A Closer Look at The Film Nest’s “Involvement” With Avengers Star Samuel L. Jackson and NYT Critic A.O. Scott

When New York Times film critic A.O. Scott posted his review of Marvel’s new blockbuster The Avengers, he probably had no idea of the commotion he would cause. Avengers star, Samuel L. Jackson, who plays Avengers leader Nick Fury, came out on twitter bashing A.O. Scott. What wasn’t clear is what he was bashing. Was he bashing the review? Was he bashing the reviewer? It seemed personal, when Jackson tweeted “#Avengers fans,NY Times critic AO Scott needs a new job! Let’s help him find one! One he can ACTUALLY do!” Jackson seemingly took offense to Scott’s review of the film, saying that the film’s best scenes are the ones “when the assembled heroes have the opportunity to brag, banter, flirt and bicker.” Scott was not a fan of the over the top action. Sounds fair enough to me.

Scott didn’t really say anything bad about Jackson, his only notes being “Mr. Jackson, with an eye patch and his well-practiced bellow, is more master of ceremonies than mission commander.” Again, this is not so much a dis, I don’t think Scott was expecting an Oscar-worthy performance from someone who is a lower tier star (or at least role) in the film, behind the likes of Downey Jr.’s Iron Man and other heroes. A man should not be fired for coming out with a slightly negative film review. I pointed this out. In response to Jackson’s tweet, I said that I was “disappointed” at Jackson’s “irrational” response to the sarcastic review from Scott. Jackson then called The Film Nest out, shouting “That is My Opinion! @TheFilmNest & what’s irrational about it? They aren’t going to fire his jaundiced ass & You & I Know It!” This was discussed in a sense at E! Online. He’s now called Scott “jaundiced” – a term he didn’t really use correctly, since Scott did see the film, but I digress.

All I did was point out that a man losing his job for expressing an opinion seemed “irrational.” Jackson exclaimed that it didn’t seem so, which further stoked the fire. Maybe Mr. Jackson’s Nick Fury eye patch has obscured his view. In response, hundreds of tweets have come The Film Nest’s way, which distorted the entire story. Most have called critics “useless”. Some have called The Film Nest “racist.” Others have said The Film Nest acts “like the movie was made for your tight ass” and that Sam Jackson “was right to slam @TheFilmNest.” Really?

"My eye patch has obscured my view of what's rational and what's not, it seems."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, despite so many of them from people who clearly never read Scott’s review of the film, never understood what The Film Nest’s position in the matter was, but rather jumped in to bash where they could, or came out in support of Jackson, like crazed fans who would support anything. This puts the future of the world in a bit of a scary place in my eyes. It’s the old gossip line about how one person tells a story, and by the time the story makes the rounds, it has been bastardized into something far different than originally intended. Scary and sad for those that are misinformed.

A few cool heads understood it all and a few even said things like “Why on earth would someone be fired for not liking a movie? Film criticism is (largely) subjective.” True. Others said “You can’t fire a critic for their opinion, not everyone is going to like the movie. What the hell Sam?” Agreed. In truth, I laughed all along – even tweeting to Sam “Like snakes on a plane, your twitter followers react w/ great vengeance & furious anger. They give all others the shaft. ” I’m sure this fell on deaf ears to those who weren’t in the know, but it’s meant for those that get it.

For those that did, that’s the true story of the matter and those in the know should be applauded for having a clear view of the situation, Mr. Jackson and so many pointless drones who aimlessly bash, notwithstanding. Enjoy Avengers or not, makes no difference to me. In fact, I hope you do, considering you paid for a good time. That’s what movies are there for in the first place. To entertain and take us to another place. Peace.

Examining the Use of One-Take Feature Filmmaking in “Silent House” Vs. “Rope”

I love different styles of telling stories. The straight-forward narrative approach obviously works perfectly fine, but I like the idea that stories don’t necessarily need to be told in chronological order. You can have the hack-and-slash jambalaya of Pulp Fiction, the back-to-front (not the preferred wiping method, ladies) reverse order of Memento, the one story from multiple viewpoints of Go and many others out in existence. Even if the gimmick is used for the sake of being cool, I like that it provides a unique twist to something normally experienced. Life is always experienced from Point A to Point B. Art doesn’t have to be.

