The Drop

If you're looking for a solid, gritty, hard-edged crime thriller, a good place to start is author Dennis Lehane. Just some of his film adaptations include Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone, and a great read removed from the crime genre, Shutter Island. Back to basics, Lehane turned his short story 'Animal Rescue' into a feature length screenplay for 2014's The Drop. Remember it? Not many people have even heard of it.

Working at his cousin's bar in a beat-up Brooklyn neighborhood, Bob Saginowski (Tom Hardy) lives a quiet, peaceful life, a self-imposed quiet, peaceful life. He lives by himself in the house he grew up in, goes to the same church service each day and tends bar for Cousin Marv (James Gandolfini), a former small-time mobster now trying to scrape by. One day walking home from the bar, Bob hears wimpering from a closed garbage can and finds a bloodied, beaten pit bull puppy inside. He meets the owner of the garbage cans, Nadia (Noomi Rapace), and agrees to take care of the puppy until a better alternative comes along for both Bob and the displaced dog. As for the bar, it's not your ordinary bar. It is a drop bar where money carriers working for the Chechen mafia can drop off their gambling money, all of it piling up in a safe before being picked up. That's the set-up at least...until two low-level hoods walk in one night brandishing shotguns and looking for all the money they can find.

If there's a relative complaint to make about this movie...well, it's not necessarily the fault of 'Drop' itself. The issue more is that crime budgets seem to be hitting theaters at an all-time high, and most of them star Liam Neeson. I kid! I kid! I love Liam Neeson...but it's true. From Belgian director Michael Roskam, 'Drop' is an excellent flick featuring an interesting cast, well-told story and a generally somber, moody outlook on life. Calling it 'familiar' isn't necessarily accurate, but this isn't a film that breaks a ton of new ground. Don't get me wrong -- I'm giving it an easy recommendation -- but don't expect anything world-shaking.

None of this is a huge, deal-breaking criticism. I enjoyed the movie a lot and read Lehane's fleshed-out story too that was released as a novel (check it out HERE). Like the best crime thrillers, you feel thrust into this world Lehane's screenplay/story has created. It's a run-down neighborhood in Brooklyn with crime and crooks around every corner. The movie clearly does not have the most positive outlook on life. It rests on the assumption that people are generally pretty nasty, always looking out for themselves no matter the impact on others. Visually, the movie looks crowded, even claustrophobic, with scenes often shot in deep focus. It works. You feel like you're part of the scene. It is a bleak, gritty world, composer Marco Beltrami turning in a solid, mood-setting score. This is a lower middle class world, and there's nothing flashy about it.

Tom Hardy is fast becoming untouchable in my eyes. The guy finds something new with each new role, some new spin or new energy. Reading Lehane's story and knowing Hardy played the Bob character, I was intrigued, but curious in a good way. Hardy manages to make the part his own including an accent that I just can't place! This is one interesting main character. His Bob minds his own business and blends in with the scenery. Something from his past clearly hangs over his head, but we don't find out what until late. The most accurate thing I can come up with is that Hardy delivers a very human performance. Not necessarily sympathetic, but VERY human. Some little touches, some physical awkwardness, his quiet conversations, they all add up to make this a great lead character. As for Hardy, I can't wait to see what he does in the upcoming Mad Max reboot.

Leading the rest of the cast, Gandolfini is his imposing, intimidating self as Cousin Marv, the bar owner who holds quite a lot of resentment over how he lost total control of the bar. Gandolfini tragically passed away before the film was released so this was the actor's last film appearance, and while it isn't flashy, it's a key, solid supporting part. In a role that reminded me somewhat of her part in Dead Man Down, Rapace does a good job as the tortured, beaten-down woman. I think she's an above average actress, but with the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, she's getting typecast a lot in that wounded woman character. There's also key parts for Matthias Schoenaerts as Eric Deeds, an unbalanced local man who's a threat to all around him, and John Ortiz as Detective Torres, an investigating officer in the robbery.

So, yeah, things feel a tad familiar at times. Along with Hardy's lead performance though, the strongest aspect of 'Drop' is its mystery. You don't always know where it is going. We meet a lot of characters, a lot of situations, and though they may seem unrelated....well, they be related. If you find the story to be a touch frustrating -- it does feel like it is meandering at times -- my biggest recommendation is that you should definitely stick with it. There is a genuine twist that works so, so well in the finale because it's just there. It isn't meant to confuse or trick you, but IT WORKS. A highly recommended flick. It wasn't in theaters long and didn't make much money, but 'Drop' is definitely worth catching up with.

