The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011) - quick review

I was worried about this one. Thanks for the review!!! Can't wait to see it, however I have a feeling I will be seeing it after the holidays.

For a film with a 160 minute runtime, it breezed by like a 100 minute film, pretty much a hallmark of a David Fincher film with impeccable pacing, even though it covers a lot of territory and still manages to give room to develop the 2 main characters, Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) and Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), as well as the central mystery dropped in Blomkvist's lap as his professional career as an investigative reporter goes into the crapper.

Salander is a ward of the state who is an excellent hacker and investigator of her own, although she projects an alternative persona (aura of a gothy suicide girl) with a violent streak in her formative years. Salander's world goes terribly bad when her guardian suffers a debilitating illness, and a state-appointed shrink preys on her need for funds from her trust by subjecting her to coerced sexual acts.

Eventually Blomkvist and Salander are paired up when he is in need of an investigator to follow up on the clues and photos he's gathered as part of an investigation to the murders from over 40 years ago on the behest of a wealthy man, Henrik Vanger, who lives on an island with many of his rich relatives.

The opening credit sequences was a little over-the-top, but you won't forget it all too quickly.

Having seen the original Swedish version, it's almost impossible for me to not compare the 2 versions, but I think they are both very solid films, and I think I still prefer Noomi Rapace's portrayal of Salander, as Rapace had a more haunting quality to her portrayal than Rooney Mara, but I think Mara may have awakened within me a latent fondness for gothy suicide girls. (heh). I also think the original did a little better job of developing the investigational aspects of the mystery, but Fincher keeps everything moving, and has no problem heightening the feelings of dread and consequence as this story unfolds and our characters find themselves in perilous situations.

Well worth seeing at the theaters.

I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) It's kind of like having Michael Rooker playing a father-figure. You know he's going to be totally abusive and shit.

That said, I loved the entire conversation about following your instincts. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) was absolutely right about how people will walk right into a trap, rather than run the risk of offending someone by refusing an invitation.

I also appreciated how this film left things unsaid. In the Swedish version, I recall Blomqvist actually noted that Lisbeth has a photographic memory. In this version, you are allowed to figure that out for yourself. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I hate these review and discussion combination threads because certain people tell too much of the plot before a majority of the people had a chance to see the film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crawdaddy

Absolutely LOVED this adaptation.

Being a big fan of the Swedish trilogy, and also of the mind that nobody could do Lisbeth better than Noomi Rapace, I was completely stunned to discover that this US version was an improvement in just about every possible way.

Couldn't believe how much closer Rooney Mara came to embodying the character that I'd pictured while reading the book. The vicious and brutal exterior that eventually gives way to a softer core; the way Mara both internalizes AND externalizes Lisbeth's mistrust of others -- just beautiful, fantastic stuff.

At 2 1/2 hours, Zallian's script condenses so much of Larsson's story, but it never feels forced or rushed. The atmosphere is thick and pervasive and Fincher adds so many perfect visual touches that this is quite the cinematic experience.

While this is currently underperforming at the box office, my hope is that it will exhibit legs and pick up some during the next week and next weekend.

It's such an awesome movie that I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see Fincher and co. tackle the other two books in the trilogy.

My favorite film of the year, hands down.

Big fan of both adaptations.   I was surprised how much I really enjoyed this version.   Both films take liberties with the book and neither is perfect, but their differences in take on the original content made this film interesting and new again.  

There are things I thought worked better in this film then in the original, and things I didn't think sold quite as well.  I really enjoyed the portrayal of Lisbeth here, as much as Rapace's.   The portrayal of Mikael is more of a philanderer is much closer to the book then the Swedish version, and I cared for that - though I was as sold on how Daniel Craig plays the part.  Part of what I thought made the original was that this was a dogged "every man" character and it was played more that way..

 

The soundtrack helped sell the action and was very well done - I liked the subtle nod to it of having the hacker friend in a NIN T-Shirt :)  

 

Overall, I found this to be a better then expected showing.  I lucked out; I watched it at the AMC 30 in a "fork and screen" (dinner and a movie) performance, and I was the ONLY person in the theater.  I mean, that's it, just me.   No one else in the theater at all for a midnight show.   It was fantastic, I could ask for more with that kind of theater environment, a recliner, a beer, a full meal and not a sole in the theater besides me. 

Spoiler-izing this (had no idea this was a semi-spoiler-free forum):

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

While I'm sure the ugliness of some of the parts of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is off-putting to some people, I thought the movie was excellent. I've seen 50 movies that were released this year and this was probably the best of the lot (maybe The Ides Of March was better). The direction, the performances, the cinematagrophy, the editing and the score are all top notch. If you're even remotely interested in this movie, check it out.

Also, does anyone else think Kate Mara suddenly fucking HATES her sister now?

