The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

I don't think this movie should have been made. The only reason it exists is because North-Americans are too lazy to read subtitles, and need an English-spoken remake of a (reputedly) perfectly serviceable Swedish movie. HOWEVER, I will not count that against The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Just like I reviewed Conan by its own merits, I'll review this movie as a stand-alone work.

Based on the Stieg Larsson book Män som hatar kvinnor ("Men Who Hate Women"), David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo ("Unnecessary Retitle") is a mystery/detective/drama film about Mikael Blomkvist, played by Daniel Craig, a journalist who has been found guilty for libel and witnesses his career falling apart around himself. To his surprise, he receives an invitation from reclusive ex-CEO Henrik Vanger, played by Christopher effing Plummer, along with a job proposal: Vanger wants Blomkvist to investigate his family and find out who killed his great-niece Harriet in the sixties.

Meanwhile, young deliquent Lisbeth Salander, played by Rooney Mara, who was hired to do the background check on Blomkvist before he got the job, goes through trouble with the social services, and strives to survive in a society that she has a hard time fitting into. At first her subplot seems needless, but it ends up uniting with the main story halfway through the movie... which is a bit too late for my tastes.

The setting of the movie is a delicate matter, but I am happy to report that Dragon Tattoo manages to feel like it's set in Sweden, rather than being obviously American. The street signs, the candy wrappers, the nature... it never broke my suspension of disbelief. The langauge is an interesting thing: the actors speak English with very slight Swedish accents, which reinforce the feeling perfectly. The one exception is a TV-host heard early and late in the film, who goes for the most exaggerated Swedish accent ever, and made me giggle out loud both times she spoke.

The performances are top-notch. Plummer shines especially, but Stellan Skarsgård as Vanger's great-nephew Martin manages to also be extremely convincing and kind of impressive in his big scenes. Daniel Craig, whom I've always been ambivalent toward in the past, makes a really good everyman protagonist. Rooney Mara is kind of weird: the character she plays is so obviously messed up that at times it's hard to tell if the actress is doing a bad job or if it's all a part of the movie.

David Fincher's touch is felt throughout the project: the weather is used effectively to establish atmosphere, the camera angles are really impressive without being distracting... the different elements are all sewn together with expertese.

The movie suffers from those old, well-known pacing issues that are almost inevitable when adapting a book into a motion picture. As mentioned above, the two plotlines seem really inconsequential toward each other for most of the movie, and the movie takes way too long to wrap itself up at the end. The final scene is great, but the five or so scenes before that could have been cut with almost no impact.

The weird thing about Dragon Tattoo is that it inherits certain elements from the source material, which make it at times feel like a European detective story in the trappings of a Hollywood blockbuster. This is especially visible in the research montage: it's exactly the sort of thing that is used to drive the plot forward in The Old Fox and other German detective shows my parents used to watch, but it's edited and shot in such an exciting and efficient way, it almost becomes a music video at times. So yeah, best research montage ever.

I recommend this movie to everyone, and especially people who like detective stories. It's not too American for Europeans, and it definitely isn't too European for Americans. I still have two weeks left to make up my mind, but this may be my "movie of the year".

The Unknown Soldier (1955)

Happy Finnish independence day! I have mentioned in the past that I'm not big into nationalism, but I'm taking this occasion to review the cornerstone of Finnish cinema, Edvin Laine's The Unknown Soldier, which is shown on TV every year on the sixth of December. It is the most viewed film in Finnish cinema history, though the Finnish film with the most views internationally is Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning (thank you, internet).

Based on the 1954 Väinö Linna novel by the same name, The Unknown Soldier is a about the Continuation War between Finland and the Soviet Union, taking place in the years 1941 to 1944. For a brief summary of the historic background of the events, Stalin had invaded Finland two years prior (around the same time as he did the Baltic countries), but the Red Army was blocked off in the 100-day-long Winter War. Afterwards, the Finnish government signed a pact with Nazi Germany to receive equipment for the next war, which they felt was inevitable, and in June of -41, mobilised its army to invade the Soviet Union and reclaim lost territories. Finns tend to be very defensive about all of this, and it's easy to offend them by saying Finland was a part of the Axis. In the movie itself, when the soldiers cross the old border onto territory that was never Finnish, one of them points out they're all robbers and thieves now, and they later discuss who is the blame for the war with some Russian civilians.

