The Monitor (2011)

You know, I've almost unwittingly made another little trilogy for myself here. I've already done an IFC Midnight trilogy and a Shark Attack Week trilogy since there happened to be a surplus of both IFC Midnight and shark movies on the wall at Blockbuster at the time. But between this entry today and yesterday's "The Tall Man" I'm most of the way to a Weird Dramas That Are Misleading Based On First Impressions That Involve Children In Danger trilogy.

Only that would be way too long of a title. And I'm seeing "Skyfall" tonight, and something tells me that would not be a very accurate description of a James Bond movie.

"The Monitor" is a Norwegian film staring an actress I used to dislike but am becoming quite a fan of, Noomi Rapace. I'm finding it difficult to remember why in the world I wasn't a fan of her before, because ever since "Prometheus" I've enjoyed her greatly in everything I've seen her in. To me she's very naturalistic and as capable of appearing both badass and vulnerable, sometimes at the same time. And she's very convincing when she does either.

Actually, that's a lie. I remember exactly why I didn't like her earlier. I freaking hated the Swedish "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" series. But hey, she helped bring awesomeness back to the "Alien" franchise, so she is officially forgiven in my eyes.

Like "The Tall Man," this is a movie that doesn't deliver exactly what one would expect from it based on the box art or the description. In fact, the description that is written on the case is laughably inaccurate, leading me to believe that the blurb was written by someone who had maybe only seen the trailer, and not the film itself. I say that because it gets rather specific about a plot point that doesn't actually happen, but I can imagine that had you only watched the trailer, you might believe that's where it's going.

I love finding stupid stuff like that. It's almost as fun as reading the descriptions under the ratings, especially when it's a PG-13 movies so they can get really specific about stuff like "TEEN PARTYING AND SMOKING" or "HORROR VIOLENCE" or "GORE AND SLIME." Yes, that last one exists. "Alien Vs. Predator" was rated PG-13 partly due to slime. That's awesome. But I digress.

What's going on in "The Monitor" is that Anna (Noomi Rapace) and her 8 year old son Anders (Vetle Ovenild Werring, who looks like a Norwegian mini-James McAvoy) move into an apartment after being relocated by social services after she divorces her abusive husband. Despite being placed somewhere he could never find her, Anna is still a bit high-strung and doesn't take any chances with her son, who she keeps on a very tight leash.

 Actually, she's one of those moms who would probably use an actual leash on her son.

When it becomes clear that the kid should probably sleep in his own bed at some point, Anna decides that even down the hallway is too far away for her, and buys a baby monitor to put in Anders' room so she can hear if anything happens. Then, one night, a child's horrible screaming comes from the monitor, but it isn't from Anders' room. She realizes that it's picking up another monitor's signal, coming from somewhere else in their apartment complex.

That alone could have made for an interesting movie, but "The Monitor" does something which is either ambitious or kind of stupid. I can't really decide. In any case it did tend to make the whole film feel a little bloated and unfocused. What they did is essentially try to railroad a whole other movie into "The Monitor," because while the child's screams of horror are what drives the film for the first act or so, and it keeps showing up every once in a while to remind us of it, not too far in it starts fading further and further into the background as another plot starts to rear its head.

Plot #2 is essentially asking the question that I always dread a movie asking: "Is the main character crazy?" I really hate when movies go there, because the answer is almost always "Yes." I am having difficulty remembering a movie that started dropping hints about the main character's sanity which turned out to be a red herring, now that I think about it. And it's not that every movie that does that is bad, I'm just tired of the twist because it's expected at that point, and not a twist at all.

Here we have Noomi doing her best "Conspiracy Keenau" face...

"The Monitor" makes it pretty clear, however, that Anna is nuts. They don't keep it ambiguous till the end, so there's a point for them in that regard. At least they didn't attempt to lamely string us along. There's a scene about a half hour in which directly shows us that she is seeing all kinds of crap, and she goes ahead and admits it. Although the true depths of her insanity aren't revealed until the end, which is actually decently effective because you're probably not going to be expecting further reveals if a reveal like that has been made earlier.

There were two things from "The Monitor" that I think worked best for me, and are probably what I would recommend it based on. The first was that I really liked the relationship between Anna and Helge, an electronics store employee played by Kristoffer Joner. They made a cute couple, if a bit awkward and shy, but I really did want to see things work out between the two of them. Especially since Helge is a big, nerdy, almost-loser trapped in a customer service job, which describes me perfectly, and it was nice to imagine me landing a chick who looked like Noomi Rapace.

The second thing was the very ending of the film. Now, due to Plot #2 going on, the film as a whole really doesn't make a lick of sense. However, also due to Plot #2 going on, that complaint is rendered pretty moot, and pretty much anything that didn't make sense can be referred back to that 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. And as annoying as that is, I must admit the argument is pretty watertight.

