Entry#181: Toy Story

Trailer

Pixar's a giant in the film industry. Not only is the company releasing films that are both critically and financially successful, but even the artistic community is beginning to take notice of Pixar. This can be seen by the Cannes Film Festival's decision to play Up as its opening film for 2009. This is a big deal, for those unaware, as that event marked the first time that the festival had ever opened with an animated feature. it's because of the maturity and quality of Pixar films that they've been so popular with both children and adult audiences. However, like all "giants", Pixar wasn't always such a famed name. Before releasing films like Up, WALL.E, or The Incredibles, Pixar debuted in 1995 with a little film called Toy Story. Before this, the small company had only made short CGI-created shorts such as Red's Dream or Tin Toy. In other words, there was a lot on the line during the release of Toy Story - the company's entire career would either be made or broken by the success of the film. Thankfully, though, Pixar's creative team *knew* how to create a charming and interesting narrative. The rest is history. With the release of Toy Story 3 earlier this year, nearly fifteen years since the release of the original, I thought I'd stroll down memory lane and see if the original film still held up.

According to the film, toys come to life whenever humans aren't present. This particular film follows the toys of six-year-old Andy, mainly focusing on an old-fashioned cowboy pull-string toy, Woody, and a space ranger action figure, Buzz Lightyear. Woody, until now, has been the leader of the toys and the unspoken favorite of Andy's. Along with his fellow toys, Woody has managed to lead a steady life that focuses on caring for the "community"'s needs and pleasing Andy. Things change, however, when Andy gets a Buzz Lightyear action figure for his birthday. As Buzz slowly becomes Andy's new favorite, Woody starts to become jealous of Buzz and the rest of the film follows the hijinks that occur because of this rivalry.

In terms of screenwriting and characterization, the film's got it in the bag. The cast is well-rounded, well-written, and consists of some very memorable characters. Woody and Buzz, the two leads of the film, are obviously the most developed and interesting of the cast. Though they start out as rivals, the two toys soon become great friends and their friendship, humor, and charming personalities make for a film that's just as sweet as it is character-orientated. Nothing feels plot-based or gimmicky, as the all of the toys' emotions seem to really shine despite the fact that they're...well, toys. For instance, Rex - the big green dinosaur - is a warm-hearted and neurotic worry-wart at heart. It's these memorable character traits and quirks that make the characters of Toy Story so lovable. I may be influenced by the mists of nostalgia, but I'll defend this cast of characters to the end. They're charming, sweet, and simply unforgettable.

I'm not one to usually talk about humor that much, but this film is especially witty. I caught myself laughing at moments that I never really understood during my younger years. For instance, the "a few blocks away" comment from Bo Peep was something that I found to be very clever in its execution. It's no surprise, though, as the wit-master Joss Whedon actually worked on the script. Though he wasn't known for much in 1995, he's become quite the star in recent years thanks to his ever-popular works like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, and - my personal favorite of his - Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. The sheer wit and developed sense of humor is really just charming and is one of the many reasons why this film is so adored by its fanbase. I could list plenty of other witty moments during the film, but watching these jokes play out is very different from simply quoting them. Even the simpler moments, like the squeaky shark's one line, still prove to be charming.

The visuals still look pretty nice. It was created in an age when CGI was still in its infancy and wasn't overused like it is today. Still, despite how good the film looks, it hasn't exactly aged well in an age where hi-defintion has become the "norm". Don't get me wrong - the film still looks nice and the cinematography works very well (like in the shot where Buzz realizes he's a toy). It's just that I found it difficult to get into the film, at first, because of the dated graphics. Call me a broken record, but 2D animation doesn't look aged for a reason. I digress, though...

Also, if I may point out one other problem with the film, Toy Story has a pretty weak introduction. The first ten minutes of the film don't give us much room to get to know (or get to know all over again) any of these people, as we're pretty much thrown in medias res. It's not earth-shattering or anything, but it leaves something to be desired.

Overall, though, Toy Story remains a fantastic film. It's filled with an interesting and charming cast, the script's quite witty, and it's one of the most creative films to come out of the 90's. It's not perfect but, with amazing work like this, it doesn't necessarily have to be.

