This page contains Dave's reviews of films seen from April through June 2010.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”: I’ve always enjoyed a good meat-and-potatoes thriller; a film that’s so overloaded with plot and twists and well-filmed moments of suspense that if it were a meal, you would need a good fork and steak knife. Recent examples like “The Secret in Their Eyes” and “Tell No One” approach it well, but it’s the Swedish film, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” that hits it out of the ballpark. Based on the hugely popular series of books by the late Stieg Larsson, “Girl” feels like two movies at first, but eventually morphs into one. Michael Nyqvist (“Together”) plays a journalist named Mikael Blomkvist, who also runs Millennium, a tabloid magazine that recently lost a libel suit brought against them by a powerful and corrupt Swedish businessman. As a result of the lawsuit, Mikael is sentenced to serve a short prison term and has six months to report to the facility. He believes he was set up and so does Lisbeth (Noomi Rapace), the young woman who has been investigating Blomkvist for Milton Security through her amazing hacker talents. Lisbeth has problems of her own. She’s the product of the foster home system and has suffered years of abuse by people who were able to convince others that she’s mentally unstable. As a result, the abuses continued into her new adulthood, and have left her in a very reclusive state of mind. Lisbeth adopts the goth look, complete with black leather, exotic piercings, at least one unique tattoo, and of course, the tough girl attitude. But, despite the film’s title, “Girl” really isn’t about her specifically or her taste for “tats.” But the story still partly focuses on her as she endures fresh abuse at the hands of her new sadistic handler (warning: this is a graphic sequence that doesn’t leave a lot to the imagination). And Lisbeth is still secretly following Mikael’s moves, which have now taken him to a remote Swedish island owned by an eccentric millionaire (played by Sven-Bertil Taube), who would like to hire Mikael to solve the mystery of why his teenage niece Harriet disappeared some forty years earlier. The man is convinced that a member of his extended family, who also live on the island, is responsible for the girl’s disappearance, and he’s hopeful that Mikael’s investigative skills will be put to good use. Since the missing girl angle is starting to hit close to home, Mikael’s shadow, Lisbeth’s interest is piqued and the “two movies” are about to merge as one. It’s here where “Girl” is off and running and never really lets up, even at the end, which really isn’t the end because there are two more films on the way: “The Girl Who Played with Fire” and “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest.” “Girl” was masterfully directed by Niels Arden Oplev and co-written by Nikolaj Arcel and Rasmus Heisterberg, who were unfortunately not involved in the film’s two already-completed sequels (or the planned Hollywood remake of this film). The team was able to keep their story flowing nicely for of its 2 ½ hour running time. In fact, this is one of those rare films that could’ve used at least another half hour, especially more time with Lisbeth, who was brilliantly played by Noomi Rapace and who (yes!) will be back for the next two films. She is a fascinating character. She also outshines Michael Nyqvist, who is a fine actor, but can’t keep pace with Rapace. To put it bluntly, “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” is a kick-ass film that should be seen by anyone with a love for great films and a tolerance for its theme. **** (out of) **** (In Swedish with English subtitles) (6/27/10)

“Alice in Wonderland”: Johnny Depp has had quite the eclectic career, starting in mid-80s with the TV show “21 Jump Street, “ and then graduating to playing such diverse characters as Jack Sparrow, John Dillinger, Willy Wonka, Ichabod Crane, Raoul Duke, and now the Mad Hatter from author Lewis Carroll’s beloved “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.” Depp always said he wanted to play roles his children could watch, but here’s hoping they have a dark taste in films. Director Tim Burton, he of the equally eclectic filmography, is the latest filmmaker to tackle Carroll’s classic. It seems like a natural fit, director and star, and it works here, but surprisingly, Depp plays a little more in the background. The real star (and find) in “Alice in Wonderland” is the title character played by Mia Wasikowska. Alice comes from a very wealthy family, who, despite her beloved father’s death when she was a little girl, have always tried to bring her up properly. But despite trying to pretend her way through society’s circle, she would rather pretend her way through the dreams she’s always had – the one that has her encountering all sorts of fantastic characters like a white rabbit and a dodo bird. It’s at her engagement party when she decided to follow the strange creatures all the way down the proverbial rabbit hole into wonderland, or, if you prefer, underland. The rest is wild and almost indescribable, but involves a White Queen (played by Anne Hathaway); a Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter); the Mad Hatter (the aforementioned Johnny Depp), and a host of oddball characters. After watching this film (which is very dark for a ‘PG’ rating), I can understand Jefferson Airplane’s attraction in their famous “White Rabbit” song. Having said all that, I liked the film. It was very well-done, had some very nice performances, and seemed like the perfect showcase for Tim Burton’s wild imagination. Recommended. *** (out of) **** (On DVD) (6/25/10)