Nitpicks that don't matter aside, the very end of the film is actually quite poetic. And sad. And slightly revelatory. It doesn't give all the closure that we necessarily want, but it gives us just enough of what we need to make a little sense of everything. A little sense, anyways.

Just a bit.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Monitor," or "Babycall" as the dumb original title calls it, wasn't exactly a great movie, but it did its job well, kept my attention, and was unique enough to make it interesting and unpredictable. If you like Noomi Rapace you might want to check it out. Watch it in the original Norwegian with subtitles, though. The English dub sounds like it was performed by an amateur theater company based in Orange County. Totally fit the feel of Norway, you know?

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

I like Guy Ritche. While "Revolver" didn't do much for me, I thought that "Snatch" and "Lock Stock N' Two Smokin' Barrels" were two very fun movies, and the first "Sherlock Holmes" was an awesome time. Of course, the first time I saw "Sherlock Holmes" I thought it was a confusing, disjointed mess that I couldn't make heads or tails of, and I slept through what seemed like a good half hour of the film.

This may seem odd, but I do have an excuse: I was ripped off of my freaking gourd. It was Christmas evening, and after I had put forth a long day of heavy drinking my friends called me up and asked if I wanted to see a movie with them. I said "Sure, as long as you drive." So while being so drunk that my back molars were singing "Anchors Away," I saw "Sherlock Holmes." This was a mistake.

"Sherlock Holmes" is not a movie for stupid people. Nor is it a movie for people not paying attention. Nor is it for people who are drunk to the point of reaching a plane of incorporeal existence. And while I don't consider myself part of the first group, the second and third group counted me among its VIP members that evening. So that was that. I did not like "Sherlock Holmes."

Then when it came out on DVD I watched it sober and loved it. Lesson learned: Guy Ritche is one director you don't want to watch drunk. Him and Darren Aronofsky. Ritchie because his plots are really twisty turney, and Aronofsky because if I did I'd probably want to kill myself afterwards due to apocalyptic depression.

Anyways, after waiting an obnoxiously long time for "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" to come out for rent (I sadly missed it in theaters) I'm happy to say that the sequel continues the first film's intelligence and entertainment factor. I dare say that it may be a tad more intelligent than its predecessor, in fact. But while the script is smart, and the characters fiendishly so, I can't help but feel that some of the entertainment factor may be ever so slightly lacking. And while the character is great, I have to say that it's due to the fact that the villain, Professor Moriarty, is a bit too obfuscated.

That is actually pretty ironic when you think about it, really. The whole point of Moriarty is that he is this criminal mastermind who is orchestrating Machiavellian plots without ever revealing himself or his true intentions to anyone. Holmes is the only one who can keep up with him, which is why him and Moriarty play so well off each other. These two are locked in a game of mental chess that only they know the true maneuvers of.

Like the game of chess they play which is AMAZING.

And that's why it's a problem for us. It's so tiring at times trying to figure out what exactly it is that Moriarty is up to. This makes sense, of course, and watching Sherlock figuring it out is fun, but as a result I found that I wasn't ever really intimidated by Moriarty. He has the makings of a fantastic villain, and Jared Harris does a phenomenal job playing teh eeeeeeevals, but I couldn't really get scared of him because I had no flipping clue what it was that he was doing. Now, they do explain his master plan, and he is killing people and torturing Sherlock with a meathook (good gravy), but I never picked up "World Shattering Consequences" from his plans even though that's what they amounted to. Perhaps a scene earlier in the film which laid his plans bare would have been helpful.

Now the main reason people see this film, and any film with Robert Downey Jr., is for Robert Downey Jr. And while I wasn't a big fan of how they turned Tony Stark into a mugging chuckle-head in "The Avengers," besides that I can't really think of a single performance he's given which wasn't spot on to the point of running away with the film. "The Avengers" was the only movie I couldn't stand him in. Everything else has been gold. And it's still true for "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows." He just so completely owns the role of Holmes that, like pretty much all of his characters, it's hard seeing anyone else doing it. So nothing has changed in that regard from the first movie.

If anything, Holmes is a bit more high strung in this movie, which in many ways is a lot more fun to watch, but he is climbing so many walls he should invest in some mountaineering gear. This is due to both meeting his intellectual equal (some would say superior), and Watson getting married, which brings up a facet of the movie which some might consider a tad...unnerving. Since there's no real polite way to say this, it's best to just come out and say it:

Holmes and Watson just need to bang and get it over with.

Now that's not being judgmental or insulting to the characters. I'm not even saying that either Holmes or Watson are gay, but there are some unresolved feelings and issues there that need to be addressed one way or the other on the right-quick, because the fate of the world could literally hang in the balance. I mean think about it. Moriarty is trying to cause a world war, and our only hope can't think straight because he's trying his best to underhandedly and subtly oust the bitch stealing his BFF. Is this really the best thing for the fate of the world?

Come on, Watson. For the sake of all mankind...give Sherlock some sugar.

