Day: February 17, 2012

last movie of the Millennium series! The other two reviews are here and here.

Is The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest the ending to a great work, or the third addition to something that probably went on wayyy too long.

Apparently she has gone back to her “scene” ways.

There is seriously NO reason to watch this movie without the other two first. What they hell is wrong with you (hypothetical person attempting to do this thing)? But just in case, my plot outline is going to be very general.

After the events of Film 2, Lisbeth (Noomi Rapace) is in the Hospital, with bullets and stuff in her. So is her dad. An attempted assassination attempt on both of them.

Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) still wants to protect her and gets his sister to be her lawyer for the trial. They want to prove that she has had a life of abuse, both from her father and “the man”, leading her to do certain actions. Like blackmailing rapists instead of going to the cops, and trying to kill her dad in self defense.

Assuming they free her of all charges, can she finally “move on” with her life, and become a normal girl?

And why does she think this is the best outfit to wear at court?

To me, personally (and I remind you again, I didn’t understand why the second one was made) don’t understand why this one was made either. It felt like the “what happens after the show” stuff. I need more details there. Lets say you are watching Psych or something, and by the end they catch the bad guy! Usually by them admitting to it (which is good evidence). That case will probably STILL go to trial, as the person will be all pissed off. They then have to go through a lengthy after process, and hopefully that person is eventually put in jail.

Does that part sound as interesting? No. Because we have already seen all the proof, and know what the final verdict should be. They don’t show that stuff because it would be boring.

Well, that’s what the third movie felt like to me. Sure, some other stuff happens too. It better, since it is 2.5 hours long! We find out a little bit more, but the justification for the movie doesn’t seem to be there.

In conclusion, I don’t see the big deal guys.

Plural? Yes.

I watched Death at a Funeral (British version) the other day, and I realized I wanted to see Death at a Funeral (American version) as well. Obviously the British one came first, but I figured they’d be different enough with the same general plot to do two reviews, but no. They pretty much are the same. Some different jokes, but all the same stuff happens. SO ONE SUPER REVIEW (that counts as two, damn it). Also probably my record for most tags. Two ensemble movies in one. Hooray!

And why not start it off with a naked Alan Tudyk on a roof?

So in both movies, the patriarch of the family dies. The main guy (Chris Rock, Matthew Macfadyen) lived with his folks and is an inspiring writer, which is bad because his slightly younger brother (Martin Lawrence, Rupert Graves) already has made a best seller. Jealousy!

We also have their cousin (Zoe Saldana, Daisy Donovan) is bringing her new fiance to the funeral, hoping her own dad will approve of him. This makes the fiance (Alan Tudyk, James Marsden) nervous, and he takes some Vallium to calm down. But it really isn’t Vallium. Her ex is also there (and trying to win her back…Luke Wilson, Ewen Bremner), now a friend of the family, along with another friend of the family (Tracy Morgan, Andy Nyman) who has the unfortunate job of looking out for the wheel chaired uncle (Danny Glover, Peter Vaughan).

Got all that? Too bad. A few problems go wrong, delaying the actual ceremony, which is perfect for the real main plotline. The midget who no one knows turns out to be the secret gay lover of their dad (Peter Dinklage, Peter Dinklage) with picture proof, and threatens to show everyone unless he gets a nice sum since he was left off of the will. Yes blackmail, and midgets.

I am sure I tagged some people and didn’t mention them. Honestly I lost track. Here is Loretta Devine, who you would have guessed was in the American version without looking it up probably.

Somehow, both of these actors naked on a roof was the easiest “same scene” from both movies to find.

So, these movies both feature large ensemble casts, with a few different plot lines so that they can all build up and get crazy by the end of the movie.

But which is better? I have heard from multiple sources that they think the British version is WAY better than the American. They also said this before watching the American though. After watching both though I find that…well they are both okay. I didn’t find one vastly superior to the other. Honestly, I probably would have been fine with either of them if only one of them had to exist!

So watch whatever version you choose, knowing full well that if you choose the British one for any other reason than it being the original, then you are probably a racist.