Entry#180: Synecdoche, New York

 Trailer

Charlie Kaufman is the creative mind behind films like Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind, Adaptation, and more. Though Kaufman didn't direct any of these films, his masterful screenplays are definitely one of the driving forces of these charming and intelligent films. He's worked with the likes of Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry, won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay with Eternal Sunshine, and is generally considered as a great and thought-provoking writer. In 2008, though, Kaufman finally made his directorial debut with Synecdoche, New York - a surrealistic film that dealt with depression and the acception of death. It's Kaufman's darkest work, by far, and it may be for that reason, among others, that the film feels so weak when compared with his other works.

The film follows theatre director Caden Cotard and his life after directing a successful adaptation of Death of a Salesman. Though he should feel happy, Cotard is extremely depressed with his life and disconnected from his family. To add to his misery, Cotard's constantly bombarded by illnesses and the desire to sleep with other women. These women, according to Cotard, are individuals that understand and comfort him on a higher level than with his family. Eventually, Cotard loses his wife and child to the artistic community of Berlin and is, by the chance of fate, awarded with the MacArthur Fellowship. This award presents Cotard with $500,000 that is meant to further his artistic career with a new and original work. After some thought, Cotard decides to create a play that will "encompass everything in life" by setting his major play within a life-sized replica of New York contained within a large warehouse. The rest of the film follows Cotard's ensuing depression and the ongoing status of his extravagant "production".

The script and the characters are defintely of a high quality. The characters are complex, emotional, and very well-written. There's nothing artifical or cheap about any of the interesting cast members; it all feels real and heart-felt. As for the script, the writing's simply fantastic. I was constantly reminded of great screenplays because of the high quality of the dialogue and character interaction. At the same time, though, something about this film felt very off-putting. Unlike Kaufman's other films, which were serious yet charming, this film feels very, very cold. It doesn't let us connect with or try to understand anything when it comes to what the characters are going through. It's like watching a group of very interesting people through a transparent wall. In fact, the film seems to state that no one can ever really connect with anyone. It's this bitterness and lack of relation that hampers the film so much. I understand and respect depressing films - some of my favorite films are depressing - but Synecdoche, New York takes it too far. The quality of the writing my be superb, but it's too rough around the edges to let anyone even try to understand.

Is it possible, though, that I don't "understand' this film? I've looked around the web to see what other critics have thought and the results are quite polarizing. Some critics, such as Roger Ebert, claim that the film's one of the past decade's best while others claim it's a self-indulgent piece of misguided avant-garde filmmaking. I'm not sure if I agree with either statements, though. Though the film's certainly captivating and creative, I definitely wouldn't say it's one of the best films to come out in the last ten years. It's ambitious, yes, but too many ideas are crammed together and film uses symbolism to a degree that's reminiscent of a wannabe surrealist film student. It's that bad. Don't even get me started on the house that's in flames yet stays together...

On the other hand, though, this certainly isn't a "bad" movie. It's got spectacular writing and the characters are all quite complex. It's not that I don't like this film because I disagree with its message, as I enjoy plenty of films with messages that I don't necessarily agree with. Harold & Maude, for example, seems to promote hedonism but I still enjoy the film's characters and witty dialogue. This film, however, seems too cold to really connect with. It's smart, that's for certain, but I can't feel anything in watching it.

Visually, though, the film's very gorgeous. The cinematography, camerawork, and use of dark lenses create a mood that's perfect for the film (regardless of how it's too cold). The hi-def quality and cinematography look sharp, dark, and as excellent as can be. There isn't too much else that I can say, as I'm no expert on cinematography, but the film still looks REALLY good.

All in all, I did like Synecdoche, New York. It wasn't great, thanks to a cold demeanor and an overuse of redundant symbolism, but it was still fascinating for what it was. It's possible that I'm wrong and that the film deserves a re-watch, but I think I'll let some time pass before trying the film again...

Entry#179: Jules et Jim

Trailer

François Truffaut was considered one of the leading directors of French New Wave. This style of film, unlike the static and melodramatic dramas of Hollywood, desired to create narratives about realistic people with a dialogue that sounded as natural as possible and seemed as close to reality as possible. Still, despite the heavy intent of realism, French New Wave was also concerned with the romantic nature of the lawless and of the bohemian. As Jules and Jim is considered one of the high points of Truffaut's career, I found it only natural to want to check out the film.

The film follows the friendship of two bohemian writers, Jules and Jim, over the course of 25 years and one complicated love triangle. The writers met in college, with Jules being the extroverted one and Jim being the shy one, and the two immediately clicked with one another. They shared everything with each other - stories, ideas, critiques, and even women. However, things begin to change once Jules is introduced to the sexy and artistic Catherine, a woman who's just as complex and laid-back as the two friends are. Soon enough, both men find themselves in love with Catherine and we're led through a narrative of heartbreak, war, and confusion.

