"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" -- anyone seeing it?

[belladonna]

I saw it at a sneak preview Monday, but it is out today for the masses.
I had read the books, my husband hadn't, and we both thoroughly enjoyed it.

Long, but not draggy, it is faithful enough to the books that I only had a couple "wait a minute" moments. But overall, I think the screenwriter did a great job encapsulating all the crucial ideas with a minimum of padding. The one bit I did miss from the book was the behind-the-scenes magazine politics, but I work in journalism so that appealed to me. I don't think its omission hurt the movie in any way.

Just wanted to hear some other thoughts on it, so please chime in if you've had the chance to see it!

[smiling bandit]

I've heard conflicting things about it, but have not seen it and may not get around to it. Some thought it a powerful and energetic movie, and others though it was so over-the-top that it became absurd (basically, every character is either utterly evil or the hero-can-do-no-wrong type, and the plot meanders).

[Alka Seltzer]

I thought the original version was a rare case of the filmed version being better than the book. If subtitles don't put you off, I'd recommend seeing that instead. I notice the new one has a decent score on metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo-2011), the only negative review is from someone who didn't like the swedish version or the book either.

[Anaamika]

I saw the original one and liked it a lot, and saw no point in remaking it.

Until I saw that the remake had Daniel Craig. Ok, ok, I'll watch it. *grumble*

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

I saw it last night and really enjoyed it! (Well, maybe "enjoy" is the wrong word, what with all the rape and brutality and everything.) But I thought it was a great movie. I'm a fan of the books and I've seen all three Swedish films. They were good, but I think Fincher's version is better.

I was curious for those who had not read the books/seen the films first, was it at all confusing? There were several times where I felt like I only knew what was going on because I was already familiar with the story, and I was wondering if someone new to it would have had some trouble? I love that they stayed true to the story and set the film in the original locations instead of transporting it to some random American town, but at times the accents made some lines hard to understand.

Was anyone else completely captivated by that opening credit sequence? That was awesome! David Fincher's films always have the coolest opening credits.

While I wasn't a fan of Trent Reznor's music for "The Social Network," I think the music worked pretty well in this case, giving the entire film a dark sense of unease, foreboding and suspense. Not a soundtrack I would listen to on it's own, but very well suited to the film.

Oh, did anyone else notice Joel Kinnaman (from the TV show "The Killing") as Christer Malm in the background in the office scenes even though I don't think he spoke one line? Perhaps Fincher was already planning for the sequels?

[Odesio]

I saw the Dutch film and don't see any compelling reason to watch the new version. I enjoyed the first movie, but it's a very plot driven mystery and I already know the plot and the mystery.

[diggerwam]

My wife read all 3 books and I will probably get dragged to the movie. I like finchers work other than Ben button. Anyone else disturbed that this type of violent, particularly violence towards women is mainstream entertainment. I could see this being a niche film/book but for the book to be considered a beach read, for the movie to be Xmas release is troubling. I don't get it. It seems like it will be very disturbing imagery and storyline. Why do so many people want to see it. I suppose I'm just a prude, but I just don't really see the appeal.

[Anaamika]

My wife read all 3 books and I will probably get dragged to the movie. I like finchers work other than Ben button. Anyone else disturbed that this type of violent, particularly violence towards women is mainstream entertainment. I could see this being a niche film/book but for the book to be considered a beach read, for the movie to be Xmas release is troubling. I don't get it. It seems like it will be very disturbing imagery and storyline. Why do so many people want to see it. I suppose I'm just a prude, but I just don't really see the appeal.

The violence and the rape is horrific, but it's good because these things really happen in life, but in the movie, she gets her own back. It's a wish-fulfillment scenario - not to be raped but to utterly destroy and humiliate a rapist. Plus the big reveal at the end is sweet and unexpected (well, I guessed early on, but I still wouldn't expect such a dark book to end so nicely).

It is disturbing, but unfortunately so is real life, only in real life the rapists and murderers are still walking around free. :mad:

[Alka Seltzer]

Anyone else disturbed that this type of violent, particularly violence towards women is mainstream entertainment. I could see this being a niche film/book but for the book to be considered a beach read, for the movie to be Xmas release is troubling. I don't get it. It seems like it will be very disturbing imagery and storyline. Why do so many people want to see it. I suppose I'm just a prude, but I just don't really see the appeal.

The main appeal is that it's a good mystery story.

I did find the rape scene upsetting to watch, but at least there was a payoff, as Lisbeth was able to take control of her life again.

I wouldn't put the story in the torture porn category, the book and film take a strong stance against violence towards women. It's more explicit than many, but it deals with the issues more carefully than several others I can think of, which make light of them.

[Death of Rats]

My wife read all 3 books and I will probably get dragged to the movie. I like finchers work other than Ben button. Anyone else disturbed that this type of violent, particularly violence towards women is mainstream entertainment. I could see this being a niche film/book but for the book to be considered a beach read, for the movie to be Xmas release is troubling. I don't get it. It seems like it will be very disturbing imagery and storyline. Why do so many people want to see it. I suppose I'm just a prude, but I just don't really see the appeal.


As for why release in December, the answer is: to put it into awards contention for 2011. Voters for various cinema awards will be voting soon, so it releases it at a point where it is still in 2011 and ends up being one of the freshest movies in the minds of the voters.

[McDeath_the_Mad]

I saw it last night as well and I really enjoyed the movie. It stayed fairly faithful to the book and everyone did a great job playing their roles.

I have to say the opening title sequence was visually stunning. If I recall correctly Trent Reznor did the title sequence for "Se7en" (anothe Fincher movie), so I'm willing to bet he did this one as well.

Humerous side note, when the movie theater went dark they started showing "family" previews (Tin-Tin, We Bought a Zoo, etc.) when they were over there was a 5 minute animated short of Sylvester and Tweety. When that was over Happy Feet 2 started! Everyone in the audience was just sitting there thinking WTF?

It took them 10 minutes to get that straightened out!

MtM

[UncleRojelio]

I saw the original and liked it. Why bother with the second banana?

[Skammer]

I saw it last night as well and I really enjoyed the movie. It stayed fairly faithful to the book and everyone did a great job playing their roles.

I have to say the opening title sequence was visually stunning. If I recall correctly Trent Reznor did the title sequence for "Se7en" (anothe Fincher movie), so I'm willing to bet he did this one as well.

Humerous side note, when the movie theater went dark they started showing "family" previews (Tin-Tin, We Bought a Zoo, etc.) when they were over there was a 5 minute animated short of Sylvester and Tweety. When that was over Happy Feet 2 started! Everyone in the audience was just sitting there thinking WTF?

It took them 10 minutes to get that straightened out!

MtM
Similar thing happened to me when I went to see Crazy Heart. Unfortunately it was me who had accidentally wandered into Valentine's Day.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I saw the original film trilogy and thought they were excellent. Based on that I got the books, and thoroughly enjoyed them as well.

Based on what I saw in the 2 trailers, I won't bother with these until someone makes me, as I thought what I saw in the trailers indicated that key parts of the character's personalities had been altered enough to change their relationships and motivations. I thought the original films were nearly flawless, perhaps even, as Alka said, better than the books. Any alteration to the characters, thus, is to me a flaw.

[Chefguy]

The one review I saw said that the cast does a competent job, with the only one real standout being the actress who plays Lisbet. Otherwise it appears it's just a clone of the Swedish version. Any comments about this from Dopers?

[Blank Slate]

Will this be three films like the Swedish trilogy or just the one?

[CrazyCatLady]

[QUOTE=Alka Seltzer;14589117]The main appeal is that it's a good mystery story.

It's a decent mystery interspersed with rather a lot of irrelevant crap that does nothing to advance the story or deepen the character. The entire rape story line could have been dropped and only improved the movie.

[interface2x]

I have to say the opening title sequence was visually stunning. If I recall correctly Trent Reznor did the title sequence for "Se7en" (anothe Fincher movie), so I'm willing to bet he did this one as well.Yes, he did the music for both, kind of - the Se7en opening was just a remix of Closer that had already been released. This one, the song was recorded specifically for the movie.

I wasn't originally planning on seeing this (the Swedish movies were decent but not amazing), but when I found out David Fincher was directing, I was in. I'm planning to see it this week.

[Snowboarder Bo]

It's a decent mystery interspersed with rather a lot of irrelevant crap that does nothing to advance the story or deepen the character. The entire rape story line could have been dropped and only improved the movie.

Permit me to disagree. In fact, the rape is central to the other 2 books (movies) in the series, and since the over-arching issue being explored here is violence against women, it's not only apropos, it's necessary.

[Equipoise]

Will this be three films like the Swedish trilogy or just the one?Three. Fincher will film 2&3 at the same time.

Anyone who's read the books and/or seen the Swedish films and loves the character of Lisbeth Salander should knock everyone out of their way and RACE to the theater to see Rooney Mara's take on this fascinating character. If you have a loyalty to Noomi Rapace and refuse to see it, it's just because you like Noomi Rapace, and not Lisbeth Salander. Noomi's great, wonderful, love her, but it's the character I especially love and Mara makes Lisbeth her own. Brilliantly.

Bring on The Girl Who Played With Fire! That's my favorite because it's ALL about Lisbeth.

[aruvqan]

We went to see it this afternoon.

I liked it. I liked the books, and I liked the original movies. I did notice where they omitted stuff for time issues, and i notice where they omitted plot lines so they could condense. I was not thrilled that they killed off Anita - England is too fucking close, anybody in the family could have decided to just "hop to England and See Anita" and noticed it wasn't actually Anita. Australia was far enough away that hiding in plain sight is plausable.

[Odesio]

It's a decent mystery interspersed with rather a lot of irrelevant crap that does nothing to advance the story or deepen the character. The entire rape story line could have been dropped and only improved the movie.

After I watched the movie, I thought to myself they could have gotten rid of the girl with the dragon tattoo and had a tighter murder mystery. Then again, I suppose our intrepid reporter needed someone to work with to make it a more exciting movie. But, yeah, you don't really need to know anything about his job at the newspaper or Lisbeth's situation.

[DoctorJ]

It was OK. The casting and acting were great and the overall look and feel were spot-on. The opening title sequence (with that great Reznor/Karen O "Immigrant Song" cover) made it worth seeing the movie in a theater, even if it writes a check the movie couldn't possibly cash.

My problems with it:
--It was about 30 minutes too long. I know Roger Ebert says that no good movie is too long (and no bad one is too short), but I don't really agree; I've seen plenty of three-hour movies that would have been better two-hour movies. I might be misremembering the Swedish version, but I remember it as being tighter, and this one felt much longer even though in reality it's only six minutes longer.

--More specifically, the movie's climax happens with a nice one-two punch of solved mysteries, and then...the movie goes on for 45 minutes. This is where a lot of the tightening up needed to happen.

(These issues were present in spades in the book, which needed serious editing.)