The Drop (2014): ***/****

Dead Man Down

Having directed the huge 2009 hit The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Niels Arden Oplev made an interesting decision. He stepped away. The film broke box office records, but Oplev was in no rush to get behind a film camera again, instead working some in television. He's finally returned to movies, coming back in strong fashion with 2013's Dead Man Down.

Having infiltrated a small-time but growing criminal empire, Victor (Colin Farrell) is a trusted member of a crew run by Alphonse Boyd (Terrence Howard). Alphonse's crew is in trouble though, one of his most trusted men having turned up. Clues are sent in the mail to Boyd, someone clearly intent on torturing him before unleashing their final attack. Living in the apartment building adjacent from his, Victor meets Beatrice (Noomi Rapace), a young woman still recovering from a horrific car accident -- at the hands of a drunk driver -- that left her with a heavily scarred face, even with plastic surgery. What seems like a potential friendship is something else though. Beatrice saw Victor murder a man in his apartment and now intends to blackmail him with that information. In this case though, Beatrice may have stumbled into something far bigger than she intended.

From director Oplev, 'Dead' was a real winner for me. Not surprisingly, it received pretty mixed to negative reviews and didn't do much damage at the box office, earning about $18 million. I'm a big Colin Farrell fan though, and the trailer caught my eye in a big way. Add in my general gullible qualities when it comes to even remotely decent crime thrillers, and I must have been a fish waiting for a line in the water with this one. I liked it a lot, and for all the reasons a lot of critics/reviews didn't. The story is convoluted and does depend on some rather crazy plot twists. As a positive though, much of the script from writer J.H. Wyman is a gem, filtering out little bits of information with each passing scene. In other words, pay attention to those first 45 minutes because very little is spelled out. It all comes together nicely, the momentum picking up at the 45-minute mark or so.

What appealed to me most -- along with the casting -- was a reliance on style. The story is there (a must) and doesn't disappoint, but it's that brutally dark style incorporated by Oplev and cinematographer Paul Cameron. This is apparently a world without sunshine. The movie is filmed almost entirely at night and indoors in poorly lit rooms and apartments. When it does go out into the day, it's always cloudy and gloomy, reflecting the general gloominess of the story and its characters. Add in Jacob Groth's gloomy, trance-like score too for a nice touch. It's a nasty world they're living in, a dog eat dog world where everyone looks out for themselves first. Rapace's Beatrice is constantly yelled at and insulted by a group of kids because of her scars. There's gangsters, gangsters and more gangsters, all ready to dispatch each other with the slightest provocation. That general darkness in crime thrillers (in any movies really) has always appealed to me, and it's handled nicely here.

It seems there are diehard fans of Colin Farrell and those that can't stand him. Well, I come down in the diehard camp then. With just about every new part, I like him more and more. Even in average flicks like Total Recall, he's a bright spot. How about a film with a good script and a good part for him? He isn't going to disappoint too much. His character here as Victor reminded me in some ways of his part from London Boulevard (another film I thought didn't get a fair shake), a tragic character who's been down quite the path and is trying to right a wrong no matter how he can. Farrell is excellent at that tragic antihero, Victor's backstory certainly putting him into that category. He does a lot without much in the way of dialogue, expressing a lot with a look here, a worried glance there, an intense outburst breaking the silence. In a very good movie all around, I thought Farrell was the best thing going here.

Adding some depth to the character is Rapace's similarly layered performance as Beatrice. The original Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Rapace's Beatrice enlists Victor to exact her own form of revenge but instead finds herself dealing with a similarly flawed, troubled individual. The dynamic between them is spot-on, underplayed nicely without going for any obvious genre conventions. Howard too is very good as Alphonse, a criminally smooth bad guy, Howard's silky voice putting his victims at ease before he strikes. Dominic Cooper is a scene-stealer as Darcy, Victor's friend and a member of Alphonse's crew trying to climb his way up. Also look for Isabelle Huppert as Beatrice's worrying mother, an excellent F. Murray Abraham as a man from Victor's past helping him out, James Biberi as Ibir, an Albanian gangster working with Alphonse, Armand Assante as a higher-up gangster disappointed in Alphonse, and Luis Da Silva Jr. as Terry, Alphonse's right hand man.  

