The movie stars Jesse Eisenberg who has already been in 3 great movies — The Squid and the Whale, Adventureland, and Zombieland. Sorry, Jesse but only Giovanni Lombardo Radice is allowed to appear in four great films in just four years.

5) The movie is written by Aaron Sorkin. This movie is being advertised as the “defining” movie as my generation. Sorry, but the defining movie of my generation isn’t going to be written by some smug, 50 year-old, male, sexist, crackhead.

6) The movie is directed by David Fincher which normally would be a good sign except all the reviews are concentrating on Aaron Sorkin. So, is our Mr. Fincher so needy for an Oscar that he’s basically abandoned his own vision in the service of some smug, 50 year-old, male, sexist, crackhead?

7) Apparently, this movie celebrates rich kids getting richer. Just what America needs right now. Yes, let’s celebrate the dumbfug toadsuckers of the world while the guy flipping your burger over at McDonald’s loses his health insurance.

8 ) The Social Network is apparently number one at the box office after this weekend and apparently has gotten great word of mouth. You know who else got great word of mouth at one time? Adolf Hitler, that’s who. Up until it was no longer socially acceptable, the mainstream loved him too.

9) The Social Network has a really crappy, first draft title. Seriously, that’s the name of the movie?

10) Sasha Stone, over at Awardsdaily.com, loves this fucking movie and to me, that’s reason enough to assume it’s going to be an overrated piece of foolishness. Seriously, Awardsdaily.com is a great site if you want to keep up with all the Oscar buzz but — when it comes to reviews — Sasha Stone, Ryan Adams, and the rest of the site are all so middle class and predictable. (Of course, what do you expect from a site that regularly quotes William Goldman?)

So, that’s my pre-viewing review of The Social Network. Hopefully, I’ll see it next weekend and be able to post an actual review. Then we’ll be able to see if the film simply conformed to my own biases or if it truly is worthy of all the hype.

Until then, I’d love to hear your thoughts on The Social Network and the growing chorus of mainstreamers who insist that this is the greatest film of all time. Am I being too hard on it or is this yet another example of the mainstream emperor wearing no clothes?

Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander?

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

It’s official. The role of Lisbeth Salander in the thoroughly unnecessary and borderline insulting American remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo will be played by Rooney Mara.

It’s hard for me to say how I feel about this casting. When I first heard about it, my initial thought was, “Who’s that and how could she be better suited for the role than Jena Malone?” However, after talking to Arleigh, I realized that I actually do know Rooney Mara. She was the lead in another remake, this year’s Nightmare on Elm Street. In that movie, Mara was a likable presence but she was no Lisbeth. Then again, woman like Lisbeth Salander — independent women who refuse to be solely defined as either a good virgin or a bad whore — don’t appear in slasher films. What is important is that Mara has proven she can carry a film. She hasn’t proven that she can carry The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

Then again, considering just how iconic a figure as Lisbeth has become (both in the original novel and in the original film) it’s probably for the best that director David Fincher went with an unknown. Rooney appears to be a talented young actress but she’s got a very difficult job ahead of her.

It’s probably not a coincidence that Rooney also has a small role in Fincher’s upcoming film, The Social Network (which is going to suck, by the way). It’s possible that Fincher saw something in Rooney that she hasn’t been allowed to show the rest of the world. Me, I’m just happy that if there is going to be an American version of Lisbeth Salander, at least she’s going to be played by an Irish-American. At heart, Lisbeth is as Irish as a Swede can get.

(Though again, the ideal Irish-American to play Lisbeth would have been and still is Jena Malone.)

As I’ve stated before, I have mixed feelings about the remake of the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. (And yes, it is a remake regardless of what they’re saying over at Awardsdaily.com.) On the one hand, the entire literary Millenium Trilogy (of which The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was the 1st part) is one of the best recent works of pop cultural fiction. Lisbeth Salander is destined to be an iconic noir figure. On a personal note, even though she’s ultimately just a fictional character, she is a fictional character who has provided a great deal of strength and hope to abuse survivors (such as myself). When we read about her and her refusal to allow herself to be victimized or to be dependent on even as well-meaning a man as Mikael Blomkvist, the book’s nominal hero, Lisbeth Salander becomes the vehicle for our own wish-fulfillment fantasies. She is a character who transcends the page to become a role model in real life as well. In many ways, she is the 21st century version of Scarlett O’Hara. Scarlett gave hope to aging Southern belles. Lisbeth gives hope to bipolar neurotics like me. And much as everyone couldn’t wait to see Scarlett on-screen, a lot of us couldn’t wait to see Lisbeth on-screen.