By the same token, I’m fond of different visual styles. As Hugo taught us all last year, Georges Melies used cinema to expand his bag of magic tricks. Buster Keaton was using match cuts in Sherlock Jr. to comic effect, Orson Welles was putting a knowingly large camera through a small grate in a sign and Michel Gondry just does all kinds of crazy things. These kind of in-camera effects are what still boggles my mind and provides me with more wonderment than any CG creation ever could. In this grand tradition is the art of the one-take film. My first encounter with this style was Alfred Hitchcock’s 1948 film Rope (though technically not one-take, which I’ll get to later) and the visual style carried over 64 years later in the form of Silent House (a remake of a two-year-old Argentinian film which used the same visual gimmickry).

Rope is obviously not considered one of Hitchcock’s masterpieces. It’s not in the pantheon. It’s probably not in most people’s Top 5 list of films directed by the master of suspense, but it’s always held a soft spot in my heart since my first being introduced to it by long-defunct “Total Movie” magazine (which I mainly subscribed to for the DVD of trailers included with each issue). I’ve since shown it to friends and, like everyone, I wouldn’t call it a masterpiece, but it’s an endlessly-watchable film that stylistically looks beautiful and carries some trademark tension that makes it so easy to lap up. It was Hitchcock’s first color film, shot with a monstrous Technicolor camera that dwarfed “the silhouette” himself (see below) and his first of many collaborations with Jimmy Stewart.

Hitchcock's 'Rope' was alarmingly shot on "film" and not "rope." Hmmm.

Hitchcock decided to add another wrinkle in experimenting with the visual possibility of filming a play. It was to be shot in real-time and with only one hulking camera to push and pull around, it was decided to shoot the film with as few cuts as possible. Though there’s no way of knowing this (unless there’s a quote out there somewhere), I’d imagine Hitchcock would have filmed the whole movie in one take had the technology been available. Instead, film reels at the time only lasted ten minutes apiece. Therefore, the film was forced to have a cut every time the runtime hit double digits. Most of his cuts are “invisible,” in that the camera will zoom into a character’s back, cut, and then pick up again from that same position so it appears to be one smooth move. Though most of the cuts in action due to film reel length give the illusion of one very long take, there are a few conventional hard cuts in the film. Therefore, the film is not technically nor even artistically a one-take film, but it’s widely viewed as carrying off that experiment, which is one of the reasons I think it’s worthy of looking at while talking about “Silent House.”

A Full “Silent House” Movie Review, Also Comparing it to Alfred Hitchcock’s 1948 Film “Rope”

Like its 2010 Argentinian predecessor, Silent House is filmed with the one-take technique. Though the technology exists in order to make this possible, it was filmed much the same way Sir Alfred had to make his movie, with technology making the cuts much less apparent to the naked eye. This choice certainly lends an additional credibility to the images you’re seeing onscreen. The process makes a natural point of comparison with “Rope,” but there are other elements that lend credibility to the juxtaposition.

The titular “silent house” is located on a sparsely populated stretch of land. It’s a summer home. A place to go on vacation and get away from it all. Who was getting away from what during visits to this location is slowly revealed in the last act of the film. Elizabeth Olsen – whose first role was playing an extra in her older sisters’ TV movie “How the West was Fun” – plays Sarah, a tag-along with her father and uncle’s bid to gut the home for future sale. She’d almost certainly rather not be there, but shows no real effort to hurry the process along as her dad has to berate her to get moving with the clean-up process.