Because I do my best not to spoil new movies I really like, I'm trying not to reveal too many twists and turns here. If there's flaws, they aren't big enough to derail the movie. That's part of the fun, going along with a story that slowly parcels out information with each passing scene. There is action, quick and hard-hitting but not overtly graphic, with the finale packing in an impressive, artsy shootout in a mansion packed with gangsters. I was worried about where the movie was leading, what kind of ending we were in store for, but it worked on just about every level I could think of. I liked the whole movie a whole lot. Well worth seeking it out.

Dead Man Down (2013): *** 1/2 /****

The Girl Who Played with Fire

So I read Stieg Larsson's Millenium trilogy last year and watched both the American and Swedish versions of his first book, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. For me, it was a weird thing about the books. While I liked all three, my enjoyment went down with each passing book. I loved the first one, but I struggled to get through the second and third. Give me credit though, I'm persistent if nothing else, so here we go with 2009's The Girl Who Played with Fire.

It's been over a year since Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) helped journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) take down a hugely successful Swedish businessman, and she's fallen off the map, traveling the world with her newfound wealth. Lisbeth is now returning to Sweden, purchasing a huge condo where she can live in peace. She hasn't reconnected with anyone from her past, but her name is on the national radar now. A freelancer working for Mikael is preparing an expose about sex trafficking, the women transported into the country and the men behind the business. One night, both the freelancer and his girlfriend are brutally murdered, and the evidence points to none other than Lisbeth herself. Having worked closely with her, Mikael knows there's no way that could be the truth. Something is going on, something dark and hidden away.

While the Larsson books are well-written and solid reads, it's easy to see that doing a film adaptation from one of the novels is a daunting task. The first book -- Dragon Tattoo -- is downright simple (and that's saying something) to what comes in the second and third books. There are countless characters, locations, backgrounds, twists, turns and everything in between getting from Point A to Point B. I don't envy getting the novel to the film, director Daniel Alfredson taking the helms here for the second film in the trilogy. It was difficult to follow the books at times because there was so much going on. The films? Well.....

'Dragon Tattoo' clocked in at 152 minutes, and this follow-up is shorter by 24 minutes. Something had to be cut from the novel to the film to make it even remotely feasible, but unfortunately 'Fire' cuts too much. I read the book, and I was confused half the time. The film plays like a cliff note's version of Larsson's novel. But, that's not why we're here. I'll do my best to just judge on its basis as a film alone. Even there though, I can't imagine trying to keep up with everything going on here. When I explain some of the cast later, I'll mention four or five names. If I did more than that, this review would go on for days. Significant cuts were made, and it's still too much and not enough at the same time. We meet characters, but that's it, never really learning much about them or in some cases, who they are. An extended cut was released on DVD with more than 50 minutes added, and I assume it's got to be at least a little better.

Anyways, back to the film as just that, a film. Like its predecessor, it is a well-crafted, unsettling and incredibly cool, visual movie. Based in Sweden, it has a snowy, washed out and cold look to it. Issues I had with the story and characters aside, it is a solid thriller. Composer Jacob Groth returns to handle the musical score, his music here more eerie, appropriate and memorable than I remembered in the first one. On a visual basis alone, it is a memorable movie. The twists and turns do keep us guessing so even when you're confused, it's still in an entertaining, confusing sort of way.

The best part though here in 'Fire' is the continuing development of the Lisbeth Salander character. Even when I struggled through the novels, I continued on because I was fascinated by the Lisbeth and Mikael characters. There's more going on here with Lisbeth's personal background than you could ever imagine. We meet someone from her past, a mysterious man named Zala (Georgi Staykov), who damaged her in ways you'd never expect. With her walls up again and general refusal to never let anyone get close to her, we see more about her as we learn about her years growing up. Playing her journalistic counterpart, Nyqvist isn't given as much to do here unfortunately other than look worried and follow the clues to Lisbeth and her own wandering investigation. What's key though is that we've gotten to know the characters pretty well thanks to the first novel, and even when the script struggles to spell things out, we hopefully go along for the ride.

I lied. I'm not going to go into anymore depth about the supporting cast. By my count, there's 16 others characters that I'd need to give some attention. Some are only around for a scene or two, others far more than that. By explaining who most of them are, I'd be ruining a lot of plot twists that offer a pretty decent surprise with less knowledge going in. I'll wrap this up. It's a good thriller that has some serious flaws. Some of that comes from having read the books, but even just judging it as a film, it's got those issues. It switches things up and does build to momentum in the second half. The cliffhanger is solid, hopefully leading right into the third film. Review to come at some point so stay tuned.

