TOE-CURLING TERROR :"PANIC ROOM"

Ok, embarrassing confession time. I almost saw this film in cinema years ago. I walked out in the middle. It is one of about 3 films I have walked out of, because , a true film fan as it were, I am always curious as to what is going to happen in the end, even though the film is not “going well” for me. I remember I was with friends at the time; we all seem to have agreed… Although to be fair, I don’t exactly remember what our objection was. But at a guess, it may just have been that the tension just got to us. This, people, is one of the most “toe-curling” films I have watched in a very, very long time… But then again, with David Fincher at the helm, I honestly cannot expect anything less.

Newly divorced Meagan (Jodie Foster) and her sassy teenage daughter Sarah (Kristen Steward – otherwise known as Bella Swan, this was long before the Twilight saga of course) have just moved into their new home – and what a home it is too! Snapped up at a bargain, it is a three story house that once belonged to an eccentric millionaire. It comes equipped with all the mod-cons but also an elevator and a Panic Room. Now for those of us who didn’t know, a panic room is a high security room you can lock yourself in if intruders break in. There is no way in for the intruders and you have a secure line, not connected to the main landline in the home, you can call the police with. Except of course, if you are Meagan and forget to hook up the line. This does not come in handy at all when, on their first night there, intruders break into the house and Meagan and Sarah, terrified, lock themselves in the panic room. There are, however, two problems. Firstly, Sarah is diabetic and there is no insulin in the panic room either so unless they can somehow get out  and get to her medication, she will die. Secondly, these aren’t any old robbers who will just go through the family possessions and leave. They are looking for something very specific, and as luck would have it this thing is hidden in… You guessed it. The panic room.

As a side note, I just want to add that the intruders are played by Jared Leto, Forrest Whitaker and Dwight Yoakam (country music star and a damn good actor in case you hadn’t heard of him).  Now, if there is one thing Fincher is an absolute master of, it is thrillers. The tension creeps up on you so quickly and so inexorably, you are on edge pretty much from beginning to end, even in the sequences when you can pretty much guess what will happen next because, you know… I mean what if it doesn’t? This is compounded by Fincher’s mastery of the “in the meanwhile” type shots. You know, when you are told and shown, in various ways what two different groups in the film are doing at the same instant, that kind of thing always gives me the chills, especially if it is used as well as Fincher uses it. I watched this film as part of a personal project more than anything else and never, ever, in all my born days did I expect to enjoy it so much. It left me, as most Fincher films tend to, mentally exhausted and in need of watching something you know, simple. Easy to follow. Just to rest my brain – and my cardio vascular system. If you want a movie to make your evening fly by, this is the one folks – go right for it!

RE-VISITED : "THE GIRL WITH A DRAGON TATOO"

I understand. With a best-selling series and more than one film adaptation floating around one needs to specify a tad-bit more which one I’m talking about. It’s the 2011 film adaptation directed by David Fincher that I want to look at this week. Now, at the time, I was a little bit pissed with this film. Well, mainly because there already was a Swedish adaptation. This kinda made sense, seeing as this is a Swedish book and all. Does Hollywood have to go poking its nose in and re-adapting every little thing going? Not necessarily. But credit where it’s due. I haven’t seen the Swedish version (yet) but Fincher has definitely done one heck of a good job. Then again, I would say that, he’s one of my favourite directors ever. Before I get any further with my rant, I’d do well to put some reasoning behind that sentence methinks…

So, for those of you who missed it, this is a story of skeletons in the closet and deception spanning decades. Michael Blomkvist is a renowned journalist. However, he is not having the best period of his career, as allegations he has made against a powerful businessman have turned out to be false, ending in him being dragged through courts and losing almost all his life savings. In the midst of all this however, he is offered an unlikely lifeline. Old-fashioned family patriarch Henrich, head of one of the most powerful family businesses in Sweden contacts Blomkvist. He has a personal assignment for him. Years ago, 40 years ago to be precise, his great niece Hannah has disappeared. Quite suddenly and with no trace whatsoever. Henrich is dying. And he is convinced his great niece is dead. But he wants Blomkvist, who has proved himself as an above-average investigator before, to look into it. Blomkvist begrudgingly accepts and teams up with the anti-social yet supremely talented hacker / investigator Lisbeth Salander to uncover secrets that have lain hidden for over 40 years. It may have been wiser to leave some secrets where they were…

Now, the story, I cannot find fault with. Lisbeth, the unlikely heroine of this series is a brilliant character, the epitome of an anti-hero if there ever was one. And honestly, there are not enough anti-heroes about for my liking. Even fewer “anti-heroines”. Blomkvist is a bit bland but realistic. You know, believable – which often is more than can be said for a lot for a lot of characters in this kind of story. And the story… I mean wow. I have seen a few detective / crime stories in my time but this deserves to be among the classics. It is both imaginative and exciting.