--The rape scene bothered me, and not quite like it was supposed to. I have this problem a lot with violent comic book movies (Sin City, Watchmen), when an incredibly violent act that plays out over a few panels in a comic has to happen in real time on the screen. Rather than making them more real it tends to pull me out of the story. I think the rape had to be there to set up Lisbeth's satisfying comeback and to help define her character, but I don't think it needed to be shown quite so literally.

[Equipoise]

After I watched the movie, I thought to myself they could have gotten rid of the girl with the dragon tattoo and had a tighter murder mystery. Then again, I suppose our intrepid reporter needed someone to work with to make it a more exciting movie.

It's a decent mystery interspersed with rather a lot of irrelevant crap that does nothing to advance the story or deepen the character. The entire rape story line could have been dropped and only improved the movie.This thread is starting to freak me out. Lisbeth, who she is, what happened to her, how she became the present day Lisbeth, is the whole point. The first book/movie is just to introduce her and set her up as an interesting character you want to know more about.

--More specifically, the movie's climax happens with a nice one-two punch of solved mysteries, and then...the movie goes on for 45 minutes. This is where a lot of the tightening up needed to happen.I won't argue that the Swedish movies are tighter, but I'm ok with length since a lot of that is setup for movies 2 and 3. It actually should have been longer. I don't remember themexplaining that Harriet was the one sending the pressed plants to her uncle. If they did I missed it.I want, NEED, The Girl Who Played With Fire movie to be as long as humanly possible, since the Swedish film was like a Cliff Notes version of a Reader's Digest condensed version of the book. It was way too severely, jarringly, edited. I like that Fincher is taking as much time as he needs and wants.

[SCSimmons]

We went to see it this afternoon.

I liked it. I liked the books, and I liked the original movies. I did notice where they omitted stuff for time issues, and i notice where they omitted plot lines so they could condense. I was not thrilled that they killed off Anita - England is too fucking close, anybody in the family could have decided to just "hop to England and See Anita" and noticed it wasn't actually Anita. Australia was far enough away that hiding in plain sight is plausable.
Just got back ... fantastic movie overall, I thought, most especially Mara's performance. Disturbing, gritty, and really captured the character from the book, with both her positive qualities and flaws.

I quoted this post because that was one of my only complaints on leaving the theater. I think I understand why they did it--it would probably hurt the pacing (which was on the edge already) to have that much more investigation after the climax. But as presented, the resolution to the original mystery was really implausible.

[Odesio]

This thread is starting to freak me out. Lisbeth, who she is, what happened to her, how she became the present day Lisbeth, is the whole point. The first book/movie is just to introduce her and set her up as an interesting character you want to know more about.


When I watch a movie I judge it based on nothing more than the movie itself. I don't judge it by what might happen in a sequel. It's why I judged Pirates of the Caribbean harshly even though I knew a third movie was on the way. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was a procedural murder mystery. You could have replaced the reporter or Lisbeth and ended up with a movie that was just as good. It wouldn't pave the way for a sequel I guess, but, as I pointed out, I don't judge movies based on the next sequel. I judge it only on what I see.

Anyway, my sister wants to see the movie so I'll be seeing it tomorrow.

[Untoward_Parable]

Loved the original, the previews of this version seemed like the girl was a lot weaker and Daniel Craig's character was... Daniel Craig. One of the very cool things about the original film was that the male/female roles were very unique, something you almost just don't see in movies. I can't help but think this version is Americanized to the point of being glossy but bad.

[Equipoise]

You'd be wrong. And Lisbeth being weaker? Ask the guy in the subway who stole her computer bag. Ask Bjurman's ass & stomach just how weak Mara's Lisbeth is.

[voguevixen]

Nope. Read the book.

DISGUSTING!

Why would I PAY to see that?

[diggerwam]

Anaamika's response was that violence towards women happens in real life. Yes you are right. So does infanticide. Doesn't mean I want to watch it dramatized for my entertainment. I gave up watching csi, l& o, dexter etc many years ago because it was just too disturbing. Apparently I'm in the minority

[Taomist]

My wife read all 3 books and I will probably get dragged to the movie. I like finchers work other than Ben button. Anyone else disturbed that this type of violent, particularly violence towards women is mainstream entertainment. I could see this being a niche film/book but for the book to be considered a beach read, for the movie to be Xmas release is troubling. I don't get it. It seems like it will be very disturbing imagery and storyline. Why do so many people want to see it. I suppose I'm just a prude, but I just don't really see the appeal.

I *hate* torture movies. Will NOT see any of the Saw films, absolutely detest that kind of thing. Hate it. Had to leave the room during the church-burning scene in The Patriot, even; just can't bear it.

But I love the books, liked the Swedish films, and am looking forward to the American version. Looking MORE forward to the second and third American ones, and I hope they do them. I was quite saddened when I came to the end of the three books, went to see when the next one was coming out, and only THEN realized the author was not only dead, but that all three books were published post-humously.

It's an engaging storyline, and you really want to know more about Lisbet. Also encouraging to see people actually survive that kind of shit, because we know it happens in real life. Trust me, we know. The attraction is in the survival.

No, still won't ever watch Saw. I remember wishing the creator would just DIE already. I think he did? Still going on anyway. Bleargh.
(To be fair, I suspect the first Saw movie might be a BOOK I would read. But I don't want to see it. If I hadn't read the books, not sure I'd want to see the 'Dragon' movie, either, to be honest)

[Equipoise]

Some people don't like seeing strong women characters, women who'll fight back against/get revenge for abuse. Lisbeth Salander is one of, if not the most intelligent characters in modern fiction. She's physically small but is a kickboxer and knows how to use weapons like tasers (but does not use guns or knives) to protect/avenge herself.

It's her mind that's the real threat. She has a photographic memory, is off-the-charts intelligent, and she's calm and knows how to bide her time and get revenge when the timing is right. Her hacking skills are legendary and she can cause someone more damage with keystrokes than an army could with conventional weapons. All that is what's so fascinating/terrifying about her. In the books it's a thril when you read that she's sitting down at her computer because you know what follows will be interesting. Of course that aspect is hard to convey on film but they do their best.

Seeing/reading a character like Lisbeth is why I'll gladly pay.

Reese Witherspoon has a new romantic comedy coming out as an antidote to Lisbeth Salander. Don't know the release date though.

[Anaamika]

Anaamika's response was that violence towards women happens in real life. Yes you are right. So does infanticide. Doesn't mean I want to watch it dramatized for my entertainment. I gave up watching csi, l& o, dexter etc many years ago because it was just too disturbing. Apparently I'm in the minority

Why would you only comment on part of my post? I don't just watch it because violence occurs towards women in real life, I watch it because in this one, Lisbeth gets her own back. And I'm sure lots and lots of women watch that with a visceral sense of joy. It's catharsis and it feels goddamn good.

Infanticide happens but I wouldn't watch a movie for that. I might watch a movie if the person who killed the baby got a horrible fate in return - but less so, because I can't identify with the baby like I can with Lisbeth. We've all felt like the outsider at some point. Well, Lisbeth is the ultimate outsider - very few friends, no one who really knows her, no one who loves her, and still surviving, teeth-gritted.

She's a survivor. And I like survivors. For you to distill all that down to just another graphic rape (I'm looking at you, Irresistible, you dipshit crass movie) is frankly, rather insulting to Lisbeth.

That being said, I am fully aware as Lisbeth is just a bag of bones in a book, as Stephen King would put it. And yet, she is a strong female type that takes no shit from anyone. I love her, even though she's strange and would never accept my love nor my friendship.

[Justin_Bailey]

Some people don't like seeing strong women characters, women who'll fight back against/get revenge for abuse. Lisbeth Salander is one of, if not the most intelligent characters in modern fiction. She's physically small but is a kickboxer and knows how to use weapons like tasers (but does not use guns or knives) to protect/avenge herself.

You just described Batgirl.

[Equipoise]

And?

[well he's back]

I can handle the rape scene in the book but choose not to watch it on screen, especially as it's been described as graphic.

[diggerwam]

A societys art should reflect reality. My original comment was that I am shocked that this particular storyline is so mainstream. A movie released on Xmas week doesn't get any more mainstream. I am surprised that I am apparently a minority of one. Without the horrible treatment this character wouldn't exist. It's great that she gets get revenge but she was spawned by violence. Full disclosure I like tarantino movies and American horror story. But I understand that those are niche entertainments. Personally its troubling that this is so widely watched and read.

[Equipoise]

A movie released on Xmas week doesn't get any more mainstream.Checking Chicago listings, also in theaters now (depending on where you live):

Shame
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
50/50
Melancholia
A Dangerous Method
The Rum Diary
The Interrupters
Young Adult

Do you think all of those strange, offbeat and often shocking movies are mainstream too? Why does Christmas have to be all about Happy Feet, Arthur Christmas, Muppets and Tintin?

[Justin_Bailey]

You just described Batgirl.

And?

And it's my opinion that Lisbeth Salander is not some special snowflake that is here to show all the other literary characters what a real woman is like. She's the gimmick of this particular mystery series. Sweden's literary scene is actually rife with them.

Don't get me wrong, the original Swedish movies were awesome, but Lisbeth as a character is such a riot grrl cliche that I can't believe anyone would ever refer to her as original with a straight face.

Do you think all of those strange, offbeat and often shocking movies are mainstream too? Why does Christmas have to be all about Happy Feet, Arthur Christmas, Muppets and Tintin?

Are you honestly arguing that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is some underground, indie production? Even if you ignore the big name director, big name cast, and big budgetness of the film, the fact remains that Stieg Larsson's books have reached the Harry Potter/Dan Brown level of popularity. There is nothing bigger in fiction today. And the movie based on the first one is as mainstream as mainstream gets.

[Snowboarder Bo]

And it's my opinion that Lisbeth Salander is not some special snowflake that is here to show all the other literary characters what a real woman is like. She's the gimmick of this particular mystery series. Sweden's literary scene is actually rife with them.

Don't get me wrong, the original Swedish movies were awesome, but Lisbeth as a character is such a riot grrl cliche that I can't believe anyone would ever refer to her as original with a straight face.

Good on you for arguing against something that no one said! Keep on fighting the good fight!

[Justin_Bailey]

Good on you for arguing against something that no one said! Keep on fighting the good fight!

Skipped this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14593984&postcount=32) I assume?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Skipped this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14593984&postcount=32) I assume?

No, I read that post, just like I read all the others in this thread. Nothing in that post coincides with the things you are arguing against.

Equipoise didn't say that Lisbeth was here to show everyone what a real woman was like, that she was "original" or any of the other things you argue against.

