The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher)

[B-side]

:P

[Irish]

QHqLcEtt368

Also, while we're debating the outlandishness of teasers, I present to you all "The Pig with the Froggy Tattoo."

[MadMan]

Can I politely mock MadMan's poor grammar, or is that just piling on? It's piling on. I'll go away now.Grammar's overrated :P


You did say "Do tell". So I told.

It's probably a little too late to say you're over-reacting to some harmless banter, but I'll say it anyway. Just for the record.Whatever....


Hey, bud. Please don't.I call it as I see 'em.


;373355']MADMAN.


Sorry, I had to.It just doesn't work without the pic....but yeah, no...

Rep to Irish. Gotta love the big font.

I saw The Muppets spoof a couple days ago, and yes its hilarious. I keep forgetting that movie is coming out for some reason-even though I'll admit I've never seen a Muppet movie all the way through, I have viewed the TV show and its great so that's all I need.

[transmogrifier]

One of the great things about life is that you are always learning. The thing I learned today was, don't stand between Madman and his opinion on teaser trailers. Mama bears ain't got shit on him.

[Spinal]

I call it as I see 'em.


No, I don't think you understand. That's unacceptable conduct for the site. I'm asking you not to do it anymore. Please.

[Spinal]

I'm definitely looking forward to the Muppet movie more than the Fincher movie.

[Irish]

I'm definitely looking forward to the Muppet movie more than the Fincher movie.

Am I remembering wrong? I thought you were a fan.

If nothing else, Fincher is adept at putting together movies that overcome weaknesses in their source material.

[Spinal]

Am I remembering wrong? I thought you were a fan.


Maybe I like the Muppets more than you think. :)

[Boner M]

I wanna see a Fincher-directed Muppet movie.

[Sxottlan]

Steven Berkoff?!

Where has he been?

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm definitely looking forward to the Muppet movie more than the Fincher movie.

Speaking of unacceptable conduct... :D:D

[Morris Schæffer]

Steven Berkoff?!

Where has he been?

After Rambo 2, I was sure he was headed for the A list.:)

Joking aside, I like this too. Although perhaps he was better for the sleazebag lawyer that becomes Lisbeth's guardian.

[Ezee E]

Man, I'm really excited for this with every preview I see:

Lisbeth Extended TV Preview (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=84223)

I don't like the material it comes from, but I really think Fincher is going to knock this one out of the park.

[number8]

Goddamn, the soundtrack is 39 tracks, 3 hours long.

[Ezee E]

Goddamn, the soundtrack is 39 tracks, 3 hours long.
The movie is 2 hours and 40 minutes I guess. So they don't reuse a track? Wow.

[Ezee E]

And there's an 8-minute preview on iTunes now. Kind of like the 3-minute preview earlier this year, but basically just a focus on the premise and what's all at stake, while showing off the impressive score.

[B-side]

New trailer is incredible. The cinematography looks gorgeous.

[Dillard]

David Denby likes it.

[number8]

David Denby likes it.

And burned a bridge in the process:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/exclusive-scott-rudin-replies-to-david-denbys-embargo-break-of-dragon-tattoo-in-the-new-yorker?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#

[DavidSeven]

Denby makes a compelling policy argument. There has seriously been shit to watch/discuss at the multiplexes for like months until very recently.

It's still a dick move in this situation though, and I don't see what it accomplishes besides making these early screenings harder to come by.

[number8]

Rudin's right in that Denby's excuse was flimsy. It's not like packing the awards grabbers to the end of the year is a new practice this year, so I don't know what that has anything to do with his decision. Denby's argument basically came down to "Well, it's more convenient for my publication this way, so you see, clearly we had to break our agreement since the New Yorker readers would prefer it."

[Ezee E]

Never heard of Denby until just recently. He succeeded in his motive, but only hurts film criticism even more.

[transmogrifier]

My opinion is if you don't want reviewers mentioning the film till a certain date, don't show it until that date. I mean, if the NYFCC (?) had chosen it for awards (a kind of review in itself, no?), then the producers would have been over the moon. But they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[Ezee E]

My opinion is if you don't want reviewers mentioning the film till a certain date, don't show it until that date. I mean, in the NYFCC (?) had chosen it for awards (a kind of review in itself, no?), then the producers would have been over the moon. But they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Well, it's a written contract that is typically honored.

Wonder if Denby will get in trouble or not.

[Boner M]

My opinion is if you don't want reviewers mentioning the film till a certain date, don't show it until that date. I mean, in the NYFCC (?) had chosen it for awards (a kind of review in itself, no?), then the producers would have been over the moon. But they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.Exactly.

[Irish]

My opinion is if you don't want reviewers mentioning the film till a certain date, don't show it until that date. I mean, if the NYFCC (?) had chosen it for awards (a kind of review in itself, no?), then the producers would have been over the moon. But they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Not sure that's logistically possible, given all the people at every tier that need to screen the film, across multiple locations.

[number8]

Not sure that's logistically possible, given all the people at every tier that need to screen the film, across multiple locations.

Er, they have multiple copies, you know.

[Ezee E]

You need to have reviews before or on opening day though. If anything, those publications should have all rights removed to any of the Production Company's future films.

[Irish]

Er, they have multiple copies, you know.
Think about all the screenings and all the reviewers over different locations.

