RobinsNest

Yet another 2011 film receiving rave reviews that I don't get. While it is interesting to see Mr Scorsese defend his not selling out to SFX, that's exactly what he did. Watching at home, without 3D, the movie falls flat. A movie should have been made about Mr Melies but this is not about him, but about things that fly off the screen. And what's the story with the dust or snowflakes that drift around the entire film? Is everyone in a snow globe? Is this Dr Suess? Disappointing on so many levels. The director needed long explanations about the characters, their families, the evil cop, etc. instead of "showing" us some background-this is a visual medium. The best part of the film is the flashbacks on how movie making got it's start. Now that would make a good film. Mr S should get back to developing strong characters, fierce relationships, and de-emphasize the SFX. Poor outing from a usually brilliant director.

None of the characters touched me one bit. All unbelievable Mr Clooney plays his usual unemotional, twitching, sad sack (there have been notable exceptions-he was great in "Oh Brother..."). The kids were okay but what is the deal with every other word out of the young one's mouth is **** Is that supposed to be funny, when children swear, and dad gives an exasperated look? Maybe they wanted an R rating to pique some interest. What is the purpose of the boy friend? His character is inane. Perhaps the grieving daughter could get support from him; no way with this guy; every fathers nightmare that your daughter brings a guy like this home. And where was his family? He spent every minute with the Clooney clan. Mr Forster is good as usual. Once again the wrong person is blamed for the affair; in this case the man. The wife is absolved of all responsibility because she is dying, when she wanted to have the affair and cheated on her husband; but f course he feels guilty. Mr Clooney's Matt finally has time for his wife and falls in love with her in the coma, even though she lied and cheated on on him. We "see" no background just an occasional reference to his being too busy. Drama? Comedy? I could not have cared any less about the ridiculous back story (someone please help Mr Bridges to find meaningful work). You go to the trouble to make a movie in Hawaii and almost no one talks, looks, or feels Hawaiian ( except the beautiful scenery). Uninteresting people, uninteresting story, no emotion, no one to root for. It's a mess. Amazing how so many critics loved this film. Mr Clooney certainly has a stranglehold on Hollywood.

If it wasn't based on a true story I would rate a zero. It's strictly for kids as the adults play to and through the kids. Mr Connick should stick to music. He sleepwalks through his dialogue , and is just not believable. The kids add some spice and Mr Freeman does his usual, but the pelican is the standout here. A hint of romance but never developed. Everybody gets together to save the tale / tail and we all smile at the end. So if you really have nothing to do one day and have small children, take the kids but don't expect much.

Why does a movie have an "indie feel'? maybe that means it is a boring, uninteresting movie. Which this is. The first 30 minutes or so nothing happens. There are long shots of people sitting in a restaurant, eating dinner, standing on a bridge, walking, little or no dialogue. Nothing happens. Little background on the characters. Someone pops in , pops out, no rhyme, no reason, no interest. Then a mystery starts, I guess. A woman is missing. Well, she is not in her room, the guys rent a room, the phone rings, he doesn't answer, the other guy barges in, they drive, a postcard, the pencil and pad trick, on and on, boring, slow, dull!!!! Had to stop watching. Couldn't waste any more tine. A complete failure. Maybe an "indie feel" is when the filmmaker tries to make it look like real life. Then boundless praise is heaped on him for a "real, gritty film"; it makes all the film festivals, it's a winner. Why?

I wanted to really like this film. It is an admirable project underlying the actual relationship between the director and star. But it was cliched, predictable, and overly religious. The scene where Tom gets drunk is very poor and seems to be stuck in their so someplace in the 2 hour running time he gets to say how he really feels. Although I do not believe that what people say while drunk is the truth; just the **** scene with the Gypsies once again looks stuck in so we get the message; it needs to be **** the question becomes is it worth a look? It's right on the borderline between a B- and C+. The scenery is nice although there is not enough of it. The road could have been a character but it is trivialized. Plenty of loopholes: how does a man his age just do a 500 mile walk? Where are all the clothes stored? well, having read what I just wrote I can't recommend it. Nice try that falls short.

