CubeRic9000

I have seen the Swedish film, now this English speaking version, but never read the book. At first I was reluctant to see this version, as I enjoyed the Swedish one, but David Fincher was enough to convince me it would be worth a try.

There were a few standout points, namely the style and cinematography. It really is a wonderful film to look at, and has Fincher's acclaimed attention to detail throughout. He really has put a lot of work into this, and it shows. And with this type of story, it is hard to think of a current day director that would be more suitable. The opening credits are also worthy of a mention. It's like watching a Chris Cunningham music video, spawned from the mind of H.R. Giger. Not sure if it gels with the film entirely, but was impossible to look away. The score also is one of the best points. Trent Reznor does a magnificent job, creating a mood and intensifying a scene. Combined with a well produced sound design, it is great for the ears. As for performances, I thought Daniel Craig came across well.

Whilst watching this film and since leaving the cinema, I have found it impossible to not compare this English version to its Swedish predecessor. Even when consciously trying to watch it with a clean slate, you can't help but consider comparisons. So with that in mind, I have found Fincher's version to be a disappointment. I did not get hooked in at all, and as great as it was for the eyes, I was urging the credits to roll.

Firstly the character Lisbeth Salander played by Rooney Mara. I thought she was so much less engaging than Noomi Rapace's portrayal. At times I actually found her character to be quite overstated in certain scenarios, particularly the over-choreographed bag snatch scene on the escalator. With Noomi's version, there was an eerie undercurrent and imperfection to her character, whereas with Rooney's, being bad seems too perfect in its execution. This type of overproducing, and trying so hard to make it sleek, really took away from the realism of the characters and more importantly the story. With the Swedish one it was gritty, dark, and real. They were far from perfect characters in situations out of their depth. With Fincher's version, the characters tend to feel too exaggerated.

The narrative also was slow at times, then way too quick at others points. For example it's partly a study of Lisbeth Salander and Mikael Blomkvist current lives for the first half hour to an hour, and does tend to drag. Even still, you learn nothing as to why Lisbeth is the way she is. So they don't know each other, then bang, they are working together. We do see how they get introduced, but the processed is rushed through. I remember the way they come across each other in the Swedish version as being rather important and enjoyable to watch unfold. Their relationship in the Swedish version also grew in a believable sense, and was genuine, however with this English version, it seems so forced. Especially the intimate scenes, they just seem to occur for no good reason. They are quickly squeezed in, then back to the mystery.

If you haven't seen the Swedish version, Fincher's version would probably satisfy. It may be closer to the book, this I am unsure. And perhaps Rooney Mara's turn at Lisbeth Salander would impress. But for me, I have to recommend the original Swedish film by a long way. I think the script has a lot to answer for here as it seems unbalanced, and even with a long duration, it still feels like there are important points that are left out or glossed over. I know it can be somewhat cliché to state it, especially in a scenario such as this, but I can't help but think that in a lot of ways this story has been distorted by the Hollywood system. The product placement is a testament to that, and as for the Nine Inch Nails shirt, for some reason it annoyed me more than it ever should (surely Reznor didn't suggest this?). Nevertheless his contribution was worthy of note, and Fincher has made a good looking film here, and really undertaken a courageous act in making this story around two years after the highly successful Swedish version. The comparisons were always going to be part and parcel of how this version was received. Unfortunately, for me, it just does not come close.

War Horse is the type of story where Steven Spielberg really shines. It has the potential for cinematic spectacle, the elementary emotional drama with convenient ebbs and flows, and the simplicity in narrative to reach audiences of all ages. The film's premise lies in a boy's love for his horse, and his longing to be reunited with it, after it has been taken away on war duty. The story however benefits from focusing not on the boy or any human character, but the horse itself, as we follow it throughout its life, as it personifies its own characteristic traits, and endeavours to survive at all costs.