ETA: Lisbeth is not the "gimmick" here; she's the main character. The things she goes thru are not just the plot of the book, they are the central theme that Larrson was writing about.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I knew I was going to miss the edit window if I tried to jam this into the previous post, so here it is:

When Larsson was 15 years old, he witnessed the gang rape of a girl, which led to his lifelong abhorrence of violence and abuse against women. His longtime partner, Eva Gabrielsson, writes that this incident "marked him for life" in a chapter of her book that describes Larsson as a feminist. The author never forgave himself for failing to help the girl, and this inspired the themes of sexual violence against women in his books. According to Gabrielsson, the Millennium trilogy allowed Larsson to express a worldview he was never able to elucidate as a journalist. She described, with a great deal of specificity, how the fundamental narratives of his three books were essentially fictionalized portraits of the Sweden few people knew, a place where latent white supremacy found expression in all aspects of contemporary life, and antiextremists lived in persistent fear of attack. “Everything of this nature described in the Millennium trilogy has happened at one time or another to a Swedish citizen, journalist, politician, public prosecutor, unionist or policeman,” she writes. “Nothing was made up.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stieg_Larsson)

[Justin_Bailey]

ETA: Lisbeth is not the "gimmick" here; she's the main character. The things she goes thru are not just the plot of the book, they are the central theme that Larrson was writing about.

I know all about Larsson's desire to see rapists and killers punished, but Lisbeth is still a cartoon. She's a superhacker with a photographic memory, ninja skills, and a killer right hook. She's also covered in tattoos, sports a mohawk, and is bisexual. This fits right in with Blomqvist the superjournalist who prints a niche magazine that somehow pushes him into the national spotlight every few months and all women are drawn to his animal magnetism and drop their clothes quickly and often (including Lisbeth!).

Like I said, the movies were great, but realistic characters they did not have.

And Equipoise's post pretty clearly shows her having been pulled in by the "Lisbeth is super special" brigade.

[Snowboarder Bo]

This fits right in with Blomqvist the superjournalist who prints a niche magazine that somehow pushes him into the national spotlight every few months and all women are drawn to his animal magnetism and drop their clothes quickly and often (including Lisbeth!).

By "all women" I suppose you mean Erika and Lisbeth, since they are the only 2 women he sleeps with in all 3 of the movies. :dubious:

I know all about Larsson's desire to see rapists and killers punished, but Lisbeth is still a cartoon. She's a superhacker with a photographic memory, ninja skills, and a killer right hook. She's also covered in tattoos, sports a mohawk, and is bisexual.

You must have seen a different movie. I saw no "ninja skills" on display from any of the characters. Killer right hook? I don't remember that.

So we're left with a hacker with a photographic memory with lots of tats and a mohawk who is bisexual. So what? I know at least 3 women who fit this description, although 2 of them have areas of technical expertise that don't include hacking. Oh, and one likes to dye her hair purple, not black.

By your definition, nearly every movie character ever is a "cartoon".

And I still stand by what I wrote: you argue against things no one has said: there was no post that said Lisbeth was "original" or "some special snowflake that is here to show all the other literary characters what a real woman is like".

There were posts that praised Lisbeth as a strong character, and a notable one, but that's it. Again, tho, thanks for shaking your fist at the sky; I'm sure we all appreciate the effort you're putting into that.

[Equipoise]

Again, tho, thanks for shaking your fist at the sky; I'm sure we all appreciate the effort you're putting into that.I know I do. I can usually count on Justin to follow me around and tell me where I've gone wrong. What would I do without him? He completes me.

[Justin_Bailey]

I know I do. I can usually count on Justin to follow me around and tell me where I've gone wrong. What would I do without him? He completes me.

It's a satisfying relationship on my end too.

[Equipoise]

My husband is starting to become suspicious though.

[Floater]

I saw the Dutch film ...
Dutch?
Will this be three films like the Swedish trilogy or just the one?

Three. Fincher will film 2&3 at the same time.
Maybe it's decided now, but from the beginning it depended on the outcome of the first one.

Anyroad,. I haven't read the books and I rarely go to the cinema. In which order should I read and watch?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Anyroad,. I haven't read the books and I rarely go to the cinema. In which order should I read and watch?

Well, since it's really one story arc, you should probably read/watch them in order:

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
The Girl Who Played With Fire
The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest

[John Mace]

I saw the Dutch film and don't see any compelling reason to watch the new version. I enjoyed the first movie, but it's a very plot driven mystery and I already know the plot and the mystery.

There was a Dutch version? :confused: Do you mean Swedish?

[Dr. Rieux]

Saw it yesterday. Loved it.
Strangely, the only part I found gratuitous and over the top was what happened to Cat.
The books are now at the top of reading list for January.

[chiroptera]

I'm seeing this on Christmas day with a friend who has not read the books (I have). She asked if she should speed-read the trilogy before seeing the movie - but I read an interview with the director, and apparently he's deviating from, or omitting, several of the book's major plot points.

I told my friend not to bother reading first, and I'm thoroughly looking forward to the movie.

[Taomist]

Dutch?



Maybe it's decided now, but from the beginning it depended on the outcome of the first one.


Well that's disappointing, considering 1. It's a violent film being released near Christmas: not exactly great timing, and 2. It's barely been advertised. I bet it closes out of every theater it opens in within 3 weeks.
Maybe it's just this area <San Diego area> but I don't see the support supposedly needed for 2 and 3 coming from sales on this opening.

I do hope I'm wrong, though :)

[slm2955]

Although I never read the book, I heard it was really good. So I might go see it!

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

Barely been advertised? You kidding? There are trailers for it on TV all the time and there were many big promos during popular shows. There are ads for it all over New York City and H&M even released a whole clothing line based on the film!

[Taomist]

Barely been advertised? You kidding? There are trailers for it on TV all the time and there were many big promos during popular shows. There are ads for it all over New York City and H&M even released a whole clothing line based on the film!


Really? I have seen an ad on tv a couple of times, and a trailer in the theater once.
Maybe I just don't watch the right tv!

Regardless, I am happy to be wrong :)

[Declan]

I'm seeing this on Christmas day with a friend who has not read the books (I have). She asked if she should speed-read the trilogy before seeing the movie - but I read an interview with the director, and apparently he's deviating from, or omitting, several of the book's major plot points.

Its not that the swedish movies omitted anything, but in saying that they stayed truthful to the books is a bit of an understatement. Of the multiple story arcs in Dragon Tattoo, they stayed faithful the the lisbeth Salander story, with a lesser sideline story of the missing girl. Every other story aspect got a cameo appearance, but nothing much more than that.

So if the American version deviates from the books somewhat, they are only doing what the swedes did first.

Declan

[voguevixen]

I found the book disgusting, so, no. But I admit the trailer is masterful.

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

How many times are you going to reply in this thread to say you found books disgusting? You said the same thing just a few posts back.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Its not that the swedish movies omitted anything, but in saying that they stayed truthful to the books is a bit of an understatement. Of the multiple story arcs in Dragon Tattoo, they stayed faithful the the lisbeth Salander story, with a lesser sideline story of the missing girl. Every other story aspect got a cameo appearance, but nothing much more than that.

So if the American version deviates from the books somewhat, they are only doing what the swedes did first.

Declan

Did you see a different movie than I did? Because the movie I saw was about a guy investigating a missing girl, with Lisbeth being a main character, but not at all who or what the film was about.

[chiroptera]

So I saw this yesterday, with a friend who hadn't yet read the books.

The rape scene was very difficult to watch (I had to look away.) However, since I'd read the book, I knew that Lisbeth exacted a satisfying and appropriate revenge so that was comforting. I spent seven years as a rape crisis counselor, so I'm well aware of the violence of rape, and the revenge scene was quite cathartic. Rooney Mara was amazing as Lisbeth, and Daniel Craig was just as sexy playing an "ordinary guy."

Also I imagine this movie could be confusing for someone who hasn't read the books, and also doesn't realise that it's the first in a trilogy so that some of the plot points won't become fully realised until Fire or Hornet's Nest.

That said - we both thoroughly enjoyed it, the music score was wonderful and the opening credits rocked. It reminded me of the opening credits for the 1964 movie Goldfinger, a little.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JDR5mqWvaY

[Floater]

Well, since it's really one story arc, you should probably read/watch them in order:

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
The Girl Who Played With Fire
The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest
Sorry, perhaps I was a bit unclear. I meant the book, the Swedish film and the US film, of course.

[UFC Is Sux]

I'm in a bit of a pickle here and need your advice. I have resisted reading the books up until now, but have some time off coming up around the start of the New Year that I must take. So, should I read the books first THEN see the movie, or see the movie first then read the books? Does the movie stand alone on its own well enough, or will seeing it totally ruin the books for me?

[Snowboarder Bo]

The Swedish films stand up on their own very well. I saw them before I read the books, but I did enjoy the books once I got around to reading them.

[DMark]

We saw the movie yesterday.
We had not read the books, nor seen the Swedish original film(s).
We loved it!
It was nowhere near as complicated to follow for a "newbie" as some have suggested it might be.
Yes, the rape scene is graphic for the squeamish, but it had to be that way for the rest of the story to make sense and be equal to the, uh, karma of the rapist.

So, for anyone who goes to this film clueless, like we did, you will still like this film a lot!! (Again, if you are somewhat squeamish, you might not like a lot of the violence - so be forewarned in this aspect.)
Great story, great cinematography and some Oscar worthy acting going on!
Certainly one of the best films of the year.

My only complaint was some asshole in the audience who, on the way out and trying to impress his girlfriend, loudly gave away some plot points in books 2 and 3. I wanted to dump the rest of my Diet Coke on his head.

[Equipoise]

I'm so glad to hear you liked it with no knowledge of the other movies or books. That makes me very happy and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts. Did it seem like you came in on the middle of Lisbeth's story? Did you find her situation with the lawyer confusing?

I'd also like to know, in a spoiler box, what the asshole said and what it meant to you (and if you'd like anything confirmed or denied because he could have been yanking her chain).

[Equipoise]

I saw the Swedish movie in the theater first, then read the first two books. I had to wait for the 3rd book and the next two movies.

I saw the 2nd movie in the theater on release (after seeing the first a couple more times), then read the 3nd book when it was released (hardback, I rarely buy hardbacks, but I had to buy this one).

Then when the 3rd movie came out, the local AMC theaters did a Millennium Trilogy, playing all 3 movies back to back. That was great!

The only problem with reading the books first is that there's so much in them that the movies can't possibly show everything. The biggest being Lisbeth's hacking skills, because what she does with a computer is fascinating to me and as I've said, very hard to convey on film. It's hard not to lament what's missing.

Then again, if you watch the movies then read the books then watch the movies again, you'll have the background. Instead of lamenting what's missing, which is something I really hate hearing people do when talking about, say, Harry Potter, it's all there, just not shown. Not everything needs to be shown.

That doesn't really answer anything. If it's interesting do it all, read the books, watch the Swedish movies, watch these movies as they're released. The more Lisbeth the merrier. Well, maybe not merrier. The more interesting anyway.