Ok, ok. That's my little immature wink-wink nudge-nudge moment for this entry. Don't worry, there will surely be more. That whole dynamic between Holmes and Watson just makes it that much more interesting to watch anyways, and Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law both are having so much fun playing these characters that it's impossible to not like them. It's seriously one of the better on-screen buddy movie pairings I've seen in a very long time.

Also, on a closing note, it's nice to see me liking Noomi Rapace again. She's really growing on me as an actress, and while I wasn't as taken with her as I was in "Prometheus," her Madam Simza was another step in distancing myself from her Lisbeth Salander, which I am grateful for. And any movie where Noomi Rapace takes over for Rachel McAdams is doing at least one thing right.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" may not be as instantly memorable as the first film, but it's a fine addition to what will hopefully become at least a trilogy. Don't expect it to be as surprisingly good as before, but it's well worth the time. Recommended.

Prometheus (2012)

Sometimes writing this blog sucks. When a movie reaches a certain level of quality it quickly becomes really hard to write anything about it out of fear of sounding redundant. Or sometimes there's just so much to talk about that you either write a novel or nothing at all. Here's one of those moments.

I'll own up to something right off the bat here, so everyone knows where I'm coming from with this. I am a HUGE "Alien" fan. The "Alien" franchise is one of my favorites of all time, right up there with "Star Wars." And while I didn't see them as a child, the "Alien" movies helped define my taste in both the science fiction and horror genres, and was a big part of my adolescence.

I'm such a big fan I even like "Alien Resurrection." Now, don't get me wrong, that is a terrible movie, but I still inexplicably have fun with it despite how terrible it is. "Alien Resurrection" is a glorious wreck of two trains, one carrying Joss Whedon writing a story about cloning while not knowing how cloning works and the other carrying 5,000 gallons of KY jelly. And he had the gall to come out and say that the reason it sucked was because all the actors said their lines wrong. Did he read his script? What an asshole.

Yup. Totally Sygourney Weaver's fault right there...

I'd been keeping on and off again tabs on "Prometheus" for years, ever since it was called "Alien 5." Then Ridley Scott changed the name, it became a prequel, then it wasn't a prequel, then it was, and it just kept going back and forth until I stopped listening. It was too painful to hear every time they made a big change. Eventually I walled myself off from it and kept in the dark. The only thing I allowed myself to see was the trailer when it was first released. And it looked so good that out of all the movies coming out in 2012, the only one that I was more excited about was "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey."

Needless to say, the expectations were sky high.

I ended up seeing "Prometheus" twice, in actuality. I saw it on opening day, but I realized I couldn't write a review of it at that point, because I didn't really know what I thought. I knew that I didn't hate it. I knew that I enjoyed myself, but I didn't know if that was because of my "fan-goggles" or not. Perhaps the fact that I was practically wetting myself with joy every time I saw something familiar was tainting my opinion of it.

So I went back and watched it again a few days later. And I'm happy to say that "Prometheus" improves drastically on a second viewing, and it confirmed my original thoughts on the film: "Prometheus" is really, really good.

Whoa! They made a "Mass Effect" movie? Sweet!

The thing about "Prometheus" is that there's a lot of ideas going on in it. Any movie that asks the question: "Who are we and where did we come from?" and attempts to give some answers is biting off a big mouthful to chew. Aside from that, there are recurring themes of evolution, rebirth, and parricide that really give "Prometheus" what I have to be snobby and call "an intellectual edge" that makes it a much smarter film than any film in the "Alien" franchise to date. Not to say that "Prometheus" is better, or that the others weren't "smart," but they were horror/action films. "Prometheus" is a before anything else a sci-fi film.

Not really knowing where to begin, I'll just start by saying that the cast was phenomenal. I was happy to see that Noomi Rapace confirmed my suspicions that her portrayal of Lisbeth Salander in "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" series was simply the result of a horrible character, and that she is actually a very good actress. I enjoyed her greatly in "Prometheus," although it is inevitable that comparisons to Sygourney Weaver will occur, since she is the Ripley character of this one.

Is she as good as Sygourney? That's impossible to say since Ripley and Beth are two completely different characters. I'd say that overall Beth isn't as emotionally (or physically) strong as Ripley is, but the way Noomi plays Beth, she never comes off as weak - just realistic. In fact you could argue that Beth is far more logical and intelligent than Ripley since she thinks about things instead of acting out of blind emotion (re: running back into the alien hive to save Newt). Perhaps that evens things out. Ripley is a badass, Beth is smart.

Noomi is also looking a HELL of a lot like Kari Byron in this. Ridley Scott must have been reading my "wish list."

 Oh baby. You can bust my myth any day. Awww yeah... #needsgirlfriendbadly

And of course, adding to the lovely factor is Charlize Theron, playing the corporate jerk who doesn't really care about any of the crew, kind of like Paul Reiser's character Burke in "Aliens." Between this and "Snow White and The Huntsman," she really can play wicked quite well. The real star here, though, is Michael Fassbender, who seems to be on a mission to completely dominate every single movie he is in. His portrayal of David, the ship's synthetic (robot) is, in a word, stunning. He had a lot to live up to, filling the shoes of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen, but Fassebender is a mack-daddy, so of course he pulls it off.