However the problem I found with the book is that well… Not to speak ill of the dead – the author of the book – but I really, really don’t think he could write well. I mean the story, the concept was great. But the book was far too wordy. Full of descriptions and explanations that were just… Well, surplus. That led nowhere. The book was full of good intentions but way too… Crowded.

Fincher has put an end to that problem. Quite unlike the book, the film cuts back on words and concentrates on visuals. And you know what Fincher is like with this kind of thing. Striking pictures, ominous, an underlying sense of danger. And silence. For anyone who has read the book, this fits S much better with Lisbeth’s character, don’t you think? Having been cut back and streamlined, the film flows like silk. And succeeds in putting your heart in your mouth within minutes. I knew the whole story and still I loved it. I seriously hope you don’t miss this one!!

ANALYSIS OF A QUADRILOGY NOT QUITE LIKE ANY OTHER : "ALIEN3"

In for a penny, in for a pound. I might as well do the whole quadrilogy while I’m about it. Like I said last week though, to be fair the Alien series (it turns out) is the exception to the rule. “The rule” being that usually, even if a first film is potentially brilliant, the more sequels are made of it, the worse they turn out. But with such great directors and actors on board, really, the room for failure drops significantly. And David Fincher is, categorically, one of my favourite directors ever. Hence, I really, really, had to watch this. And review it. So, last time we abandoned Ripley, she was once again in cryosleep, crossing the galaxy with the survivors of the previous calamity. It seemed as if her troubles were over, but in fact they may, in a sense, only just be beginning. When a mysterious malfunction forces the ship to crash land, Ripley is the sole survivor. She is now officially the only woman on Fiorina 161, once a maximum security prison, now almost abandoned inhabited by the inmates who have “found religion”. Ripley has one single fear in this whole unfortunate turn of events: that an alien had snuck on board her ship and could have not found its way onto the planet. Pretty soon the bodies of the inmates begin to pile up… Her fears seem to have been confirmed… Now, I have to say we’re at an interesting point in the quadrilogy. I mean, this film is brilliant. There is a brilliant plot-twist at the end, which, the problem is, seems to bring the story to its natural end. I have the DVD for the fourth film and will review it next week, but the premise for it seems a little… Well, I do know it’s meant to be sci-fi but even so… We’ll have to wait and see if Jean-Pierre Jeunet can make it work. In the meanwhile, what of David Fincher? Stylistically the film is Fincher through and through and through, i.e. dark, gothic with a slightly apocalyptic feel about it. Fincher once again goes down the route of suspense rather than jump-scares. There are a few classical tropes employed, such as chase scenes down long, dark corridors, with the added stylistic renovation of our first p.o.v .shot from an alien. I mean, true, it doesn’t turn out to be anything mind-blowing but still, three films in, it needed to be done… It’s good quality adventure entertainment basically. It’s not an art piece, it will not change your world but hey. Not all films are meant to… And this one is perfect the way it is…

A STORY WE ALL REALLY SHOULD KNOW - THE STORY OF THE SOCIAL NETWORK!

For whatever reason, I very rarely seem to review films that are actually on in the cinemas. That is because my job dictates that I watch a large number of films a couple of months after they are in cinemas. I don’t like seeing films twice (except for the classics naturellement) and thus my blog ends up being slightly “willy nilly” and all over the place – and also largely dependant on my mood at the time. However, I will break with tradition this week and discuss something that is actually on / or was on very recently – David Fincher’s film “The Social Network”. It’s a fascinating idea of course I mean Facebook is pretty much the phenomenon that defines our generation. Even not being on it is considered a sort of statement… Naturally, Mark Zuckerberg – the youngest billionaire of all times – is a valid point of interest. And his story is interesting to say the very least…

It’s a story a lot of us know somehow but let’s run through the basics again. Mark Zuckerberg was a highly successful student at Harvard University. He is a genius computer programmer even if not the most popular student on campus. He then comes up with the idea of a social networking website or allegedly he steals the original idea from Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss we don’t know and I don’t want to comment as it was part of a very VERY large lawsuit and the film doesn’t particularly comment on it either. Suffice to say that Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg – of whom I had heard of but funnily enough never seen in anything) with the financial aid and support of his best (and only) friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield – remember I told you about him in the Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus). As we all know, the whole thing was a HUGE hit and began to grow, attracting the attention of many people, among them Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake – now I don’t know which camp you’re on and I’m not a fan but credit where it’s due the guy CAN act). Sean Parker is a bit of a loose canon with great ideas, charm and charisma. Mark and he seem to be almost made for each other and Sean is very soon part of the company. There is one person he doesn’t charm however – the company’s C.F.O and main founder Eduardo. That is where things start getting… A little awkward…