The film is about a machine gun regiment full of soldiers from different backgrounds, as they fight their way to Petrozavodsk and retreat from the Soviet counterattack. Its led by three lieutenants, each of which represents a different method of wartime leadership, but the soldiers are the true protagonists. There's the merry comedian with a funny accent, the straight-laced socialist who hates the officers due to class differences, the always-cool Karelian farmer whose hometown fell to Soviet rule after the last war, the theatrical would-be inventor, the young and naivé recruit who refuses to listen to advice from his elders, and so forth. A lot of emphasis is put on outlining their different world views and personalities... but unfortunately, their names are very rarely used and many of them look alike. I know I have a bad facial memory, but this is my greatest criticism to the movie: I can't tell most of the characters apart from each other. It takes the drama out of a lot of the scenes when I can't tell whether the person who is getting shot has a name or not.

The actors are actually pretty good most of the time, aside from some of the cringe-inducingly bad bit players, who only get a death scene. There's one soldier who gets shot and asks an officer to pray for him, and if this movie wasn't fifty-six years old, I'd swear he's doing a really bad William Shatner impression. All the main actors are good, though. I especially like Tarmo Manni as Private Honkajoki. He doesn't get nearly as much screen time as the other actors, but he manages to steal every scene he's in.

The action scenes are kind of hit-and-miss: most of them consist of the characters lying in brushes and firing machine guns at some unseen enemy. The Russians are rarely seen at all, and most of the time the opposition's only mark on-screen is a constant artillery barrage. I think that the pyrotechnics used to achieve the shelling are really impressive, even today, and have a real impact. Personally, I would have preferred for the enemy to have more of a presence in the film, but other than that, the actual war in this war movie is pretty good.

Another problem I have with this movie is the script and editing. You can really tell it's a novel adaptation because the pacing and narrative cohesion are really poor. In a book, you can tell the readers via narration about how the war is going, and thus just show the important scenes between the characters. In the movie, there's no narration. It's replaced by minute-long montages of extras in uniforms marching. Thus, it's hard to keep track of how the war is going and where the protagonists' unit is moving to next. There are also many stand-alone scenes that don't really contribute much to the film overall, and are most likely just remnants of subplots in the book that were mostly cut for the movie.

The cinematography and score are unremarkable, except for the opening scene, from which the novel and film get their name. The unit carries the corpse of a soldier whose face is never shown and buries him, leaving a pine-branch as his tombstone and walking away, while Jean Sibelius' Finlandia plays in the background. The camera angles, the music and the lack of dialogue are a winning combination. Another standout scene is the one where Corporal Lehto and two privates are ordered to stand in attention for two hours in punishment for accepting munitions for civilians, and choose to remain still even when the Russians start bombing the field they're in. The editing between the stock footage of bomber planes and shots of the actors is done really well, and the explosions on the set have a real feel of danger.

Overall, I can see why The Unknown Soldier is a classic, but there are several noticeable flaws, and it shows its age in negative ways as well as positive. It's worth seeing... but it gets a bit boring at times. Maybe next year I'll review the 1985 remake, and see if it's superior, as some people told me it is.

In Time

"For a few to be immortal, many must die."

In a dystopic future, aging has been cured. When people turn 25, they stop getting any older. However, to stop overpopulation everyone has an artificial limit to their lifespans. Everyone has a green, glowy counter tattooed to their wrist, allowing them to see their life tick away before their eyes. When someone runs out of time, they fall over, dead. Time can be exchanged, and has replaced money as the effective currency of the world. Working-class people have to earn time every day just to keep themselves alive. Beggars walk the street, asking people for a minute. Robbers, referred to as "minutemen", literally steal people's lives in back alleys. In the rich parts of town, the privileged gamble away decades, have been 25 for hundreds of years, and have the same biological age as their own grandchildren.

If that isn't an awesome premise for a film, I have no idea what is! This is exactly what science fiction is supposed to be: talking about issues with our own world by using fantastic allegories. In this case, the subject is the increasing income gap. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer, and in this allegory, the poor have to literally give away their lives to pay the rent, or put food on the table.