[chiroptera]

I'm so glad to hear you liked it with no knowledge of the other movies or books. That makes me very happy and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts. Did it seem like you came in on the middle of Lisbeth's story? Did you find her situation with the lawyer confusing?

I'd also like to know, in a spoiler box, what the asshole said and what it meant to you (and if you'd like anything confirmed or denied because he could have been yanking her chain).

I'm not DMark :) but as someone who had read all three books before seeing the movies, I can say that if you only read the first book, you're coming in to the middle of Lisbeth's story and the whole thing isn't revealed until the third book. Fincher (director) seems to be staying fairly faithful to the story arc in the books, based on the first movie.

I think it would be helpful if there was an announcement somewhere that this is the first of three installments, because I imagine some elements of the movie will leave people wondering what the heck was that about. But they'll make sense in the next two installments. That said, I think the movie stood well on its own.

[Equipoise]

I'm not DMark :) but as someone who had read all three books before seeing the movies, I can say that if you only read the first book, you're coming in to the middle of Lisbeth's story and the whole thing isn't revealed until the third book. Fincher (director) seems to be staying fairly faithful to the story arc in the books, based on the first movie.I guess what I meant to ask was, did it matter? And did it make him want to know more about Lisbeth? Some people seem frustrated by it (coming in on the middle of her story) while others seem intrigued and they want to know more.

For those who want to know more, The Girl Who Played With Fire* will slay the hell out of you! It's ALL about Lisbeth. I can't wait for Fincher's take. And Mara as Lisbeth. Oh. My. God. I'm buzzing with anticipation at the thought of my favorite scene in the whole series (no spoiler here).


* edit to add, the book and most likely, hopefully, the Fincher movie. The Swedish movie was edited down far too much.

[Meatros]

I guess what I meant to ask was, did it matter? And did it make him want to know more about Lisbeth? Some people seem frustrated by it (coming in on the middle of her story) while others seem intrigued and they want to know more.

For those who want to know more, The Girl Who Played With Fire* will slay the hell out of you! It's ALL about Lisbeth. I can't wait for Fincher's take. And Mara as Lisbeth. Oh. My. God. I'm buzzing with anticipation at the thought of my favorite scene in the whole series (no spoiler here).


* edit to add, the book and most likely, hopefully, the Fincher movie. The Swedish movie was edited down far too much.

Is it a sure thing that there is going to be a second movie? From my understanding it depends on the box office. Right now, from what little I've read, the gross is a bit underwhelming (granted it's early still).

[Jack Batty]

Apologies ahead of time for not wading through every post ... but aruvqan, in spoiler, addressed my biggest peeve about the movie:

I was not thrilled that they killed off Anita - England is too fucking close, anybody in the family could have decided to just "hop to England and See Anita" and noticed it wasn't actually Anita. Australia was far enough away that hiding in plain sight is plausable.

I didn't even get what the hell was going on at the initial reveal. I kept waiting for them to mention Harriet off in Australia and by the time I figured out that Anita was Harriet I think I actually uttered a "wtf" aloud. That almost ruined the movie for me. Of all the things they could pare down for time or context, I think that was dumbest one to cut up.

Other than that, I enjoyed the movie. I think I would have enjoyed it more had I not been saturated with the material; I've read the book, seen the Swedish version, and seen this version all within the last few months. I'm getting kind of sick of Sweden at this point.

[diggerwam]

As predicted I was tempted to walk away from the rape scene. I was also tempted to walk away from the revenge. I don't see how that is satisfying. He was an animal towards her. She was am animal towards him. Thus the cycle continues. Was very disappointed in the end. What should have been the theft of the century was reduced to an extended montage. Not that I wanted movie to be longer but still.

[Jack Batty]

Was anyone else completely captivated by that opening credit sequence? That was awesome! David Fincher's films always have the coolest opening credits.

I was, but not in a good way. It seemed pretty misplaced to me. I just saw it as this crazy industrial-punk video that somehow got spliced into the credits. I mean the visuals were cool, but how did it fit - thematically, stylistically, in pacing - at all with the rest of the film. Yes, Lisbeth was a punker, but that whole endless weird video just to drive the point home? No sir, I didn't like it. The film called for a more understated credit sequence, if you ask me.


That's actually my one complaint about Fincher. All his films have some groovy opening like that. It's like when he puts out a movie he's really putting a movie and and opening sequence; it often seems as though he considers both projects of equal importance.

[aruvqan]

Apologies ahead of time for not wading through every post ... but aruvqan, in spoiler, addressed my biggest peeve about the movie:



I didn't even get what the hell was going on at the initial reveal. I kept waiting for them to mention Harriet off in Australia and by the time I figured out that Anita was Harriet I think I actually uttered a "wtf" aloud. That almost ruined the movie for me. Of all the things they could pare down for time or context, I think that was dumbest one to cut up.

Other than that, I enjoyed the movie. I think I would have enjoyed it more had I not been saturated with the material; I've read the book, seen the Swedish version, and seen this version all within the last few months. I'm getting kind of sick of Sweden at this point.
I was flabbergasted at how they chose to modify the book. I understand that you can't keep everything in, but I do think you really shouldn't pull changes like that.
As predicted I was tempted to walk away from the rape scene. I was also tempted to walk away from the revenge. I don't see how that is satisfying. He was an animal towards her. She was am animal towards him. Thus the cycle continues. Was very disappointed in the end. What should have been the theft of the century was reduced to an extended montage. Not that I wanted movie to be longer but still.
I don't think she was anywhere near as much of an animal as he was.

She didn't spend 5 or 6 hours raping him. She buttplugged him, kicked him around a few times, made him watch her being raped for 2 hours, then tattooed him. If I had him under control like that, he would be dead after a hell of a lot more unpleasantness. She didn't even kill him, she just kept him blackmailed for a year and a few months. Her half brother did the killing.

[Larry Borgia]

I thought it was OK, but I have a hard time figuring how you'd make sense of it if you haven't read the books. It really seemed like "great scenes from" rather than a coherent story on its own. I really didn't like the way they tweaked the ending. The opening credits were awesome and the score was great, but other than that it was pretty average.

[Spoke]

Is it a sure thing that there is going to be a second movie? From my understanding it depends on the box office. Right now, from what little I've read, the gross is a bit underwhelming (granted it's early still).

Yeah, the box office has been disapointing, unfortunately. ‘Girl With the Dragon Tattoo’s’ low box-office take leaves future of sequels a mystery (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/girl-dragon-tattoo-box-office-leaves-future-sequels-a-mystery-article-1.997870)

However, I suspect Rooney Mara's performance will probably get some Oscar attention, and that may fuel greater box office success in the new year.

[coolbyrne]

I just saw it the other night. Fantastic movie. I was concerned about Daniel Craig not being able to play a regular, everyday kind of guy, but I was wrong. I thought Daniel Craig played Mikael quite well- Fincher toned down the sexual nature of the character and presented him as just an average, decent hero. (Not that being sexually active means you can't be decent, but those who have read the books know what I mean about Mikael.) While his name is first in the credits, he never played the role like he was the star. Kudos to him for making me forget he is a Big Name Star.

What everyone wanted to know, of course, is how Rooney Mara would do in the very key role of Lisbeth Salander. While I still love Noomi Rapace's version more, RM's take wasn't bad, just different. And I was glad to see that- she didn't try to be a NR copy; she really tried (and I think succeeded) in making the role her own. Loved the chemistry between her and Craig, and as in the book, they made the most unusual duo.

Some are complaining about the length (2hrs 40min), but 1. The Swedish version was the same length, and 2. I didn't mind the length as there is a LOT going on in the book, and in order to stay fairly close to the book, it needed to be long. The best compliment I can give the film is that it really did feel like a book- there were parts that I wanted to "skim" through, but I knew if I just stuck with it, there would be a great pay-off. And if that doesn't describe the first book to a "T" (100 pages before anything happens!!), I don't know what does.

I have also seen complaints about the graphic nature of the rape of Lisbeth and her subsequent revenge, and I wonder if these people have read the books. These events are so crucial to the development of Lisbeth and how the audience accepts her and her actions. And, of course, it becomes a key point in the later books/films. The theme is violence against women, whether it is the women the villain killed (not sure how much should be in spoilers), or the treatment of Harriet as a child, or the treatment of Lisbeth through her entire life. Hell, the original title of the book is, "Men Who Hate Women"! This is ultimately what makes the relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael so important; she has so few men in her life that she can trust (her first state guardian, her boss), and I think Mikael is the only man she has had a physical relationship with on her own terms.

Didn't mind the accents or the fact that they spoke English when everything else around them was in Swedish; we see English-made movies set in other countries that do that all the time. The only point that made me laugh every time was when I saw all of Mikael's notes in English... but all the magazine/newspaper headlines were in Swedish.

Not a very satisfying ending for those who wanted something really self-contained, but it is in line with how the first book ended, and really, did Lisbeth think things would be happily-ever-after?

I'm not sure profits will dictate whether or not parts 2 & 3 will be filmed. I think critical acclaim and Fincher's reputation will have more to do with whether or not they will be made. The length of this movie will prevent it from topping the box office (they can only squeeze in one showing a night, where Mission Impossible can squeeze in two showings), but I think it should be seen by as many people as possible. Highly recommended.

[DMark]

I'm so glad to hear you liked it with no knowledge of the other movies or books. That makes me very happy and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts. Did it seem like you came in on the middle of Lisbeth's story? Did you find her situation with the lawyer confusing?

I'd also like to know, in a spoiler box, what the asshole said and what it meant to you (and if you'd like anything confirmed or denied because he could have been yanking her chain).

Did I come in on the middle of Lisbeth's story? No - they introduced her, you saw she had a "father" of sorts who provided her an income that was now lost and the slimy lawyer had taken over. Her computer skills were obvious as she was doing some heavy-duty, more-than-Google work. She has a complicated background that was hinted at, but not fully disclosed yet. Scary woman, but you grew to like her a lot and that final scene was heartbreaking. Someone you would most certainly want as a friend and most certainly NOT as an enemy. So, I guess I got what was needed to learn about her in the first film.

Yes, there is some worry about this film making money, but they hope the next few weeks will bump up the tally. Lots of adults (demographic) didn't have time at Christmas, and now there is more time to go to movies. Plus, at the Tuesday early screening in Las Vegas, the theater was about half full - this is very rare for so many to show up for an early screening here! (We usually go then because nobody goes to movies that early), so my guess is this film will have the proverbial "legs" and run longer than many thought/predicted.

Regarding what that asshole said on the way out of the theater to his girlfriend:
Mikael is not really in the story anymore after this first book, and Lisbeth is buried alive later...

Why someone would feel the need to blurt this out, loudly, to an audience exiting the movie theater is a mystery to me. Jerk.

[Equipoise]

Yeah, I agree that there's no way they won't make the other two movies. I'd bet they're in unannounced pre-production now.