A little boring with all the talk but then there's some brief nudity and sexual "unusualness" as there should be when Freud is mentioned. Nicely chronicles the relationship and impact all 3 characters had on each other and how it ultimately shaped their lives and what it carried to the future of psychoanalysis. Strong performance by Ms Knighltley and proper subdued performance by Mr Fassbinder. Mr Cassel's role is wasted and Mr Mortensen's portrayal of Freud makes him seem weak and dis-spirited (save for one scene). The jumps forward did not give me enough insight on how "The Talking Cure" so quickly and overtly helped her. And one thing about accents-I know it was not in English so stop having the characters try to "sound" foreign. Either do it it its native tongue with subtitles or let them speak English, even the Kings English is better then floating in and out of different accents. Overall it probably made a better stage play but still worth seeing. (B-).

I was so looking forward to this as I like Ms Dunst and the summary sounded so unusual. But I was so disappointed. The lead character does a whole bunch of wacky things and appears to be suffering a mental disease. The rest are all caricatures, are not important to her (or me) in any way. The impending doom (planet) should have had much more of a presence to these people. But only near the end is it's mighty foreboding and ultimate impact felt. The entire wedding scene plays as I would expect, well, at a wedding, with back biting petty people. But wait you say, the director has made these characters real. Maybe so, but I did not want to see them; nothing to like in any; no communication (them to me). Just a waste **** idea and good actors. It was almost a failure. Though as I write this i can't remember why I didn't give it an F (0). And man is it long!!

What an interesting theme-how did the others in Mozart's family handle his talent and fame? Based on true accounts made it more alluring. But alas, once again, the French treatment is poor. It's mind boggling how the recent spate of French films get such high marks. The lead is very poor, unable to carry what should be her film. She is unconvincing at times, hard to hear, even incoherent. This character must touch me or the film is worthless. She didn't and the film is. I did do the dreaded FFWD stopping at places to see if it picked up, but no luck. The father was strong but others just fair.

I have not seen a French film in years that I liked. At least this one is tolerable, though unbelievable; what the characters say and do did not touch me any in away. At least this time I did not FFWD through as I as waiting for the resolve, the exposure, the truth. But has been said by better, "you can't handle the truth" which is, many French films are over rated. Perhaps there is a certain gene I am missing. Not worth my time but not as bad as the usual French output that gets outstanding American reviews.

I do not give high marks just for something different, but this is worth it. Great ambiance, flair and surely provocative character driven film. I was completely engrossed and while unnecessarily violent and some things don't flow it is still a must see. Every time I see Mr Gosling I like his work more. He is growing and expanding into all kinds of roles. This is a "I can't wait so see what happens next" film. Usually I like to find someone to root for but the moving line of good / evil and right / wrong work; kept me moving my "root for" line as well. B+ due to violence and a little unsteadiness in the story. With another viewing I can see moving my rating into the "A" category.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Carnage is two films. The first half or so is a comedy. Mr Reilly is an excellent comedian. All the players deliver their lines with an air of being on the edge. They don't seem to be taking the material seriously. They are having fun as I was. Then the seriousness takes over as the combatants rip each other apart with innuendo through biting one-liners. Mr Reilly once again is excellent. Making the transition from light-hearted banter so machete like strikes. Ms Foster is way over the top; why did Mr Reilly marry her? All this "stuff" hidden behind a tight lipped facade? I was not roused to take action, just to utter an "Are they kidding?" Perhaps it worked better on the stage but still worth a look.

Well shot documentary that actually has a story. The animals have personalities and Mr Irons projects perhaps their "thinking". It is too long, as many of the same situations are played over again. Still it is a thought provoking insight to what may be happening to the king of beasts. Solid above average effort.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I love to watch movies. When a new film arrives and I queue it up and settle in, I get excited. I choose movies by the color code on Metacritic and then reading the description. I donâ

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This film gets my "U" (unratable) rating which I translate to a 5 here. It would make a good audio book with the wonderful narration by Mr Plummer; the prose would conjure up images as I listened. The animation is not meant to compete with the current CG technology, it supposed to be well, like a book, as you listen and turn the pages. It seems well-written, but more so then for the average reader (like me). About half-way through there was nothing to be seen, just a "nice" story. So I stopped it and maybe I'll listen if the audio book comes out.

When expressing my views on a film I examine my feelings. Did I "feel' something? Was it strong, believable? Did I cry, laugh, hide my eyes, etc. The characters in Restless made me feel something. They communicated their situation. They made me see how their reactions to their personal challenge made sense. In this film plot-lines or a story faux pas does not matter. Two wonderful portrayals of people who fall in love and must deal with heart breaking issues. They do it, they understand the "thing" their dealing with, and hopefully reach a better place in their lives. I "felt" their pain, sorrow, but most of all their happiness in finding each other when they needed someone the most. An A-.

