David Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
I also foresee the dvd sales being large in the spring or summer when they arrive. I don't really know that many people who saw "The Social Network" last year either (in fact I was the only one out of my family and friends who did see it) and it gained quite a bit of attention as well as did pretty well at the box office once it gained word of mouth.
Is it usual for movies this brutal and explicitly violent to not be rated NC-17? I'd never seen such naked sadism and cruelty before. In the past murders, yes; even movies like Frequency have had elements like that. But I hadn't seen any film endorse the horrifying actions of its main character, or so vivdly display the living depravities of its villain.
I think that the movie's seeming endorsement of Lisbeth's torture, disfigurement, and threats of murder of her rapist - and how graphically her torture was displayed - disturbed me the most. (The sicking crack and spray of blood of the golf club hitting the murderer's face, and the lingering shots of the dismembered cat were also very unnerving.)
My sister, who saw the movie with me (my mother chose it for her birthday, which is just after the holidays), was tense and discomposed for most of the day after seeing the movie. The second rape (of the rapist) rattled and agitated her the most; she said that having to watch it, and not be able to step in and do something - call for help, try to stop it, etc. - was very distressing to her. I hadn't seen her like that since she had a PTSD episode several years ago when she thought someone who'd once attacked me was about to attack her (she was about twelve when I was attacked, and could only watch).
Even someone in Lisbeth's mental state has a responsibility to use the organs of justice (and this is Sweden, remember; there would be justice) against criminals, not violent vigilantism. The movie's endorsed path makes my skin crawl; she became even worse than her attacker, from my point of view (consider which of them threatened the other's life - and which of them would have been able to carry through that threat if given).
Altogether, I didn't see anything noteworthy about the film aside from the performances (which were good - especially Stellan Skarsgard's, which was a textbook portrayal of a psychopath/sociopath) and the vivid brutality. It was better than what I've seen of the Swedish version, however, which was poorly acted, miserably directed, written without snap or bite - altogether boring and incompetent.
I think that the movie's seeming endorsement of Lisbeth's torture, disfigurement, and threats of murder of her rapist - and how graphically her torture was displayed - disturbed me the most. (The sicking crack and spray of blood of the golf club hitting the murderer's face, and the lingering shots of the dismembered cat were also very unnerving.)
My sister, who saw the movie with me (my mother chose it for her birthday, which is just after the holidays), was tense and discomposed for most of the day after seeing the movie. The second rape (of the rapist) rattled and agitated her the most; she said that having to watch it, and not be able to step in and do something - call for help, try to stop it, etc. - was very distressing to her. I hadn't seen her like that since she had a PTSD episode several years ago when she thought someone who'd once attacked me was about to attack her (she was about twelve when I was attacked, and could only watch).
Even someone in Lisbeth's mental state has a responsibility to use the organs of justice (and this is Sweden, remember; there would be justice) against criminals, not violent vigilantism. The movie's endorsed path makes my skin crawl; she became even worse than her attacker, from my point of view (consider which of them threatened the other's life - and which of them would have been able to carry through that threat if given).
Altogether, I didn't see anything noteworthy about the film aside from the performances (which were good - especially Stellan Skarsgard's, which was a textbook portrayal of a psychopath/sociopath) and the vivid brutality. It was better than what I've seen of the Swedish version, however, which was poorly acted, miserably directed, written without snap or bite - altogether boring and incompetent.
Just remember: WB promised another Singer Superman after "Returns."
Very true. Fincher has stated that if the sequels are green lit he would film them back to back.
^^ Good call, that..
I have an idea this will do well internationally as well, so that should help out. The frankness and earnesty of the violence against Lisbeth goes a long way to lend credibility to the storyline. Afterall, let's remember that the books aren't called "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo." The first one is "Män som hatar kvinnor - Men Who Hate Woman."
I thought my wife, who is pretty delicate when it comes to this kind of stuff, would have a problem with the rape scene, but she handled it well, and gave a little cheer when Bjurmann got his comeuppance.
I have an idea this will do well internationally as well, so that should help out. The frankness and earnesty of the violence against Lisbeth goes a long way to lend credibility to the storyline. Afterall, let's remember that the books aren't called "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo." The first one is "Män som hatar kvinnor - Men Who Hate Woman."
I thought my wife, who is pretty delicate when it comes to this kind of stuff, would have a problem with the rape scene, but she handled it well, and gave a little cheer when Bjurmann got his comeuppance.
Because people were really comfortable with violence against women in the first place?
Let's admit it here, 'rape woman to justify revenge plot' is an old, trite exploitation piece cliche. At least when Tarintino brought it back to modern cinema he was up front about it. Girl With The Dragon Tattoo wants you to actually believe you have to rape a woman twice in order to get her interested in catching a serial killer. Lord knows what would have happened if Lisbeth wasn't raped or the serial killer only targeted men.