There's a reason why th schedule these things 2+ months out. Its not arbitrary.

[number8]

Think about all the screenings and all the reviewers over different locations.

There's a reason why th schedule these things 2+ months out. Its not arbitrary.

You do realize that when a studio movie opens, thousands of movie theaters in hundreds of cities play that same movie on the same day, yes? They print thousands of copies. You're right, it's not arbitrary, but lack of copies is not why. When a movie screens for press 2 months early, that doesn't mean that's it for that location and off the print goes to another city. They'll schedule more screenings closer to the release. For example, I saw Inglorious Basterds 2 months early, and then I saw it 2 more times before release.

The real reason a movie would screen so early is interviews and press conferences. It gives journalists who are doing intimate profiles of the stars, or setting up TV interviews, etc. a chance to see the film a couple of times before they finalize the schedule so they have material for the interview.

Now, the stars, that they actually have limited copies of.

[number8]

Also, sometimes it's just the publicists being considerate to critics. There are days in the summer when 4-5 high profile films open on the same day. If all of those movies screened only the week of release, then some critics may not be able to make it to all those movies, and the ones who do will want to shoot themselves in the head the day before the deadline. Especially with semi-intelligent Oscar-bait or pseudo-arthouse movies, screening a movie a few weeks early will give the critics a chance to let the film stew and not rush their reviews, which let me tell you, is a fucking godsend. Denby was given this privilege and abused it. That's why critics circles tend to hate people who break embargoes, especially in today's get-it-out-first blogger world.

[Irish]

You do realize that when a studio movie opens, thousands of movie theaters in hundreds of cities play that same movie on the same day, yes? They print thousands of copies.

You do realize that studio PR and film distribution are separate businesses handled by completely different people, yes?

Look at your screening schedule. Note the staggered dates around the region. That's the *same* print being shipped to various theaters week over week.

It costs upwards of $4 grand to print to 35mm. You're not creating a bunch of extra copies for the convenience of David Denby & a bunch of bloggers.

[Ezee E]

It costs upwards of $4 grand to print to 35mm. You're not creating a bunch of extra copies for the convenience of David Denby & a bunch of bloggers.

4K to Dragon Tattoo's $80 million (probably more) budget is pennies really. Especially when the advertising is more likely an additional $80 mill

[Ezee E]

The score is amazing.

[Kiusagi]

Reviews are coming in. I'm just skimming through them to avoid spoilers, but it looks like most criticisms are directed at the source material. Not as good as Se7en and Zodiac, they say, but recognizably a Fincher film through and through. Rooney Mara's performance getting universal praise.

[Lucky]

The score is amazing.

"Vitaliy Zavadskyy" is awesome. The other tracks I've samples off YouTube aren't that interesting on their own. I have no doubt they will fit the mood of the film perfectly, however.

[Ezee E]

"Vitaliy Zavadskyy" is awesome. The other tracks I've samples off YouTube aren't that interesting on their own. I have no doubt they will fit the mood of the film perfectly, however.
Liking "The Heretics" a ton.

Also, the title you're suggesting isn't on the CD.

[Lucky]

Liking "The Heretics" a ton.

Also, the title you're suggesting isn't on the CD.

Hah, I just realized what I was listening to wasn't legit. It was fanmade music "inspired" by the movie.

[Lucky]

Liking "The Heretics" a ton.

Yeah, that's a cool piece.

My other favorites are "A Pair of Doves", "A Thousand Details" and "Please Take Your Hand Away." It's very difficult to pull of dissonance and make it seem beautiful and intentional.

"A Pair of Doves" actually reminded me of the score for the Buffy ep "Hush." Especially around the 4:00 mark of this video.

H-Iuk_wb0OE

[transmogrifier]

So with the reviews mostly positive, but rather reserved, and most of the complaints related to (a) the source material and (b) the fact that there was a movie of this last year, again I ask: why the hell did Fincher even bother with this?

[Derek]

So with the reviews mostly positive, but rather reserved, and most of the complaints related to (a) the source material and (b) the fact that there was a movie of this last year, again I ask: why the hell did Fincher even bother with this?

Money?

[Lazlo]

I'm leaving now to go to the first showing. I haven't read the book and I didn't care for the Swedish version at all but I am super pumped for this. The Fincher-Factor in full effect.

[Watashi]

So with the reviews mostly positive, but rather reserved, and most of the complaints related to (a) the source material and (b) the fact that there was a movie of this last year, again I ask: why the hell did Fincher even bother with this?
Shouldn't critics separate the film from the source material anyway?

[Sven]

Money?

Yeah, Fincher isn't really the fringe artiste type. All of his films have been big budget studio prestige things.

[ledfloyd]

this has one showing today in an hour but i'm trying to tell myself i will be better off waiting and taking in a matinee later this week. so many movies to see in the next week or two, and so much other stuff going on.

[transmogrifier]

Money?

I guess, but it wouldn't have been the only project the studios would have chucked money at him to do.

[DavidSeven]

Shouldn't critics separate the film from the source material anyway?

I wonder if the complaint is that Fincher's film makes the same missteps as the source material or that the film is unfaithful to it. The former strikes me as fair game for reviewers.

I generally like Fincher, but I can't get excited about this film. Bloated run time. Bloated trailer. Little to no indication that there's anything of substance here. I might have to see a few raves at MC before I even consider it.