This is a film I usually give a U for unratable. After @20 minutes I started the dreaded fast forward. It's a documentary about a piano tuner but with nothing about the man. Why? How? He must be so aware of the what the artist wants, but how did he get that way? Was he once a musician? It follows him as he prepares instruments for a few artists. No insight, just dialogue. The best part was the end credits where the "tuner" shows some of the intricacies of his craft-working with felt, etc. So I gave it a C, for average but it's not worth seeing. It should get "No rating".

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

If you liked En Bruges you'll like this. The writer / director is back along with a once again wonderful Mr. Gleeson. The sidekick this time, Mr. Cheadle does not have the same meaty part that Mr Farrell did, but he is good in a subdued performance. All the supporting players are well cast and add to the film in pivotal spots. The film belongs to the creation of Gerry from the written word. He forms a multilayered good guy who you may want to just give a hug to, except he won't let you. The story surrounding Gerry doesn't really matter; killers, drugs, sex, corruption. I loved the Guard and wouldn't mind him in my town, looking out for me. Wonderful ending which allows me an even greater root that maybe he will turn up in a continuing series. You may need the subtitles but it doesn't detract from the film. A solid "A" effort.

A boring film with above average acting, nice effects, and a story that grabbed me at the beginning, then lost a little bit at a time, right up to the predictable ending. It just wasn't fun, the only root was for the daughter. Some nice marks for the loving wife who puts up with it all. Is it faith, mental illness, or actually "the prime mover"? Although there is evidence for all three, I never found out and didn't care to form my own opinion because Mr. Shannon couldn't make me care. In the end not quite a poor film, so a C-.

I just can't resist. I know my reaction to French films; but I hope I will encounter one that is good. Maybe it's because of the culture and language gap. But they just do not work. Here is another example of the critics trying to make me believe that "the emperor is wearing clothes"; but as usual he is not! This is a long ridiculous film. There is no one to root for. Characters come in and out at breakneck speed. Just as I thought I know who someone was and what their motivation might be, how they relate to the hero, another "huh?" moment. I hung on to see what was happening, but around half-way in, I started to use the dreaded fast forward button. I could not have cared any less about any of these people (okay, maybe the gangster who saves our hero; how did he find him? was he tracking him too?) The police and prosecutors are presented as bumbling fools, jumping to conclusions (save for one who is unbelievable at not continuing his chase of the hero). The defense lawyer based on nothing but some, I say some, circumstantial evidence is ready to give up on her client. Ah you say characters that do not conform; that's different, worth watching. I was shown one thing, a certain way, and then a different way. I guess no on is enlightened about the dangers of smoking; does everyone in France smoke? Even the doctors? And the grand finale, a character who conveniently sits down, makes the hero sit, and said to me, "okay, you relax too, I'll explain everything) and spells out very single detail of what went on. The filmmakers must have known no one would be able to figure it out, let alone care. I could tell you where to go to so you donâ