Like, Kate's been working her way around movies and TV for past ten years or so, has a nice, reputable C-list career, and then one day her kid sister is all, "Oh yeah, I wanna act, too," and next thing you know it's FINCHER O'CLOCK, and the-hottest-franchise-in-the-world time ("Oops...guess I'm a movie star now!"), and Kate's back to doing Zoom 2 or guest-spots on American Horror Story, or whatever.

It's like when that David Cook kid on Idol tagged along with his sad-sack older brother to audition -- the older brother didn't pass, David did, and went on to win the show, and the brother got stuck as a workaday sucker back in his hometown, while his brother's a rock star on a total, offhand whim.

I've always been fascinated by the Beau Bridges and Randy Quaids of the world. Especially when the older sibling puts in the work...it'd be like if Jim Hanks or Joe Estevez or Don Swayze had fucking SKYROCKETED. How can that not send Kate Mara into a TAILSPIN OF RAGE AND DEPRESSION?

Fuck, who wants to even live in the same city as their family, let alone compete with them for movie parts? What good is fame if your sister lives just three blocks down?

^ No matter what, Kate can still hold on to not having been in the Nightmare On Elm Street remake.

And one of David Cook's brothers did die of brain cancer...

Interesting tidbit that the two great grandfathers of the Mara girls were the original owners of the Pittsburg Steelers and New York Giants which the families still own today.

I saw it opeing day. I am a fan of the original trilogy and I had just finished the 3 novels. I thought is was a very good but not great film. Perhaps another viewing will change my perception. Maybe I was looking forward to it a little too much. Maybe my expectations were too high. I have no problems with the direction, performances, music, cinematography, etc. All were top-notch. The script was the biggest hurdle for me. The most important part of the the story is how Mikel and Lisbeth become friends -- he said many times that he wanted to be her friend and she needed to trust him. This got lost in Fincher's film. There was no time to breathe and reflect -- there were so few moments of quiet. The script is dense -- almost too dense. I have no issues with any changes that were made.

In all, I liked it and recommend it. My only hope is that the other films can be made so we can explore the relationship that is the heart of the whole trilogy.

8/10

****/*****
Edited by Brett_M - 1/10/12 at 10:51am

Saw this again last night and loved it even more the second time around.

One thing that was a fun catch:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Actually think I'd like to catch it once more in theaters as well. I haven't been this engrossed in a film in a while.

^ I think your spoiler is why Ren Klyce gets a credit in the opening. I'll probably catch this again in a day or two and will have to listen for that.

There are parts of each adaptation I like and don''t like. The Hollywood one is more slick and stylish, but the unfolding mystery around Harriet's disappearance isn't as creepy or compelling. I liked Lisbeth's softer core in Fincher's version, but at the same time didn't feel like the way she and Mikael came together was as interesting. Overall, I still prefer the Swedish version, but plan to add the remake to my movie collection when it is eventually released to Blu.

An interesting analysis and comparison: http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/65403546.html

I couldn't agree more about the clues. That was one thing that bothered me. I just watched 2011 version this weekend. If they could have put that sequence in with the rest of the film this would have been an "A" for me.

One thing I did like was the main killer in the 2011 version. The scene at the end when he is talking to DC was great IMHO. I liked how he was taken back about the first male etc..... and some of the little comments about his father. I liked this scene a lot.

For those who have seen both and have read the book (haven't read it yet) which ending is closer to the book?

^ If you're referring to the final scene of the Fincher movie, that is how the book ends.

Thank you..... Was curious to see which one was more accurate.

The Swedish version has a much more accurate resolution to the core mystery than does the Hollywood version.

I enjoyed the movie. However, I had just finished the book, so my impression would of been different if all the small details were not so fresh. I tend to believe the 2nd book, while not as good as the 1st book, will make a better movie. There are more scenes that revolve around something happpening, other than converstations between people.

I hope they do, do the next two movies. Finish it out!

I heard that the sequels would not adhere stringently to the books, but would try to streamline the screenplay to keep it moving at a good pace.

The Girl Who Played With Fire will be an easy adaptation. It's analogous to The Two Towers. It moves along quite well as a novel. The third film will be the hardest to adapt if they try to keep dual storylines since Lisbeth is, without spoiling anything, not with Mikael;) Hornet's Nest should be a showcase for Mikael to shine -- he is the only one investigating. Pacing is everything and there are some great sequences in that book. But, I hope they give us some time to breath and reflect (my only problem with Dragon Tattoo, besides the exposition). They can (and should) leave Erica's sub-plot out -- it adds nothing to the Mikael/Lisbeth story except to underline the "men who hate" woman theme.

Also, the indestructible albino kickboxer.

I disagree. His character is integral to the plot. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

^ Agreed. They can't take Neidermann out of the story.

The second book will make an awesome movie, and I REALLY want Fincher to do it.

Without spoiling anything, I would just love to see his take on the whole climax of that book. It's completely in his wheelhouse, with the potential for some incredible imagery to boot.