Ebert reviews the movie
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111219/REVIEWS/111219982
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111219/REVIEWS/111219982
David Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
Saw it last night. Strong atmosphere, great performances; the somewhat ropey plot (particularly toward the end) detracts a bit, but I imagine that's a legacy of the book.
I'll be seeing it on Sat night. Can't wait. I think the biggest gripe that I've seen of it is that despite the performances and visual aspects it is almost unnecessary and Fincher doesn't bring anything "extra" to it. I was kind of hoping this wouldn't be the case. I suspect though I'll still enjoy it.
Saw it last night. After reading Ebert's review, I feel I can't really add much else. He nailed it, but then again, that's his job. It's a good movie (I'd say despite the over produced music video for a credits sequence), however I do spend a slight amount of time wondering why James Bond doesn't just shoot the !@#$ out of everyone and be done with it. Rooney Mara seems more vulnerable than Craig, but she feels considerably more dangerous to me than Rapace did. I like both actors and it's fun to see Christopher Plummer and Stellan Skaarsgard, too. But like others have said, I've already seen this movie, and I liked it more the first time.
Last edited:
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Off to see the film in about an hour. Will report back my thoughts after.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Just got home.
Having never read the books or seen the Swedish films, I found Fincher's take on the adaptation to be excellent.
Having never read the books or seen the Swedish films, I found Fincher's take on the adaptation to be excellent.
Just to be snarky, if you've never read the books or seen the other movies, how do you know the ADAPTATION was excellent? For all you know, he cut out important bits. Or changed huge sections.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Though I knew what he meant so I saw no reason to be snarky.
It's the Christmas season, I'm in a giving mood...
(And yeah, I knew what he meant to, but..... still. How do you know if it's a good adaptation if you aren't familiar with the source material? )
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Though I knew what he meant so I saw no reason to be snarky.
It's the Christmas season, I'm in a giving mood...
(And yeah, I knew what he meant to, but..... still. How do you know if it's a good adaptation if you aren't familiar with the source material? )
I assume he was using "adaptation" as a noun referring to the movie on its own, rather than referring to the process of adapting the story from the book.
I will see this eventually. I was inspired to read all three books after seeing the first teaser and I enjoyed them. I have not seen the initial Swedish adaptations.
I thought it was well-made and very good. I had some trouble keeping track of some of the characters, but I think the movie did the best it could with that. I thought the girl who played Leesbeth did an excellent job. I never read the book or saw the other movie, so I can't compare. Judging from the comments, it's fairly faithful which can be both a positive and a negative. Still, it's a good thing to bring this to the English-speaking, movie-watching world.
I really wish I could just erase this movie from my memory. I've seen some really shitty exploitation flicks but this one really takes the cake. It's like they decided to double-down for anyone who made it through the first graphic rape scene by adding a second graphic, brutal rape scene.
Lisabeth is a tough motorcycle driving goth bisexual nympho hacker chick who also happens to be gorgeous (when she takes a minute to dress like a woman and pencil in her eyebrows). Seriously. You couldn't jam any more cliches in there if you tried.
The mystery itself is rather boring and straightforward; you get more twists and turns not to mention actual detective work in your average episode of The Mentalist.
The one thing I did like was Martin's mustache-twirling monologue at the end. I found it hilarious Mikael just waltzed into the suspected serial killer's death-lair because he didn't want to commit a faux pas. It was funny seeing Martin break the fourth wall and mention the exact same thing.
Lisabeth is a tough motorcycle driving goth bisexual nympho hacker chick who also happens to be gorgeous (when she takes a minute to dress like a woman and pencil in her eyebrows). Seriously. You couldn't jam any more cliches in there if you tried.
The mystery itself is rather boring and straightforward; you get more twists and turns not to mention actual detective work in your average episode of The Mentalist.
The one thing I did like was Martin's mustache-twirling monologue at the end. I found it hilarious Mikael just waltzed into the suspected serial killer's death-lair because he didn't want to commit a faux pas. It was funny seeing Martin break the fourth wall and mention the exact same thing.
Well now that you put it that way...
Seriously, I didn't hate it, but all of the above is actually true, which makes me wonder what all the big deal was about the source book and first movie. Is there a bunch of important stuff missing from the american film or something?
I think most of the love for the books was centered mainly around the Lisbeth character, more than the mystery itself.
I thought the Swedish movies DID make for some decent little thrillers-- and Rapace's Lisbeth did feel like a very unique and original character-- but even so, I agree that these aren't exactly stories that are crying out to be retold again and again. Lol
I thought the Swedish movies DID make for some decent little thrillers-- and Rapace's Lisbeth did feel like a very unique and original character-- but even so, I agree that these aren't exactly stories that are crying out to be retold again and again. Lol
I liked the books for the mystery. The ultimate locked-room puzzle. I did not figure it out before Blomkvist did. Maybe I'm slow.
Your post is quite the spoiler for those who haven't read the books or seen the movies, in any case.
Your post is quite the spoiler for those who haven't read the books or seen the movies, in any case.
I am one who likes to think the books are really character studies built around a mystery. The real purpose is the study of Lisbeth and Blomkvist. Also for what it's worth Larson was strongly against violence against women. He hated it. There are other themes such as technology, corruption of politicians and journalism...the latter especially is something he seems to dislike. All of these things I think come out better in the three novels than in the original movies. I still haven't been able to see the Fincher film. I may see it tomorrow evening.
I have yet to see it, but I'm going ahead a saying I probably will like the Swedish version better, if only for Noomi. She was what made those movies in the first place.
That said, I'll appreciate and look for things they improved upon considering the source material always had room for improvement.
That said, I'll appreciate and look for things they improved upon considering the source material always had room for improvement.
I caught it without having seen nor read the story previously. I really enjoyed it even if it was a bit long and I thought that they separated Lisbeth and Miguel for too long. Then again, I might have enjoyed their time together more because of how Lisbeth was established independently first. Miguel wasn't exactly boring, but his character seemed shallow compared to Lisbeth.
I did like the villain's (no spoilers from me) speech of how people would rather avoid a faux pas then escape from danger. It was quite funny to me.
The mystery was engaging enough as a vehicle for the characters and you do get that classic feeling of having all of these different pieces fall into place to reveal the truth. I am now going to read the book and follow up on the rest of the trilogy.
I did like the villain's (no spoilers from me) speech of how people would rather avoid a faux pas then escape from danger. It was quite funny to me.
The mystery was engaging enough as a vehicle for the characters and you do get that classic feeling of having all of these different pieces fall into place to reveal the truth. I am now going to read the book and follow up on the rest of the trilogy.
I agree that their separation bugged me at the time. I kept waiting for them to meet up. That being said, I think both characters benefited from their separation. Lisbeth continued to be the more interesting character even after joining up but I liked some of the stuff Michael did at the beginning.
The villain's speech was quite good. I liked them pointing that out.
The villain's speech was quite good. I liked them pointing that out.
Similar threads