Come on, you're smarter than that T'Baio. The catalyst is not what most people get off on in an exploitation flick. It's an excuse so they can justify getting off on the revenge element. And the more brutal the catalyst (be it rape or murder) the easier it is to justify cheering on all the horrible shit the protagonist is about to dish out.
You take your sister with PTSD in a movie like that? Would you take a soldier with PTSD in Rambo 4?
That would be my chief criticism as well. The Swedish movie's ending had better pacing.
Overall, though, I thought the American movie was very good.
Rubbish.
Last edited:
You take your sister with PTSD in a movie like that? Would you take a soldier with PTSD in Rambo 4?
My mother took her; I didn't know anything about the story. She's a very mild PTSD case; she hadn't had a reaction to anything in years. Unfortunately, her trauma related to being helpless to stop an attack on someone else. Lisbeth's attack on her rapist was too much for her.
Why?
I'm wondering why the two rapes of Lisbeth didn't cause a PTSD reaction, but the revenge rape of the rapist did...unless the original trauma was a woman assaulting a man, I guess.
Still, definitely not a movie you take someone sensitive to. A guy in my theatre brought his two young teen kids to it and had to walk out during the second rape. My cue would have been a review of the film beforehand, or maybe the first rape scene, but some people are little slower on the uptake, I guess.
I thought the movie was fantastic. I haven't read the books or seen the Swedish adaptations and don't plan to, either. I'm already invested in the American film versions and would rather watch the stories play out there. The books may very well be better, as is usually the case, but I'm not going to read what I've already watched, especially after the film was so good and I have way too many books to read as it is.
And that opening was all kinds of messed up. It was like a Bond film credit sequence on acid. I wonder if they got the idea from one of their leads being Bond.
Still, definitely not a movie you take someone sensitive to. A guy in my theatre brought his two young teen kids to it and had to walk out during the second rape. My cue would have been a review of the film beforehand, or maybe the first rape scene, but some people are little slower on the uptake, I guess.
I thought the movie was fantastic. I haven't read the books or seen the Swedish adaptations and don't plan to, either. I'm already invested in the American film versions and would rather watch the stories play out there. The books may very well be better, as is usually the case, but I'm not going to read what I've already watched, especially after the film was so good and I have way too many books to read as it is.
And that opening was all kinds of messed up. It was like a Bond film credit sequence on acid. I wonder if they got the idea from one of their leads being Bond.
My guess is that the greater violence of Lisbeth's attack (never mind its brutality) is what caused a reaction where the others didn't. As vile as the social worker was, he wasn't trying to hurt her.
I wish I'd known that going in. The commercials made it look like a murder-mystery thriller, not anything particularly violent. Really, I'm surprised that something so brutal received only an R rating. I don't understand why it wasn't NC-17.
Probably, my mother, who read the books and watched the Swedish version, should have realized that my sister shouldn't see the film.
Probably because it received a wide release by a major studio, whereas something like Shame was released in art houses by Fox Searchlight, the classics division of Twentieth Century Fox.
(See, for example, Matt Stone and Trey Parker describe how they could get away with more in the R-Rated South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut than the NC-17-Rated Orgazmo because one was backed by a major studio and the other was not, in Kirby Puckett's documentary, This Film is Not Yet Rated.)
How is Lisbeth's getting raped supposed to be some kind of plot device to get her motivated to work with Mikeal? I don't understand that take at all. Her rape is a completely separate from the movie's main plot and has to do with her character development and back story IMO. My parents, both women saw the movie last weekend and enjoyed the film. They also have seen the original trilogy and have read the books and had no problem with it. They understood the author's themes and messages perfectly well. In fact we had a pretty long conversation about the franchise in general.
Having seen the movie now I thought it was really good...but yeah had that feeling that I'd already seen it before. Fincher puts his visual stamp on the film but I felt he didn't really add that much to it. Craig was actually pretty decent as Mikeal and Rooney Mara was an excellent Lisbeth. The score is just tremendous, so is the cinematography. I still prefer the novel to both movies. You just get a lot more from it in my opinion. I'll probably be getting this on DVD when it comes out.
Having seen the movie now I thought it was really good...but yeah had that feeling that I'd already seen it before. Fincher puts his visual stamp on the film but I felt he didn't really add that much to it. Craig was actually pretty decent as Mikeal and Rooney Mara was an excellent Lisbeth. The score is just tremendous, so is the cinematography. I still prefer the novel to both movies. You just get a lot more from it in my opinion. I'll probably be getting this on DVD when it comes out.
I'd also point out that violence (even if sexual in nature) is not judged as harshly as sex for pleasure. In this case, the nudity during the violence scenes was not prominently shown anyway. It's disturbing, but it's not direct enough to get an NC-17. NC-17 is the death of a movie, so I would be shocked if this would get it.
The US rating system is so messed up. Intense, violent rape scenes: okay. Intense, passionate sex scenes: not okay.
Similar threads