[transmogrifier]

Yeah, Fincher isn't really the fringe artiste type. All of his films have been big budget studio prestige things.

I'm not really talking about taking a big budget studio movie in general, I'm talking about this one in particular, for the reasons (a) and (b) listed above.

I like that he creates genuinely interested studio product. I just can't fathom his thinking on this one.

[transmogrifier]

Shouldn't critics separate the film from the source material anyway?

But if the movie has the same flaws, it's pretty inevitable it's going to come up.

[ledfloyd]

I like that he creates genuinely interested studio product. I just can't fathom his thinking on this one.
maybe he liked the book? he obviously likes chuck palahniuk, so his literary credentials are already questionable.

[Ezee E]

I think this is something that Fincher would very much have been interested if the Swedish movie hadn't been made beforehand. 10,000 Leagues Under The Sea's remake seems more out of tune.

[Sven]

I'm not really talking about taking a big budget studio movie in general, I'm talking about this one in particular, for the reasons (a) and (b) listed above.

Well, my response about the questionable source material, I would point you to Alien 3, Fight Club, and the Social Network, which are a) the third in a franchise, b) based on a trendy book, and c) about Facebook. It's not like he's been some great arbiter of landmark, trailblazing projects. As for your b), I would just remind you that he's a studio tool and that of course he's going to be attracted to bleak, violent content. Maybe he thinks he can do it better. Compared to Scorsese doing a 3D kids film, or the fact that people are still sending Garry Marshall scripts, this one isn't THAT incomprehensible. But my Fincher-fanboy blinders are currently lent out, so maybe I owe my lack of confusion to that.

[transmogrifier]

Perhaps its just that with Seven and Zodiac, this seems like....kinda pointless, given the drawbacks I've mentioned. That's why I can't understand it. I haven't read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but Fight Club the novel is pretty good - certainly a million times better than the one-and-a-half other Palahniuk books I've read (Choke and something else that was so bad I gave up halfway through and forgot its name)

PS Get those blinders back, they improve your life no end.

[Lazlo]

My review, such that it is. I was entranced.

Now here is a movie. A mystery. Both an exercise in pulp suspense and a careful, honest construction of character and relationships. I haven’t read Stieg Larsson’s book and I didn’t care for the 2009 Swedish film version, but with his adaptation David Fincher injects the story with an emotional gravity and fills the screen with an energy and verve that are wholly gripping, unnerving, and fascinating. Fincher has taken the plodding, unwieldy story and turned it into something that moves with deadly precision and purpose. Even knowing the outcome, each twist of fate, every new scrap of evidence awaiting the unlikely pair of detectives, I was completely absorbed.

Rooney Mara gives an incredible performance. She’s weird and strong and dangerous, and yet fragile, hiding an inner hope that she has no good reason to harbor. It’s a physical transformation and emotional commitment on par with anything DeNiro ever did. Daniel Craig is no less impressive. He’s weary and frightened, worn down and suspicious and each emotion is right there in his eyes, peering out through his stony, stubble-covered (and ultimately scar-riddled) face. The two of them are perfect, really.

Either the Swedish version did Larsson’s story a disservice, or Fincher and screenwriter Steven Zaillian have found the inner truth of these proceedings beneath the crazy serial killer hokum. Their The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is about more than the mystery. It’s about the dread of not knowing who to trust, the scars of a sinister history that refuse to fade, the helplessness of the individual against the greatest evils of society, the moral concessions we make in the name of doing the right thing, and, above all, the value of a friend.

[TGM]

The movie was okay, but it coulda been so much better. It suffers from some absolutely nightmarish pacing. It never knows when to actually get started, and suffering from Return of the King syndrome, it has no idea when to finally start wrapping things up. Basically, this movie felt like an endurance test. But after a clunky transition, the core of the movie is just fine, and Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara both deliver awesome performances.

But it's an interesting movie, and it dumps a lotta information at you all at once while managing to never feel too cluttered or confusing. The score that everyone's raving about was pretty good, though it did feel a bit intrusive at times. And that heavy rock song from the trailer actually feels quite at home in the opening sequence, unlike in said trailer.

I'm also surprised that this actually got away with an R rating with the amount of sex and nudity on display here.

Overall, it was okay, but it felt like David Fincher just tried to fit way too much in there. Definitely not one of his better outings.

[Kiusagi]

As someone who's been anticipating this for a long time, I was mildly underwhelmed. I see what people mean when they cite the source material as the biggest problem. I'm not going to go too far with that, as I still found the story engaging, but I also didn't see what all the fuss is about. Despite the stylish direction, excellent cinematography, and great score, it still to some degree feels like a fairly standard procedural. The violence is rather tame as well.

On the positive side, there is a true breakout performance from Rooney Mara. I questioned the casting when I first heard it, based on what I've seen of her (not much). I was wrong. A complete transformation for her and a sign she has a great career ahead of her.

I don't want to sound like too much of a downer, because I still very much enjoyed the film, but I guess I wanted and expected more. Now, I'm torn as to whether or not I want Fincher to return to the director's chair on the two sequels. On one hand, I of course want him to move on to something else. On the other, if somebody's going to do them, I sure as hell want it to be him. The one thing that's stopping me from leaning towards the former is that the projects he is currently attached to (20,000 Leagues and Cleopatra) don't particularly appeal to me. Then again, I thought the same about The Social Network.

