Moviefone Copyright 2011, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. Moviefone Good old fashioned elbow grease.

I can't stop thinking about Catfish, the buzzed-about documentary that follows a New York photographer who begins corresponding with a family in Ishpeming, Michigan.

Catfish is one of those rare films you have to let settle into your psyche for a while, but it's completely different from what I imagined. Everything I'd read about the movie had "thriller" in the description, so I fully expected the filmmakers to succumb to a bloody demise courtesy of an axe murderer in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Instead, I got a touching story of humanity, lost dreams and renewed hope in a sea of despair.

The story begins in late 2007, as New York-based filmmakers Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost begin filming a documentary about Ariel's brother, Nev, an amiable, 20-something photographer who shares an office with them. Nev begins emailing with Abby, an eight-year-old girl from Ishpeming who sends him paintings she's done of his photographs. These aren't just any paintings, though; they're nice works of art that seem far beyond the level of most eight-year-olds.

That should have been my first tip-off that something was amiss, but I grew up in Michigan, too, about 280 miles south of Ishpeming. I don't know if it's a Michigan thing or a Jane thing, but when people tell me things, I tend to believe them. Why would they lie? What good does it do? Then again, maybe we all lie to some extent. Maybe sometimes it's our only escape from reality. Read on.

Soon enough, Nev begins corresponding with Abby's relatives -- her mom Angela Wesselman and her half-sister Megan Faccio. By all accounts, both of them are nice-looking women. Abby sends Nev a painting of Angela, a portrait of a stunning woman sporting a long braid and a dancer's body. Likewise, Megan's Facebook photos look like she stepped out of an Old Navy ad. Nev begins talking to these women on the phone and even enters into a cyber-romance with Megan, but Abby is never available when he calls. That should have been tip-off number two, but again, I'm trusting.

Still, the film is starting to take on a creepy tone, made even creepier when Nev, Ariel and Henry decide to drive to Ishpeming to check things out for themselves. Still, I'm willing to believe that things will turn out ok, even as their trip reveals one lie after another. If you haven't seen the movie and wish to remain spoiler-free, you might want to stop reading here.

It never occurred to me that the filmmakers might be playing with the truth here. Did they, as some reviewers surmise, know all along that things weren't as they seemed? If so, why did Nev venture into a relationship with Megan? Was it simply for the sake of the film? Being a gullible Michigander, I'm still willing to believe that he was figuring things out just as the audience was at this point in the movie.

Maybe it's because the shots of Ishpeming could have been any small Michigan town. Abby's new "art gallery" that Angela gushed about was in a former J.C. Penney building. The State Theatre where I saw the movie is just down the street from a former J.C. Penney building in downtown Traverse City.

If you're still reading and really, really wish to remain spoiler-free, I'm begging you to stop reading here. I have to find out how those of you who've seen Catfish feel about how Nev reacted when he learned that 1) Angela was the painter, not Abby; 2) there was no art gallery; and 3) there was no Megan.

Nev could have reacted badly, slamming Angela for her deceit and storming off down US-41 on his way back to New York with Ariel and Henry. Instead, he was heartfelt and graceful as he gently nudged the truth out of the soft-spoken, middle-aged woman whose dreams died long ago.

As Nev told Henry and Ariel, they weren't there to destroy this family -- they were there to learn the truth. Things got even more touching when they realized that Angela was, in fact, using them to play out her own fantasies of becoming a dancer -- a dream she'd abandoned forever when she married husband Vincent and began caring for his two severely disabled sons -- grown men still in diapers. She'd created this elaborate web of Facebook personalities and even used a different voice when talking as "Megan" on the phone to Nev.

Ok, that's a little creepy, but hey, she's got a tough life up there in the North Woods. Let's cut her some slack. And aren't we all Angela to some degree? I'm guessing most people have experienced a few missteps and abandoned dreams in their life.

I guess the final question of whether Catfish is real or not lies in Vincent's missive at the end, where he's talking about how catfish are sometimes shipped with codfish for the purpose of nipping at them and keeping them stirred up during the journey. First, Vincent doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would come up with a theory like that, but shame on me for stereotyping him as just an overgrown kid who needs to be taken care of like his disabled sons. Maybe he's a really smart guy who's just doing his best to provide for his family.

I also wonder who the catfish is in this movie -- Angela or Nev? I look forward to your thoughts. ]]> Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:42:15 EST 798871 The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, the third film based on author Stieg Larsson's excellent Dragon Tattoo trilogy. It's a great example of the story, the acting, and the filmmaking coming together in perfect harmony to create one of the best trilogies in cinematic history. There's never a wasted moment in these films, never a scene that isn't pivotal to the story.

But I didn't see the movie in New York or Los Angeles. I saw it in my hometown, Traverse City, Michigan, at our downtown State Theatre, newly restored by the Traverse City Film Festival. The theater was packed, as it was when I saw the first two films. In fact, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was the highest-grossing film to play at the State Theatre this year. Keep in mind that this is a two-and-a-half hour Swedish film with subtitles, a complicated story structure, and no well-known stars. At least, they weren't well-known when the film was released.