The Girl Who Played with Fire (2009): ** 1/2 /****

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

This past fall and winter, I read author Stieg Larsson's Millennium series, or as I've come to know and identify them 'The Girl.....' series. I enjoyed all three books to varying degrees, but my favorite of the trilogy was the first, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I made the jump then -- naturally enough -- to the film adaptations, starting with the American version -- read HERE -- and after a brief break, here comes the original Swedish version, 2009's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. 

A highly respected journalist who's come under extreme fire in a libel case, Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) has been sentenced to serve six months in prison. His actual sentence is down the road though, and in the meantime, he's hired for a seemingly impossible job by Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taube), an aging but highly respected businessman. For 40-plus years, Henrik has wondered about the disappearance and possible of his niece, Harriet, who vanished without a trace. The evidence and clues point to a very small group of unique suspects, but Henrik has made little progress in the years since. Can experienced investigative journalist Mikael discover a new vein in the case? With some helped from an eccentric but very capable private investigator with a penchant for computer hacking, Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace), Mikael delves into 40 years of evidence and clues, not knowing how deep a hole he's gotten himself into.

Let's get this out of the way. While I enjoyed all three of Larsson's novels, this series opening novel was by far my favorite of the trio. It introduces characters that are in all three novels while adding an expertly well-written murder mystery. Because Daniel Craig is cool, I watched the American version first and similarly liked it if I didn't love it. American, Swedish, anything and everything in between, adapting Larsson's novel to a film version is a daunting task. These are books full of twisting and turning plots, countless characters flitting in and out, countless more stops and locations along the way, flashbacks to the 1960s and beyond, and so much more. The books are so massively packed together I could easily see each of the books getting its own two or three part miniseries. But as you've no doubt noticed -- hopefully -- these are feature films, not miniseries. Characters and subplots are completely excised in some cases, condensed in others. It's the only way to make an even somewhat manageable film.

Having watched both movies, it's hard to write one review without referring to the other one. To be fair, they're completely different films. The American version (from director David Fincher and starring Craig and Rooney Mara) is highly stylized, almost always in a good way. A washed out visual look, an eerie synthesized soundtrack, it all works. From director Niels Arden Oplev, the original Swedish version is a far more traditional crime thriller with the journalistic investigation thrown in. He filmed all over Sweden, and the look of the movie is a plus. Sweden is a beautiful, cold and very white/snowy country, something that translates well to the feature film. The score from Jacob Groth is okay, but not very memorable. More traditional overall in terms of dealing with the story and/or characters, but in a good way.

Something didn't click along the way for me, and I can't quite put my finger on it. Is it because I've now read the book, seen one version and now seen another? I know where it's going and how it's going to get there. More than that, I think it was the casting, maybe even the script hamstringing the casting. I was never impressed with Nyqvist as Mikael, the crusading journalist. He's okay in the part, but there just isn't a ton of energy. He never seems too impressed with the case or interested in where it goes.

The most important part though is the titular character, Lisbeth Salander, the quiet, loner, antisocial, brilliant computer hacker. Mara made different choices with the part, and they worked. Rapace -- the original Lisbeth -- does it similarly, and it works for different ways. Physically, she's slight in stature but she's far from weak. Rapace's Lisbeth is small but epically intimidating with her close-cut aggressive-looking hair, countless piercings and tattoos and biker chick clothes. Rapace does a solid job with the part, but thanks to the script -- which has to accomplish a whole lot in a 152-minute movie -- we learn little about her until the last half hour. Yes, that's partially how the plot develops in the books, but for most of two-plus hours, we just don't know anything about her other than that she is violently raped, seeking revenge and brilliant and intelligent.

As for the rest of the cast, Taube makes a positive, lasting impression as Henrik, the Vanger family patriarch who's been tortured with guilt and questions as to what happened to his niece 40 years later with Ingvar Hirdwall playing Dirch, Henrik's long-time assistant. Peter Andersson does a fine, disturbing job as Bjurman, Lisbeth's legal guardian. Bjorn Granath plays Morell, the police investigator who originally headed the case and has been similarly stumped with each passing year. Peter Haber plays Martin, Harriet's brother.  