“Toy Story 3”: Greatness. Unfailing consistency. This is what is popping into my head as I try to describe the Pixar movie machine. The Emeryville, California-based Pixar Animation Studios has an unbelievable track record dating back to the first “Toy Story” in 1995. Fifteen years and ten films later, “Toy Story 3” has been released. But this isn’t an ordinary sequel. Heck, “Toy Story 2” (one of my all-time favorites in any genre) wasn’t ordinary. That’s why they slap they word ‘extra’ on the word ‘extraordinary,’ which is also a good description of the brilliant minds that are behind this film, especially Pixar and “Toy Story” veteran John Lasseter, and the third film’s director and co-writer, Lee Unkrich. “Toy Story 3” begins with a toy staff meeting. The toys, led by Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) and Jessie (Joan Cusack) are worried. Major changes are afoot. Their child, Andy (voiced by John Morris) is now 17 and is packing up for college. His childhood toy collection is destined either for the donation pile, the family attic, or out with the trash. All except for Andy’s precious Woody (Tom Hanks), who makes the cut and is off to a spot in the dorm room. Naturally, the attic box and donation bag end up in the trash pile, which (of course) is picking up at that precise moment. Long story short, the toys – all of them – end up at Sunnyside Daycare. But for some, it’s not a bad gig. After all, it’s been years since Andy played with them and what’s not to like about having a new group of kids every year or so, without the worry of being castoff or having your child grow up? But have you ever watched small kids with toys? That’s the worry. And that’s also why the “newbies” are automatically cast off in the littlest room, to be abused and re-abused, while the cliquey veteran toys (led by Lotso, a strawberry-scented stuffed bear, voiced by Ned Beatty) rule the roost in the older kids’ room. A breakout is in order, of course. And it’s the execution of those sequences that remind us why Pixar is the greatest film company in the world. Their brilliance could never be overstated. They are able to take typical childhood staples like talking toys, cars, animals, bugs, fish, rats, robots, monsters in closets, spy families – and make them a ton of fun for anyone with a sense of wonder and a boundless imagination. Their latest creation, “Toy Story 3,” doesn’t quite surpass its predecessors, but is still filled with many moments of awe (including its very sweet conclusion). It’s a film that’s for everyone who either remembers -- or wants to remember again -- what it’s like to be a child. Thank you, Pixar. *** 1/2 (out of) **** (6/20/10)

“Get Him to the Greek”: co-stars Johan Hill (“Knocked Up”) as an intern for a record company, and Russell Brand (“Forgetting Sarah Marshall”), who plays a wildly out-of-control rock star who has sort of agreed to play an anniversary concert at the Greek Theater in Los Angeles. The problem is he’s in London and getting him to L.A. isn’t exactly an easy task. This is a nice premise that’s pretty fleshed out in writer-director, Nicholas Stoller’s script, but it just lacks any real meat. The film also boasts a likeable cast (including Sean ‘P. Diddy’ Combs and cable starlets Rose Byrne and Elisabeth Moss – all playing against type) and some good acting, but you’re left wondering if there’s more. Once again, I was lured in by the Judd Apatow movie machine, and once again I react with a “meh,” as in, it’s okay, but not worth your hard-earned dollars. Wait for Netflix or pay-cable. ** (out of) **** (6/15/10)