In the US, in 7 days it's already made 3 times what the Swedish film made here during its entire run, has only opened in one other country so far (Finland, according to Box Office Mojo), has awards attention still to come, and is a film for adults, who don't usually run out and see something the first weekend, especially not on a holiday weekend. Sure, the budget is much higher than the Swedish film but the other two should be cheaper to make.

Besides, no matter what this makes at the box office, it'll be very popular on DVD/streaming. Oh yeah, they'll make them.


Thanks for the reply DMark.

Regarding what that asshole said on the way out of the theater to his girlfriend:
Mikael is not really in the story anymore after this first book, and Lisbeth is buried alive later...

Why someone would feel the need to blurt this out, loudly, to an audience exiting the movie theater is a mystery to me. Jerk.Ah, ok, don't worry about it then. The guy's full of shit about the first, and the other is so simplified as to be useless information. It's like saying The Bride goes through the same thing in Kill Bill Vol. 2. How much does that tell you about the surrounding plot points and action? Not much. He's a jerk, yes, but he didn't do too much damage. I thought it would be much worse.

[DMark]

In the US, in 7 days it's already made 3 times what the Swedish film made here during its entire run...


And I noticed the film made more money on Tuesday (the day we went to see it) than it did on the first Friday. So yeah, I think this film will cough up enough coin to warrant parts 2 and 3.

[GovernmentMan]

I just saw it last night. I think it's much better than the Swedish version, even though I haven't seen it. But from clips and stills, Rooney Mara's Lisbeth seems superior to Repace's. Rooney is much prettier and her Lisbeth seems more tender and vulnerable than Repace's. I just wanted to give her a hug several times in the film.

[Spoke]

I think it's much better than the Swedish version, even though I haven't seen it. But from clips and stills, Rooney Mara's Lisbeth seems superior to Repace's.

I think you need to see the original before you decide the remake is better.

I just got back from seeing the remake, having re-watched the original a couple of days ago. I think Repace is in a league of her own. Without taking anything away from Mara, who does really fine work, Repace created a characterization which, if she had starred in an American film, would be widely hailed as iconic.

I like both films very much, but I think I prefer the Swedish version a little. Mainly because of Repace. In that version, she keeps Mikael at arm's length emotionally, even when the relationship turns sexual. In the remake not so much. I really think the Swedish take is more in keeping with Lisbeth as an emotionally damaged creature.

On the other hand, I will admit that Lisbeth letting her guard down emotionally in the remake added a bit of pathos to the character, and made it a little more heartbreaking.

Like I said, I enjoyed both takes, but still I think I prefer the original. And having said all that, I still expect Mara to get an Oscar nomination, and possibly a win. Just a shame that Repace didn't get that level of recognition.

By the way, the house was pretty packed when I caught the movie tonight. I expect the film will make a solid profit before it's over.

[Clothahump]

SWMBO and I saw it and loved it. Very true to the book, and a damn good detective story.

[even sven]

I know all about Larsson's desire to see rapists and killers punished, but Lisbeth is still a cartoon. She's a superhacker with a photographic memory, ninja skills, and a killer right hook. She's also covered in tattoos, sports a mohawk, and is bisexual. This fits right in with Blomqvist the superjournalist who prints a niche magazine that somehow pushes him into the national spotlight every few months and all women are drawn to his animal magnetism and drop their clothes quickly and often (including Lisbeth!).

Like I said, the movies were great, but realistic characters they did not have.

And Equipoise's post pretty clearly shows her having been pulled in by the "Lisbeth is super special" brigade.

I just watched it, and I'm pretty much with you.

It was a (mostly) entertaining mystery that, despite it's poorly sketched characters and numerous meanderings, managed to convey a good sense of mood and keep the viewer engaged.

But as a feminist masterpiece? No way. To begin with, why the heck does Lisbeth sleep with the author insertion character (I mean, uh, reporter?). The reporter had next to no actual personal characteristics. Who would even bother to sleep with him? It just doesn't make any sense. Heck, why is he even there to begin with? If the story was told through Lisbeth's eyes, it would be much more compelling. But I imagine it would take a much more skilled author to tell that story rather than relying an a Mary Sue and the beautiful, mysterious woman who sleeps with him for no reason.

There was also quite a bit of really gratuitous boobage. I normally wouldn't complain about that, but if you are trying to market yourself as a feminist story, it doesn't make sense to go for exposed female skin for titillation. Maybe if that sex was part of a sex-positive healthy relationship, or if the movie was more equal in showing male and female private parts, it'd be better. But using a sexually fucked-up young woman's compulsive draw to destructive sexual relationships as an excuse to flash her tits all over the screen to be leered at? Not cool. A "feminist" movie would have maybe shown her being able to reclaim her sexuality by eventually having positive, fun, emotionally-equal sexual relationships with an enthusiastic partner rather than the fairly tawdry, emotionally disengaged and unsatisfying sex she has.

[Spoke]

To begin with, why the heck does Lisbeth sleep with the author insertion character (I mean, uh, reporter?). The reporter had next to no actual personal characteristics. Who would even bother to sleep with him? It just doesn't make any sense.

That's one thing that bothered me about the remake. It felt like the sex came out of the blue, without the film having developed any emotional connection between the characters.

It felt more organic in the Swedish version.

[Duckster]

My wife read the book. She suggested we go see it. We did last Wednesday.

Very good movie.

Too bad Hollywood can't make detective/mystery movies like this.

[Equipoise]

But as a feminist masterpiece? No way. Who said it was a "feminist masterpiece"? I just like the character of Lisbeth.

To begin with, why the heck does Lisbeth sleep with the author insertion character (I mean, uh, reporter?). The reporter had next to no actual personal characteristics. Who would even bother to sleep with him?*laugh* You're kidding, right? Are you male or female? The way I see it, even if he weren't played by Daniel Craig, he's a good man, one of the few truly good men Lisbeth has ever known (her boss Armansky and her former guardian being the only others), he's smart and interesting and he wants Lisbeth's help in helping to catch a killer of women. He needs her and that's sexy when added to all the other things.

Heck, why is he even there to begin with? If the story was told through Lisbeth's eyes, it would be much more compelling. He's important to the overall story arc, and in the first book/movie he's our introduction to Lisbeth. In the 2nd book we do get to see the story as told through Lisbeth's eyes. Patience.

But I imagine it would take a much more skilled author to tell that story rather than relying an a Mary Sue and the beautiful, mysterious woman who sleeps with him for no reason. A "Mary Sue"? What does that mean? And "no reason"? She's horny, she likes him, and she knows he's safe. What other reasons does she need?

There was also quite a bit of really gratuitous boobage. I normally wouldn't complain about that, but if you are trying to market yourself as a feminist story, it doesn't make sense to go for exposed female skin for titillation.I just saw it as natural, not gratuitous.

Maybe if that sex was part of a sex-positive healthy relationshipWhat's not sex-positive about it?

But using a sexually fucked-up young woman's compulsive draw to destructive sexual relationships.Excuse me, what makes you think that Lisbeth is "sexually fucked-up" and what makes you think she's compulsively drawn to "destructive sexual relationships"? I suppose it's not clear in the remake, but she and Miriam Wu, the woman she picks up at the club, have known each other for years and have a very comfortable casual sexual relationship. Even if that were not true, she picks up a woman at a bar and sleeps with her. What's so destructive about that? Women are far less likely to be creepy and even if you didn't know their background, obviously Lisbeth felt safe. And what's destructive about her sleeping with Mikael? Those are the only two sexual relationships she has in the movie. Point out to me what's destructive about either.

I'm going to assume you're not referring to her being forced to give a blowjob to and then being raped and tortured by her new guardian as Lisbeth being drawn to a destructive sexual relationship because that would be, well, pretty sick.

A "feminist" movie would have maybe shown her being able to reclaim her sexuality by eventually having positive, fun, emotionally-equal sexual relationships with an enthusiastic partner rather than the fairly tawdry, emotionally disengaged and unsatisfying sex she has.So Lisbeth's sex with Miram and Mikael are automatically tawdry, emotionally disengaged and unsatisfying...why? And even if it was, which it's not, so what? Is all casual sex automatically tawdry? Is all emotionally disengaged sex automatically tawdry? Women can't get horny and want to have sex just to have sex? And the partners she picks, a woman and a man she knows better than most of his friends, are pretty good picks, even if you don't know any other background.

[Spoke]

I'm not getting all the "ninja" gripes. Maybe I have been watching the wrong martial arts films, but since when do ninjas take down their opponents with tasers?

[jasg]

Have not read the books, enjoyed the movie - followed the plot just fine. Nearly full theatre at 2pm on New Year's eve.

[Equipoise]

Oh, that makes me happy!

[even sven]

So Lisbeth's sex with Miram and Mikael are automatically tawdry, emotionally disengaged and unsatisfying...why? And even if it was, which it's not, so what? Is all casual sex automatically tawdry? Is all emotionally disengaged sex automatically tawdry? Women can't get horny and want to have sex just to have sex? And the partners she picks, a woman and a man she knows better than most of his friends, are pretty good picks, even if you don't know any other background.

Whoah there. I haven't read the book, so all I have to go on is what I see on the screen. And what I see is a woman who seems to compulsively shed her clothing from people she just met and engage in what seems to be fairly joyless, distant, unfun sex- which just happens to be a pretty well-known pattern in people who have been emotionally damaged by childhood sexual abuse. That is what I saw on the screen- which may be realistic but isn't really a great narrative of someone gaining control of the sexuality after abuse.

I'm all for casual sex, but done healthily it should at least make you smile a bit, you know?

[Equipoise]

But in the movie you only saw a tiny bit of the sex between Lisbeth and Mikael and if I remember, none of the sex between Lisbeth and Miriam. Do you smile 100% of the time when you're having sex? And it seems you're thinking that two casual sexual encounters are enough to peg someone as sexually fucked up and drawn to destructive sexual relationships, and now you're adding childhood sexual abuse to the narrative, all based on 2 sexual encounters over the course of the film.

[Taomist]

Whoah there. I haven't read the book, so all I have to go on is what I see on the screen. And what I see is a woman who seems to compulsively shed her clothing from people she just met and engage in what seems to be fairly joyless, distant, unfun sex- which just happens to be a pretty well-known pattern in people who have been emotionally damaged by childhood sexual abuse. That is what I saw on the screen- which may be realistic but isn't really a great narrative of someone gaining control of the sexuality after abuse.

I'm all for casual sex, but done healthily it should at least make you smile a bit, you know?

Joyless, distant, unfun sex? Did you watch the same movie? :confused: While I did see a storyline going from point A...a sexual impingement to point B. Retaking control with a woman, less scary than a man to point C. Taking control with a man...a man she doesn't DIStrust, which is a rarity in her world...I sure didn't see any pointless, joyless sex going on. :p


Saw the movie last night, and liked it a great deal. The only part that I wished they could have gone more into was the already-commented-upon montage of Lizbet's taking Wennerstrom's money. Otherwise, there was much in the book...'words words words...' that I felt didn't add much to the storyline or engagement of the reader, that I am happy to have done without in the film.