And if you squint really hard and huff a lot of paint, Fassbender kind of looks like the love child of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen.

I know there has been some division among fans, however. Honestly, I don't get it, but if someone wasn't paying attention, they might come away with misconceptions since this is not really like the other "Alien" films, at least at first glance. There really isn't any horror element to it, at least not in terms of what we've come to expect. Whereas the other movies were essentially slasher movies in space, "Prometheus" is more of a suspense/drama. The gore, for the most part, isn't really there like in the others, there is less emphasis on action, and there is more of a sense of mystery and discovery than tension and dread, although those do make themselves known on occasion.

But at the same time, there are a lot of similarities, particularly in the pacing department. It begins slow and it takes it's time until a nasty discovery is unveiled which threatens the crew. Slowly they begin to get picked off, just in this case not by a monster in the conventional sense. There is the equivalent of the chestburster scene, and although it is much later in the film, I would say that it's far more intense since the scene in the original was much quicker. A corporate betrayal is uncovered, and the ending is actually quite similar in a lot of ways. There's also a "fourth act" confrontation, which "Alien" basically invented. Hell, even the android's severed head starts talking.

And for being not as action-oriented, there are some legitimate squirming-in-your-seat nail biting moments that I imagine would be especially rough for anybody who has ever given birth. C-Section nightmares all around, kiddos.

 Nobody can watch this scene and tell me later it wasn't intense as all hell.

So I guess I don't understand where the split comes in. It may anger some to hear this, but take it from a person who is quite protective of the series: This is not a betrayal. This is "Alien" with an intellectual spin on it, and there's a lot to talk about in it.

When I talk about an intellectual spin and "big" ideas, dig on this:

SPOILER WARNING

According to "Prometheus," a race of aliens ("The Engineers") created human life on Earth by sacrificing one of their own into the primordial waters. In fact, that is presumably what's going on in the very first scene. The very first scene of the film is the beginning of life, and "The Engineers" are for all intents and purposes, God.

When the crew find the alien ship on the distant planet, it was on a course for Earth. It's reason was to wipe out all life in order to start again. It had been sitting there for around 2,000 years. Now, "Prometheus" takes place less than 100 years from now. Can you think of something possibly God-related that happened about 2,000 years ago that might make the creator of human-kind upset? Something that might make them say, "Ok, you've all had your fun, but you all suck, and it's time to start from scratch" perhaps?

That's right. "Prometheus" drops the hint of the idea that Jesus was an alien. That's a big idea.

/SPOILERS

"Prometheus" may be upsetting for someone looking for a movie just like what the rest of the movies were, but was that really all you wanted? Getting the same thing over and over again can get boring, and I personally didn't want to see Ridley Scott get back in the directors chair only to do his best James Cameron impression. James Cameron is the guy doing the best impression of James Cameron, anyways.

I guess what I mean is that if all you wanted was to see "Aliens" again, throw in the DVD of "Aliens." After all, there really was no improving on that one anyways. When I get Ridley Scott, I expect a high level of quality, and hopefully some interesting intellectual angles. And that's exactly what I got.

Well, that and a whole lot of creepy H.R. Giger looking architecture.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Prometheus" was not what I was expecting, but that didn't stop it from being very good. It's a fine entry into the "Alien" franchise which gets better with repeat viewings, since there's a lot to take in, and I dare say it's objectively the best of the series since "Aliens." If it doesn't make my Top 10 of 2012, I will be shocked. Its biggest problem is that it will feel very hollow if it's not followed up on. This NEEDS a sequel, or even better to be made into a trilogy to be linked into the events of "Alien." Highly Recommended.

The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest (2009)

(This is a re-posting of a Facebook note I did in December 2011.)

You know, I think I just figured out one of the reasons I don't like these movies. It's Noomi Rapace's face. No, not in that way. I'm talking about her expressions. Or lack thereof in this particular case. Now, I'm not saying that Noomi is a bad actress, because I don't think that she is. I just think she's been given a boring as hell, obnoxious character that I am incapable of feeling anything towards. And I don't think that is supposed to be the case.

Anyways. Noomi seems to want to play this character much the same way Kristen Stewart (who IS a bad actress, mind you) chose to play Bela Swan, that being a blank slate with 2 expressions. Now, Noomi's two expressions for this series is 1) pissed off and 2) spaced out. Of course to Noomi's credit, that's one more expression than Kristen Stewart was able to conjure onto to her chipmunk-cheeked, stoner-eyed, big-forheaded stupid face. (Sorry getting sidetracked. Stupid Twilight rage.)