I asked film festival founder Michael Moore why people in a small town in the Midwest are flocking in droves to see this movie.

"The conventional wisdom is that independent films -- you know, the more difficult films, the documentaries and foreign movies -- don't play well out here," he said, adding that people are always drawn to well-made films, especially in times of economic strife.

"In past eras, these are the times when the movies have really spoken to peoples' souls, have inspired them, have comforted them, have given them an escape, have produced new ideas," said Moore. "The films that came out during the Great Depression and the Vietnam War era were really bold and brave films."

I'll add that the Dragon Tattoo films resonate with people on a personal level for a variety of reasons. Noomi Rapace plays the part of Lisbeth Salander with both a fierceness and a stoic reserve that makes her completely believable. So believable, in fact, that if you didn't know better, you'd think she was playing herself.

One of my favorite scenes from the trilogy occurs near the end of Hornet's Nest. On her way to the trial, Lisbeth emerges into the prison hallway decked out in gothic garb, nose rings, heavy eyeliner, and a massive mohawk the likes of which I haven't seen since the 1980s. Here's a character who at the beginning of the story is merely a weird, funky girl who'd had some bad things happen to her. By the end of the third film, however, she's my hero. Not only is justice served on her abusers, but this tiny powerhouse of a girl helps to topple a massive tower of corruption and evil. It was all I could do not to jump out of my red velvet theatre seat and cheer wildly at the site of her platform boots clumping down that hallway.

That brings me to the next reason why I believe these films are so popular right now. In the real world, you don't have to look far to find corruption. It's lurking everywhere, especially in governmental systems around the globe. But how often is justice truly served? How often do these people get what's coming to them? And if it ever happens, how often does the public get to see it?

In Larsson's trilogy, justice is served and the entire world knows about it, thanks to the combined efforts and courage of many people, including journalist Mikael Blomkvist, played so winningly by Michael Nyqvist. As a journalist myself, I can attest to the fact that things rarely ever fall into place to produce the desired result. There are too many editors stirring the pot, too many corporate suits issuing orders about what and what not to publish, and too many advertisers afraid to take a risk on anything that deviates from the plain vanilla content that permeates the publishing industry. Blomkvist solves that problem by creating his own magazine. Is that what journalists have to do? Create our own publication in order to write the important stories?

I also love how the trilogy ends. Larsson and the filmmakers could have taken the easy way out and delivered a John Grisham-type ending with Lisbeth and Mikael sipping exotic drinks under a palm tree on a Caribbean beach. But no, this story ends with each of them uttering an awkward "see you around" as she closes her apartment door and he goes about his business. That's probably how it would go down in real life, although I do wonder what happens after the movie ends. Do they ever cross paths again? Are they friends? How did their shared experience impact their future?

Maybe we'll find out in the American version, which has me a little worried. When I first heard about the remake, I was quick to trash it. Why remake a film that's superb in its original form? Are Americans too stupid to read subtitles? Do we need well-known actors to plunk down our $9 and see a film? Clearly, that's not the case, as evidenced by the crowd who saw the Dragon Tattoo films in Traverse City, Michigan.

But the caliber of producers, filmmakers and actors has me singing a different tune on the remake. Ole Sondberg is executive producer, a title he held on the Swedish films, as well as the excellent BBC series Wallander. Having him on the project might help to retain the edgy ambience of the Swedish films. The director is David Fincher, who also helmed The Social Network, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Zodiac, one of my favorite films from 2007. Fincher also successfully directed Alien3, the third film in an established series with a loyal fan base.

Rooney Mara has been cast as Lisbeth Salander, and I appreciate the fact that she's not yet a household name, but she already has a following from her roles in The Social Network and A Nightmare on Elm Street. Likewise, Daniel Craig, with his ability to play both rough-edged and resilient, is a good choice for Mikael Blomkvist. Other players at this writing include Robin Wright (Erika Berger), Christopher Plummer (Henrik Vanger), Stellan Skarsgard (Martin Vanger) and Joely Richardson (Anita Vanger). I have no qualms about any of these actors.

Steven Zaillian is scribing the American screenplay. Based on his credits, I have to believe that he won't produce a script that bows down to the Hollywood clichés screaming out to this project. His screenplay for Schindler's List won an Oscar and a Golden Globe, and he's been nominated for and won a slew of other awards for his work through the years, including Searching for Bobby Fischer, American Gangster, and Gangs of New York. Let's just hope the Hollywood Machine allows all of these people to create a film worthy of the original films.

There's also a six-part Swedish miniseries, Millennium, which includes all of the main players from the films. My next task is getting my hands on that. Anyone seen it?

I would love to hear your thoughts on these films. Do you find the Dragon Tattoo movies compelling? And if so, why?
]]> Mon, 6 Dec 2010 17:35:03 EST 792830