The characters are definitely the focus of this film. Though the cast is small, only consisting of fifteen different people, the focus and presentation of these characters is just superb. They're written and developed in a very intelligent and realistic manner, making it all the more easier to connect with and care about these people. Jules and Jim, obviously, are the most likable set of characters in the film. Catherine's presence may disturb their friendship at points, but the bond between these two friends can easily be felt through the script and the acting. The first act, by far, had to be the best in terms of characterization. The originality and freshness allows for a narrative that feels like it can be pulled in any direction it pleases.

On the down side, however, that "pulled in any direction" comment is taken a bit too far. I had no qualms with the majority of the first and second acts, but the third act of the film simply perplexed me. I understood how our characters got to this point, yet I can't understand their actions during this section of the film. It seems completely spontaneous and out-of-touch with the rest of the film. The ending especially felt doomed by this "randomness" in the third act. I won't give anything away, but it almost feels pretentious in its complete lack of logic.

Still, the characters really make up for this disappointing third act. The script is very intelligent, as I said, and it creates life-like people living in a world that seems just like our own. Films have been known to stretch the truth, in terms of human dialogue, but Jules and Jim felt quite natural. There were a few moments when it felt artificial, yes, but these moments are few and far between. The rest of the script breathes with a great sense of charm in its freshness. In fact, there are many sequences throughout the film where the main characters just sit down and talk with one another. These conversations - whether they're discussing the meaning of a play or the consequences of a divorce - are fresh and feel very, very real. It's this kind of playfulness and charm that makes the film so appealing.

The cinematography is wonderful as well. The camerawork, created with the help of fast-moving cameras and rollerblades, is very fluid and open, fitting in very well with the moods and themes of the film. The visuals are very stylish and authentic, making for a style of cinematography that's both aesthetically-pleasing and critical of the stationery camera that was popular with Hollywood dramas at the time.

Moving on, however, the film's pace can sometimes feel too fast for its own good. This is especially apparent during the film's introduction, which is so rushed that it's difficult to really understand what's going on. So much information and background is thrown into this opening that it's like trying to mash a CliffNotes version of the events into your head. The pace does get better later on, but the fast pace sometimes doesn't work out for the benefit of the film.

All in all, though, Jules and Jim is a very intelligent, charming, and graceful film. Though the fast pace and marred third act disappoint, the character-driven narrative and spectacular visual style make for a film that's easy to get whisked away by.

Entry#178: Titanic

Trailer

Titanic is a film that needs no introduction. Until the 2009 release of Avatar, which was also directed by James Cameron, Titanic stood firmly as the highest-grossing film of all-time. The film was an international hit and won 11 Oscars at the Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Director, Editing, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costume Design, and more. Whether you love, hate, or tolerate the film, you can't deny the huge impact the film has had on the film industry since its original release in 1997. I'm not a big fan of James Cameron myself, as I've found him to be emotionally manipulative in his later works, but even I'll admit there's some good to be found in Titanic.

The film follows two people from completely different social classes, Jack Dawson and Rose DeWitt Bukater, who fall in love aboard the ill-fated maiden voyage of the Titanic. There's a catch, however, as Rose is already engaged to the wealthy Caledon Hackley - the heir to a steel fortune in Pittsburgh and the only hope for Rose's family to regain its former power and status. Jack, on the other hand, is a poor wanderer and his love is the only thing he has to offer Rose. The film follows the affair, the voyage of the Titanic, the ship's eventual destruction, and the recollection of these events by a 101-year-old Rose.

Visually, this film is a masterpiece. Created during the days when CGI wasn't considered necessary for a great film, Titanic has truly superb and breathtaking cinematography. Despite some use of CGI, the film looks incredibly real and the camerawork is simply splendid with its wide shots, aerial views, and underwater recording. This is a film with truly spectacular cinematography, as evidenced by the hard work, polish, and seemingly perfect use of lenses and hi-def cameras. I may not have loved this film but the cinematography was just fantastic. The set-pieces, art design, and costumes are all great as well. I don't usually comment on these areas of a film, but the style and finesse of this film is to be highly commended. It shows that, despite the films of the era, the 1940's were just as full of color and life as today.