The house has been boarded up due to windows being broken by squatters and whatever rambunctiousness lurks when they’re away enjoying normal life. A long-lost summertime friend, Sophia, pays Sarah a visit and they exchange an immensely awkward tete-a-tete that could only be worse if it was shared between Tim Tebow and Lindsay Lohan. Though Sophia insists on a connected past, Sarah can only lie her way through the conversation, finally admitting to having gaps in her mind.

After reluctantly agreeing to hang out with Sophia later on, Sarah traverses back inside the dimly-lit cadre of stairs, rooms and furniture, with only a shining blue lamp to guide her. As it’s wont to do, the darkness unsettles her easily and any noise sets off instant shivers up her spine. She suspects intruders out to do harm and like any good frightened heroine, sends her father to check on the potential monsters for her.

Both Hitchcock’s “Rope” and “Silent House” Were Shot at One Location

Like Silent House, Rope is centered on one location, an apartment occupied by Phillip and Brandon who are planning a trip together. In celebration of their future adventure, they decide to throw a soiree with some friends. At least, that’s the ruse and reason presented to their attendees. The true purpose of the event is for the adrenaline rush received from keeping a secret hidden in front of the faces of their guests. They just strangled an acquaintance, stashed the body inside the apartment and invited his girlfriend and others to come mingle around the corpse unbeknownst.

Phillip and Brandon welcome someone into their home for the thrill of ending his life. Sarah tries to navigate her vaguely familiar whereabouts and protect her being from deadly invasion. The stories that take place in singular locations are almost direct inverses of the other. However, the real-time technique bridges the same sunlight to nighttime duskly transition, metaphorically taking our characters from an enviable to vastly more bleak position, doing their best to not get caught.

The Roving Camera and One-Take Technique Create Movie-Audience Intimacy

In Silent House, the roving camera touring the location alongside Sarah lends an intimacy to what unfolds in front of us. Rope truly is more play-like as the camera settles down at various points, allowing suspense to settle in and gather, as opposed to creating constant tension. You may find your heartbeat racing in either circumstance. Silent House may as well be in first person (though you’d miss out on the numerous Olsen cleavage shots that are so prevalent that it’s been deemed a plot keyword by IMDB), with the camera never taking you out of Sarah’s predicament, allowing you to feel every shred of her distress. In Rope, the camera invites you to be a guest at this party (a living one, luckily), but one that knows the protagonists’ secret and refuses to blab, as watching their comeuppance would be much more entertaining.

Plot keyword "Elizabeth Olsen Cleavage" satisfied.

This “one-take” visual trick is fascinating in both instances, but whereas it provides the first sense of claustrophobia and voyeurism that Hitchcock would perfect six years later in Rear Window, it’s ultimately Silent House’s undoing. The film presents a twist which betrays a certain indeterminate amount of screen story we see unfold before our very eyes. This isn’t some Rashomon-style interpretation of viewpoints. We witness every second of what Sarah has – live, as it happens for over an hour – and things suddenly devolve into something very reminiscent of 2003’s High Tension (if you read Roger Ebert’s review of that film and/or the tone of my sentence, you know this isn’t praise).

I’m not remotely twist-averse, as I recognize brilliance in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable as the audience was never once lied to, with The Sixth Sense even willing to relive some of the events to prove it to you. It would be incorrect to state the twist in Silent House isn’t hinted at prior to its reveal. In fact, I think some of the premeditation works rather well. Unfortunately, I believe there’s an extra bit of i-dotting and t-crossing that needs to be done in twisted endings and if the makers of Silent House believe it was done, it was handled so clumsily that the audience is unable to come to the same conclusion.

Though I haven’t seen it, I have to doubt the Argentinian original does much to clarify things, as the same one-take technique is utilized while receiving roughly the same type of ‘mediocre-at-best’ acclaim. If the technical aspects of the premise are intriguing, you may be dazzled enough to be let down by the story. If you want to witness the same type of technical achievement – that was performed with a higher degree of difficulty where the story still stands up – it’s better to stick with the master of the genre.