In Time stars Justin Timberlake (who's actually a good actor, if you can be adult enough to not hate him because he was in a boy band) as Will Salas, a young manual labourer with a chip on his shoulder. Amanda Seyfried plays Sylvia Weis, the daughter of an immensely rich banker, bored with a life of dull safety. Cillian Murhpy is Reymond Leon, a zealous policeman tasked with making sure the time-system remains intact. However, the real star of the movie is the setting; real effort was put into communicating the sense of urgency people live in, and trying to change even the little details to fit the difference their ways of thinking and doing. Poor people do things fast, and mostly run from place to place, while the rich have time to spare. Likewise, those who are low on time tend to wear clothes that make it convenient to check their wrists almost twice a minute, while those who don't need to worry keep their arms covered. My favourite little touch is that killing someone by stealing away all their time is referred to as "cleaning their clock".

The actual plot is not quite as good as the premise would promise, however. In Time is all about raging for this very real issue, but at times it gets dangerously close to becoming a power fantasy: "Will Salas is the man who can fix everything, because he knows what's right and he's got the balls to do it!" The protagonist's solutions are actually pretty simple, but we're left to assume nobody else has ever tried them before. The film does question whether one man can change anything several times, but in the end seems to ignore all that. It's not quite as extreme as Surrogates (which was about people living out their lives with robotic bodies so they never have to leave their rooms), where the end had Bruce Willis shut everything down and the implication is that everything worked out fine, but I could have used a more subtle resolution nonetheless.

Though In Time is an action movie, its action mostly focuses on chases, whether they be on foot or in cars. Most of it is well-executed, except for one really fake-looking CGI car in a crash scene. It may bug you that nobody uses any future-weaponry, or has a flying car, but in truth such details would only have distracted from the main gimmick of the setting.

I don't have much else to say. Mostly, In Time is just a pretty good movie with pretty good acting, pretty good action and a pretty good script. To me, it's the imaginative premise that elevates it to something special. It's a fine way to spend 100 minutes of your precious time, if you've got any to spare, but becomes a must-see if you're into that sort of thing. Director/writer Andrew Niccol already had my approval from his masterpiece Lord of War, and I now look forward to seeing his future projects as well.

People in the Movie Industry I'm a Fan of #2

Vincent Price (1911-1993) - Film, stage, television and voice actor

Live-action roles: House of Wax (1953 version, Professor Henry Jarrod), The Fly (1958 version, François Delambre), The Last Man on Earth (Dr. Robert Morgan), The Abominable Dr. Phibes (Dr. Anton Phibes), Edward Scissorhands (The Inventor)
Voice roles: Michael Jackson's Thriller (The Narrator), Tim Burton's Vincent (The Narrator), The Great Mouse Detective (Professor Ratigan), The Thief and the Cobbler (Zig-Zag)

Vincent Price! What can I say, other than that he was one of the most charismatic men to ever appear in a motion picture? He was a bridging gap between the horror actors of the Universal Era and the Hammer Age, and remained in the business for almost fifty years. He had a unique voice, and the way he pronounced words was just delicious (he spends most of The Great Mouse Detective baby-talking, but it never gets annoying).

Price never did have a really iconic role that even the most ignorant layman should know, which is probably why he's best known as Vincent Price, undefined by a single fictional character. He did, however, tend to get cast in certain kinds of roles, which are best summed up by Vincent, Tim Burton's excellent stop-motion tribute, narrated by the man himself. Price considered the short film "the most gratifying thing that ever happened".

In his free time, Price was a collector of art; in 1951 he donated ninety paintings from his own collection to a community college for teaching purposes, making them the first public school in the US to own a teaching art collection. He never let fame get into his head either: he considered appearing in The Muppet Show a tremondous honour.

Random facts: He and Christopher Lee (who were friends) were both born on the 27th of May. Price played both Abraham Lincoln and Oscar Wilde on stage. His final line of dialogue in a film was "this is the end".

Instead of presenting a quote of choice, I'll embed the song "Goodbye, So Soon" from The Great Mouse Detective.