[B-side]

Despite the stylish direction, excellent cinematography, and great score

I don't get it. Despite those things? That's all I was looking for to begin with.

[Dukefrukem]

The movie was okay, but it coulda been so much better. It suffers from some absolutely nightmarish pacing. It never knows when to actually get started, and suffering from Return of the King syndrome, it has no idea when to finally start wrapping things up. Basically, this movie felt like an endurance test. But after a clunky transition, the core of the movie is just fine, and Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara both deliver awesome performances.

But it's an interesting movie, and it dumps a lotta information at you all at once while managing to never feel too cluttered or confusing. The score that everyone's raving about was pretty good, though it did feel a bit intrusive at times. And that heavy rock song from the trailer actually feels quite at home in the opening sequence, unlike in said trailer.

I'm also surprised that this actually got away with an R rating with the amount of sex and nudity on display here.

Overall, it was okay, but it felt like David Fincher just tried to fit way too much in there. Definitely not one of his better outings.

Can you please explain to me Return of the King syndrome. This is the first I've heard of it.

[TGM]

Can you please explain to me Return of the King syndrome. This is the first I've heard of it.

It's when a movie just doesn't know when to wrap it up and end already.

[Kiusagi]

I don't get it. Despite those things? That's all I was looking for to begin with.

I just mean that if there was a better story, this might have been some sort of masterpiece. Instead, it's "just" very good, in my opinion.

[Kiusagi]

Oh yeah, I forgot to say: I don't think there's a director today that has better title sequences than David Fincher.

[Pop Trash]

Oh yeah, I forgot to say: I don't think there's a director today that has better title sequences than David Fincher.

This is true. He's the closest we have to Saul Bass these days.

[Chac Mool]

It's the definition of good, not great.

On paper, practically everything works: the screenplay is well-rounded; the characters are sharply drawn; the actors are perfectly cast and deliver uniformly excellent performances; the craftsmanship -- cinematography, editing, production design -- is terrific. The whole thing has a cool nordic sheen -- form meets function -- and exudes ambience.

But it feels a little impersonal. Maybe it's that there's simply too much here (characters, plot, context) to fit in any feature-length film; each branch of the story feels like it deserves more time. Maybe it's that Fincher's cool style -- so perfect for cerebral masterworks like Zodiac or The Social Network -- is not ideal for the European heart of this story. Maybe it's that the story is not Fincher's, and neither is the original film, and while the new "Girl" is infused with technical mastery, a little bit of heart is missing. And maybe I just need to see it again.

[***]

[BuffaloWilder]

I liked it a lot - but, outside of the title sequence, it doesn't really feel like a David Fincher movie. It feels more like a very old fashioned drawing-room murder mystery, with characters discussing this and that over cigarettes and coffee.

Good stuff, don't get me wrong.

[ledfloyd]

i was planning on seeing this this afternoon. that was before i locked myself out getting the mail.

[B-side]

it doesn't really feel like a David Fincher movie.

Pure silliness.

----

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Stunning opening credits an abstract mash of electricity and black head molds. Sets up thematic content that isn't given much heed throughout the film, but enough to give texture to an otherwise standard procedural. Brief glimpses of religion vs Scandinavian rationality and the modern technological world juxtaposed against the soft focus, warm glow of antiquity (the film's most impressive segments stylistically; remembered purely visually) don't warrant much attention since they're not given much by the writer or director. The narrative progresses nicely, compounding intrigue with a score that balances gumshoe curiosity and escalating techno tension. Complaints that the film doesn't feel like a Fincher film are silly and frankly baffling. It has the same color palette as Zodiac and fits his passion with twisting thrillers nicely. It's very plotty, convoluted even, but Fincher does pretty well to juggle all the information shooting in from every angle and maintains an important critical distance that doesn't allow for much cheap sentimentality. The coda is jumbled and deflates the penultimate sequences and ends up feeling too much like a tacked on grasp for enough emotional connection to hook the audience for a sequel. Incandescent streaks of light, especially those next to studious faces, is a nice visual, and Mikael's first plunge into the family's history has a cool stylistic device in which segments of the past are revealed as Mikael highlights aspects of the reports detailing them. I don't think Fincher's fits and starts of stylistic intrigue are enough to make the film great, but it's surely a worthwhile experience regardless.

[Chac Mool]

I think that maybe the argument that the film doesn't feel Fincher-ish stems from the fact that none of the characters are particularly obsessive (even Blomkvist, who can't resist a good investigation, isn't portrayed particularly feverishly here...).

Fincher's defining movies are about characters self-imploding (in one way or another) under the weight of their obsessions. This one, for all its plot similarities, doesn't quite feel the same way.

[B-side]

I think that maybe the argument that the film doesn't feel Fincher-ish stems from the fact that none of the characters are particularly obsessive (even Blomkvist, who can't resist a good investigation, isn't portrayed particularly feverishly here...).

Fincher's defining movies are about characters self-imploding (in one way or another) under the weight of their obsessions. This one, for all its plot similarities, doesn't quite feel the same way.