My rating is actually a C+, almost worth seeing. If not that it was based on actual events and Mr. Redford tried to stay true to what happens to the characters it would have been below average. Most of the big names have small parts and don't have enough to spread their wings. The film is left to Ms. Wright and Mr. McAvoy. He is dull, boring, and never won me over so I could root for him. One may say that the only character to get behind is Mary (Ms. Wright) but she plays the role so blandly, never letting me know what she knew. Without that, I have to guess (what some critics think is positive) and my conclusion is she should have known what was going on and if she did , did not want to step in. She doesn't come across as afraid so why? Certainly her treatment in the American justice system was deplorable, perhaps overly melodramatic, but things did change after her trial. Perhaps for history buffs, but falls short on it's own.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Difficult film to grade. On the positive this happened to the writer, so there is truthfulness (Mr Rogen is actually a best friend of the writer). Characters are composites of multiple characters that came and went in the lief of Mr Reiser. So while it didn't "feel" right, if I go with the "this stuff really happened" insight, it's worth seeing. On the other side, well, it really doesn't work. All the other characters seem forced in what they're doing. Ms Kendrick is to young and inexperienced to be believable as the doc. Plus the flow of the film was obvious to me (I did know some of what happened as I heard Mr Reiser on NPR talking about the film). Then there is Mr Rogen; he is playing the same "dude" as in his other what is called "stoner' comedies. I chuckled now and then at him but he was not convincing as the best friend. In summary I find myself uncertain with two movies here: a serious film wit some comic relief about a young person with cancer and a irreverent poke at the same subject. I'm torn between my lowest recommended rating (B-) and my almost wroth seeing rating (C+). I'm going with "worth a look", but just so.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Nothing new in this teen vampire flick, except for the lack of nudity. I usually stay away from these movies but the Green Metacritic rating and the name actors peeked my curiosity. It is different from the usual fare (nubile lasses needing no reason to remove their tops), but not here. Someone must owe someone as Mr Farrell and MS Collette appear. Mr Farrell may have had good fun being the "bad guy" but Ms Collette is clearly here for her name as she has a very small meaningless part. There are a couple of attractive women (a fetching girlfriend and crying stripper) but also with little dialogue, although our hero does need a sweetheart to encourage him. Mr Yelchin plays it for real, although there are a few laughs, it tries to be a serious film. He is believable and does have some unusual facial expressions, but overall he is average. The film is well made, good pacing, silly and preposterous at times, but aren't most teen vampire films? I wanted to like it as the "names" do a credible job, but it's just not worth seeing. Not horrible, but not recommended (C+).

Excellent SFX. The simian part of the narrative is excellent but alas the human part is tedious, with nothing new. The story did not have me rooting for the poor monkeys to turn on the evil, greedy, businessmen or their torturer. That is a plus and why it works, again just the animal side. The work with primates is intriguing as I get bits of it in the news. Don't turn it off as the screen fades. It does get tied up with a fulfilling end. Worth a look; solid above average, B+.

What a novel idea for a film, make it like they used to be. It wears thin soon but the acting is flawless while the story, well, you know it. The ending did hold a surprise and that's a plus. In summary, well done, kudos to all, it should be seen. Hopefully the critics have not gone gaga over it just because it is different and they are forced to see the 80% of films that are boring and usually a waste of time; but of course, that is their job.

I reserve "10" for best of all time or by my ratings an A+. Mr. Allen has created an A, excellent, exquisite film. Beside the "meaning" or intention, the upside and downside of living in nostalgia, I was taken away by this film. Mr Wilson perfectly channels Mr Allen; dialogue, mannerisms, and all. It made me drift a bit into the period, the people, the wonder, the times. I have never been to Paris but I wanted to move to that period. The music, the cinematography, the rain. But alas, that's knowing what I know now and of course that is the false hope of nostalgia. A wonderful film.

Is this supposed to be a serious film, a mockumentary or a comedy? Ms Farmiga has many one-liners delivered like a comedian. Extremist religion, no matter the faith is disturbing. How can so many not believe science, not believe facts, and not believe their feelings? Falling back on the common thread that an invisible, fictional, being up in the clouds determines their life. Corinne ignores everything that makes any sense, her feelings, the facts before her eyes and why? Religion will tell me it's their faith. It's actually peer pressure. It is hard to stand up to all around you and ask questions. Teach your children to question authority. No more just accepting on faith. Do you accept priest sex abuse? If a reason is not available, don't accept on faith or deny because their are no facts; go out and seek the truth! It took way to long, almost 2 hours, for Corinne to act. Thank G, well whomever, she did. There may be those who give this film high marks, perhaps because it points out the hypocrisy of religion, but it was evident early in the film, and I could not for the life of me see why Corinne didn't get it. If looked at as a satire, it's not close to Religiousity, maybe it deserves higher marks. But if it's serious, C- or 4 is barely what it deserves.

Frightening subject done at breakneck pace, so no time to think, just feel. How long before anarchy begins? Should those working on the vaccine get it first? How about the President, VP, congresspeople, military (peacekeepers) etc? How far would I go for my family or even myself? Average acting, but nice interaction by characters. I guess a HW type decided there was a need to trace how it started but the personal story on that is unconvincing and not necessary. As things get worse and the scrambling for how to test what, I found myself looking with anticipation for the ending. Does the world end or as in Hollywood and yes reality, the US gets in done, in the nick of time? I wonder about the aftermath and would a voice-over have made the picture better or worse? It's enough that it is timely, suspenseful, goofy at times (Mr Damon and his family), and drew me in; this can happen can we prevent it, if not fix it, and when? All my ? in the review are why this is a solid effort, B+.