And that is the biggest hurdle that director David Fincher and Rooney Mara are going to face with this much-hyped remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. We’ve already seen Libseth onscreen and, in our mind’s eye, she’s not Rooney Mara. Instead, she’s Noomi Rapace. Both Fincher and Mara have a difficult task ahead of them. Not only do they have to meet the expectations of the people who have read the original novel, they have to exceed the expectations of the people who have seen the original Swedish film.

And that, to me, is the issue that is being avoided, the proverbial Elephant in the room. For all the wannabe, internet-based film critics who are currently gleefully devouring any crumbs of information concerning Fincher’s production, nobody has yet to answer the question as to why this film needs to be made at all? (Beyond the obvious fact that there’s money to be made…)

I found it interesting that, at the end of the EW article concerning Mara’s casting, it is mentioned that the film is set to begin filming in Sweden. Why exactly? Hasn’t a film about a girl with a dragon tattoo who helps a smug journalist investigate a disappearance in Sweden already been made? It would seem that the “American version” has little to offer beyond offering up a fantasy Sweden where everyone speaks English and those viewing the film are freed from having to try to read subtitles and rattle their jumbo tubs of popcorn at the same time. Or are we just sending David Fincher over to Sweden because we think we’ve got a thing or two to teach the nation that gave us Ingmar Bergman?

It’s easy to find a lot of people trying to convince themselves that this film is a guaranteed classic. (“I’m so happy they cast Robin Wright!” they exclaim. “I usually hate remakes but with David Fincher aboard, I’m looking forward to this,” another one will say. And, of course, my favorite: “This movie is not a remake!”) But nobody seems to be willing to address just why exactly we would need a new Lisbeth Salander when she’s already been created to perfection by Noomi Rapace.

Seriously, both Rapace and Lisbeth deserves better.

For that matter, so does Rooney Mara.

A Few Thoughts On The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo Remake

Posted on July 28, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Have I mentioned how much I loved The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo? Have I suggested that the late Stieg Larsson, in the Millenium Trilogy, did for Europe what James Ellroy did for America with the American Tabloid trilogy? Have I gone into the fact I think Noomi Rapace’s performance as Lisbeth in both the original film and its sequels will probably be remembered as one of the greatest film performances of all time? Have I explained that I think, even beyond Rapace’s performance, Lisbeth herself is one of the best characters in the history of film? For that matter, have I talked about the hours that I’ve spent standing with my back to a mirror and looking over my shoulder and debating on which shoulder-blade a dragon would look most appropriate? Personally, I think my left shoulder-blade is a bit nicer than my right but last night, my friend Jeff was telling me that…

Sorry, I’m losing focus here. Okay, getting the ADD under control. Anyway, the point of the matter is that I love The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

That’s why I feel a lot of caution about the upcoming, David Fincher-helmed remake. First off, quite frankly, I really don’t see what can be improved on the original films. It’s not as if the original film version of the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo failed to do justice to the book (if anything, the book fails to do justice to the film that eventually made from it). I suppose a remake would give people who can’t handle subtitles the chance to see the story but honestly, who cares about those losers? Speaking of the story, the rumors I hear seem to indicate that this remake is going to be an “Americanized” version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which I’m not really sure can be done as the entire book is basically meant to act as a metaphor for Swedish society. Of course, it is possible that the remake is going to be set in Sweden as well but if that’s the case, what’s the point of the remake?

I know the usual argument to these concerns is that, as a director, Fincher will not allow the film to be Hollywoodized. At one point that may have been true but, judging from The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Fincher’s got more Hollywood in him than most people want to admit. The fact that he’s also teamed up with Aaron Sorkin (an establishment figure if there ever was one) to direct a movie about Facebook doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence but I’ll hold off on judging until the Social Network actually shows up in theaters.