“The Messenger”: stars Ben Foster as Will Montgomery, a U.S. Army Staff Sergeant who was recently wounded while fighting in Iraq. He has just a few months left to complete his enlistment requirements, so he’s sent back to the States to complete his duties as part of a Casualty Notification team. Along with Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson), it’s Will’s responsibility to inform the immediate family that their son or daughter has been killed in the line of duty. It’s an extremely difficult job that Will is ill-prepared to handle, so it’s up to the Captain, who happens to be a hot-tempered recovering alcoholic, to pick up the slack. Understandably, the job puts the pair in some unfortunate situations, but none more trying for Will than what happens when he meets the newly-widowed, Olivia (Samantha Morton). “The Messenger” was directed and co-written (with Alessandro Camon) by Oren Moverman, who takes his single good idea and runs with it. After all, anti-war films are a dime-a-dozen, so filmmakers have to come up with new angles to re-explain to us that war is hell. And to his credit, Moverman does a pretty good job of rising above some of the clichés of his script. His character development is very good, and it helps that his three primary leads: Foster, Harrelson and Morton are all excellent in their roles. It’s not a warm-and-uplifting film, but “The Messenger” has enough going for it to give it a recommendation. *** (out of) **** (On DVD) (5/28/10)

“The Secret in Their Eyes”: is this year’s Oscar winner for Best Foreign Language Film, and although I preferred the French film, “A Prophet,” it’s not hard to understand why this entry from Argentina came away with the statue. “Secret” is the story of a murder that occurred in 1974 and its long, ensuing investigation. It looks like a simple husband killed his wife case, but the Federal Justice Agent, Benjamin Esposito (Ricardo Darin) isn’t convinced. He has another person in mind as the killer, and eventually – thanks to unwanted forces -- the murder is blamed on two construction workers, who are sentenced for the crime. But for the next 25 years, Esposito never quite lets go of the case. I’d like to tell you a lot more, but part of the enjoyment of this film is watching its many, many details unfold. “The Secret in Their Eyes” was written and directed by American television veteran, Juan Jose Campanella, who, if he is to be flawed for one thing, stuffs his film with too many ideas, and like a typical “Law and Order” episode that he directed in the past, ”Secret” has a huge twist at the end that you shouldn’t see coming. Campanella’s film has much going for it, including two incredible scenes (in addition to its shocking ending) that deserve to be mentioned alongside some of the more memorable moments in recent movie history. It also has a romantic side-story (with Soledad Villamil) that really works, and a humorous scene-stealing performance from Guillermo Francella. But its ton of plot is sometimes difficult to follow and can sap the viewer’s attention. And one could also quibble that the overall story is too fantastic and not particularly realistic, but these are little details that shouldn’t diminish the film’s achievements, and, after all, it’s just a movie. “Secret” is overloaded with excellent characters and terrific performances, especially Ricardo Darin in the lead role. It’s a heavy, heavy film, but well-worth checking out. *** ½ (out of) **** (In Spanish with English subtitles) (5/22/10)

“Iron Man 2”: Robert Downey Jr. is back as industrialist/scientist Tony Stark aka Iron Man. The second installment of the Marvel Entertainment series is more of the same, only louder and more irresponsible, well, if you care about the innocent civilians who probably lost their lives during one of the film’s scenes of utter carnage. Yes, I know, it’s just a movie, but… “IM2” has Stark taking on his evil rival, Justin Hammer, who has linked with a madman genius (played by Mickey Rourke) with an old axe to grind. Gwyneth Paltrow is back as Stark’s loyal assistant and so is the character Lt. Col. James “Rhodey” Rhodes, only Terrence Howard (Rhodey in the first film) was very unwisely replaced with Don Cheadle, who is normally a fine actor, but looks like he’s channeling Buck Swope from “Boogie Nights.” Not good. Throw in Scarlett Johansson as a badass agent for S.H.I.E.L.D., and the equally badass Samuel L. Jackson as her boss Nick Fury, and you have a pretty talented cast pretty much wasted in this very loud and borderline obnoxious movie. “IM2” was directed by Jon Favreau, who needs to stop inserting himself into his films, but that’s another topic. Robert Downey Jr. as the title character, is very good as usual, and Gwyneth Paltrow seems incapable of giving a bad performance, but unfortunately, Scarlett Johansson is back to the wooden thing that plagued the early part of her career. Zero personality, all skin-tight suit. Mickey Rourke is given little to do other than look menacing. If you like huge Hollywood blockbusters with lots of gadgets that can cause great destruction, then “Iron Man 2” is for you. If you’re a sucker like me, and put an inordinate amount of weight into the whole Marvel superhero thing (silly childhood memories), see it as a different way to relieve your wallet of that ten dollar bill. Skip the film entirely if you’re lucky enough to not fall into either category. * ½ (out of) **** (5/15/10)