Let's get the obvious out of the way. Too long. Mr Hill was nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Globes). He cracks one joke, has 2 facial expressions, and tosses Mr Pitt the ball; compared to Mr Plummer? It was not a bad performance but not one worthy of an award. The story is of course interesting; how Mr Beane defied the way of doing things and brought technology to baseball. But watching "the streak" was like watching a Twilight Zone episode or "The Natural", I knew something great was going to happen but in the end it would not be enough. The ultimate goal of every ball team is to win the championship, and of course they didn't. Mr Pitt is confusing in the role. I have no idea why he wears a weeding ring, no idea why his adult family situation, which is only hinted at, is brought up. Inspiration from his daughter? But it was a very small part and superfluous at the end. Perhaps it was to get a screen appearance for Ms Wright, who appears to be out to do a cameo in every movie possible. So just some flashbacks on Mr Beane but no detail. The entire movie is in as few words as possible telling everyone they're doing it his way. Some good scenes while he is doing some trades, some good dialogue with Mr Hill, but overall an average performance in an average movie. If it was not "based" on a true story, it would not have been made. And with the usual disclaimer (some "stuff" was made up) who knows if it actually went down like that. It's almost worth seeing (C+).

How can a film be labeled a thriller and suspenseful when I know what happens? And how can any reviewer say that their review contains spoilers? I know what happened. This is just a made up story of what Mr Gecko said "... is good". I knew they all did the wrong thing, thought only of themselves ,and took the money. Not one person cared. If this fictional account of what may have happened prior to the biggest hit to our economy in my 63 years didn't happen, the film would not have been made. There is no one to root for. Mr Irons says it's a great story. Maybe if it weren't true ( the outcome). Why would anyone praise a fictional film about soulless, inconsiderate, selfish people? And none of these people paid in any way, they made a bunch of money and not only has no one gone to jail, many got hired by our government. They deliberately sold worthless paper (isn't all paper really worthless) and didn't inform their customers. Lying, no? All the people that lost their jobs, their homes, their savings hopefully will not see this and no one involved in it will make much money. The reviewers, the actors, well, the people who don't worry about paying a mortgage, eating, etc. probably find it amusing as once again they are sticking it to the rest of us. I am prepared to suspend belief and even a film with no redeeming value of any kind can still be a well made film with believable characters, except, when the disastrous outcome is true. This film does not enlighten (what is a margin call? does it have anything to do with what happened? with the film?) nor entertain. If you are unlucky enough to see it, hopefully you will come away angry. But to paraphrase some dialogue from the film, "nothing is going to change. there will always be the haves and have nots. F*** 'em."

Exciting and tension filled for the flashback, 1965-66 section. Even though a lot is displayed about what happens through forwards and back in time, I was still into it. Was all set to recommend, but then the ending. Cop out, main character goes through the same thing as before, absolutely no reason for her holier than thou decision. The 1997 section had too many contrivances and logistical **** have no problem suspending reality on timings and situations. Heck, it's a movie. But films boil down to the characters. Are they believable, why do they do what they do, what would I do? And Rachel just doesn't ring true. She is willing to jeopardize everything. She wasn't going to tell the truth when the one she loved wanted to. And then, Okshe''ll tell and hurt a lot of people and help no one; except I guess herself (she'll feel better). I liked it a lot in the 60's, a little less as each decade goes by, and the present (90's) just kill it. Too bad because the acting is good, story interesting, it's just poor Rachel, in the end, who sinks it.

At first it was confusing as I am unsure whether it is faithful to the culture. Women must cover their heads yet the girls wear high heels and makeup. Not knowing the culture and only hearing snippets of what Iran is really like through NPR, the story was difficult to get involved in. But this changed as the fluent relationship of Atafeh and Shireen becomes exposed (to me). The spirit of the film is bubbling just under the false veneer of all the characters. I wanted them to burst out and stand up for themselves as in America. But the heartbreak is they are all trapped by their Circumstance under the repressive Iranian culture; even those characters I identified as evil. They are all searching for love, but even if they are lucky enough to find it, it becomes - suppress or die. Once I realized, from watching the extras on the DVD, the risk Ms Keshavra and all the Iranians took, it made the film all the more poignant. It is so important for us to know how lucky we are here and how deplorable conditions are around the world. Films such as this are must see; especially for the young people who shape not only our world but the global world.