However, I am encouraged by the news (announced yesterday) that Fincher has cast Daniel Craig as the male lead, Mikael Blomkvist (or whatever his name is going to be in the Hollywood version). Craig’s name had been mentioned for the role ever since the remake was first announced but there were also reports that the role would go to Brad Pitt (who, of course, has already made 3 films with Fincher). Nothing against Brad Pitt (who I think is a truly underrated actor) but it’s hard to think of a worst choice for the role of Mikael. Mikael’s defining characteristic is just how ineffectual he is. He’s the ultimate well-meaning intellectual, the type of guy who wants to fight injustice but is to insulated from the harsh realities of life to effectively do so. (That’s why he needs Lisbeth, she represents everything he wishes he could do but can’t.) In short, Mikael is a hero by default and casting an actor like Brad Pitt would throw the entire movie off-balance.

Mikael is not a role for a star. Mikael is a role for a character actor and, James Bond aside, that’s exactly what Daniel Craig is. (That’s one reason why Craig’s Bond is dull, regardless of how good a performance Craig gives in the role.) Not only is Craig the right age, he projects just the right amount of idealistic weariness for the role. Admittedly, it helps that Craig bears a passable physical resemblance to the original Mikael, Michael Nyqvist which, if nothing else, will make it easier for fans of the original film — like me — to accept him.

(For the record, my personal choice for Mikael would have been Tim Roth.)

Of course, the question now is who will win the role of Lisbeth and why would they want it? For me, Noomi Rapace is Lisbeth. She is the girl with dragon tattoo. It’s hard to think of single mainstream actress in her 20s or early 30s who could hope to match Rapace’s performance. (Perhaps a young Angelina Jolie could have though physically, Jolie is all wrong for the part.) However, even beyond what Rapace did with the character, Lisbeth is one of the most vivid and memorable characters in recent literary history. Even without having to worry about the shadow of Rapace’s previous performance, the role is not an easy one.

Originally, rumor had it that Kristen Stewart was a lock for the role. At the risk of being burned at the stake as a heretic, I’m going to say that I think Stewart could have been an adequate (though not a great) Lisbeth except for the fact that she’s about ten years too young. (While Lisbeth is described as looking like a teenager, she also projects a worldliness of someone much older. Physical appearance can be faked but life experience can not.) Carey Mulligan, star of An Education (the best film of 2009, by the way), was another actress who was frequently mentioned.

Well, according to Entertainment Weekly, neither Stewart nor Mulligan will play Lisbeth Salander. Neither will Natalie Portman who, according to EW, was offered the role but turned it down. The offer to Portman makes sense as she’s physcially right for the role and she’s an undeniably talented actress. However, much as Pitt could never have been convincing as Mikael, Portman would have been miscast as Lisbeth. Portman may be a talented actress but she’s also a rather passive one. Even in her previous “action” roles (Leon, V For Vendetta), Portman essentially played a lost, damaged character (much like Lisbeth) who needed an older male figure to serve as her mentor (which, needless to say, is nothing like Lisbeth).

Again, according to EW, the role of Lisbeth has been narrowed down to four actresses: Rooney Mara, Lea Seydoux, Sarah Snook, and Sophie Lowe. It’s probably a good sign that none of these actresses are household names exactly. Competing with the shadow of Noomi Rapace’s Lisbeth is going to be difficult enough without also having to deal with the shadow of their own previous performances. (For instance, even if Stewart gave a brilliant performance as Lisbeth, it would still be impossible for me to get through the remake without making at least one Twilight joke.)

For me, the real question is not who is going to be cast as Libseth but if Fincher and his producers are going to give us the real Lisbeth — this would be the unapologetically lesbian Lisbeth who can only befriend Mikael once she’s sure that she doesn’t any sort of sexual attraction towards him — or if we’re going to get a more mainstream, Hollywood version of Lisbeth. Are we going to get the real Lisbeth who needs no one or are we going to get another version of what Hollywood claims to be a strong woman, one who can fight up until the final 30 minutes of the film at which point she’s suddenly rendered helpless by the demands of Mainstream Filmmaking 101.

More than anything, that will be the test that Fincher’s Girl With The Dragon Tattoo will have to pass if it wants to be anything more than an unneeded imitation of the original.

(Incidentally, the perfect Lisebth Salander would be Jena Malone. End of story.)

10 Movies I’m Looking Foward To and 5 That I Am Not And 1 That I’m Kinda Sorta Undecided On

Posted on May 6, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I had all six of my wisdom teeth extracted on Tuesday. Yes, you read that correctly. Not only where my all my wisdom teeth impacted but I had two extra ones as well. I was passed out during the operation and, to be honest, I wish I could be passed out for the recovery as well. I’m bruised, puffy, and it hurts to talk. In short, even with a healthy supply of Vicodin, I am miserable. Boo hoo.