Marvel’s The Avengers Movie Pictures and Behind The Scenes Video Featurette

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that The Avengers is set to become this summer’s biggest film. Okay, maybe it can’t compete with the likes of, say, One Thousand Words, but even if my prediction goes unfulfilled, it will be virtually impossible to stop the freight train of hype that continues to come our way. While we have seen the movie trailer, movie posters and more, we continue to get glimpses of what is to be expected from the film. Even a Japanese trailer showed a bunch of action in this potentially one-of a kind film (at least the first go around – bringing so many superheroes into one film? A dream come true for many).

Here we have the latest tidbits given to a craving audience with new movie pictures and a behind the scenes video which traces the lineage of how the superheroes got to where they are in The Avengers. Take a look at the pics and video and let us know what you think. Disregard the Norton tie-in at your own peril. Thanks to THR for the goods. Enjoy!

A Full Review of the Redbox Kiosk and Online Movie Rental Service

This is the second part in an on-going series of the changes in my movie watching habits. First, I reviewed the Amazon Watch Instantly service, now I take a look at Redbox or redbox. This whole series has been spawned by the negative changes and lack of recovery, in my mind, regarding the Netflix services.

For those unfamiliar, redbox is a kiosk-based service, which makes renting movies akin to what it used to be like walking into a Blockbuster or Hollywood Video store. Note that Hollywood Video is long gone and Blockbuster is severely restructuring after its bankruptcy. There are a few different ways in which the service works. Users can browse the available movies online and search nearby kiosks to find the movie that they are looking for. They can subsequently reserve the movie online and pick it up at the assigned kiosk. Alternatively, they may simply go to a redbox kiosk and browse the available selection from the actual physical kiosk. Simple enough.

My impressions of redbox are as follows. After initial curiosity, I decided to try out the service and reserve a film online. Redbox specializes in new and recent releases. Based on my experience, the kiosk I use stocks a mix of DVDs and Blu-ray discs in addition to a small handful of video games. The ratio of DVDs to Blu-rays seems to be 3 or 4 to 1. At any given time, the kiosk stocks 240 or so total discs and maybe up to 20% or so are checked out. Not bad at all. To this point, there has always been something of interest to watch.

With redbox I prefer to reserve online, however there are instances where the company will offer a free one night rental if you go to the kiosk physically to do so. That’s incentive enough to take the chance that there will be something of interest. It seems they offer this deal at least once a month. Another positive is that the cost of movies are $1-$1.50 per night depending on if you are selecting a DVD or Blu-ray, which is the more expensive option. A brand new release for only $1.63 out the door (there is tax in CA) for one night is a nice deal. There haven’t been any issues with disc playback or scratches to this point. Knock on wood.

Caeser the Ape and Franco shared stunningly similar features. A mirror reflection from one redbox rental.

Will Redbox pair with Amazon Watch Instantly to Overthrow Netflix?

Using redbox is ultimately a matter of kiosk convenience. If you are in an area where there is a kiosk or two close by, it seems to be a good way to go. Users also have the ability to return movies to any kiosk, therefore you are not bound to pick up and return at the same location. Browsing movies online or in person is simple and easy. This is a great deal if you want new releases and have a location in close proximity.

On the downside, the service is for new or recent releases only. You will not be finding copies of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or even Inception for that matter. The movies are too old to be available at this juncture. It seems that the window is about a year or two tops age-wise in terms of what is available to rent. The other drawback is the need to physically to go to the location. These seem to be setup at grocery stores or convenience stores, places where people frequent, so it’s a good opportunity to get your necessities and a movie or two in the process. You can check out unlimited movies but they have to be returned by 9 pm the night after pick-up or reservation, in order to be charged for a one-night rental. Redbox allows for longer term renting, but the nightly cost will continue to add up until a movie is returned. Finally if there is a line, that can be a drawback, simply because when nobody is using the kiosk pickups and returns literally can be done in under a minute.