Blomkvist is definitely self-destructing, but not in a manner that draws all the attention to him. There's even dialogue in the film alluding to it; something about dating a married woman etc. More importantly, it feels like a Fincher film. So what if no one character is crazy-obsessed, it still has all the formal elements of a Fincher film, which elevate otherwise mediocre material.

[ledfloyd]

this was very good, if not great. the main problem i had with the source material is still the main issue here. namely lisbeth's relationship with her social worker. aside from that, it's more or less excellent for the majority of the runtime. there are a few hiccups near the end and then it drags on past what feels like the natural climax for a good 15-20 minutes... and i'm not sure much is gained from it.

[Pop Trash]

It's the definition of good, not great.

On paper, practically everything works: the screenplay is well-rounded; the characters are sharply drawn; the actors are perfectly cast and deliver uniformly excellent performances; the craftsmanship -- cinematography, editing, production design -- is terrific. The whole thing has a cool nordic sheen -- form meets function -- and exudes ambience.

But it feels a little impersonal. Maybe it's that there's simply too much here (characters, plot, context) to fit in any feature-length film; each branch of the story feels like it deserves more time. Maybe it's that Fincher's cool style -- so perfect for cerebral masterworks like Zodiac or The Social Network -- is not ideal for the European heart of this story. Maybe it's that the story is not Fincher's, and neither is the original film, and while the new "Girl" is infused with technical mastery, a little bit of heart is missing. And maybe I just need to see it again.

[***]

I'll simply second this, since this is exactly how I felt.

[dreamdead]

this was very good, if not great. the main problem i had with the source material is still the main issue here. namely lisbeth's relationship with her social worker.

Can you explain? Is it Lisbeth's whole willingness to be assaulted to have leverage over him? Or why she would then reappear to torment him, or something else?

This is more engaging than the Swedish version, which was one of the worst viewings of the year for me, but its craftsmanship does feel rather empty. I think Mara reveals more of Lisbeth's interiority than Rapace did, but the overall narrative still has too much of a pop thriller tone. I like Skarsgaard's line about willingly entering into danger, rather than decline the offer, but there's not enough cleverness to the script. Maybe if the film was even longer it'd have more room to breathe, but it ends up so rote.

The wife was perturbed by how Fincher always seemed to frame each shot so that Mara's nipples would get feature time. Maybe it's simply trying too hard to be European...

[eternity]

Take everything good out of Zodiac and replace it with Rooney Mara who doesn't get nearly enough screentime, and you have this pile.

[Ivan Drago]

Make this the third movie to come out this year and amaze me. Everyone in the sound department of this film deserves an Oscar. How sound effects, such as the vacuum cleaner during the scene where Bjurman forces Lisbeth into oral sex, became part of the score to build tension was awesome.

[ledfloyd]

Can you explain? Is it Lisbeth's whole willingness to be assaulted to have leverage over him? Or why she would then reappear to torment him, or something else?
mostly this.

[Raiders]

I think that maybe the argument that the film doesn't feel Fincher-ish stems from the fact that none of the characters are particularly obsessive (even Blomkvist, who can't resist a good investigation, isn't portrayed particularly feverishly here...).

Fincher's defining movies are about characters self-imploding (in one way or another) under the weight of their obsessions. This one, for all its plot similarities, doesn't quite feel the same way.

The movie is actually filled with obsessives: the eponymous girl with her need for anonymity and independence; the killer with his meticulous methods and fascination with people in their final moments; the old man with his life-long desire to find out what happened to his niece. The entire family history is "obsessed" in fact with this one moment in time, almost preserved in amber as the event that separates the so-called "then" and "now." The issue is that Fincher's film is too required to go through the pot-boiler motions of the original story and doesn't really delve as feverishly into these obsessions as I would have liked. And as you allude to, Blomkvist is much too boring of a character.

I actually thought the pacing in general was very astute; the first hour setting everything up and paralleling the ways in which Mikael and Lisbeth come to meet and work together. I love the opening credits which abstractly set up the film's obsession with surface features and what's beneath them (or behind them in the case of the family' houses) and the sexual, gender-based struggles that consume much of the undercurrent.

I'm actually a little sad that the film didn't allow Lisbeth to kill Martin herself. I suppose our heroine can't go that dark (though it is obvious she is going to) but it seemed the organic culmination. Consider her tattooing of her social worker a trial run.

I will confess I don't really understand the point of the final twenty or so minutes at all. Oh well. Good film anyway.

[Chac Mool]

The movie is actually filled with obsessives: the eponymous girl with her need for anonymity and independence; the killer with his meticulous methods and fascination with people in their final moments; the old man with his life-long desire to find out what happened to his niece. The entire family history is "obsessed" in fact with this one moment in time, almost preserved in amber as the event that separates the so-called "then" and "now." The issue is that Fincher's film is too required to go through the pot-boiler motions of the original story and doesn't really delve as feverishly into these obsessions as I would have liked. And as you allude to, Blomkvist is much too boring of a character.

I actually thought the pacing in general was very astute; the first hour setting everything up and paralleling the ways in which Mikael and Lisbeth come to meet and work together. I love the opening credits which abstractly set up the film's obsession with surface features and what's beneath them (or behind them in the case of the family' houses) and the sexual, gender-based struggles that consume much of the undercurrent.