That said, the scripting and characters are quite poor. For a film that claims to be a throwback to the old Hollywood romances (see Casablanca or It Happened One Night), the film doesn't care much for its characters. The leading characters, Jack and Rose, are given a bit of depth but that's not saying much. We do get to know them, slightly, but not on a personal or emotional level. Jack's a typical vagabond and Rose's a typical depressed rich girl - these are archetypes and make our leading characters feel more like cartoons than actual people. For instance, I don't see how a person could completely leave their life behind for someone they met a week ago. It's the stuff of cheap romance novels. The supporting cast is even worse as nobody seems to have a complete or developed personality in this film except for Jack and Rose. Caledon, for example, only serves to play the role of an elitist and uncaring jerk. Does he have any other personality traits besides this? Well, unless you count good hair as a personality trait, not really. Everyone else in the film - from the snobs to the clergy - has the depth of a sheet of paper.

As for the scripting, all of the dialogue just feels artificial. Someone might write this down, yes, but it doesn't feel like something that people would actually say. Some of it's only meant for expositional purposes as well, serving to make useless characters feel even more useless. Character interaction just feels clunky and unrealistic, and that's probably my biggest complaint of the film. Speaking of the script, though, there are some annoying tidbits mentioned several times throughout the screenplay that are sorry excuses for honorable mentions. In other words, several famous people and events are mentioned in this film and the writer obviously thought these passing references were clever. They're not - they're cheap and make for awful foreshadowing.

However, I'll admit that the film had a very nice structure and pace. For a film that was a little over three hours, the film never seemed to drag or become boring despite its flaws. The script knows how to deal with a good plot and how to keep people interested. Somehow, the film succeeded in this aspect. despite poor characters, the plot and pacing of this film are interesting and captivating enough to keep the film from ever getting boring. It can drag in spots, especially during the last hour, but it's otherwise entertaining.

Also, despite the weak characters and script, there is some good acting present in the film. The big star of this film, however, definitely isn't Leonardo DiCaprio. I'm usually a fan of his work, but sometimes he really hammed things up and got too over-the-top for my tastes. The "I'm the king of the world!" line would be, by far, the best example of this corniness. Instead, I think Kate Winslet was the true star of this film. She's a superb actress and gave a great delivery for a script that was otherwise below average.

All in all, Titanic is a decent film. Though it's a visual masterpiece featuring a nice structure and good acting, the film feels hollow in terms of character and scripting. Like the wreckage of the actual Titanic, the film's beautiful on the outside but only fleeting glimpses of emotion can be seen in the film's heart.

Entry#177: Inception

Trailer

Christopher Nolan is living the life. In the span of ten years, he's gone from obscure indie filmmaker to big-name Hollywood director. Not only that, but Nolan's The Dark Knight remains as one of the most popular films to come out in the last decade that both critics and casual viewers could enjoy. While Inception hasn't gotten as much coverage as TDK, there are plenty of people - myself included - who having been looking forward to Nolan's follow-up to his action-thriller/superhero blockbuster. Having finished the film, I can say that Inception is an exciting and smart, yet very streamlined, film that puts on a nice twist on the heist genre.

Because the film's more enjoyable and immersing when you know as little as possible, it's going to be difficult to actually write a brief outline of the plot. In other words, you'll have to forgive any crypticness on my part as I'm only trying to preserve the secrets of the film. Anyway, Inception follows Dom Cobb, an "extractor", and his team which specializes in dream theft. With special technology and highly-trained teammates (comprised of "architects", "point men", etc), the team routinely takes on jobs that involve stealing confidential secrets from top CEOs and businessmen. After a seemingly normal job, the team takes on a special mission that will require more than just the average crew.

The film's visually-mindblowing, that's for sure. The imagery and the creative use of cinematography are richly-detailed and create a world that's interested in meshing together the elements of the real world with the elements of a dream world. Don't expect anything dreamlike or surreal in this film, as the ambiguity between what's real and what's not real is part of the focal point of the entire film. That said, the slick style of the film looks extremely well and blends together a variety of backgrounds. If you're a noir fan, for instance, you'll really like the dreams of the Asian crime boss, which slightly resemble Orson Welles' famous noir films. Perhaps you like James Bond-esque films? If so, then you'll probably like the style of the forger's dreams. With an eye for detail and some creative cinematography, the film's visuals just look great.