However, one thing never fails to cheer me up and that’s watching, discussing, thinking about, and writing about film. Since Tuesday, I’ve had a lot of extra time to think about some of the films that are due to come out during this year. Below, I’ve listed 16 of them. Ten of them are movies that I’m looking forward to seeing, five are movies that I know I’m going to end up seeing and hating, and finally, one is a movie that I’m genuinely undecided on.

The Ten I’m Looking Forward To:

1) Iron Man 2 — Iron Man 2 is opening tomorrow and I’m exciting for several reasons. First off, I loved the first movie. Super hero adaptations usually bore me to tears but the first Iron Man was actually a lot of fun. Traditionally, sequels are disappointing but most of the people behind the 1st movie — director Jon Favreau, Robert Downey, Jr. and Gwynneth Paltrow — are returning. As well, you’ve got Mickey Rourke chewing the scenery and blowing things up, Sam Rockwell (who I love! love! love! — go and rent Moon if you haven’t seen it!) as a villain, and Scarlett Johansson (Lost in Translation is one of my all time favorite movies) kicking ass in black leather.

On a personal note, my friend Jeff once referred to me as “the Black Widow.” At first, I was a little taken back because I thought he was suggesting that I devoured my mates but fortunately for him, he then explained he was referring to a comic book character who, like me, has red hair. Anyway, for the longest time, that’s been an inside joke between the two of us. I’ve always been the Black Widow even though I have no idea who she actually is. So, imagine my delight when I found out that this is apparently the same character that Scarlett Johansson is playing in Iron Man 2! For that reason alone, I have to see this movie.

Finally, when I’m not obsessing on films, I work as a receptionist/secretary/file clerk/personal assistant and there are times when I’m sitting bored at my desk and I start to think about myself as if I were the character played by Gwynneth Paltrow. I’ll sit there and wonder if maybe my boss is secretly a costumed super hero. (I’m fairly sure that he’s not.) Strange as it may seem, Iron Man has become the fuel for my fantasies. (Release Date: May 7th, 2010 — T0morrow!)

2) Robin Hood — When it comes to English folklore, I tend to gravitate towards stories involving King Arthur accidentally sleeping with his half-sister and thousands of cocky knights vainly searching for the Holy Grail and getting killed in various macabre ways as a result. As a result, I really don’t know much about Robin Hood beyond the basics. I know that he was apparently some sort of socialist and that he liked to hang out in the forest with a bunch of “merry” men. To be honest, the whole idea of Robin Hood has always struck me as being childish and the character bores me. But I’m still looking forward to this latest Robin Hood film and I can explain it in 2 words: Russell Crowe. If anyone can make Robin Hood into an interesting — even compelling character — it would be Crowe. Director Ridley Scott also seems to be the ideal director for this movie and then toss in some speeches about taxation without representation and you’ve got the potential for the perfect Libertarian film. (Release Date: May 14th, 2010)

3) The Expendables — Yes, I am usually not a huge fan of action films and I’ve never quite understood how Sylvester Stallone ever became a star but I’m still looking forward to this movie. Why? Just judging from the trailer, every actor on the planet appears to have a role in the this film. I find Jason Stathan to be about as appealing as Sylvester Stallone but Jet Li and Mickey Rourke should both be fun to watch and who wouldn’t jump at the chance to see Eric Roberts play yet another villain? (Release Date: August 13th, 2010)

4) Splice — I nearly included Splice on my list of films that I’m not looking forward to because, I swear to God, the trailer for Splice is so dull that it could be used to torture prisoners at Gitmo. Add to that, I’ve never quite seen the appeal that Adrien Brody supposedly possesses as an actor. However, I’m willing to take a chance on Splice because 1) it also stars one of my personal role models, the wonderful actress, director, and activist Sarah Polley and 2) director Vincenzo Natali has promised to take a very European approach to the film’s horrors (i.e. lots of casual sex with the monster serving as a symbol for something deeper than just box office receipts). I’m looking forward to seeing if Splice can overcome Adrien Brody and live up to that promise. (Release date: June 4th, 2010)

5) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One — Okay, I admit it. I’m a fan. Don’t judge me. (Though I will also say that I think J.K. Rowling needs to get over herself in a major way.) It’ll be interesting to see what Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson do with themselves now that their indentured servitude is done with. Radcliffe, in particular, is capable of playing a lot more than just Harry Potter. (Release Date: November 19th, 2010)

6) Howl — James Franco as the late poet Allen Ginsberg? Strangely enough, I think the idea might work. (Release Date: September 24th, 2010)

7) Machete — Robert Rodriguez finally makes a film for someone other than his kids. How can you not be excited about the chance to see Robert De Niro and Jeff Fahey on-screen together? Plus, Lindsay Lohan (who really should just be allowed to live her life) gets a chance to remake her image playing a socialite with a gun. My hope is that if Machete finds success at the box office, Eli Roth will make Thanksgiving. (Release Date: September 3rd, 2010)

8 ) My Soul To Take — Wes Craven has had an odd career and, to be honest, I struggle sometimes with whether he’s truly a great horror filmmaker or if he’s just a journeyman director who has occasionally gotten lucky. Looking at his career, it’s hard not to wonder how the same guy who made the original Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes could also be responsible for something like Cursed? Regardless of how the actual film turns out, My Soul To Take will add another piece to the puzzle. This will be the first film to be both written and directed by Craven in 16 years. Hopefully, as in the majority of his better movies, Craven will be able to balance his commercial side with his sadistic side. (Release Date: October 29th, 2010)

9) Inception — My tastes usually run more towards horror than sci-fi but I find myself growing more excited about Inception with each passing day. Not only does the plot sound like it could have easily come from a long-lost book by Philip K. Dick (one of the few sci-fi writers that I enjoy reading, A Scanner Darkly being my personal favorite) but the film is being directed by Christopher Nolan who proved with Momento that he can make the surreal compelling. And just check out that cast — Leonardo DiCaprio, Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (who I’ve been crushing on ever since (500) Days of Summer). (Release date: July 16th, 2010.)

10) Salt — I love it when girls get to kick ass in the movies and, when she’s at her best, nobody kicks ass like Angelina Jolie. (Release Date: July 23rd, 2010)

One That I’m Kinda Looking Forward To But I’m Kinda Not

1) Sex and the City 2 — Why are they in the desert? How exactly can you have Sex without the City? (Release date: May 27th, 2010)

The Five I Am Not Looking Forward To

1) The A-Team — Yay! It’s an action movie based on a show I’ve never heard of. I love Liam Neeson and it’s good to see that Sharlto Copley’s underrated performance in District 9 has led to him getting more work but, sorry, I think I’ll pass. (Release Date: June 11th, 2010)

2) The Social Network — I know a lot of people are looking forward to this movie about the founding of Facebook and it is true that it’s being directed by David Fincher. However, there are a few things that lead me to fear that this is not going to be the movie that so many people think it will be. First off, it was written by Aaron Sorkin who is probably one of the most overrated screenwriters working today. He may be best known for The West Wing but most of Sorkin’s work resembles the heavy-handed sermonizing of Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip. Remember how Sorkin reacted when a few bloggers criticized his show? This is not a guy who is comfortable with the Internet. Secondly, the film is being produced by Kevin Spacey, another overrated talent who doesn’t so much act as much as he smugly pretends to act. Third, and most important, The Social Network has got to be one of the worst titles I’ve heard in a long time. Everything about this movie just screams “misfire.” (Release date: October 1st, 2010)

3) Paranormal Activity 2 — Because, you know, the first one was so good. (Release Date: October 22nd, 2010)

4) Twelve — I loved Nick McDonnell’s novel and I usually enjoy movies about decadent rich kids destroying themselves with lots of drugs and promiscuity. I mean, if you’re going to self-destruct, you should at least look good doing it. Unfortunately, Twelve is directed by the American Umberto Lenzi, Joel Schumacher. Schumacher’s films aren’t even enjoyably bad. They’re just bad. Interestingly enough, Joel Schumacher tends to turn up in just about every movie star biography and Hollywood history book that I own. He’s someone who has obviously been around for a very long time and who has cultivated a lot of friends. I imagine he must be very likable in person. But, seriously, isn’t it time to revoke his DGA membership? (Release Date: July 2, 2010)

5) Saw VII — Sorry, I got bored with the Jigsaw Killer about five movies ago. The film’s in 3D so I’m sure we’ll get to see a severed limb fly directly at the camera. (Release Date: October 22nd, 2010)