Good points. I can't disagree. I think one of the reasons I didn't enjoy it wholeheartedly is that I've read the books first, and felt they were more feverishly lurid -- a little more sweaty, more grimy, if that makes any sense -- than the cool, calculated atmosphere that Fincher generates, and that makes the extreme emotions stand out more.

I don't fault Fincher per se -- it's his adaptation -- but it's perhaps not what I expected. Maybe seeing it a second time, knowing what to expect and more able to judge it on its own merits -- will make me appreciate it more.

[transmogrifier]

For those who have seen this and either read the books or watched the first adaptation - do you think Fincher's version would be better served if you went in not knowing a thing about the story, as will be the case for me?

[Chac Mool]

For those who have seen this and either read the books or watched the first adaptation - do you think Fincher's version would be better served if you went in not knowing a thing about the story, as will be the case for me?

I've read the books, and I would go into the movie a virgin -- you`ll get a more visceral reaction out of it. Then, if you`re so inclined, I would recommend reading at least the first book. It`s far from great literature, but it`s worth a look, particularly if the movie whets your appetite.

[Rowland]

I haven't read the book, but having seen the original movie, which was merely mediocre by the standards of sensationalistic trash inexplicably heralded as art, Fincher's film is a vast improvement in every conceivable respect, elevating the lurid source material into something resembling, well, art. This perspective surely helped me appreciate his achievement on another level, but even taken on its own terms, I think it's a pretty good film, one that is additionally fascinating within the context of Fincher's career because it functions almost as a synthesis of Seven (the lurid serial killer stuff), Zodiac (the compulsively delineated procedural stuff), and The Social Network (the outsider character study stuff).

[Rowland]

The most insightful review (http://armchairc.blogspot.com/2011/12/girl-with-dragon-tattoo-david-fincher.html#more) I've read on the film so far, that further extrapolates ideas I had about the film's unfairly neglected auteurist imprint. For instance, I didn't make the religious connection, nor the particularly illuminating thematic angle concerning the societal transition from analog to digital and its effect on human relations. The more I think about how Fincher approached this film, tinkering with assorted narrative details, recalibrating the tone, and de-emphasizing specific elements over others, the less this seems like the soulless, impersonal cash-grab so many have written it off as.

[ledfloyd]

yeah, there's even the same internet as an instrument for breaching class divides subtext that was present in the social network.

[Ezee E]

Still trying to figure out an explanation of the final twenty minutes, but I like it, solely for the brilliance that is Lisbeth, and Rooney Mara's performance of her. It was much more emotional to see it end on film then in the book.

Craig even succeeds at making Blomkvist into an interesting character. While I don't really see why people would be attracted to him, his own obsessiveness with solving the case, and finding the family's dysfunctional history elevates the material.

The movie moves rapidly fast. At two hours and forty minutes, it felt like a breeze, and yet, not enough. I almost wanted to see more about that family, and how much they truly hate each other, despite living right next to each other.

And that's not even touching the technical aspects of it all.

[Rowland]

So that's two people now who didn't understand the epilogue. My girlfriend didn't either, I had to explain it to her after the movie. What didn't you understand? (that's directed towards Raiders as well if he's still curious)

[Ezee E]

So that's two people now who didn't understand the epilogue. My girlfriend didn't either, I had to explain it to her after the movie. What didn't you understand? (that's directed towards Raiders as well if he's still curious)
Well, I understood it regarding the plotting of it all. Just seemed like such a letdown of the discovery of Harriet.

More character based sure, especially for Lisbeth.

[Rowland]

I kinda liked that. It's one of many examples of how Fincher tweaked the narrative to deliberately de-emphasize the impact of the mystery plot.

[Ezee E]

I kinda liked that. It's one of many examples of how Fincher tweaked the narrative to deliberately de-emphasize the impact of the mystery plot.
Then the beginning of how he was set up should've been emphasized a little more instead of a quick 2-3 scenes.

Also, I don't really think we got the idea that Lisbeth just stole over 2 billion freakin dollars, :lol:

[Rowland]

Then the beginning of how he was set up should've been emphasized a little more instead of a quick 2-3 scenes.Very little in the film is emphasized over anything else on a narrative level, all its beats are very flat, the $2 billion dollar epilogue included, and it's too consistent throughout the film to not be on purpose, for whatever reason. I almost wish he'd taken more of that approach with the infamous rape scene, the pan away from the door would probably have been adequate after a certain point, it would have better suited the tenor of the remaining film.

[Ezee E]

Very little in the film is emphasized over anything else on a narrative level, all its beats are very flat, the $2 billion dollar epilogue included, and it's too consistent throughout the film to not be on purpose, for whatever reason. I almost wish he taken more of that approach with the infamous rape scene, the pan away from the door would probably have been adequate after a certain point, it would have better suited the tenor of the remaining film.
The pan away was essentially all we saw from the rape beyond her being handcuffed, and a very quick shot spliced between. Easily the most effective sequences of the movie is with those two characters.

[Rowland]

The pan away was essentially all we saw from the rape beyond her being handcuffed, and a very quick shot spliced between. Easily the most effective sequences of the movie is with those two characters.Hmm, maybe I'm mistaken but I recall the sequence beginning as you describe it, only to cut back inside with a close-up of his face as he penetrates her and a shot or two of her ass. I wouldn't go as far as the Reverse Shot crew do to accuse this of misogyny or whatever, but I felt that ending the sequence with the pan away would have been more disturbing.