The cast of Inception is interesting as well. The group of "dream thieves" all have distinct and likable personalities which makes for a good set of characters. At the same time, however, we only get to know a few of these people on a deeper level. Those individuals we do get to know - Cobb, Ariadne, and Arthur (slightly) - are well-written characters and we can establish connections with them because of their emotional backgrounds. They're not fantastic or anything, but they provide a backbone for the film. The rest of the cast may have a few charming faces but, to me, the others seemed much more forgettable and bland. This isn't to say they weren't interesting, but the fact that I can't recall any of their names isn't a good sign. Though it has some deeper characters, I found that the film seems more focused on story than on character.

The concept's very fascinating and highly original - there's no argument there. At first, I wasn't too thrilled with the fact that the film kept establishing and explaining the rules of the mythos. "I got it", I thought, "A 'kick' is a means to wake someone up. You don't need to repeat this over and over again". As the film progressed, however, I found that these rules probably needed to be looked over. Without the explanations, most audience members would probably be lost in a narrative that's as layered as this. In other words, I'm a bit iffy on the matter. The concept is intriguing but I'm not sure if I needed a constant narration to help explain events to me.

Now, I know it looks like I didn't like this movie that much from this review. Don't get me wrong, though, I thought that the film was great. It wasn't fantastic and it was far from flawless, but the film was highly entertaining and captivated both my sense of imagination and my taste of visual art. The characters, while not the most memorable, are still interesting and hold their own within this creative narrative. That said, though, I felt that the film wasn't on the same intellectual level of Nolan's previous films. I'm not saying The Dark Knight or Memento were philosophical films, but they felt much smarter than this. This is probably because the film seems geared toward mainstream audiences, as the "narration aid" and flashy third-act prove. The first 2/3rd of the film may have felt streamlined but they were still thought-provoking nonetheless. The third act, on the other hand, seemed to drag and was filled to the brim with an action scene that was 20 minutes too long.

As a whole, Inception is a great film that mixes together elements of sci-fi, noir, and spy fiction. It may have some big flaws but, for a year that's been so poor for cinema, the film is a breath of fresh air.

Entry#176: Patton

Trailer

Patton is, in one word, epic. With a nearly three-hour runtime and an extravagant budget, the biographical film follows the life of a man who was legendary for both his eccentricity and his cruelty. Shortly after his death, the New York Times called General Patton "a legend...deeply religiously and violently profane". This film isn't so much about a pro-war or anti-war message, but it's a film about the enormous personality of man whose life was defined by war. Whether or not his actions are justifiable, however, is left to the contemplations of the viewer.

The film is a biography of General George S. Patton, the infamous and profane general, and specifically recounts his service years during World War II. The film's beginning, though chronologically last, is immediate in its showcasing of the general's wild and pro-war sentiments. He doesn't care for those suffering from "battle fatigue", he shows the utmost of respect to injured soldiers, and he fights simply because it gives him pleasure to do so. Patton was a man of "fire and ice", as he often blended various world views together to create a personality that had just as many strengths as it had weaknesses. In the film, we follow this man of "fire and ice" as he goes through his most famous campaigns in North Africa, Italy, and Germany.

The script is fantastic and gives life to every character on-screen. This is both because Patton was a complex man and because Francis Ford Coppola - the man who'd later direct The Godfather - was one of the co-writers of the screenplay. The script's very detail-orientated and these details translate into film marvelously. The fleeting images of brutal violence, the cold calculation and dialogue of Patton, the worries and confusion spread into Patton's rivals and adversaries by his abrupt plan changes - the film captures the essence of a man whose image was certainly polarizing. Patton alone makes for a complex narrative, as his beliefs, hypocrisy, and power made him into something that seemed larger than life. He was both a romantic and a murderer, often writing poems after slaughtering countless amounts of enemy soldiers. He could be both kind and downright cruel to his soldiers, to the point where he oftentimes deliberately confuse them in order to gain respect. "I'm the only one who needs to know", Patton says at one point regarding his behavior. In terms of spiritual beliefs, Patton was both a self-proclaimed Christian and a believer in reincarnation. He believed that God created him to kill and that he's been around for centuries in various forms, doing exactly what it is that he loves - fighting. The man was something else, that's for sure, and I could probably discuss the nuances of his personality for the rest of this article. The film exists for a reason, however, and presents Patton in a way far grander than anything I could ever hope to write.

The visuals look fantastic in this film. Combining methods and new (at the time), the film creates a dramatic film with enough widescreen shots and character-focus to make someone like Sergio Leone blush. The camerawork is amazing - I don't know how many times I can say it. It's moving, it aids in the story-telling, and even helps the audience into seeing why Patton was heralded as such a "legend". There's one point in the film, for instance, when German airplanes attack a small building that Patton and several other officers are occupying. While the officers run for shelter, Patton takes out his ivory-handled pistol and begins to shoot the planes with a mad glee in his eyes. To me, this sequence is almost a silent companion to Patton's heavily-worded monologue at the beginning of the film - both establish Patton as a man of violence and as a man who's willing to do *whatever* it takes to win.