Amid much fanfare I reluctantly watched The Help. Unless it was a true story or based on such, the subject was uninteresting. Yet I gave this long film a shot. The idea of black women raising rich white children in the south, is not foreign even to those of us in the north. At one time we had such a person but more a helper not a parent substitute. The characters seemed stock and what happens is rote. Some performances were very good especially by Ms Davis, Ms Spencer, and Ms Chastain. There are no surprises here. It seems to have struck a chord with women but it could not sustain my interest for 2.5 hours. In summary, some strong performances, mildly interesting subject, but mundane and too long.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Mr Spielberg knows how to make a movie. Familiar story brought to life exquisitely. Well acted, vivid portrayal of war and the stories surrounding it. It is rich, warm, harsh, and emotional. A standard setup, gains momentum and rouses as we near the end. It's not all happy as there is pain and suffering to go around. It's nice to see a positive, up lifting film, that inspires hope with faith.

This is one unusual film. I stayed with it, was a little tossed about, lost my sense of time, and was a little confused. It's made up of documentary, reality, fantasy, science fiction, performance art. I very much was enthralled by Ms July and Mr Linklater and had to see where they were going. I had much distaste for Mr Warshofsky's character but perhaps i was supposed to. At first I thought I might just fast forward just to see what happens. But the characters moved me. I'm not sure how I really feel only watching it once, but I think it's worth a screening so it receives my lowest recommended rating B-, a 6 here.

Strictly for the kids but if you are thinking about a film to see with your family, this may be it. It is wondrous to look at with suberb animation (what do they call this computer generated stuff any way? still CGI?). The story is old hat and has a long slow setup, which may cause the kids to fidget, but there is enough here to talk about after the film is over. Fight scenes look good, fast action, no blood or broken bones, and the good guys win, most of the time. Voice characterizations are exceptional for Mr Oldman, Mr Hoffman, and Mr Hong. Mr Black is his usual self. Overall a fun Saturday afternoon outing with the kids.

I have read all three books and seen all three foreign films. It is difficult not to draw comparison to the book and original film. A book is always better than the film made of it. The "Girl;" trilogy is no exception. The book clearly defines and fleshes out the characters and continues to add / remove layers of personality as it goes forth. Hollywood must have thought that very few would have seen the original film, that makes some sense,nor read the book, that makes no sense as they removed key parts from the book and miscast two characters. The story itself is often confusing as are the characters, who is related to who, how, motivations, etc. etc. But this is the MacGuffin; in the end, it doesn't matter; what makes the book thrilling, can't put down is Lisbeth. She is why we keep reading and watching. Ms Mara is mysterious, provocative, frenetic, sensual, enigmatic, and "is" Lisbeth; she is every bit as good as Ms Rapace. She drives the book and film. Bloomkvist must be cast perfectly to help us empathize with Lisbeth. Mr Craig is unable to do that. He is not vulnerable nor cold enough; he appears to be under water, finding difficulty with his role. Ms Wright is also miscast; she is not the sensual, yet strong, then vulnerable, force in Blomkvist or Millennium's life. The role is way under written from the book to be hardly existent. She is a strong presence in the book and key to how / why Bloomkvist does what he does. The movie leaves out a pivotal relationship, Lisbeth's girlfriend and instead throws us a gratuitous sex scene with no bearing on anything. In the book there is mistaken identity and revenge surrounding this missing character. Of course Hollywood tones down the sexual violence and shortens the film and this hurts it over all. The original movie while not an "A" is far superior but it's worth it to see this one for Ms Mara. On my scale the original is a B+ (8); this version is barely recommended, which is a B- on my scale so just a 6 here and only to see Lisbeth

Mr Helms should get an award for making me believe that there could be someone as naive and shut off from the "real" world as his character. But he does. Many times he was just on the brink of me saying"No way; no one is that out of touch". Mr Reilly, Mr Whitlock and Ms Heche are excellent turning in top notch characterizations. I was nodding in agreement as there characters developed. The story is the usual let's expose the two-faced leader of the pack and our hero does the right thing and comes out on top. And that's okay, just nothing new here. The acting is what makes it worth seeing.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]