Can't tell if she's scared or if she remembers she left the tap running at home

You see this blank deer-in-headlights look? This is her face for nearly every single scene. Eyes bugging out of her head, mouth agape as her chin digs into her throat. When you see her in profile she looks not unlike a snapping turtle. It's just such a weird expression that I don't know what it is that she's trying to convey. Is it fear? Intense concentration? Apathy? Her war face? Constipation? (The answer to all of these is "yes," by the way.)

Come to think of it, she kind of has the same expression as Jessie Eisenberg.

The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest is really a courtroom drama at its core. Lisbeth is rescued and is recuperating at the hospital after getting shot in the head, but the same people who wanted her dead now REALLY want her dead. The whole movie is leading up to her trial, and I never really quite understood WHAT she was being charged with, because the confusion from The Girl Who Played With Fire kinds of spills over into this one for me.

I mean, I know that she has been charged with attempted murder, but the movie seems to conveniently forget that, and instead focuses on her being accused of being crazy. Instead of focusing on the charge that Lisbeth performed some armed B&E with the intent to kill her father (which she totally did), the trial becomes more of a question of "does Lisbeth belong in the nut house?"

I was wondering why this was, then I found the answer: Because that way we can show that she was abused and raped by her doctor. Rape quota met.

GOOOOOOOOAL!!!!!!

And no, I'm not going to stop gripping about this. The rape just really bothers me with how predominant it is. Because at this point, that's all Lisbeth Salander IS. She is a walking lump of rape. Her entire existence is defined by this one thing, and I just don't see how that makes her a strong, likable female character. Would YOU like to be defined by that one thing if you were a lady (if you're not)? I think I would find that degrading and insulting, if you ask me. But that is what we are given with the character of Lisbeth. Congratulations, all the fans and followers of this series: Your protagonist is a walking billboard that says "I WAS RAPED AND THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT."

You know there's more to life than just that, don't you? I mean, yes it's tragic when something like that happens but isn't it a stronger sign of one's character to rise above it? Otherwise, like I said, that's all you are.

Another thing sticking in my craw is that it is brought up time and time again at the trial that Lisbeth is not capable of making adult decisions, because she is mentally incompetent. The defense argues violently that she is totally competent, and more than able to make adult decisions and take responsibility. Kind of a weird strategy when the main defense is that she was made to do these things because of a lifetime of abuse. So what exactly is it, Lisbeth? Are you incompetent and simply a walking ball of inconsolable rage, or are you an adjusted adult capable of making mature decisions? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

But here is the kicker. The real coup de grâce. Remember me saying in the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo post that I could see Lisbeth being found not guilty on account of "She was raped that one time." Well, guess I'm psychic because that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS.

I couldn't believe it. The court skips past all her transgressions because they show the video evidence of the dude in the first movie raping her to the judge, and that's all it takes for her to get a free pass for everything she's done.

Excuse me? I don't want to sound like a total asshole but what possible relevance does that have to her attempting to kill her father? The correct answer is F@#! ALL. If I were the judge I would have that thrown out as inadmissible so fast it'd make Lisbeth's mohawk spin. It's a court of justice for a reason, and for a series which gets so hung up on justice prevailing in a corrupt system, it's the system being corrupt and inept that gives Lisbeth her free pass to get away with anything, which the movie considers justice!

Makes about as much sense as this.

Am I the only one who has a problem with this? I guess so, since I haven't heard anyone else bitching about this stuff. But you know what? I stand by my opinions, and anyone who disagrees, well, good for you, but I prefer my protagonists to be better than this.

Oh, and the ending is crap, too.

Well, glad THAT'S over with. Now if you'll excuse me, I feel like I need a shower after all that sleaze and hairspray. I'll be sure to be looking over my shoulder for the Stieg Larsson fanboys ready to go all "Lisbeth Salander" on me.

The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009)

(This is a re-posting of a Facebook note I did December of 2011.)

Once again, as was the case with my first little tirade about The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, I should probably make it clear that none of the following is meant to offend anyone. Of course that is basically asking the impossible. The odd thing is that the things that I thought were going to be hot button issues turned out to be barely mentioned. In fact, in both my last note and talking with others IRL, as the kids say nowadays, people mostly agreed with me about the controversial stuff like rape. Imagine that! So I guess this time, I'll just mention that there will be more talk about rape, so prepare your fragile selves.
The sticking point, however, came when I talked about Stieg Larsson. Ah, Stieg. Good old Stieg. You were such a hack.
(You didn't see it, but about 100 million people just willed my head to explode)
People like him, though! And there are a lot of people who really liked the books. Then again, a lot of people also liked The Hanson Brothers. But to remind everyone once again, I'm not talking about the books, so we'll leave Stieg's writing out of it. That's really the only big problem I had with the guy anyways. I couldn't stand the way he wrote, which is purely a personal preference. Well, that and his stories and characters and their motivations...
Huh. I guess I do have some bones to pick, huh?
Honestly, I just found this story to be confusing as all holy hell. There was not one point in this film when I felt that I had a firm grasp on what was going on past the opening credits, when Lisbeth is having 'Nam flashbacks about being raped in the first movie. Naturally. It takes them 43 seconds to get to the rape. Joy.
But I digress. To the film's credit there really isn't THAT much rape in it. It does kind of begin to focus on other things besides that, which is a nice change of pace. Of course, it just can't help itself and there is a scene where two bikers find her snooping through a cabin and one of them OUT OF NOWHERE just looks at her and says to himself: "You and me, it's like we got a connection. I think I'm gonna rape you!"