I have been using the service as a great option for having physical copies of discs. Obviously, there is no streaming available with the service, online or otherwise, but I am still a fan of physical discs to this point. Also, you don’t have to wait for new releases very long typically, like you can with Netflix queues. Another bonus is that redbox has just acquired Blockbuster’s video kiosks. Whether or not those will convert to redbox branding I don’t know, but it certainly helps with adding locations and films, which adds up to added convenience. That’s what this whole deal is about for me. I have a redbox location within a mile and several other options if need be, within 2-3 miles. That’s pretty nice. As of now, I have zero complaints about redbox and I’d rate the service 5 out of 5. Highly recommended.

A Review of the Amazon Watch Instantly Movie & TV Streaming Service

In the coming days, I will write about the changes in my habits of how I consume movies, primarily since the Netflix price hike fiasco of last year. One of the chief changes I have made in 2012 is using the Amazon Watch Instantly movie service to stream movies. I added a Roku LT player over the holidays (a bargain at $50 and even better as a gift) and paid for an Amazon Prime membership, which in addition to giving me faster and free shipping from the site where I do most of my shopping, provides the added benefit of streaming movies from their ever expanding library right to my TV. That’s the brief history, but what about the service?

Amazon Instant Video (as they call it) claims to give you access to thousands of films, with the Prime membership (roughly $80/year fee) giving instant access to over 10,000 movies and TV shows for no additional cost. The set up is painless, the streaming has been virtually flawless at 720p (which is what the Roku LT puts out at over wireless streaming) and the quality is excellent. This isn’t necessarily an Amazon vs. Netflix rant (yet), but overall, the service has been a great added bonus to me.

With Amazon on the Roku LT, you scroll through films, essentially via their movie poster art. Logging into their Amazon Prime package section, the top 300 user streaming movies are at your fingertips. For reference of how this can change, with the death of Whitney Houston, 1992’s The Bodyguard, a film she starred in with Kevin Costner at the height of her fame, instantly shot up to the top film streamed. (For the record, I’ve seen it before and remember it fondly, but its been nearly two decades since I’ve seen it.) Anyway, additionally, any film can be searched for with the results coming up accurately and quickly in most cases. The service gives films a brief star-rating and movie synopsis, star and director info, year it was released, etc. All this is fine and dandy. There are genre sections, editor’s choice picks and new releases as well, all of which are easy to select and browse. You can even buy many movies to download for a fee, such as $9.99, so that you own them and can watch them whenever, like owning a DVD or Blu-ray without the physical baggage. I haven’t used this but it’s nice to know it’s available. Still, there are some negatives with the service.

I'll admit to finding Whitney beautiful in "The Bodyguard." May she Rest In Peace.

Amazon May Replace Netflix As Top Movie Streaming Option

First, there is no movie queue like Netflix uses, to my knowledge. This means that you have to either scroll for movies to watch or search for them by name, i.e. you need to know what you are looking for rather than having a list of what you know you want to see. That’s a bit of an issue. Secondly, the new releases are never part of the Amazon Prime package, so you have to pay for them. This is easy enough to do, since the info is linked to your account, however, the added costs are a negative.

Amazon will however, offer specials on movies, such as .99 cents for recent new releases 30 Minutes or Less or Friends with Benefits (don’t waste your time, BTW). But, you must watch these in a 24-hour window. One of the things I like about this service, strangely – because it’s not something I typically like to do, is stretch out watching a movie over 2 or 3 nights. I can kill 45 minutes or an hour at a time watching a movie rather than 2 hours or more in one shot. This makes it easier to digest on a weeknight for me. Alas, with the specials, you kind of need to watch a film in one sitting, which may be a drawback. Also, some new releases, Ed Burns Newlyweds comes to mind, have significant costs. That film was going for $6.99 to stream it initially. A little steep for one film.