Clancy Brown - Voice and film actor
Live-action roles: Highlander (The Kurgan), The Shawshank Redemption (Guard Captain Hadley), Starship Troopers (Drill Sergeant Zim)
Voice roles: Gargoyles (Hakon, Wolf), The Spectacular Spider-Man (Rhino, Captain Stacy), Jackie Chan Adventures (Captain Black, Ratso), Sponge Bob Square Pants (Mr. Krabs), Crash Bandicoot (most of the games as Dr. Neo Cortex and Uka Uka), Lex Luthor in basically every DC cartoon to feature the character

"That dude with the smooth voice". Ironic, since his rise to fame was as The Kurgan, a role in which he growled all his dialogue. As far as fame goes, Brown may pale before Price, but unlike poor Vincent, Brown did appear in Shawshank, and thus has the license to add "I was in one of the best movies ever made" to his tombstone.

He's best known among geek circles for being the longest-standing single actor to ever play Superman's archnemesis Lex Luthor. He started in the role in Superman: The Animated Series in 1996, and he's reprised it as recently as 2009 in Superman/Batman: Public Enemies. In Batman: The Brave and the Bold, he actually stepped down on playing Luthor, only to play an alien counterpart called Rohtul (get it?). His other voice work tends to focus on the villain side, too, which is really a shame because his silky voice can work on a supporting good guy, and he makes a pretty good straight man for comedy scenes as witnessed in that Jackie Chan cartoon.

Also, is it just me or does he kind of look like Ron Perlman?

Quote of choice: "President? Do you know how much power I'd have to give to be president?"

Wright (sceptical), Frost (confused) and Pegg (aggressive)

The Cornetto Trio (Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost)
Movies: Shaun of the Dead (Wright directed, Wright and Pegg wrote, Pegg and Frost starred), Hot Fuzz (same credits as Shaun), Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (Wright directed, co-produced and co-wrote), Paul (Pegg and Frost starred and wrote), The Adventures of Tintin (Wright co-wrote, Pegg and Frost appeared as Dupont and Dupond)

It's quite simple: these three dudes make great movies. Now, honestly I think Shaun of the Dead is a tad overrated (a word I dislike using): it doesn't really hold up for more than one view and some of the acting is a bit shoddy. It's got a great script, though, and it lay the foundations for what I hope to be one of the best group of careers Hollywood will see during our lives.

Hot Fuzz is one of the most tightly-written films ever: no word is ever spoken, or an object shown on screen, which isn't later brought up for a gag or a plot point. It and Scott Pilgrim also cemented Edgar Wright's trademark directing method: absolutely everything is puntuated with rapid fire editing to create mock drama. Dramatic paperwork. Dramatic ice cream shopping. Dramatic shoe lace tying. I can't wait to see Wright return to the director's chair to see whether he can keep the gag fresh in the future too.

In general, reminding myself of Wright, Pegg and Frost is a good way for me to get excited. For all the great movie stars and makers of the past, it's wonderful to know that talented people exist today, and I'm going to get to see first-hand all the stuff they make here on out. If that isn't fanning, I don't know what is.

Quote of choice: "I dunno... pub?"

Immortals

A few years back, the Clash of the Titans remake shook the world with its blandness and predictability. Now, a suspiciously similar film titled Immortals has arrived in the cinema near you. Do you dare risk it and go see this movie? Could it actually be better than Clash was?

As far as I'm concerned, it's not. Not only is it shit, but it's shit that tries to be something really epic, and looks doubly bad due to reaching for the skies.

Immortals is about Theseus (no relation to the Greek mythic character), played by Henry Cavill, who'll be Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel film. He's a bastard borne of rape, brought up by his mother and taught combat and ethics by the only really good thing about the film, John Hurt. Why does John Hurt teach him combat and ethics? Well, because he's Zeus (no relation to the Greek pagan god) in disguise and wants a mortal warrior who can save humanity from itself. So why does Theseus' mother let John Hurt teach her son? Theseus very aggressively declines an invitation to join the army early on in the movie, so why is he learning how to fight? I have no idea! I guess it's not important to know the basic premise of the plot very well.

Meanwhile, King Hyperion (no relation to the Greek mythic character), played by Mickey Rourke, is conquering the world, set on releasing the mythic Titans and thus reigning supreme over god and man alike. You see, when gods discovered they could kill each other, they started killing each other, and the losers were locked away in a little cage underground. Hyperion wants to free these imprisoned gods because... uhh... umm... then he'll have dozens of gods running around, killing everyone, instead of like five of them sitting in Olympus and staying out of humanity's way?