A couple of you out there just got a big laugh from this.

Of course, it doesn't actually happen because Lisbeth hits him in the face with enough pepper spray to season a wooly mammoth and then shoots him in the leg. So we don't have to suffer through ANOTHER rape scene, but the spirit was still there, almost like the movie snapped its fingers and said "Darn!" as she got away on his bike.
That doesn't mean there's no sex. Oh no, there is. The first 10 minutes shows a lesbian sex scene in not-too-graphic, Showtime-level detail, but it does bring up the first thing here that's going to make me sound like a really big jerk, but it really pissed me off by the end of this series: For a girl who spends a whole lot of time naked on screen, Noomi Rapace is not pleasant to look at.
I can't believe how often this series made me look at her muscled, flap-jack, empty leather water-skin dugs. There's nothing wrong with small breasts. None at all. But that doesn't mean all of them are nice to look at. She looks like if Robert Smith circa 1985 shaved his chest and hit the gym. I have a nicer rack than this chick. Do you have any idea how weird that is for me to watch? I'm not even going to bring up the topic of the armpit hair. Europe is weird.
All I'm saying is that if you're making a movie starring a woman with a small, boyish figure who spends a lot of time naked, fine, but could you at least cast someone with tits that don't have the same texture and consistency as Sylvester Stallone's face?
Anyways, now that I've exposed myself as a total chauvinist pig, let me also show myself to be a total idiot and reiterate the fact that I found this movie to be insufferably confusing. Perhaps it was the foreign names, but I never had any idea who any of the characters were ever talking about past the two leads. The plot is so convoluted and twisty-turny that it makes my head swim keeping the names and facts straight, and the plot is all revealed through one talky scene of exposition after another.
See, this is the same reason I don't like mobster movies in general. There's always that scene in the police headquarters where they have the white board on the wall with dozens of photos on it, and the chief investigator on the case starts flapping his gums and pointing at the board. He says something like "Vinceti is Lazaro's nephew who was working for Cabrone, but he was also working as a mole for Panini. Don Ricardo found out and had Vinceti whacked, but Johnny C., who was Lazaro's concigliere ordered the hit on Ricardo without Lazaro's say-so, so he BLAH BLAH BLAH GLAAAAAAHHHH"
I never have the slightest clue what they're talking about. And that's where the movie always loses me. Whenever a lot of names get thrown at me like that, I can never keep track. It also doesn't help that I'm not too good with faces. Working in retail for a decade will do that to you. That's exactly what happened to me with The Girl Who Played With Fire. So many Swedish names and connections fly by that I have no way to keep track of them all, and they all sound like variations of "HONG-FLUUR" or "BLURN-QWIST," so I don't know who anyone is.
I know that it has something to do with a shadowy section of the government trying to hush up Lisbeth because she...knows something, I guess? To be honest, that was really never made clear to me. Why do they want Lisbeth dead? I don't know. Why is anyone doing anything here? Something to do with the sex slave trade. And naturally nearly every male member of the Swedish government is involved with it, and some even have their own personal sex slave they keep chained up in their guest room. I hope to one day be that well-off. Once again, yay, Stieg Larsson.

Waaaarriors...come out to plaa-aaaay...

One thing I did find out though, that I must correct from my last note is the fact that Lisbeth's father is not, in fact, dead. She did set him on fire though. Oh boy, did she ever set him on fire. But he evidently was some kind of Russian defector who...I guess did evil things back there and continued to do them in Sweden even after he defected. I guess.
I swear I watched this thing and paid attention. Anyway, he's still alive and she tries to kill him but ends up getting shot 3 times and buried alive. But she lives.
What.
In what is probably the most ridiculous "Oh shit we can't have the main character die" moment I think I've ever seen outside the Harry Potter franchise, Lisbeth gets shot 3 times INCLUDING A SHOT TO THE HEAD, and then proceeds to get buried, straight up Joe-Pesci-in-the-desert-gangster-style, for what could not have been less than a half hour. I judged this based on the fact that she was buried at night in the pitch black dark, but clawed her way out in the full out daylight. Giving the movie a HUGE benefit of the doubt, I'm saying it must have been early morning when they buried her. Even so, there is no way that much sunlight arrived in anything less than the time it would take to make a full spaghetti diner, including the garlic bread. Call me a skeptic but I don't think you could hold your breath for that long. Especially after you were SHOT IN THE HEAD.
Then the movie abruptly ends like it's tired of this game and is taking its ball and going home. Lisbeth is really messed up, her dad is slightly less so, having only suffered an axe to the head and leg, and the male lead arrives to say the only line of dialogue he says to her in the whole movie. "Don't worry. It's me." That's the only scene the two leads have together, and I don't think it really counts because I don't think she was really conscious. They get Lisbeth to da choppa and then...credits. Awesome.