Most new releases clock in a $3.99, which seems about average for a streaming service. If you watch one or two new releases a month, plus add in the fee cost of roughly $6.50/mo for the Prime service (which is not a necessity to watch new releases, but does provide access to the 10,000+ TV shows and movies), you are looking at $14-15 a month, which is nearing what Netflix charges for their combo service. Still, with Amazon you don’t have to hope the movies are in stock and also you don’t have the waiting period for films to hit the service, the way Netflix seems to have with just about any major movie studio these days. That’s a nice BIG benefit in my eyes, plus I do a boatload of shopping with Amazon and I get things faster and shipped free when I order, so there is that added benefit as well. There is nothing worse than waiting on end (whether it takes a month to hit their service, then it is rented for another month or so by others before you can get it) to be able to watch a movie you want to see. This can eventually make you miss out on things you otherwise would have seen over time. A drag.

Overall, I am happy with Amazon, its streaming service and its watch instantly Prime movies and shows. I have caught quite a few things in the last few months, movies and stand up comedian shows that otherwise I wouldn’t have seen, wouldn’t know about or would have had to wait to see. Amazon watch instantly is a valuable service that can be significantly improved by adding a movie queue section (which I suspect will happen in time, since Amazon continues to build their film and TV library) and perhaps reducing some of the fees on new releases. I would give the service 4.5/5 at this point for its value, quality and availability ratio. Highly recommended.

A Look Back at 2012 Movie Awards Season for Films Released in 2011

With the movie awards season for the year past all but wrapped up (save for The Razzies), I wanted to take a brief look back at the year that was in film awards. We’ll recap what did well, what didn’t and what it all means, if anything. Here goes…

First off, the obvious winner from the films released in 2011 was The Artist. The black and white wonder, a huge risk taken by Harvey Weinstein, as well as those involved in the picture, paid major dividends winning Best Picture at the Oscars as well as the similar prizes in virtually every other major awards show, including the Golden Globes and Spirit Awards. The same can be said for director Michael Hazanavicious and lead actor Jean Dujardin. They essentially swept the major awards in their categories as well throughout awards season. This made for little suspense in last night’s crowning Oscar ceremony.

When there is a big winner, there are losers as well. While The Descendants looked poised to win big early on, as well as the popular film adaptation of The Help. Those films had to take second fiddle for the most part when it came to major winners. While The Descendants was able to win several screenplay awards, lead actor George Clooney and director Alexander Payne had to feel a little disappointed with the results based on the film’s buzz all along. Neither was able to generate much traction consistently over awards season despite Globe wins in their respective categories. Similarly, The Help had Best Supporting Actress Octavia Spencer and lead actress Viola Davis consistently winning through awards season…until last night Davis was upset at the Oscars by her friend and quasi-mentor Meryl Streep. That was the only real surprise of the evening.

The Artist plowed the competition during 2012 awards season.

Based on how long it took to get made and how much buzz there was surrounding the film early on, it’s hard not to look at Moneyball as a loser over awards season. Lead actor Brad Pitt was consistently nominated, yet never won. Even in the adaptation category it never gained the traction it deserved. A consolation prize was Jonah Hill’s consistent nominations, which are still hard for me to understand to this day. On the flipside, Hugo did pretty well over awards season, considering director Martin Scorcese made a family film in 3-D and still received several nominations and even taking home 5 technical Oscars last night. That’s nothing to sniff at for a departure from the noted dramatic director.

My biggest loser over awards season was David Fincher’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. He remade a film based on a best selling book with great skill and technical and storytelling acumen only to be left without major awards for the most part. Rooney Mara was rightfully nominated for her acting but Fincher’s direction and the film as a whole was largely overlooked. The only explanation in my eyes is that the subject matter proved to be too challenging for the notoriously conservative bluehairs in the Academy, but this was sadly consistent across several other major award offerings. The film still ranks as my picture of the year.

Lastly, other films, like Clint Eastwood’s J.Edgar felt the sting of consistently being overlooked during the awards season. Although Leonardo DiCaprio did receive an acting nomination here or there, the film was a dud at the box office and critically panned as well, never becoming a serious entry for big awards. This marks a decided turn in Eastwood’s career in my eyes, as the icons directorial efforts have become increasingly harder to watch. From Invictus to Hereafter to the overhyped Gran Torino and now J.Edgar, I think he may be nearing the end of the line for his recognition with major awards. He’s now 8 years removed from his last great film Million Dollar Baby, so it will be interesting to see if fatigue has settled in the way that I suspect it might have.