Looking forward to two and three :)

[Ellis Dee]

A "Mary Sue"? What does that mean?It refers to an author introducing a stand-in for themselves into the story, particularly in a gratuitous fashion loaded with adolescent wish fulfillment. The epitome of this would be a Star Trek fan fiction story where a character named Ellis just happens to save the day with implausible heroics, including a scene where I (I mean he) saves a cowering Captain Picard and then ends the day with a steamy three-way with Troi and Crusher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_sue

Regardless of whether or not I agree with even sven -- who is female, btw -- I must concede her point that Blomqvist is the most blatant Mary Sue I've ever read in published fiction. The fact that every woman he encounters is eager to drop her clothes for him is a running joke in discussions of the books.

[Declan]

Did you see a different movie than I did? Because the movie I saw was about a guy investigating a missing girl, with Lisbeth being a main character, but not at all who or what the film was about.

Sorry , I just noticed this reply now. If your talking about the swedish adaptation, then yes we have seen the same movie. I think part of the problem had to do with the title of both the film and the book in the english speaking world,

I was coming in from reading the whole series, and then watching the movies, and I still stand by what I wrote. The people who made the movie had to condense that novel into 90 minutes or so. Lisbeth was the primary character, Mikael was secondary.

His arc introduces her, and then essentially peters out as the cold case becomes hot and then her story arc starts to ascend with him as the secondary, along the way you start to pick out the cameo story arcs.

But I guess Men who hate women is a bit bland for a title, but the whole movie is teeming with violence on women, by guys.

Declan

[Equipoise]

Thanks Ellis, I get it now, and yes, I've certainly joked myself many times about what a horndog Mikael is in the books. The movies wisely toned that waaay down. They kinda had to keep the fact that Mikael sleeps with 2 women in the first movie.

You might just think Mikael is a man who seems to compulsively shed his clothing for women he just met and engage in what seems to be fairly joyless, distant, unfun sex- which, wow, just happens to be a pretty well-known pattern in people who have been emotionally damaged by childhood sexual abuse.

[Floater]

Rooney Mara's Lisbeth seems superior to Repace's.
[slight nitpick]
Her name is Rapace.
[/slight nitpick]

[Spoke]

Thanks Ellis, I get it now, and yes, I've certainly joked myself many times about what a horndog Mikael is in the books. The movies wisely toned that waaay down. They kinda had to keep the fact that Mikael sleeps with 2 women in the first movie.

Hell, in the first Swedish movie, he seems reluctant to sleep with anybody. The two women just insist, seemingly.

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

The people who made the movie had to condense that novel into 90 minutes or so. Lisbeth was the primary character, Mikael was secondary.


The film is close to 3 hours, not 90 minutes.

[Meatros]

it looks like Sony reps (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/01/02/dragon-tattoo-sequel-girl-who-played-with-fire/) are confirming that a sequel is a go.

[Equipoise]

it looks like Sony reps (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/01/02/dragon-tattoo-sequel-girl-who-played-with-fire/) are confirming that a sequel is a go.I knew it, although some of that is bullshit. Even though it says "Fincher hasn’t yet decided whether to return" he himself said he wants to return, but he has to be formally hired by the studio. That article in EW says that Zallian is "still working on the script" but I've read several places where The Girl Who Played With Fire script is finished. Either they mean tiny touch ups or they really mean the script for The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest.

In this interview (http://www.totalfilm.com/news/david-fincher-talks-dragon-tattoo-sequels?ns_campaign=news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=totalfilm&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0) with Fincher...


While [Fincher] remains noncommittal, he did reveal that Steve Zaillian's script is "really good" and that if he was involved, he would shoot the sequels back-to-back.

On the sequels, he told indieWIRE: "Classically, movie studios don’t make deals with directors, even if there’s a hope that there’s going to be three [films], because they want to make sure you behave.”

“But yes, the second and third books are very much one story and it doesn’t seem prudent to me to go to Sweden for a year and then come back for a year, put out the second [film], go back to Sweden for a year, come back for a year…"

On the possibility of launching a franchise, Fincher added, "Do I want to see a sequel for this? I would be happy for everyone involved as that would mean a lot of people went to see it and enjoyed it. Do I need to see a sequel? No, there’s a little bit of an emotional cliffhanger at the end, but the story is complete."

Fincher also went on to add, "I haven’t given the second and third books near enough scrutiny to be able to comment on [them]. I’ve seen Steven's script for the second one and it’s really good."

[Bob Ducca]

Thanks Ellis, I get it now, and yes, I've certainly joked myself many times about what a horndog Mikael is in the books. The movies wisely toned that waaay down. They kinda had to keep the fact that Mikael sleeps with 2 women in the first movie.


Hell, in the book:


he also has a sexual relationship with Cecelia. They removed her completely from the Swedish film and only had a couple of scenes with her in the new one.


I've read the books, and have seen the Swedish trilogy, and just got the chance to see Fincher's take yesterday afternoon.

First of all, the theater (in Evanston) was pretty full for a Monday matinee. Of course, that's pretty typical in Evanston on cold-weather days, and a lot of people had yesterday off too. In fact, both early showings of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy were sold out.

I really enjoyed the film, and thought it did a better job than the first adaptation. The pacing was terrific and even though I knew what was going to happen, it still kept me on the edge of my seat.

If Mara doesn't get an Oscar nom, I might have to break shit in half. She's fantastic.

[Equipoise]

I completely forgot (SPOILER FOR THE BOOKS, NOT JUST THE FIRST) about his sleeping with Cecilia. Hopefully the movies will jettison his stupid affair with Harriet and that agent..

Glad to hear you liked it, and that CenEv was full. I do agree about Mara.

I hope you get a chance to go back and see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. It's fantastic!

[aruvqan]

If Mara doesn't get an Oscar nom, I might have to break shit in half. She's fantastic.
I thought she did quite well also. Though I was under the impression that the dragon tat was smaller, only on one shoulder and in color, but meh, it really doesn't matter as it isn't that important a detail.

[Equipoise]

The tat on Mara's Lisbeth is more like the tat as described in the book than Rapace's.

[Bob Ducca]

The tat on Mara's Lisbeth is more like the tat as described in the book than Rapace's.

Yeah, Rapace had her entire back covered if I remember right.

I personally really enjoyed that they kept true to Larsson's overuse of characters drinking coffee in the books. Fincher had his characters drinking coffee in nearly every scene.

One thing that was slightly annoying was the number of product placements. 7-11, McD's, Apple, Google, Wikipedia, etc. They fit into the storyline (Lisbeth's awful diet for one) but after awhile it seemed like overkill.

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

One thing that was slightly annoying was the number of product placements. 7-11, McD's, Apple, Google, Wikipedia, etc. They fit into the storyline (Lisbeth's awful diet for one) but after awhile it seemed like overkill.

I liked that. Finally a character who does a Google search and actually uses Google and not some stupid made-up replacement. I hate when filmmakers go out of their way to not use real things. It just draws me out of the believability of the picture. If you want to use an Apple, use an Apple, not an "Orange" or a "Lemon."

[Equipoise]

I personally really enjoyed that they kept true to Larsson's overuse of characters drinking coffee in the books. Fincher had his characters drinking coffee in nearly every scene. Ha, they even threw in some nods to Larsson's disgusting sandwiches. The books are filled with all manner of horrifying sandwiches the characters make and eat without a second thought. I kept thinking as I was reading, Swedes eat the weirdest damn sandwiches!

[gaffa]

If you want to use an Apple, use an Apple, not an "Orange" or a "Lemon."

That was a pet gripe of mine throughout both the book and both movies. I know this will annoy some Apple fans, but it is true: Hackers do NOT use Apples. Writers use Apples. For a hacker's purposes, an Apple computer would just be an over-priced platform on which to run their own customized version of a secure version of Linux. An OS you can't verify? As Lizbeth disparagingly said "Please."

[BrainGlutton]

:confused: How can TGWTDT be a new theatrical release, when I saw the DVDs for that film and two sequels for rent at Blockbuster more than a year ago?

[Meatros]

:confused: How can TGWTDT be a new theatrical release, when I saw the DVDs for that film and two sequels for rent at Blockbuster more than a year ago?

Am I being wooshed here?

What you saw were the Swedish versions of the film.

...

Or, you have stumbled upon a Blockbuster out of space and time...

[BrainGlutton]

Am I being wooshed here?

What you saw were the Swedish versions of the film.

...

Or, you have stumbled upon a Blockbuster out of space and time...

Well, I never rented them.

And after I saw the trailer I discounted the "American remake" hypothesis because it looks so foreign.

[Taomist]

Fincher also went on to add, "I haven’t given the second and third books near enough scrutiny to be able to comment on [them]. I’ve seen Steven's script for the second one and it’s really good."

...

Has he not read the books? The second and third ones are much better than the first one, and have a LOT more interesting plot lines. I haven't seen the second and third Swedish movies, but I hope they kept with the books' pacing.

Of course what I'm REALLY hoping for is that someone buys the rights and writes book four. ;) Or at least makes a movie; there is definitely enough mystery left for one!

[umberto]

umberto

I'm looking forward to seeing "Girl...."
Partly, I love the idea that a woman gets revenge on a rapist.

As for the ending--in the book it was very poignant, Swedish movie, hopeful of a longer relationship.

[What the .... ?!?!]

We went to see it this afternoon.

I liked it. I liked the books, and I liked the original movies. I did notice where they omitted stuff for time issues, and i notice where they omitted plot lines so they could condense. I was not thrilled that they killed off Anita - England is too fucking close, anybody in the family could have decided to just "hop to England and See Anita" and noticed it wasn't actually Anita. Australia was far enough away that hiding in plain sight is plausable.

Saw it last night........ I missed how they explained the Anita/Henrietta thing in the movie and read tha book too long ago to remember exactly how it was handled there.

Any help??

[Hrududu]

I saw it today and really enjoyed it. I haven't read the books or seen the Swedish films so I was coming to it fresh. The only issues I had were occasionally missing what some people said with their fake Swedish accents, but that didn't happen very often.

A couple of things:
I almost laughed near the start when he started looking through pictures of the family. Random Person...Random Person...Stellan Sgarsgaard...Random Person. Hmm I wonder who the killer is?

The other thing was when it was over something didn't add up. One of the things that pointed them towards Martin was that he was at the parade before he claimed to have arrived. Which looked like he had lied about his arrival time to cover up whatever he did to Harriet. But then we found out that he actually did nothing to Harriet. So why did he lie about what time he arrived? The only thing I could think of was that he didn't want to be looked into as a suspect in case they did some digging and found out about that other girl. But I've forgotten the timeline and whether he'd killed her by that point or not.