"Lisbeth...can I borrow 5 bucks?" 

 I can't help but draw comparisons to The Empire Strikes Back with this ending. Seriously. The spunky underdog who isn't ready for the challenge bravely but foolishly rushes into the final confrontation, the "I AM YOUR FATHER" moment, someone *almost* loses a hand, the hero is saved from the brink of death but really beat up, and we end with a ship (helicopter) flying away into the credits with absolutely no closure whatsoever.
Only it wasn't awesome like The Empire Strikes Back.
That's all I've got for The Girl Who Played With Fire. In the end, it was just too confusing for me to care about what was happening.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2009)

(This was a Facebook note of mine from December 2011 that I'm posting here in anticipation of seeing the remake. I'm not excited about it, for reasons that will be made clear soon.)

Be forewarned: The things I am about to say may upset some people. Just know I'm not looking to start a fight on teh intarnets, or cause ye olde Dramae. These things may be especially upsetting to fans of Stieg Larson's novels, because I know that a lot of people really enjoyed them. I, on the other hand, did not. And darn it, there are some things I have just have to throw out there like so much gasoline on a fire. I am expecting smoke.
Let's clear some things up quickly before I begin, because I know there a couple things that some folks may call me out on immediately.
1) No, I did not care for the novel, "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo." In fact, much to my (eventual) shame, I didn't even finish it. I made it about 200 pages, then "rage-quit" when I just couldn't take Larson's plodding, over-blown, spinning in circles, full-of-itself style for one more sentence. It really was Larson's writing that I couldn't stand more than anything else, and the same thing happened to me and Dean Koontz. In fact, the only Koontz novel I attempted ("The Face" I believe it was called) only lasted 7 pages with me before I said "Good god, do you suck, Dean. Bye."
Anyways, I say "eventual" shame because in all honesty, I was glad that I stopped reading it. I really was, and I still am. I loathed nearly every sentence in that book from page 1, and I think it's a credit to my stamina that I made it as far as I did. Of course, nobody will EVER listen to your opinion about a book if you didn't finish reading it. Hence my "eventual" shame. Everybody was talking about this book, and when the topic of my dislike of it comes up, it's impossible for me to defend my position. How can I? I didn't finish it. I am not worthy of opining in any kind of negative way, because I didn't even get the whole experience, they say.
And you know something? They're right.
So I'm not going to talk about the book. I'm talking about the movie. So if anyone has a problem with my problems based on the old standby "Well in the BOOK you find out-" No. You know what? I don't care. Larson could have turned the book into "Salem's Lot" meets "The Jetson's" in the last act and I still wouldn't care. If my opinion on the book is totally negated by my not finishing it, than it shouldn't matter anyways, should it? After all, since I am not ALLOWED to have an opinion of the book, anything involving it is null and void in my discussion of the film.
2) I am NOT making light of rape. This will become more clear later, but I'm just throwing this out right here, right now. It's a very sensitive subject dealing with a terrible, terrible thing, but some may be offended by my words, which may be read as insensitive or overly cynical. That is not my intention - I'm just bringing up my issues with the way the film deals with the subject, which I consider to be valid points.
3) I realize that because I'm a man, some may say I have no right to be bringing up these points about rape, because it couldn't happen to me. I would like to say "Bullshit."
I have an anus. I could be raped. And anyone who would claim that somehow rape happening to a woman is somehow worse that it happening to a man is a fairly big hypocrite. Don't forget your Dr. Seuss: "A person's a person."
(My god, I wrote "anus," "raped," and quoted "Dr. Seuss" in the same paragraph. I write weird things when I'm tired.)
----
Before talking about the main point, one thing I must get out of the way is this: Is this not the most stupid mystery of all time? Is it just me? Because this mystery, the whole point of the film (well, besides rape, which we'll get to) is that a girl went missing 40 years ago. She has never been found. Her uncle believes that one of his evil family killed her. Her dad was a Nazi who raped her (of course), her brother was even worse than that, her mom was a terrible, evil woman, and basically almost everyone in this family is an evil S.O.B.The girl once gave the uncle a pressed flower for his birthday. She would do this every year. It has continued...even after her disappearance. The uncle thinks her murderer is taunting him. At no point does it cross ANYONE'S brain stem that she may have done something like...oh I don't know...RUN AWAY FROM HOME.Well, guess what? That's exactly what happened. The dumb-ass didn't have the thought that her sending him a flower EVERY YEAR SINCE SHE DISAPPEARED was her telling him she was alright. No, he thought the killer was taunting him. That's dumb.(BTW, spoiler alert ::trollface-I-don't-care-if-I-ruined-it-for-you-it-was-so-freaking-obvious::)

"I'm here for my Stabbing Westward audition..."