These aren't even spoilers. All these plot holes happen in the first twenty minutes of the movie.

So yeah, it's stupid and nonsensical, but is it entertaining? Yes and no. The performances are okay, the action scenes are good (really good when gods are involved), the special effects aren't half bad, and even the 3D is pretty cool when it's noticeable, but somehow the story and pacing manage to kill all of this. I was entertained for more than half of the movie's running time, but I still left out feeling disappointed (which is saying something, considering I was expecting this film to blow), because all it adds up to is nonsense. The Three Musketeers may have been dumb, but at least it never shied away from having fun. This film tries to be serious and meaningful, in denial about its own nature.

Immortals is made with a certain aesthetic vibe to it, an artistic cinematography, costuming and directing which at times gives it a feeling of otherworldly beauty. However, most of the time it just looks ridiculous. I might look at the gods' ridiculous outfits without sniggering if their "dramatic" dialogue wasn't overblown and melodramatic. I might not roll my eyes at the bright red robes and veils of the oracles if they had an actual reason for wearing those things they never wear in any other scene. I'll admit that the locations are pretty cool most of the time, but I'd have preferred to get a good look of that big city near the end, instead of just seeing it in the horizon.

By the way, if you saw the trailer for this and thought: "That magic bow looks really cool! I bet this movie will do all kinds of cool stuff with it", DO NOT BE FOOLED. Every single scene where anyone fires the magic bow is in the trailer. It's not the hero's signature weapon. It's a MacGuffin.

I can't recommend this movie for anyone. It's just no worth seeing. Simple as that.

The Adventures of Tintin

Hey! Finland got a cameo in this picture.

AT LAST! Us Europeans get a movie almost two months before the North Americans do! I feel so vindicated for having to wait half a year for Princess and the Frog to come out. I guess it figures. After all, The Adventures of Tintin is based on an European comic. In fact, this film redeems Franco-Belgian comics in Hollywood from the wake of the lame live-action Asterix films. Let us never bring those things up again.

Tintin is a reporter of ambiguous nationality who has a tendency to get into an adventure pretty much any time he opens his front door. While browsing a flea market, he buys the miniature of an old wooden ship. This causes him and his helpful dog Milou (I refuse to use translated names for these characters, by the way) to be dragged into danger's way. He eventually teams up with Captain Archibald Haddock in a race to find all the clues to a fabulous treasure before the bad guys do.

I was at first pretty sceptical about this movie. Not because it's CG (though a cartoon movie could have worked better), but because I thought they might try to alter the premise to sell it better to audiences who are used to "comic book movies" like The Dark Knight. However, I should have put my trust on Steven Spielberg; Tintin is perfectly in tune with its adventurous roots, and captures the feeling of a children's comic book almost spot-on. And as for those who are sceptical of the CGI, I think that the film looks pretty good. The characters' skins are a bit too unsmooth and blemished for my liking, but it wasn't really distacting. As far as stylished CGI goes, I prefer Tangled, but this is a not-so-close second.

There are so many big names attached to this picture, and most of their individual little touches can be felt throughout. Tintin is a Spielberg producation throughout, complete with music by John Williams. I might be bold enough to call it Indiana Jones 5. Peter Jackson is the producer, will direct the sequel if one is made, and brought along Andy Serkis (Gollum from The Lord of the Rings trilogy) to play Haddock. Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) co-wrote the script, and his BFFs Simon Pegg and Nick Frost voice bumbling detectives Dupont and Dupond. I can't help but get this funny image of Spielberg inviting people to the pre-production table and yelling: "And bring your friends too!"

The action scenes in Tintin are great, with really imaginative scenarios and a damn good balance of serious and silly to them. They get a little cluttered at times, but never descend to incomprehensibility. I think that near the end, the action focuses too much on Haddock and too little on Tintin, but it's all well and good because Haddock is damn entertaining. He's like that character we've all seen a million times, the one who always screws everything up, but he still manages to be endearing and funny when he messes around. However, one thing that I really didn't expect to amuse me so much as the slapstick. I don't think I've ever seen such well-executed physical humour in a motion picture. This isn't your Disney movie where for every punchline the comedy foil says he also has to get hit in the head once, so that audience members with no sense of humour can also find something to laugh at. Here, the slapstick is an end to itself, and the hurt is set up and handled with excellence.