The horse, or more so horses, are the true stars of this film, and their beauty and strength is captured with genuine authenticity and grace. The cinematography achieves this through glorious shots that put you alongside, between, and above the horses, whilst at full gallop. They are breathtaking angles that take you in so close, that you feel the power of every stride, the tension on the muscles, and the thunderous sound of hooves smashing the ground.

Aside from the cinematography deployed in the action sequences, the rest of film does not offer a lot. The performances achieve what's needed, and the story is straightforward and easy to understand. It does at times feel rushed as circumstances are almost pressed for time. For example new characters are regularly introduced throughout the horse's war time experiences, and each soldier or civilian garners an instant affinity with the horse. This feels somewhat questionable on the surface, but becomes a little comical, as each person who comes across the horse, falls for it, then has it taken away just as quickly, as if to keep the story moving on. It works on an imaginative level to represent somewhat of an aura with the horse, but the way characters are introduced and then dismissed from the film soon after, feels a bit like a production line.

While I hoped for perhaps something more unique or less predictable, it doesn't really unfold with War Horse. It's a film that anyone could watch, as there is nothing really challenging here. It has all the essential ingredients that make a good family movie, from the likable characters, to the loyal and majestic horse. It has a grandiose score, sweeping landscape shots, and a colour thats easy on the eye, but by its close gets a little too fantastical. It shows triumph over adversity, picking its moments for some light situational humour, then wraps it all up with a feel good closure. The scenes of the film where the horses are at their most spectacular, really outshine anything else on offer here. They are the centre of this film, and as a consequence are put through what at times looked liked an extremely demanding role, that is somewhat questionable. But that aside, what is most evident is that the horses work harder than anyone in this, and at the very least deserve the pedestal Spielberg's film puts them on.

Another Earth took on a rather unique and complex idea, but failed to deliver. When you don't care about characters or where a story is going, it is hard to engage, and afterwards, difficult to spend time reflecting on. It feels like a story that tried to encompass so much, more than it ever could, and the result is a lack of development on all fronts.

Firstly, there is a severe lack of character development. I understand that there are times where little to no dialogue can be effective, but for the first part of this film, I was anxiously waiting for someone to converse. I wanted to know who the characters were, especially the protagonist Rhoda, played by Brit Marling. She is placed at the centerpiece of the story, as we witness her cause a fatal car crash, and follow her struggle to deal with the guilt and inner turmoil. This seems to be the main narrative, with the discovery of another Earth being a welcome distraction with real possibilities to change her life for the better. But along the way, the film begins to jumble up what its main point is, and what it is trying to tell.

There seems to be way too many strands of narrative within the one film. Rhoda's character definitely is the focal point of the movie, but why specifically. Sometimes it is to witness her restarting life after such a horrific event. Then at other times it is to find some retribution through helping and getting to know the main victim of the car crash. Then it also seems to portray a soul lost in life, looking to find solace in a newly discovered Earth, and the questions surrounding it. Not only Rhoda, but there is times where John, the car crash victim, provides an entirely new narrative, as we watch him try to rebuild his life, and the influence Rhoda has on it, as he tries to become who he was before. Maybe I missed the point, and maybe all these things are relevant and work together. But for me, it was trying to say way too much in too little time. The movie portrays so many lines of storytelling, all while the first discovery of life outside of Earth is talked about as if it's not that surprising. This type of other worldly phenomenon can play out as an interesting influence on a very human story, but here it just left me confused about what was the real point.

Another Earth has a concept that gets you in, but feels so underdone. It is at a lost to what it really wants to be, and has moments of decisive awkwardness and dubious situations, particularly with Rhoda's emotionless deadpan family, and Rhoda and John's relationship. It's a film that will no doubt have its followers, but generally speaking, leaves little to like, which unfortunately becomes all the more evident, next to the stiff competition of recent times. Another Earth didn't leave me frustrated or annoyed, just nonchalant. It is a terrific try at a tall tale, where its playfulness with ideas, left a noticeable lack of conviction.