Really just a nitpick though, I thought it was great. I liked that Craig underplayed his role.

[Equipoise]

Hrududu, thanks for your perspective as someone new to the story. I laughed at your first sentence in the spoiler tag. You're right, who else could it have been? There is a benefit to actors being unknown such as in the Swedish version.

Please someone else come in and answer What the .... ?!?! and Hrududu's questions. I'm trying to re-read the book and now the 3 versions are crossmixed in my mind. It will take me a while to sort out, and I'd like to see the movie again before answering.


In the US, in 7 days it's already made 3 times what the Swedish film made here during its entire runHere's a brief box office update since some were wondering how it would do.

In 19 days, the American version has made $106,136,000 (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=girldragontattoo11.htm) worldwide (which for now is only 6 countries, it will expand more over the coming weeks). $76,836,000 domestic, $29,300,000 "foreign."

The Swedish version made $104,384,415 (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=girlwiththedragontattoo.htm), worldwide, total, in its entire run. Worldwide. I don't include that as an indication of either movie's quality, since I think they're both pretty amazing, but just as a comparison.

[The Other Jeffrey Lebowski]

Saw it the other day, a couple of thoughts:
I hated hated hated the opening credits - too distracting, felt too much like a perfume advert on meth.
I thought that Rooney Mara was fantastic, totally owned the role.
Daniel Craig was likewise excellent.
Great movie, but, ultimately I preferred the original because of the Anita Harriet switch in the remake and because, as someone posted earlier, the sexual relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael seemed more organic in the Swedish version. While I haven't read the books, I think that it's more believable that Lisbeth would sleep with Mikael when she did the first time, because of the circumstances, and then revert to her detached self than to turn into an outright girlfriend.
Lastly, did someone up thread really say that Mara's performance was better based on still photos? That may be the most ignorant thing that I've read all year.

[Zebra]

I saw a few days ago. I have not read any of the books. I did see The Girl who played with Fire in a theatre. (which I really liked)

I have very mixed feelings about the film. On the one hand I did enjoy the performances but for me the best were Stellan Skarsgard (who should be a pirate) and of course Christopher Plummer. I wasn't that impressed by Ms Mara or Craig. Not that they were bad, just not awesome. Robin Wright was good too.

I too found Lisbeth to be a bit too omnipotent. Yes she gets raped but she gets her revenge. And is the smartest, and the bravest, and the fuckingest and the walking around nakedest person because she is like the Honey Badger. Craig, the investigative journalist, was working on this investigation for months and in about 5 minutes she finds out more than he ever did. The daughter casually pointing out the big clue was very clumsy. I mean nobody investigating the case thought of that? Ever?

But it was, for me, too long, and a bit bad structure. I didn't care one bit about everything happened after the conclusion of the missing person case and of course it's like "Oh this guy fucked you up? Don't worry I'll handle it in like two weeks."

I deeply appreciated that they left it in Sweden and didn't really Americanize it but changing it to say Alaska and calling them Mike and Beth.



For me the best female performance this year is in Charlize Theron in Young Adult. Go see it.

[Meatros]

I have very mixed feelings about the film. On the one hand I did enjoy the performances but for me the best were Stellan Skarsgard (who should be a pirate) and of course Christopher Plummer.

Erm...Didn't Stellan Skarsgard play a pirate in one of the Pirates of the Caribbean films? Wasn't he Legolas's father (whatever his name is)?

[Jack Batty]

By that time he wasn't so much a pirate as he was a piece of yardarm, or something like that -- if I recall the movie correctly.

[lieu]

Did anyone else think the faded color picture Henrik showed Mikael of the young Harriet looked incredibly like Lisbeth, at least what she would have looked like at that age? That briefly threw me, wondering what the relation might be. Obviously the age discrepancy didn't work but I would believe it if told that actually was a real photo of a young Rooney Mara.

This was our first exposure to the story in any form but loved the movie. My wife and I both found ourselves thinking back to it several times this week after seeing it last.

[Scubaqueen]

i'm still slogging through the first book (started christmas eve with it), which is very unusual for me since i'm generally a very fast reader. i can't decide if it's the author's style or the translation. at this rate, the movie will be out on dvd by the time i get around to seeing it.

[Katriona]

...

Of course what I'm REALLY hoping for is that someone buys the rights and writes book four. ;) Or at least makes a movie; there is definitely enough mystery left for one!

I'd be afraid of them doing a VC Andrews on the franchise. If they could avoid that, I could get behind the idea!

[aruvqan]

I too found Lisbeth to be a bit too omnipotent. Yes she gets raped but she gets her revenge. And is the smartest, and the bravest, and the fuckingest and the walking around nakedest person because she is like the Honey Badger. Craig, the investigative journalist, was working on this investigation for months and in about 5 minutes she finds out more than he ever did. The daughter casually pointing out the big clue was very clumsy. I mean nobody investigating the case thought of that? Ever?



What you learn about the initial and number combinations in the books is that back in the 60s Sweden had a different phone number system, without going to the book I will sort of wing it.

Yclues were CJ 34567. At that time, 34567 was a plausible phone number with the 34 being the province, 5 being the town and 67 the individual phone, similar to the US being PEnsylvania 6500 as PEnsylvania district of NY city, and 6500 being the hotels actual phone number [in the US you would dial for your operator and tell her you want to make a call to NY city, PEnnsylvania 6500, and she would contact the NY operator and the NY operator would hook her end of the switching system to NYC, and that operator would hook you to PE6500. Later the system was automated and you just used numbers. Honest, you can wiki it.

It took someone distanced from that particular numbering system for phones to see it simply as a series of bible chapter/verse references. I would not have made that jump because I am not in the throws of christianity intensification like Mikael's daughter was.

And as to walking around naked, different cultures, different habits. Frequently the scandanavian countries [especially Finland] have a sauna tradition that means casual nakedness tends to be ignored. Besides, many people walk around naked in their own house, in front of their lovers. My husband walks around our house naked when the roomie is away, no big deal. I am not as comfortable naked and only tend to do it in the bedroom [except for the times I had previously been to a nudist establishment. ]

[What the .... ?!?!]

i'm still slogging through the first book (started christmas eve with it), which is very unusual for me since i'm generally a very fast reader. i can't decide if it's the author's style or the translation. at this rate, the movie will be out on dvd by the time i get around to seeing it.

It starts out very slowly...... with details left out of the movie (which may tell you something).

[ouryL]

Oddly, I found the original one easier to follow and understand because of the subtitles. The remake has a sensibility that is easier for us non-Swedes to understand but the "accents" meant we couldn't always follow the dialogue.:o

[Zsofia]

Did anyone else think the faded color picture Henrik showed Mikael of the young Harriet looked incredibly like Lisbeth, at least what she would have looked like at that age? That briefly threw me, wondering what the relation might be. Obviously the age discrepancy didn't work but I would believe it if told that actually was a real photo of a young Rooney Mara.

This was our first exposure to the story in any form but loved the movie. My wife and I both found ourselves thinking back to it several times this week after seeing it last.
I thought that also.

[Mister Cheech]

Elusively "foreign" or otherwise, the Swedish films were made for television, and look and feel that way. David Fincher made the source material cinematic. Those who think the Swedish ones were better are the kind of people who never see subtitled films, and for whom the experience is so new and exciting that the quality of the movie(s) in question barely registers.

[aruvqan]

Elusively "foreign" or otherwise, the Swedish films were made for television, and look and feel that way. David Fincher made the source material cinematic. Those who think the Swedish ones were better are the kind of people who never see subtitled films, and for whom the experience is so new and exciting that the quality of the movie(s) in question barely registers.
Bullshit, I watch foreign films frequently and I thought the Swedish ones were quite well done. I liked the Daniel Craig version, but I prefer the swedish trilogy.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Elusively "foreign" or otherwise, the Swedish films were made for television, and look and feel that way. David Fincher made the source material cinematic. Those who think the Swedish ones were better are the kind of people who never see subtitled films, and for whom the experience is so new and exciting that the quality of the movie(s) in question barely registers.

What a bunch of bullshit.

[Sattua]

Elusively "foreign" or otherwise, the Swedish films were made for television, and look and feel that way. David Fincher made the source material cinematic. Those who think the Swedish ones were better are the kind of people who never see subtitled films, and for whom the experience is so new and exciting that the quality of the movie(s) in question barely registers.

Aren't you a clever clogs :rolleyes:

I have only seen the Swedish trilogy, and regretted that I spent too much time reading the subtitles to be able to properly enjoy the cinematography, mostly of the first film. The second and third films I found pretty boring, but I blame that on Steig Larsson for writing books in order to write about Lisbeth, rather than writing books to write good books. Probably I need to read the books to understand the appeal of Played with Fire and Kicked the Hornet's Nest.

The first one, though, I found gripping. The ending was silly, but everything before it was forgot-my-popcorn interesting.

[Mister Cheech]

Anyone who thinks the hack work of otherwise unknown Swedish directors-for-hire surpasses the efforts of the director of "Se7en," "Fight Club," "Zodiac" and "The Social Network" is an idiot. Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist turn in great performances, sure, but Rooney Mara fares no worse.

[Jack Batty]

What's it like cleaning Fincher's pool?

[Marley23]

Those who think the Swedish ones were better are the kind of people who never see subtitled films, and for whom the experience is so new and exciting that the quality of the movie(s) in question barely registers.
Anyone who thinks the hack work of otherwise unknown Swedish directors-for-hire surpasses the efforts of the director of "Se7en," "Fight Club," "Zodiac" and "The Social Network" is an idiot.
This isn't allowed in Cafe Society. You can say a movie sucks, but you can't call people names for liking it. Please don't do this again.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Anyone who thinks the hack work of otherwise unknown Swedish directors-for-hire surpasses the efforts of the director of "Se7en," "Fight Club," "Zodiac" and "The Social Network" is an idiot. Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist turn in great performances, sure, but Rooney Mara fares no worse.

#1, the directors are only unknown to you because you aren't Swedish.

#2, you assertion that the Swedish films were made for TV is, AFAIK, false. I base that on the fact that they all have a distributor and a release date.

#3, Hi, Opal!

[Mister Cheech]

Sorry mod.

Bo:

Other television movies have been shown in theaters after the fact. Ingmar Bergman's "Saraband" for instance.

I'm also quite sure that Swedes share the same canon of acclaimed directors as the rest of the world. I live Australia, for instance, and there are no filmmakers of ours we consider to be noteworthy that the rest of the world doesn't (Peter Weir, director of "The Truman Show," is Australian, for instance).

Sweden is not secretly hiding great filmmakers. Those of us who love movies know about them already - the aforementioned Ingmar Bergman, Tomas Alfredson ("Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"), Lukas Moodyson ("Lilya 4-ever"), Roy Andersson ("Songs from the Second Floor"), etc.