I'm not going to criticise Tintin for having an overly convoluted plot and contrived action scenes. It's an adventure story: people in these things can't file taxes without having to solve five riddles. fight off eight henchmen and escape three death traps. What I am going to criticise it for is having a weak pacing. This is probably a result of the comic adaptation, but that's not an excuse. There's too little rest between action scenes, and at times the plot is unveiled too quick for my taste. At one hour and fifty minutes, this is already a pretty long animated movie, but I think the script needed some work to make it more balanced and less exhausting.

That's... pretty much it. It's a solid adventure film with good humour, and lots of talented people behind the scenes. I didn't really read Tintin as a kid, but I read Uncle Scrooge comics, and the feeling of adventure in this movie makes me tingle with nostalgia.

People in the movie indstury I'm a fan of #1

Tintin premiered today in Finland. I'm seeing it soon with my dad, who's a fan of Franco-Belgian comics in general (and Lucky Luke in particular). I'm going to pretend the short delay is a big deal. Have a non-review post to hold you over!

I was going to make a list of ten movie people I'm a fan of, but when I started writing I realised that the finished article would be uncomfortably long. I decided to stop a little less than halfway through, and see if people like it before writing more. I may make this a continuing sub-series here at Imamobi.

I'm trying to focus on people who aren't exactly household names. Bruce Willis is definitely awesome, and a great actor too, but I think he's gotten enough lauds without my humble blog joining in on the choir too.

Without further ado, I give you...

People in the movie industry I'm a fan of, part 1:

If eyebrows could kill...

Michael Ironside - Film and voice actor
Live-action roles: Total Recall (Richter), Scanners (Darryl Revok), Starship Troopers (Lieutenant Rasczak), Highlander II: The Quickening (General Katana)
Voice roles: Splinter Cell (Sam Fisher), Superman: the Animated Series and Justice League (Darkseid)

Michael Ironside was born to play villains. His distinctive, vicious-looking face and his deep, growly voice make him perfect for any director's B-actor needs. In Scanners, his character uses telepathy to blow up another man's head five minutes into the movie. That's pretty much all you need to know, but I'm going to keep going anyhow.

Aside from his villain roles, Ironside has played military officers in like fifty films. Check out his filmography on IMDB some time, and you'll see at least half his characters have names along the lines of General Badass or Lieutenant Mofo. Heck, he was in both Terminator Salvation and X-Men: First Class as a random navy officer with no personality, just because by this poiny Hollywood knows him as "that guy who looks really authorative in a uniform".

The dude's a decent actor too, aside from his general awesomeness. Watch Scanners some time, and check out how convincing his rage at being compared to his father is.

Quote of choice: I am many things, Kal-El, but here... I am God.


David Cronenberg - Director and writer

His appearance fits his filmography.

Movies: The Fly (1986 version, director and co-writer), Scanners (director and writer), Naked Lunch (director and co-writer), Dead Ringers (director and co-writer), Spider (director and producer), Eastern Promises (director)

And speaking of Scanners! David Cronenberg. The undisputed master of body horror in cinema. That scene where Michael Ironside blows up a man's head? That was my first impression of The Terror of Toronto. I was something like ten when I saw that film. Good times.

Cronenberg's 70s and 80s production is a testament to two things: he knows creepy, and he wants to share creepy with you. The Fly is all about making Jeff Goldblum even uglier than he normally is. The effects for that movie are still phenomenal today, and the resraint shown in utilising them is damn near ingenius.

When he isn't doing something that involves a person physically becoming a monster, Cronenberg does a break by making a movie about someone becoming a monster in their mind. Dead Ringers and Spider are great psychological thrillers and character studies, and the lead performances by Jeremy Irons and Ralph Fiennes respectively are damn near perfect.

Nowadays Cronenberg has moved to a more artsy medium, starting with Spider. I've yet to check out most of his 2000s production, but I'm sure to get to it when I've got the time.

While checking the wikipedia article for Cronenberg during the writing of this article, I discovered that he was at one point directing a sequel to Total Recall. I bet it would have starred Michael Ironside as an armless zombie-Richter with psychic powers.