If you have thoughts on any of the above, feel free to chime in. We are taking one last look back at the year that was before turning our attention to the year that is. Let’s hope 2012 makes for a great film year after a down year last year.

First off, if you have yet to read Stieg Larsson’s best-selling novel The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, that’s fine, because I haven’t read the book either. That being said, obviously my lack of knowledge of the book plays a role in how I viewed the presentation of both David Fincher’s new movie and the original 2009 Swedish version of the film with the same name.

Both films plots center around a murder mystery that happened 40 years ago. One which has haunted Henrik Vanger, uncle of Harriet Vanger, who disappeared during a parade and was never to be seen again. So, Henrik hires the good but troubled journalist Mikael Blomkvist to assist with researching Harriet’s death, since he has not stopped thinking about it and looking into it for four decades.

Fincher's "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" star Rooney Mara.

While there is obviously more to the plot – such as the titular girl with the dragon tattoo, a computer hacker who comes to aid Blomkvist in his unraveling of the mystery – and the large and powerful Vanger family, which is loaded with distrust and possibly tons of secrets, I’d rather focus on how the films are presented and compare them, versus what happens in the film. That being said, this will be a spoiler filled post I am sure.

Both film versions present the material similarly early on, however, Fincher’s version lends more depth to the character of Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) and his sexual relationship with his editor (Robin Wright-Penn). The original version leaves this to be highly-implied and not nearly as easy to decipher.

Both films treat Blomkvist as a reporter scorned, but in the Swedish version, Blomkvist has a 6-month jail stint hanging over his head, which he eventually serves. This does not happen in Fincher’s film. Also, Lisbeth Salander, the afore-mentioned tattooed girl, has a troubled past in both. She is much more silent in the original film, with a bit more depth and expression of character in Fincher’s film. This is to be expected I think, due to audience discrepancies with the way we accept material.

The settings are similar, both snow-filled in northern Stockholm, but Fincher’s has the slick feel of modern money, IKEA smooth furniture, while the original film places a little more emphasis on old-school money. The cottage where Blomkvist stays is more in the open in the first film, where in Fincher’s the cottage is “guarded” in a sense by Henrik’s mansion.

The original 2009 Swedish version of "Dragon Tattoo".

Both films treat the violence appropriately, gruesome in some respects, perhaps a bit more gratuitous in Fincher’s film. Salander’s relationship with Blomkvist, a key component of the film, is where the films differ primarily, in my view. What made Fincher’s film so strong, is the change that Rooney Mara’s Lisbeth displayed and her desire to become close with Blomkvist. The ending in that film, though slightly predictable, is gut-wrenching. In the Swedish version, Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) desires Noomi Rapace’s Salander more, and she is more passive and distant with their interactions, despite the physical relationship. In essence, in Fincher’s film, she wanted him but couldn’t have him, and in the Swedish version, it was the opposite.

Both films end similarly in terms of other plot points, with Salander looting money, but in the Swedish version she is off on her own and in Fincher’s film, heartbreak prevails. Despite very similar run times, I felt the Fincher film had more characterization and depth overall. Both films are effective and well done, but in my mind, Fincher’s was the film of the year in 2011, from what I saw, while the Swedish film is essentially just a solid thriller.

If you love music as much as we do here at The Film Nest then it’s natural you might want to check out this cool music making app of sorts. This is a video from candy maker Wonka that you need to see. The video stars Mr. Mariah Carey, actor and overall talent extraordinaire, DJ NC. Yeah, you know, it’s Nick Cannon of Nickelodeon and MTV fame. He’s also the man behind the hit single Gigolo (pre-Mariah). What is he up to now? He’s mixing tracks on the one-of-a-kind beatmaker named the Wonka WRapper, which is powered by imagination and non-stop delicious candy!