What I loved most about the book was the developing mystery. Even knowing where it's going, it's cool to see things develop. In both the novel and the two film versions, I loved seeing the case come together as Mikael and Lisbeth unearth clues that have been hidden away by passing decades. Taking the film as a whole though, I was never impressed. It's okay, but not much else. I did like the ending and how true it stuck to Larsson's novel -- with one tweak in the final scene -- but the movie left me feeling pretty cool. Worthwhile for fans of the books, but I definitely recommend reading Larsson's novels first.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009): ** 1/2 /****

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Even re-reading my review for 2009's Sherlock Holmes, I still can't quite put my finger on it. I liked the movie, but there were parts of it that just didn't work for me. It's a little schizophrenic, a lot nutty, and was missing that special element that turns a good movie into a very good one. So what's the difference then with its recent sequel, 2011's Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows? Heck if I know, but I liked it a lot.

It's 1891, and a series of bombings across France and Germany have Europe on edge with countries teetering on the brink of war. Everyone has their theories about the reasoning for the bombings. Terrorists? Anarchists? Assassins? Quirky and eccentric London detective Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) has been feverishly investigating the bombings and has come up with his own theory. A brilliant professor, Moriarty (Jared Harris), is Holmes' main suspect, but Holmes has no proof other than his own wild theories. With the help of his soon to be married loyal sidekick, Watson (Jude Law), Holmes goes about getting that evidence in a case that will have them traveling all over Europe and in all sorts of hijinks.

What's throwing me off here is a criminally simplistic issue. There is little difference overall between the 2009 film and this 2011 sequel. Director Guy Ritchie did a very capable job with the original as he does here. The two movies are almost identical lengths (129 to 128 minutes) and have the same look, feel and tone. All I can come up with is a somewhat more pointed feel to the proceedings. The action isn't so ridiculous. It isn't trying to be hysterically funny, just funny. The scope isn't IMMENSE. Even when a war among European countries looms, the point of view is on a personal level (i.e. Sherlock and Watson) and for me at least, more effective.

It is Guy Ritchie though, and it's got a certain charm and style unto itself. The look of the movie is great, 1890s Europe with its own unique look. It has a cluttered, busy look, but it works with the semi-schizo nature here. One of the best things going is Hans Zimmer's score. As needed, it's big and booming like a historical epic/period piece should be. The most memorable sample though is the main theme, or as I always think of it...Sherlock's theme which you can listen to HERE. It is the perfect quirky, eccentric theme for a quirky, eccentric hero. Yes, overall the script and story is too smart/clever for its own good at times with countless reveals of things we didn't know need to be revealed. Much more than the first movie though, I just had more fun watching this one.

That is no doubt easily chalked up to the continued success in casting. Robert Downey Jr. is one of my favorite actors, and he does a great job bringing Holmes to life. Again, this isn't the prim and proper Englishman. Downey's Holmes is quirky, eccentric, offbeat, brilliant, obsessively observant, and always one step ahead of his rivals. Law's Watson is the perfect sidekick; intelligent, smart and wise but in a way completely different from Holmes. The duo is basically the original Odd Couple. Holmes is upset that Watson is getting married (to Kelly Reilly from the original) and doesn't hide his feelings. Their friendship is basically a perfect match, the two longtime friends arguing like an old married couple. Noomi Rapace is wasted as Sim, a gypsy along for the ride with the duo. Harris is okay as the villain with Paul Anderson as his sharpshooting henchman. Rachel McAdams and Eddie Marsan briefly reprise their roles from the original with Stephen Fry playing Holmes' classier brother.

With a story that's all over the place and never really slows down, some set pieces stand out from the rest. The running gag of Holmes seeing and analyzing what's about to happen...and then doing exactly what he saw is used just the right amount. Not too little, not too much. A running chase/fight in a London casino with a Cossack assassin is impressive as is a chase and gunfight through a Moriarty-owned factory in France with some explosive results. The finale doesn't disappoint either as Holmes and Moriarty finally confront each other. End result? 'Shadows' knows when to tap the brakes where the original was more aggressively in your face. It makes all the difference.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Prometheus

With moves like 1979's Alien and 1982's Blade Runner, director Ridley Scott created two of the most well-known, well-respected, and popular science fiction movies of the last 30-plus years, and seemingly was on the road to becoming a sci-fi master. To be fair, with those two movies alone, he is a sci-fi master. He hadn't returned to science fiction until the recent release, 2012's Prometheus, a prequel to Alien. Worth the wait? Flawed overall, but an epic success when it does work.