“Red Riding Trilogy”: is a very ambitious British-Scottish production that is inspired by and somewhat tied into (though with major differences) the infamous Yorkshire Ripper serial murders that plagued Northern England in the late-70s, early-80s. Clocking in at just over five hours and based on a series of four novels by David Peace (author of “The Damned United”), “Red Riding” is three films: “Red Riding: In the Year of our Lord 1974,” as well as similarly titled versions for 1980 and 1983. “1974” begins with an investigation into the torture murder of another young girl. I say another because this is the third, with the first two occurring in 1969 and 1972, all in the Riding subdivision of West Yorkshire. The link isn’t immediately made by the police, but by a cocky and driven journalist named Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield), who is convinced the murders are connected and cannot understand why the West Yorkshire police department doesn’t want him to get too close. This is the crux of not only this entry, but also the “1980” and “1983” films. Why are the “good guys” going to great and often violent lengths to silence anyone who dares to advance the murder investigations? What are they hiding? Should we be disturbed that their motto is “we are the north, where we do what we want!”? “1980” doesn’t exactly pick up where the previous film left off and contains just a few of the same characters. In fact, like all three films, it’s directed by a different person, who give each segment their own unique stamp, but I believe the trilogy would’ve been better with a single vision (more on that later). “1974” was filmed in 16mm by Julian Jarrold (“Kinky Boots”); “1980” was done in 35mm by James Marsh (“Man on Wire”), and “1983” was in HD video and directed by Anand Tucker. The protagonist in “1980” is police investigator Peter Hunter (Paddy Considine) who has been tasked to head up a secret investigation into the Yorkshire Police force. As intimated in “1974,” something isn’t quite right and Hunter is going to find out why. In the middle of all this is yet another murder. The appeal by the police to the public to help find the killer is filled with insincerity. Why? “1980” has pretty much the same ending as the previous entry, but isn’t as brutally told (which is saying a lot about both years) and features a terrific performance by Considine. In fact, one of the hallmarks of each of the three films is the near pitch-perfect performances by the vast cast. The production of the trilogy is dripping with quality, from the actors to the production team, including the cinematography and music. “1983” switches to the good heart of lawyer John Piggott (Mark Addy) and the long-hidden conscience of policeman Maurice Jobson (David Morrissey), who is wondering if the man serving time for the supposedly solved murders is really the killer. What he discovers is still shocking, even if we could see some of it coming. There’s so much going on within the three parts that the murders are almost part of the background. I could go on and on with greater plot details, but I don’t want to give anything (else) away. Instead, I’ll try to give the mood of the films so you’ll know what you’re getting yourself into should you stumble upon the road-show tour of these films (as I did) or if you catch the series on DVD. The latter is the most advisable viewing method, as admittedly the “Red Riding Trilogy” is a tough watch, though I think it gradually becomes more tolerable with each sequence, though arguably, the last segment is the weakest and most problematic. The trilogy is moody, overly deliberate, often brutally violent, and sprinkled with language, sex and a lot of incomprehensible dialogue (I recommend activating the subtitle feature if you watch it on DVD; it will help you figure out the thick Yorkshire accents). Its storylines (all three years were written by Tony Grisoni) are often frustrating and confusing, and, unlike many Hollywood productions, do not spoon-feed its audience. This is commendable on the one hand, but as in the case of the third film, frustrating if you’re trying to understand the conclusion. On the other hand, the ending was intriguing and ultimately, pretty satisfying. Having said that, filmmaker Ridley Scott is said to be working on an American remake of this film. Ordinarily, this would infuriate me, but I think a comprehensive 2 ½ hour film made by a single director might do this highly-ambitious project justice. Still, despite the flaws due to those ambitions, “Red Riding Trilogy” is a very, very interesting journey well-worth exploring, especially if you’re a fan of the genre. “Red Riding: 1974”: *** (out of) **** (5/7/10); “Red Riding: 1980”: *** ½ (out of) **** (5/8/10); “Red Riding: 1983”: *** (out of) **** (5/12/10). Overall: *** (out of) ****