[Ezee E]

Hmm, maybe I'm mistaken but I recall the sequence beginning as you describe it, only to cut back inside with a close-up of his face as penetrates her and a shot or two of her ass. I wouldn't go as far as the Reverse Shot crew do to accuse this of misogyny or whatever, but I felt that ending the sequence with the pan away would have been more disturbing.
You are correct. I still say it's incredibly disturbing. Although the pan away kind of lets you make it up in your head. The retaliation is certainly necessary to see though.

[[ETM]]

It's 2 billion Euros, not US dollars, btw. At the current rate of conversion it's $2.5 billion, and I believe it's over $3 billion in the film itself.

It's strange how different my reaction to the film was (saw it tonight) to Ezee E's, for example. I thought Mara's portrayal of Lisbeth (the actual performance, not the physical part) was the weak point of the entire movie. And even physically, she's quite different from the character in the book - as I understand it (haven't read it), she's supposed to be almost completely non-feminine: even thinner, flat-chested, wiry and tense, short and petite... that feels genuine to me, as it would have made her a much more believable character given the plot we're presented with. Rooney Mara did as much as she could, but she can't hide the fact that she's basically a lovely young woman in every way.

As for my criticism of the performance, I'd try to sum it up like this: she was physically there, going through all the motions and hitting all the plot points, but she was never convincing otherwise. Salander is supposed to be a blank, impossible to read for others, but boiling with rage buried deep inside her. Mara just wasn't up to that. She either lets us see too much, or blanks it out without any attempt to even hint at depth. We're constantly caught off guard by how human or non-human she acts in various occasions without enough substance to support any of it.

And the rest - Skarsgard was brilliant as usual, and almost the entire cast felt spot on. I loved how natural the setting was, I never once questioned the decision to make it Sweden with everyone speaking English with a non-accent. Technically speaking, it's definitely one of the best in recent memory.

[Bosco B Thug]

This was fun, poppy, and appealing. Not surprising anymore that it has such popular appeal.

Movie's good. Has TV drama sort of morals, which is often fine and liberating, but is hand-in-hand pat wish-fulfillment. Weird way to end the film, but I appreciated the grand, ironically easy electronic intrigue that comprised the film's desire to "unwind" after the rather silly serial killer story. Anyway, "Sad Lisbeth" was, again, hilarious as an ending, but it definitely adds to the "serial" nature of the movie. Poor Lisbeth's down now, but we'll see her again, two years from now!

[Morris Schæffer]

As a huge fan of the novel - yes they exist on matchcut! - And seven and zodiac, I had a feeling this was going to be at least good and it certainly was. Hard to believe I sat in the theater for 180 minutes. The performances are good. I mean, Mara possibly gives the best perf in her young career, but I wasn't blown away by her. It's almost as if the tats and piercings and weird coiffure were doing all the acting. I suppose Rapace had more maturity to her which in turn made her a lick more plausible especially as there's fornicating with an older male protagonist. As for James Bond, he was good, nothing outstanding. There was this scene when Craig is sitting on the bed by himself right after being shot and he's talking to himself, for a brief moment he seems to be breaking up and I gotta say I didn't buy that for a second.

But yeah, what a great production this was with lots of great little scenes. Love the pov shot of Salander blasting through a tunnel on motorcycle or salander speeding over a bridge while a train simultaneously thunders underneath it.

The (new) ending confused me at first, but it worked for me. How odd though that the killer martin has a huge killroom underneath his house, accessed by opening a "can't miss it steel door" and his wife never caught on.

opening credits were wham bam rock n roll, pulsating, awesome.

[Ezee E]

Is there another performance that would rival this one of Mara's, Morris?

[Lazlo]

Is there another performance that would rival this one of Mara's, Morris?

Yeah, I thought that was a weird dig as well. Maybe Morris is a huge Elm Street remake fan...

[[ETM]]

Mara possibly gives the best perf in her young career, but I wasn't blown away by her. It's almost as if the tats and piercings and weird coiffure were doing all the acting.

This was my only problem with the film. She seemed to be acting out the beats, and didn't bring the character any closer to life than what's basically in the trailer. I only saw Rapace's work afterwards, and I loved her performance to bits.

[Morris Schæffer]

Yeah, I thought that was a weird dig as well. Maybe Morris is a huge Elm Street remake fan...

There was no pun when I typed it. My writing was a bit clumsy. I've only seen her in The Social Network. :P

[Dukefrukem]

Best opening credits i've ever seen. Better than Fight Club even.

[Dukefrukem]

Still trying to rate this. I liked it, but trying to compare it to the original. It's waaay longer which deducts points, but the score is 1000x better which adds points... I like Craig.

[Yxklyx]

Ah, so aren't all the characters in this Swedish? And they all speak English with cheesy Swedish accents? How is that so easily glossed over?

[Lazlo]

Ah, so aren't all the characters in this Swedish? And they all speak English with cheesy Swedish accents? How is that so easily glossed over?

Who cares? Why don't they speak German in Amadeus? Unacceptable!

[Winston*]

Who cares? Why don't they speak German in Amadeus? Unacceptable!