It is the year 2089 and two scientists, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), have made a series of discoveries -- cave paintings from different places and eras in human history -- that all have a common link. They all contain a drawing of some sort of being pointing to the same galactic location. Some two years later onboard the spaceship Prometheus, Shaw and Holloway are part of an expedition traveling to the darkest corners of the universe in search of what those paintings might mean. Is there intelligent life out there? Did they create us as a race? After the two-year journey, Prometheus arrives at the moon LV-223 to continue the investigation. They find evidence of another race but something else as well. What did this race create?

Some film directors just have credibility at the very mention of their name, and Ridley Scott is one of those few. When this movie is good, it is great. I didn't see it in 3-D, but the look of the movie is incredible, especially a mysterious opening sequence...but more on that later. The musical score is kept to a minimum, but when it's used, it makes quite an impression (kudos to composer Marc Streitenfeld). Like the most effective science fiction stories and movies, it succeeds because it makes you think, makes you question. What better place to do that than the far reaches of the universe? Anything could exist out there, friendly or aggressive. Were we put on Earth for a reason? Does faith mean anything? Do your beliefs truly mean something to you? When you're in a spot, how do you react? At its best, Scott's film explores some of these issues. Oh, he also does a fair job trying to scare the hell out of you as a viewer.

It's been years since I've seen the Alien movies, but as a prequel, it has a distinctly different feel. The visual is stunning here. Yes, it's a science fiction movie that degenerates into a creature feature (unfortunately), but it can also fairly and accurately be described as an artsy, minimalist take on mankind, space travel, the future and so much more. Basically the exact opposite of a summer blockbuster. It forces you to pay attention and think for yourself. It isn't always an easy movie to follow, but for the most part you're rewarded in the end. Nothing is ever really spelled out for you. That can be both rewarding and frustrating, especially in the finale. It is different though, and Scott tries for something more than the norm.

An effective, solid ensemble cast steps to the forefront for Scott's prequel, starting with Rapace and Holloway as the archeologists searching for answers. Charlize Theron is brutally cold and efficient as Vickers, the Weyland Corporation representative in charge of making sure the mission goes off according to plan. Her looks can deceive you, but she's cold and calculated. Idris Elba has another scene-stealing part as Janek, the Prometheus captain (with co-pilots Emun Elliott and Benedict Wong), an everyman but highly intelligent and able to piece things together for his job and mission. Guy Pearce in heavy make-up plays Weyland, the aging, decrepit CEO who finances the deep space mission. Sean Harris and Rafe Spall have smaller but just as important parts as Fifield and Millburn, two members of the investigating team, each with their own hopes on the mission. Also look for Patrick Wilson in a one-scene part, Shaw's father in a dream sequence.

The part that no doubt most moviegoers will remember though is David, an android created by the Weyland Corp. to blend in as a human, possessing everything but a soul. David is played to perfection by rising star Michael Fassbender in a part that could/should earn him an Oscar nod. The obvious comparison is to Hal in Space Odyssey, but that's limiting and not a completely fair comparison. This android has human mannerisms and touches -- he moves like a man, rides bikes, plays basketball, mimics Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia -- but there's also that one thing, that one little thing that prevents him from being a man. It's hard to put my finger on it, but Fassbender does an incredible job. His David is sympathetic, menacing, brilliant, intimidating and conniving. Because he can be programmed, it's can be difficult to get a read on his intentions, but whatever they may be, Fassbender is the star of Prometheus without a doubt.

Certain moments in Prometheus have stuck with me since seeing it and no doubt will stick with me in the days and weeks to come. The opening sequence is a jaw-dropper; a supremely muscle-bound, albino humanoid being left on a desolate, isolated landscape (a pre-civilization Earth?) as a spaceship takes off. He takes a potion that kills him, his body decomposing in seconds. Is it the creation of mankind? Who knows for sure? The arrival at LV-223 is equally impressive, the Prometheus attempting to find a landing zone as it travels through the atmosphere and the terrain below. Stunning visual sequences, both of them. Once the crew detects some variation on life, the visual turns to the dark and unsettling, the feeling of Doomsday looming in the air.

While I will readily recommend the movie overall, I can also say I came away slightly disappointed in the end. I don't need everything wrapped up nicely with a bow, and open-ended endings aren't a movie killer for me. But as is here, the ending left me unsatisfied. I wanted more.....of something. It doesn't have to be answers spelled out for me, but there's got to be something. Here, it just ends. On the whole, I'll heartily recommend it. Know there are flaws, but the positives ended up being particularly memorable for this moviegoer. Definitely give this one a try! Also check out the great teaser trailer below. The full-length trailer (watch HERE) is also above average as trailers go.

Prometheus <---trailer (2012): ***/****