Nick understands that candy can make you do crazy things. He even linked to this classic Method Man candy-themed rap right here! This post is sponsored by Wonka and their infamous Wonka beatmaker allows you to create your own music as part of a candy-powered music mix. Check out the video embedded below and then shoot over to www.facebook.com/wonka to start DJing your own candy-inspired funk. Think hip-hop, gobstop or boom-bap Nerds raps.

If you have a love for WONKA candy (like Sweet Tarts, Gobstoppers, Nerds, etc.) and a computer that is webcam-enabled – you are good to go! So, break out your hip-hop and techno beatmaking skills and unleash that creativity that only the Wonka WRapper can bring out in you! Peace!!

The Gillette Odor Sweat Shield for Greatness contest has come down to this. A man inflicted with cerebral palsy. An epileptic who loves the outdoors. A wounded US soldier. What do they all have in common? They are the finalists in the greatness challenge. They are three amazing stories of extraordinary achievement.

Steve Wampler, a man with cerebral palsy, climbed the 3,000 foot face of mountain El Capitan in Yosemite National Park by doing roughly 20,000 pull ups on an aluminum pulley, over 6 days. He has formed the Stephen J. Wampler Foundation for those inflicted with cerebral palsy and tells his incredible story below.

Joe Beimfohr is a soldier who was injured in Iraq by a wired IUD detonation. For 8 long days, he was placed in a medical coma. Despite losing his legs, he is now a competitive hand cyclist. He has competed in the New York and Chicago marathons as part of the Achilles International Freedom Team.

Colorado’s 23-year old John Olson an epileptic who has had seizures since he was 4 years old. He scales mountains called “fourteeners,” which are mountains that are 14,000 feet tall! John has climbed 8 of the more than 50 of these fourteeners which exist, to this point. He soon hopes to conquer the Mt. Saint Helens volcanic mountain. He works with the National Epilepsy Foundation.

All men have overcome their disabilities to achieve greatness. They have excelled in competition and strived to get the most out of life. Their videos help tell portions of their stories. While they are all winners, only one can win the contest. Check out the videos below and head on over to si.com/greatness to vote for your favorite. May the most incredible achievement of all win! Thanks for watching and don’t forget to vote! Enjoy!

Hey, everyone. It’s time to switch it up and look at the small screen for a second, to let you know about a much-anticipated new TV show on FX called the Untitled Jersey City Project. This post is sponsored by Audi and FX and one of the unique things about the 8-part short form series is that many of the brand new Audi vehicles will be featured in the series. But it’s not just for gearheads.

If that wasn’t cool enough, the series features a completely unique concept in television design – it’s an entirely made in progress TV drama. Do you remember the books called “Mad Libs” where you can change the story by filling in different words? Yeah, it sounds kind of like that. This might just be the future of television. TV writers, and I know there are some of you following along, take note of this series and how it is done, you might just learn how you’ll have to write in the future. Creativity, my friends!

Oh, about the show – Frank is a good looking, New York architect, who along with his partner, lands a dream gig designing a stadium in Jersey City across the pond. However, a messy power developer, rivals with conflicting interest, an attractive and nosy reporter, they all might make this dream set up a nightmare. Nothing is what it seems and things may not always resolve the way you expect. That’s all part of the fun in this different concept. Hence, the “Untitled” word in the project’s title – get it?

Take a look at the trailer below, and try to deny that you’re not at least…intrigued. Sex, drama, money and murder(?), all presented in the top-notch fashion that you can expect from a series on FX. We’re there.

BTW, if you are an Audi fan or simply in the search for a new car, take a look at the new Audi’s hitting dealerships soon. Shameless plug (no, not when it’s true!), but don’t you have to love the new A5? I’m digging their redesign. I’m thinking of dumping my 2nd Beamer for one, so I’m off to test drive soon. See you on the streets!