Jeremy Irons - Film, TV, stage and voice actor

Live-action roles: Dead Ringers (Beverly and Elliot Mantle), Lolita (1997 version, Humbert Humbert), Reversal of Fortune (Claus von Bürlow, Oscar for Best Actor), The Kingdom of Heaven (Tiberias), Die Hard 3 (Simon Gruber)
Voice roles: The Lion King (Scar)

So yeah, once again I find myself mentioning the next item on the list in the previous entry. Jeremy Irons' portrayal of the identical Mantle twins in Cronenberg's Dead Ringers was insanely good. Not only do the fantastic special effects make it hard to remember that Irons doesn't have a real-life dobbelgänger, but he plays them as fundamentally different people in a very convincing way. A big point of the film is that Elliot and Beverly sometimes switch places and act as each other, and Irons manages to play Elliot who's playing Beverly, and vice versa, without it being obvious or too unnoticeable.

Most people of my generation will know Irons as Scar from The Liong King, though. Such irony in casting a Shakespearean actor in a cartoon adaptation of Hamlet. Aside from being a honestly good dramatic actor, he makes a helluva good hammy villain. Scar is such a complete and utter drama queen, and belongs to that list of classic villains. I don't have much to say about that particular role, but I do have on Die Hard With a Vengeance.

Die Hard 3 (or as I like to call it: Jeremy Irons acts like the smarmiest, most self-satisfied asshole Brit ever for two hours) is my personal favourite in the franchise. Aside from Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson having great chemistry with each other, Jeremy Irons plays one of the best villains ever as Simon Gruber. Die Hard 1 started the craze with intelligent, suave villains, but in my opinion Die Hard 3 perfected it. Simon perfectly balances the elements of being really smart and manipulative, but too sure of himself and underestimating of his enemies. Charismatic, but evil.

I'm seriously considering checking out the fairly recent TV series The Borgias, where Jeremy Irons plays the freaking pope.

Quote of choice: Go back to your room and never... NEVER come back until I call you!


Keith David - Actor and voice actor

Nice suit.

Live-action roles: John Carpenter's The Thing (Childs), They Live! (Frank Armitage), Platoon (King), Men at Work (Louis Fedders)
Voice roles: Gargoyles (Goliath, Thailog), Coraline (the cat), The Princess and the Frog (Dr. Facilier), Dissidia: Final Fantasy (Chaos), Mass Effect (Captain Anderson)

The man with the second-deepest voice I've ever heard (number one on that regard may yet feature in a future installment of this listing), Keith David sounds like the most badass motherfucker you've ever heard. He mostly works as a voice actor in video games and cartoons nowadays, but being in two John Carpenter movies definitely qualifies him as a Hollywood personality worth knowing of.

They Live! is a movie which is only really memorable for two things. One is the hilarious, adlibbed catch phrase "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum." The other is a scene where the main hero (Roddy Piper), wants his friend Frank (Keith David), to put on a special pair of sunglasses. Frank doesn't want to put them on, so the two end up fighting. The original script called for a brawl of one to two minutes, but Piper and David coreographed five minutes of fighting on their own and acted it out. The scene that ended up in the film is insanely hilarious due to its many fake endings and completely unnecessary premise. These two guys are beating the shit out of each other, never giving up, because they disagree about whether Frank should try the sunglasses or not.

David's most notable voice role was his starring role in Disney's animted series Gargoyles (one of my favourite children's cartoons ever, despite the fact that I first heard of it when I was eighteen), which gained a huge cult following and made him a nerd cult icon. For a guy in his fifties, he seems to be a real sport about a bunch of sweaty teenagers worshipping him for voicing a blue adonis, since he has attended Gargoyles conventions and mingled with the fans.

My favourite role by David is definitely in The Princess and the Frog, though. Not only does he play a slimy, conniving witch doctor really well, but he sings "Friends on the Other Side", one of the best villain songs out there. The short featurette Disney released shows how David's physical performance while recording was used for his character's facial moves. They totally copied the gap between his teeth too.

Yeah, he can sing. Can he ever sing!

Quote of choice: "There are several sacred things in this world that you don't ever mess with. One of them happens to be another man's fries. Now you remember that, and you'll live a long and healthy life."
 

--


Leave a comment, tell me what you thought of the experimentation. I rather liked writing it, and I'll add more people to my list if I get positive feedback.