Anyway, on to the awkward stuff that might get people mad at me. I would like to start by diving headfirst into the main problem I have with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: rape. Yeah, we're just diving right in there, getting it out in the open. Rape. It's a nasty word. It's nasty to even type. Almost as if by typing it my words are tainted. But my problems are not what you might expect. I don't have a problem with the fact that there is rape in this film (as horrible of a thing as that is to say). I'm not even upset that there is lots and lots and lots of all manner of sexual abuse towards women in this film.

My problem is that the film LOVES IT.

Oh yeah. It's true. As much as the film preaches, pontificates and soapboxes all over the place about how much women are all victims just seemingly waiting to get jumped at any given moment, it's almost like it gets off on it, as disgusting as that analogy is.

There are so many occasions in this film were a female character gets molested or raped, or brings up the fact that they were molested or raped at some point(s) that it goes beyond shocking or disturbing, and just becomes ridiculous. Lisbeth, the eponymous "heroine," is assaulted by a gang, forced to perform oral sex, beaten, and raped. And that's not all at one time, mind you. That's spread throughout the film. The bad guy is also planning on raping her before he murders her, and her father also raped her when she was a child (although that's more implied). Lovely, movie. Perhaps you can mutilate her some while you're at it. Maybe whip her a bit? I don't feel DEFILED enough yet. I mean, as long as we're being disgusting over here, why not? Oh wait, I forgot, you whip her at one point, too. Well done.

It seems to me that the film is at its most "alive" when Lisbeth is getting victimized. The rest of the story is a really REALLY boring who-done-it. But when Lisbeth is getting assaulted, it's almost as if I can see the director hunched over behind the camera, licking his lips as he grins while thinking to himself, "Yes, YES! We will make this so brutal and horrible to watch that Lisbeth will be able to do ANYTHING we want to people, and they'll still think of her as a strong female character! Now, let's find the biggest thing she can field-goal-kick up that guy's asshole!"

Pictured above: Subtlety

See, I get it. I really do. A guy does something horrible to you, you want revenge. That's fine. I understand. And the revenge she takes on the guy who raped her (in the movie, god knows how many times Stieg Larson wrote that she has been raped in the books) is savage and ironic, and I'm sure it was cathartic for anybody in the theater who had ever been assaulted. But you know what else is a good revenge? CALLING THE GOD DAMN POLICE AND HAVING HIM ARRESTED.

She had him on video tape. I'm going to repeat that. She taped him raping her. There's no mystery. He would go to jail. For a long time. He'd probably get get the Swedish Meatballs raped out of him in the showers there. I think that's also ironic and cathartic.
You see, for me, the idea of a strong, positive character is one that chooses to not be a total psychopath. And for those who would argue that Lisbeth is not a total psychopath, she set her dad on fire. Seriously. Of course, this is after he raped her (I think. I know for a fact he at least abused her mom. Of course.). All I'm saying is that there are places called prison, and it's where normal people like to send bad people. They don't immolate them.
But no, since The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a revenge fantasy, we have Lisbeth, who has the entire universe out to rape her. As a man, it actually made ME feel like something of a victim. I've never raped anyone. I've never known anyone who has raped anyone. But according to this film, there's a roughly 127% chance that I'm a total rapist sleazebag. I'm sure if I had seen this in the theaters, any eyes belonging to women leaving the building would have been drilling into the back of my skull, trying to see the filth oozing through my sick, twisted, penis-owning black-hearted self.
So can Lisbeth just be a psycho and we call it even? Sure. Of course. Plenty of literary characters have been total psychos, but seldom are they portrayed to be good people. My problem is this:
From the beginning, it is clear that we are meant to not only identify with her, but we are meant to like her and root for her.
We are meant to cheer a character who does these monstrous things to people. Someone violated her. She violates him right back. Huh. That kind of makes her just as bad as him, doesn't it? Go team, Lisbeth. Truly your eye-for-an-eye policy will give 20/20 vision to us all.
I can see her trial now: Lisbeth Salander arrested for the deaths of 3 people, found not-guilty by reason of "she-was-raped-that-one-time." YOU ARE FREE TO GO! Hooray!
And the weirdest thing is that she really doesn't feel like she's even from the same story. She's got this "Hackers" meets "Death Wish" meets "The Sex Pistols" thing going on, so she's obviously the most interesting character. Of course, when you look at the rest of the characters they are so bland and vanilla they would make William H. Macy wearing a plaid tie look like Ziggy Freaking Stardust. I couldn't help but think to myself at several times throughout the movie, as she is sitting there looking gloomy while furiously typing on her laptop doing HACKER THINGS (TM), "I'm sorry, why are you here again?"
Oh right. The rape. We can't NOT have the rape.