The pacing is great, but the beginning was too slow for my tastes. In fact, that may be the only major fault I had with the film. It's fascinating from start to finish, don't get me wrong, but the North African campaign seemed to drag in various spots of the film. It slows the momentum of the film down, but the pacing gets much better once the major battle of the campaign starts. From that point on, the film's slow-moving yet elegant in its portrayal of the eccentric General Patton.

Patton the film truly captures the image of Patton the man. The film drags at first, but the rest of the film is a very detail-orientated examination of this complex man. He was both poetic yet merciless, musing yet spiteful, religious yet profane, and cold yet respectful. He was a man that many hated, many adored, but few understood.

Entry#175: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Trailer

I hadn't heard of Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy until, one day, I happened upon the poster for the film adaption of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (or Men Who Hate Women in its original Swedish). I'm not one to usually judge or make a decision about a movie based on something as trivial as a poster, but the poster for this film really interested me into looking up more information about the films and their respective novels. Apparently, the series revolved around a controversial journalist and a goth hacker investigating into mysterious matters in a way that resembled the old detective-fiction films. I'm a fan of such works, so I waited in anticipation of the first film's release on DVD. Now that's it out, I can say that the film was really good...but short of great.

The film follows two main characters in their respective narratives - Mikael Blomkvist, a controversial and radical journalist who cares more about truth than publicity, and Lisbeth Salander, a gothic and troubled hacker who's been abused for most of her life. Blomkvist's story starts after it's announced that he lost the libel case against corrupt Swedish industrialist Hans-Erk Wennerstorm. Sentenced to three months in jail, Blomkvist knows that he can't appeal the case as all of his sources have either disappeared or turned out to be faulty. Meanwhile, Salander is secretly tracking Blomkvist for a client, Dirch Frode, at her firm. After much research, though, Salander believes that Blomkvist may have been set up. Before anything in this matter can be settled, however, Blomkvist is hired by an elderly man to help find out whatever happened to a young girl, Harriet, who vanished without a trace over 40 years ago. While Blomkvist is investigating this matter, Salander must deal with a new guardian - as she's considered unstable - that begins to sexually abuse her.

The characters are interesting, that's for sure, but the film is more focused on plot and intrigue than on character interaction. It's not too bad of a flaw as the mystery's very fascinating, but a character-orientated film would've proven for a far greater cinematic experience. I digress, though, and will admit that the character of Lisbeth Salander is very intriguing and her dark background only makes her that much more interesting. Maybe it's because I have an affinity for the gothic, but I actually really did enjoy the character of Lisbeth. She was reserved, skillful, and incredibly lethal when she needed to be - a very well-written character indeed. Blomkvist, on the other hand, felt very bland to me. He was still interesting and worthy of remaining in the film, but he felt like a generic thriller protagonist for the majority of the time. His personality was thin and heavily lacking when compared with Lisbeth, who had a much more interesting and complex background.

While the film puts more attention on plot than on character, the plot's still really good. The mystery element was very engrossing, leading down through various twists and turns as mysteries often do. Not only that, but the mystery felt very believable from start to finish. Nowhere during the film's 2 1/2 runtime did I think that the events were too outrageous, far-fetched, or anything of that sort. The film aims for realism, though exaggerated events are always going to exist in fiction, and I think the film did pretty well with what it had. It was fascinating, involving, and was always two steps ahead of its audience.

The visuals looked slick and very stylish in the film. It's crisp, clean, and the cinematography is simply fantastic. The film's looks reiterate the mood of the film as the film often uses darker tones and lenses for its visual flair. One scene I particularly liked, in terms of visuals, actually doesn't have anything to do with the plot of the film. It's at the very beginning of the film and it's our introduction to Lisbeth Salander. Her face is veiled by a hoodie and we watch as she walks down a lone subway station with the lights clashing with the darkness outside. That scene only lasts for a minute or two and means absolutely nothing to the plot, but it really captured my attention for some reason.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a very interesting thriller and makes for some good film-watching. It's not great, as the weaker of the main characters and the constant plot focus showcase, but it's still very good. I can only hope that the next two films will be just as good as this.