“Broken Embraces”: There is something almost indescribably wonderful about Pedro Almodovar’s films. The great writer-director of “Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!,” “All About My Mother” and “Talk to Her,” makes movies that are like wild, out-of-control soap operas (telenovelas), mixing heavy drama with wacky comedy, usually to fantastic results. Almodovar takes that formula and runs with it once again in “Broken Embraces,” which stars his long-time muse, Penelope Cruz, this time as Lena, the mistress of an older, wealthy businessman named Ernesto Martel (Jose Luis Gomez). Lena is also courted by Mateo Blanco (Lluis Homar), a film director of some note, who is instantly smitten by the young woman, enough to cast her in his latest film -- despite her lack of previous acting experience. This upsets Ernesto, who happens to be financing the project, but he grants his wife her indulgence, though not without the watchful eyes of his son, Ray X (Ruben Ochandiano), who is allowed on set as the director of the ‘making of’ featurette, providing daddy gets to view his dailies, of course. This portion of the story is told in flashback by a blind man named Harry Caine. The man is actually Blanco, years later after a horrible accident that permanently robbed him of his eyesight and of his great love, oh, and the film he was making. That film was released in the months after the accident, but it was deliberately butchered in the editing room, leaving Blanco as a laughingstock. Not willing to just give up on his creative juices, Blanco resurfaces as Caine, now a successful novelist, who is able to function using Braille with the assistance of his aide, Judit (Blanca Portillo) and her son, Diego (Tamar Novas). On the surface, it would seem that “Broken Embraces” is too busy. It tries to be a thriller, soap opera and a comedy -- all at the same time. But this is also the modus operandi of a grand master named Pedro Almodovar and few filmmakers could pull this off this successfully, but Almodovar does and with gusto. “Broken Embraces” is a feast that should be devoured by every film-lover. Be sure to check out the extras on the DVD. It contains some excellent deleted scenes as well as more of Almodovar’s /Blanco’s delicious film-within-the-film, “Girls and Suitcases,” which is also contained within his short movie, “The Cannabilistic Councillor.” The extras put one more exclamation point on what is a very well-rounded and thoroughly satisfying film experience. **** (out of) **** (In Spanish with English subtitles) (On DVD) (5/8/10)

“Babies”: is a mostly wordless documentary of four babies born in different parts of the world. Bayar is from Mongolia, where she’s raised on a farm. Mari is growing up in Tokyo, Japan, while baby Hattie hails from San Francisco and Ponijao calls Namibia home. It’s supposed to be a year in the life, though it stretches those boundaries slightly. Filmmaker Thomas Balmes shamelessly manipulates his audience, but who cares. He’s also very balanced. Yes, there are vast differences between the way the San Francisco raises their child and the way little Bayar is growing up in Mongolia (hint: one child doesn’t have to worry about goats drinking their bath water). And insects aren’t as prevalent in Mari’s life as they are in little Ponijao’s. What was most interesting (for me) about this film is how the audience reacted to certain parts. There are several scenes in this film (especially Ponijao’s mother and aunt) showing nursing females. There are also moments of “shocking” behavior involving things like dirty objects and animals. My wife and I are childless, but we’ve been surrounded for years by nephews and nieces and the children of close friends, so most of this film served as a pleasant reminder of what those closest to us used to do when they were infants. But to a person not used to being around babies, it is probably unfathomable that a “decent” person would bare their breasts in public, or “indiscreetly” nurse a child. This is where the caution in this film comes in. If natural acts shock you, stay away. If you’re at all prudish and don’t believe that what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger (or that a little dirt won’t hurt), save your money for the next Kirk Cameron film. But if you’re like most people and are charmed by the innocence of young children discovering things we all take for granted, then by all means see this nice documentary. Yes, there are endless scenes of cute babies and cultural differences, and as previously mentioned, the filmmaker does manipulate his audience, but we’re too busy oohing and ahhing to care. *** (out of) **** (5/6/10)