Now, the film is, I think, brilliant. Then again, I’m biased – I think the director David Fincher is brilliant (Fight Club, Zodiac and Seven are among my favorite films of all times). I am also a healthy addict of Facebook so who am I to complain? The film is honest; our hero Mark Zuckerberg is by no means a “huggable” character. Jesse Eisenberg does a brilliant job of portraying the socially awkward but amazingly intelligent Zuckerberg. Plus Andrew Garfield is growing on me – kinda like a rash. This film is a very good example of why I love true stories – films about real life. The characters are not “perfect” they act emotionally; sometimes they make bad decisions… I know that these guys have achieved fame and fortune and now live lives far beyond most of our means; HOWEVER, the film is completely approachable for this reason. And this is also why it’s different from the 10 a penny “American Dream” movies out there. The film is REAL. Not just in the sense that it is a real story but emotionally real and grounded and easy to relate to. But then again there is nothing I loathe more in a film than “perfect” characters which is why a) I’m slightly biased b) 15 minutes into the film I had a broad grin all over my face and was thinking “Ok, this is gonna be interesting.

What else? Well, you would be wrong to think this film is going to be very “geeky” and “computery” and incomprehensible. Yes, Facebook is an online phenomenon but it is also a social phenomenon that has taken over the world in case you hadn’t noticed. It is about people. In this case, specifically about the people that created a website that is a concrete part of our lives… Which is why on one level, it can be said that one may consider knowing this story part of basic general culture.

SE7EN

I have some difficulty understanding why human beings seem to have this innate need to be scared. Horror movies for instance. I have great respect for a well executed horror film, and when I come across one I don’t hesitate to put it on the site (Triangle for instance). But the genre is tough to pull off – it tends to descend into complete mayhem story-wise and / or rely on liters of fake blood and loud sound effects to scare us (read make us jump). People are quite scary enough in real life as far as I’m concerned. I mean, take Zodiac for example. (Alternatively, take the story of the real thing, here). Serial killers. Now that’s scary. Not least because they’re actual real people, not characters dreamt up by a screenplay writer. All though, I must say there are some “pretend” serial killers and evil characters that are just as scary. I mean, without resorting to “magical powers” and the like. I have in mind, a film by the director of Zodiac, Mr. David Fincher. Mr. Fincher is also the praiseworthy director of cult movie “Fight Club” and in my view, has a flair for the scary, gory (without the whole “God, that’s a lot of ketchup” effect). His works are most definitely parental and sensitive stomach-al advisory. The film I want to talk about in this particular write-up is Se7en (or Seven for anyone who is confused). It has attained cult status in its own right but it’s been around for a while now and is not as famous as it’s brother Fight Club so I just wanted to make sure you remember / learn about it =)

The beginning of the film will be familiar to anyone who has seen a “cop-flick” or two. Detective Lt. William Sommerset (master-actor Morgan Freeman) is ready to retire. He has an earned reputation for being both eccentric and one of the best officers on the force. His last duty, before being sent off to enjoy his retirement, is to have rookie cop David. But Sommerset’s last case turns out to be anything but simple. A simple if rather bizarre murder turns out to be the first in a series: There is a psychotic serial killer out there… He’s using the seven deadly sins as an M.O. As time goes on, the deadly sins get more and more serious and the murders more and more… Imaginative… Mills and Sommerset have to act fast, because if they run out of sins, they run out of time. And then, they may never catch him…

Now, here, ladies and gentlemen, is one scary film that doesn’t need ghosts and ghouls. Brr… Apart from that, the film deserves a mention on its technical merits too. It was, for instance, nominated for an Oscar® for Best Editing. The whole atmosphere of the film is very dark which is noticeable in the choice of location, dialogue and characters. We also see Gwyneth Paltrow as Mills’s young wife, rounding off a very talented leading cast. Morgan Freeman is, in a nutshell, Morgan Freeman. And just watching Mr. Pitt leaves us with no doubt as to why David Fincher chose him for his extraordinary cult movie 4 years later. I mean, it’s easy to forget but Brad Pitt is a lot more than just a pretty face. He can ACT. Anyone who doubts that can just pick up cult movie “12 Monkeys”. I admit there may have been a slight “dip” in the middle but I feel he’s “back” now. That was my distinct impression on leaving “Inglorious Bastards” anyway. But I digress. Yes, well, the film is basically a VERY well executed murder mystery. It is the VERY well executed bit that carries the caution factor. The adrenalin never stops; you are literally chilled to the bone and I actually got up and screamed at the screen in the final minute or so – anyone who has watched the film will know why. You’ll enjoy it. You may have nightmares afterwards, but you’ll enjoy it.