They don't speak with accents in Amadeus. I haven't seen this movie, but I think in general the complaint of actors speaking English in a foreign accent to signify speaking another language is valid. I find it makes a film feel less authentic rather than more.

[Kiusagi]

I agree the accents are unnecessary, but I remember there being a brouhaha over the lack of German accents in Valkyrie, so I guess that's what people want to hear.

[Lucky]

I agree the accents are unnecessary, but I remember there being a brouhaha over the lack of German accents in Valkyrie, so I guess that's what people want to hear.

There was a brouhaha over anything about that movie? I barely remember seeing it.

[Dukefrukem]

Or Munich. Or Sherlock Holmes.

The list goes on...

[Winston*]

Sherlock Holmes?

[[ETM]]

I didn't feel like they were speaking with accents at all... well, Wright slipped a few times. An accent would be imitating how people from a certain region speak English. I generally didn't have that feeling in this film. It was more like they were speaking neutrally, but with certain linguistic constructs and vocal peculiarities of the Swedish language.

[Dukefrukem]

Sherlock Holmes?

Rachel Mcadams

[Yxklyx]

Who cares? Why don't they speak German in Amadeus? Unacceptable!

Amadeus (and Dangerous Liaisons among others) has American actors speaking in their native tongue. The key is that the actor acts in his native tongue and so much of acting is directly related to the actor's language. Sure, you can have some characters acting in something other than their native tongue if the story asks for it but something like what was done here really irks me. This is like Werner Herzog directing Dangerous Liaisons with Meryl Streep and George Clooney starring but speaking their parts in German. I was expecting something along the lines of Let Me In or Insomnia - where the locale is changed - but this stinks of pure marketing with artistic considerations thrown out the window.

[Lazlo]

Amadeus (and Dangerous Liaisons among others) has American actors speaking in their native tongue. The key is that the actor acts in his native tongue and so much of acting is directly related to the actor's language. Sure, you can have some characters acting in something other than their native tongue if the story asks for it but something like what was done here really irks me. This is like Werner Herzog directing Dangerous Liaisons with Meryl Streep and George Clooney starring but speaking their parts in German. I was expecting something along the lines of Let Me In or Insomnia - where the locale is changed - but this stinks of pure marketing with artistic considerations thrown out the window.

Yeah, Fincher and his team never take art into consideration.

Seriously, why does it matter if the spoken language is native to the setting? That curb is like an inch high and seems like a silly thing to trip over. Story and presentation are king and they don't suffer from the language, not here at least. Yeah, the actors speak with slight accents, but they're not showy or over the top. Seems like a really dumb and knee-jerk criticism.

[Adam]

Ah, so aren't all the characters in this Swedish? And they all speak English with cheesy Swedish accents? How is that so easily glossed over?


Considering this is a given in almost every mainstream film set in a foreign country, I didn't really think twice about it in this one. But funnily enough I think Valkyrie handled the "hey, how come they're all speaking English"? issue as elegantly and cleverly as any other movie I've seen. The film opens with a Tom Cruise voice-over in German and after a few lines it fades into English and then the rest of the movie's 100% in English. I just thought that was a nice way to address it quickly and to just get on with it

I am also amazed I remember anything about Valkyrie

[Morris Schæffer]

;400796']I didn't feel like they were speaking with accents at all... well, Wright slipped a few times. An accent would be imitating how people from a certain region speak English. I generally didn't have that feeling in this film. It was more like they were speaking neutrally, but with certain linguistic constructs and vocal peculiarities of the Swedish language.

Yeah, it totally wasn't overdone. I thought it worked. And perhaps blomkvist worked in the uk for a few years thus cultivating an accent-free English.

I had more issues with War Horse. Germans who speak English, French who speak English (except for "grand-pere" which is kinda lame) and the respective actors were German and French!

[Dukefrukem]

Arguing about the native language environment in a Hollywood produced film is like arguing Tie Fighters and X-Wings shouldn’t make noise when they fly by the camera in Star Wars since they are in space.

[Yxklyx]

Yeah, Fincher and his team never take art into consideration.

Seriously, why does it matter if the spoken language is native to the setting? ...

You misread my post. I was discussing actors using their native tongue when they act - I don't mind if the spoken language is not native to the setting - I love Amadeus and Dangerous Liaisons. Forcing a bunch of non-american actors to act in English is cheesy, etc...

[Lazlo]

You misread my post. I was discussing actors using their native tongue when they act - I don't mind if the spoken language is not native to the setting - I love Amadeus and Dangerous Liaisons. Forcing a bunch of non-american actors to act in English is cheesy, etc...

Ah, gotcha. But really there are only a couple of Swedish actors in the main cast and they're people like Stellan Skarsgard who have rather prominent English-speaking careers. You'd prefer there were no Swedish actors in the movie?

[Irish]

I thought this inherited all the problems from the book -- namely, the thing dies on the vine when Lisbeth is absent, and the central mystery is glaringly obvious (even more so in the film).

The movie hurts itself by following the structure of the book too closely. Where the book could easily shift between time periods and invest the reader in the insane amount of research being performed by the protagonists, the movie feels like all the juicy action happens "off screen," since it's forced to continually flashback 40 years and gloss over all that legwork.

[Qrazy]

I found this film to be tedious and shallow. It was okay, really not liking Fincher's recent career trajectory.