“City Island”: Andy Garcia stars as Vince Rizzo, a prison guard with a secret that just became harder to keep. A few years before he met his longtime wife, Joyce (Julianne Margulies), he secretly fathered a son that he abandoned. He kept track of the mother and son, but was still surprised when the son, Tony (Steven Strait) shows up some twenty years later as a prisoner at the facility where Vince works. Long, complicated story, short, Vince is able to get Tony released to his custody, providing Tony behaves himself. The young man has no clue that Vince is his father (he was told he died years ago) and is just happy to not have to serve his sentence behind bars. It’s also helpful that Vince’s wife and their daughter, Vivian (played by Garcia’s real-life daughter, Dominik Garcia-Lorido) are very attractive, and that his new room (in a renovated shack in the backyard) overlooks the water at beautiful City Island, a quaint little blue-collar community that’s part of the Bronx in New York City (and is about to get a huge bump in tourism). Vince has another secret: he’s taking acting classes. To get out of the house at night, he tells Joyce that he’s playing poker. She doesn’t think much of it at first, but starts to suspect that he’s having an affair. And if she’s looking for a little revenge, there’s always Tony, who she still doesn’t know is really her stepson. But if all this isn’t enough, writer-director’s Raymond De Felitta’s script also has subplots involving Vivian’s secret life as a stripper and her younger brother’s (played by the excellent Ezra Miller) unusual fetish involving their overweight neighbor. Oh, and Tony’s acting partner Molly (Emily Mortimer) is leading a double life. Overstuffed, indeed. The film could’ve been called “Secrets and Lies” except that title was already taken. Despite almost needing a program to keep track of all the movie’s goings-on, De Felitta manages to keep his very likeable film real and flowing just enough to keep the preposterous meter in check. It also helps that his cast is uniformly good, especially Andy Garcia, whose overall performance allowed me to forgive him for his slightly exaggerated New York accent. “City Island” is a nice little comedy-drama with plenty of heart to spare. Suggest it to a friend, if they haven’t already recommended it to you. *** ½ (out of) **** (4/08/10)

“Hot Tub Time Machine”: It takes a particular mentality to watch certain films. For example, if you had memories of watching silly 80s films at the drive-in or on late night pay-TV, then you might appreciate watching an older John Cusack trying to recapture his youth in the aptly-titled “Hot Tub Time Machine.” Or you may not. Cusack stars as Adam, a 40-something type who still hangs out with his buddies Nick (Craig Robinson from “The Office”) and Lou (Rob Corddry from “The Daily Show”) from 25 years ago (not so unusual). They decide to answer Lou’s apparent “cry for help” with a long weekend at the mountain lodge where they spent many drunken nights years ago. I’d try to explain the meaning of the title, but do I really need to? Let’s just say it involves the year 1986 and a whole bunch of movie references, including Chevy Chase assuming the Christopher Lloyd role from “Back to the Future.” Some of the film works and some of it doesn’t, especially the idea of casting John Cusack. He worked with “Hot Tub’s” director, Steve Pink on “Grosse Pointe Blank” and “High Fidelity,” but Cusack could’ve settled for a cameo. As for performances, Cusack was Cusack and Robinson was Robinson (but not at the level of his great performance in “The Pineapple Express”), but it’s Rob Corddry who manages to steal much of what’s worth nailing down, which, unfortunately, isn’t much. And the other laughs are reserved for Crispin Glover, who is part of an admittedly amusing running joke. The rest of the film has little redeeming value, well, except for the sport of catching all its inaccuracies that likely happened because the continuity/fact-checker person was probably three years-old in 1986. Because of the people involved with the production of this movie, I was expecting more (yes, even from a film called “Hot Tub Time Machine”), but as I told my wife at the end of the screening, “it is what it is.” If you remember 1986 with any fondness at all, this might be worthy of a rental, but just don’t take it serious. ** (out of) **** (4/01/10)