No one, Swedish or otherwise, will tell you that the directors of the "Girl..." movies are remarkable outside of the Millennium trilogy, let alone comprable to David Fincher. Sorry if I sound like his "pool cleaner," but his movies have been met with consistent acclaim (not to mention high IMDb ratings, Oscars, cult followings, etc.), and a great amount of people anticipate his upcoming projects. I'm not saying that everyone must agree with the consensus, but he is one of the most revered modern filmmakers, so it doesn't add up to me that people would prefer the works of nobodies.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Sorry mod.

Bo:

Other television movies have been shown in theaters after the fact. Ingmar Bergman's "Saraband" for instance.

I'm also quite sure that Swedes share the same canon of acclaimed directors as the rest of the world. I live Australia, for instance, and there are no filmmakers of ours we consider to be noteworthy that the rest of the world doesn't (Peter Weir, director of "The Truman Show," is Australian, for instance).

Sweden is not secretly hiding great filmmakers. Those of us who love movies know about them already - the aforementioned Ingmar Bergman, Tomas Alfredson ("Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"), Lukas Moodyson ("Lilya 4-ever"), Roy Andersson ("Songs from the Second Floor"), etc.

No one, Swedish or otherwise, will tell you that the directors of the "Girl..." movies are remarkable outside of the Millennium trilogy, let alone comprable to David Fincher. Sorry if I sound like his "pool cleaner," but his movies have been met with consistent acclaim (not to mention high IMDb ratings, Oscars, cult followings, etc.), and a great amount of people anticipate his upcoming projects. I'm not saying that everyone must agree with the consensus, but he is one of the most revered modern filmmakers, so it doesn't add up to me that people would prefer the works of nobodies.

Your arguments are unconvincing, and the pedestal you seem to place yourself on (not to mention the ditch you seem to think the rest of us occupy) is offensive.

ETA: Good luck with that, btw.

[Taomist]

The films were done in totally different styles...which is why different people like each.
Some like both.

I didn't even want to read the books until I saw the terrible, very early trailers for the American version of the '...Tattoo" film. THAT looked interesting, even though I thought they were awful trailers, in that I think they did a good job of promoting just the feel of the film. And that was enough for me.

I read the books, and they fit the feel. Saw the Swedish films and...they fell short.
Saw the American version, and thought it hit the mark right on.

I don't think it's because he's a better director...as interesting as the opening credits were, WTF did they have to do at all with the film? They didn't even set up the mood at all. But the film itself fit my own mental version of the books, and so I like it better. Others will feel the same about the Swedish films, and that's fine.

Wish the punter* hadn't died, because I'd like to see what he would have thought of the film versions himself.

*author

[Zebra]

What you learn about the initial and number combinations in the books is that back in the 60s Sweden had a different phone number system, without going to the book I will sort of wing it.

Yclues were CJ 34567. At that time, 34567 was a plausible phone number with the 34 being the province, 5 being the town and 67 the individual phone, similar to the US being PEnsylvania 6500 as PEnsylvania district of NY city, and 6500 being the hotels actual phone number [in the US you would dial for your operator and tell her you want to make a call to NY city, PEnnsylvania 6500, and she would contact the NY operator and the NY operator would hook her end of the switching system to NYC, and that operator would hook you to PE6500. Later the system was automated and you just used numbers. Honest, you can wiki it.

It took someone distanced from that particular numbering system for phones to see it simply as a series of bible chapter/verse references. I would not have made that jump because I am not in the throws of christianity intensification like Mikael's daughter was.

And as to walking around naked, different cultures, different habits. Frequently the scandanavian countries [especially Finland] have a sauna tradition that means casual nakedness tends to be ignored. Besides, many people walk around naked in their own house, in front of their lovers. My husband walks around our house naked when the roomie is away, no big deal. I am not as comfortable naked and only tend to do it in the bedroom [except for the times I had previously been to a nudist establishment. ]


They mentioned in the film that they were phone numbers. And one of the numbers had a person who lived there with those initials. One them was active but no person with those initials lived there and the rest were not valid numbers. So instead of realizing that the "matches" were flukes they didn't look to any other possible meaning to the numbers.

Yes I know Swedes have a different view of casual nudity. But only Lisbeth had that. No other character in the film did it. Only her.

[DMark]

An interesting Hollywood Reporter interview (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo-rooney-mara-281904) on the making of The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo

[DMark]

Just a final tally - looks like the film will make money.
As per the Hollywood Reporter today:

"Dragon Tattoo, directed by David Fincher, grossed $3.8 million for the weekend for a domestic cume of $94.8 million. Overseas, it has now earned $70.8 million for a global total of $165.5 million. Box office observers believe the film could ultimately earn $300 million globally."

[Equipoise]

It'll break 100 million domestic no problem, especially if it gets a few Oscar nominations on Tuesday morning. I'm not expecting it to get a Best Picture nomination but it could happen. I'm hoping Rooney Mara gets a Best Actress nomination if nothing else, and I'd love to see Trent Reznor's score recognized. Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay are slight possibilities. We'll see.

[DMark]

I'm hoping Rooney Mara gets a Best Actress nomination if nothing else...

Speaking of Rooney Mara - I had no idea she came from a rather wealthy family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Mara) of football owners/managers etc.
Not that this makes any difference, but interesting to note she was not the wayward, struggling actress who needed a job to avoid homelessness.

[Tom Tildrum]

Here's Cracked's humorous and slightly cruel take (http://www.cracked.com/article_19671_the-girl-with-dragon-tattoo-in-under-5-minutes.html) on the movie.

[Ellis Dee]

Speaking of Rooney Mara - I had no idea she came from a rather wealthy family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Mara) of football owners/managers etc.
Not that this makes any difference, but interesting to note she was not the wayward, struggling actress who needed a job to avoid homelessness.As a diehard Giants fan I am hopelessly in love with both Mara sisters. (Older sister Kate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KateMara08TIFF.jpg).)

You undersold the family, by the way. They are (great) grandchildren of the founders of two of the most storied franchises in the NFL. The Maras founded and still co-own the New York Giants, while the Rooneys founded and still own the Pittsburgh Steelers. Thus the name Rooney Mara.

Kate was asked in an interview if her costars knew who her family was, and she said not always. If asked about football she just says she's a Giants fan, but her mom is a Steelers fan. heh.

[Irishman]

Saw the movie over the holidays. Went in aware of the book but not much about it. Haven't seen the Swedish versions. So I wasn't totally prepared for what went down. I was expecting the uplifting story of the Dragon with the Girl Tattoo. ;)

I enjoyed the movie. Well, not the rape or violence, but the overall story. It was a bit confusing in places, but by the end it had filled in the details enough that I could make sense of it all.

I liked the opening sequence.

To me, it was a little odd that they essentially had two plot lines to address. One, the one that took the bulk of the movie, was the murder mystery plot. The second was simple enough as an impetus to put Mikal in the circumstance to investigate, but was a bit out of place to go back and address at the end. Almost seems like that could have been a separate movie. They did a reasonable job making it a montage and having it resolve that element, so Lisbet is clear of that situation and free to do whatever she wants next. So that does in some way tie to the overall story.

That kind of pacing is not typical of films because you have this dramatic climax, and then the denouemont runs out so long it's anticlimactic. I don't think it could have been sequenced differently, though, because it wouldn't make sense for her to be spending time actively working that separate issue when the pace of events on their murder investigation is going pretty fast. If their investigation was dragging out longer, it could seem reasonable she would find time to do both in parallel, but it didn't feel like she had time to split her efforts, and needed to concentrate on the missing girl. Ergo, she has to accomplish the whole banking escapade afterwards.


Anyone else disturbed that this type of violent, particularly violence towards women is mainstream entertainment. I could see this being a niche film/book but for the book to be considered a beach read, for the movie to be Xmas release is troubling. I don't get it. It seems like it will be very disturbing imagery and storyline. Why do so many people want to see it. I suppose I'm just a prude, but I just don't really see the appeal.

The appeal isn't the violence that occurs, it's the overall story, the character development, and the way Lisbet retakes control.

[quote=Alka Seltzer;14589117]The entire rape story line could have been dropped and only improved the movie.

I disagree. It is an essential element of the character of Lisbet, and is entangled with the theme of the movie. You think this is the first time she was raped? It's hinted but not quite stated when she says

she set her father on fire, which is what got her committed to the psych ward in the first place and why she's a 22 year old ward of the state.

It's why she's so fucked up, part of why her aesthetic is so graphic and extreme. She does that as much to project an appearance of "Don't fuck with me" as a personal sense of fashion.

Plus, after the blowjob, she saw the writing on the wall and used it to her advantage to get the upper hand on the guy. As she said, she underestimated him. But she got revenge in spades. He had the power over her, she had no reputation and no credibility, which is why he expected to be able to get away with it. So she turned it on its head and took all the power away from him, and made him live in fear.

I can handle the rape scene in the book but choose not to watch it on screen, especially as it's been described as graphic.

It definitely was uncomfortable to watch.


She didn't even kill him, she just kept him blackmailed for a year and a few months. Her half brother did the killing.

Gah! You put a spoiler for the later stories in with a reveal from this movie! Don't do that! Or at least give a warning!


To begin with, why the heck does Lisbeth sleep with the author insertion character (I mean, uh, reporter?). The reporter had next to no actual personal characteristics. Who would even bother to sleep with him? It just doesn't make any sense.

This seemed a little out of place. She's very self-protective, and it just seems to happen. Someone tries to kill him, so she decides he needs sex. :confused: But their sex does not seem unfun or unpleasant, it is totally a shared experience. Maybe she even gets him
to give more cunnilingus. ;)

A "feminist" movie would have maybe shown her being able to reclaim her sexuality by eventually having positive, fun, emotionally-equal sexual relationships with an enthusiastic partner rather than the fairly tawdry, emotionally disengaged and unsatisfying sex she has.

Her relationship with Mikal did seem to be positive, fun, and emotionally-equal with an enthusiastic partner. He just eventually went back to his long term girlfriend, and she learned that even decent men can be jerks.

*laugh* You're kidding, right? Are you male or female? The way I see it, even if he weren't played by Daniel Craig, he's a good man, one of the few truly good men Lisbeth has ever known (her boss Armansky and her former guardian being the only others), he's smart and interesting and he wants Lisbeth's help in helping to catch a killer of women. He needs her and that's sexy when added to all the other things.

Plus, he didn't force or manipulate the relationship in any way. She chose it.

One thing that was slightly annoying was the number of product placements. 7-11, McD's, Apple, Google, Wikipedia, etc. They fit into the storyline (Lisbeth's awful diet for one) but after awhile it seemed like overkill.

I'm generally pretty oblivious unless they name-check these things. I am used to seeing people owning computers, cars, coffee, etc and using computers going to actual websites that exist that that kind of placement is subtle and invisible to me. Unless they say

"Hey, Bob, how do you like my new Ford Focus?"
"Wow, great Ford Focus, it really is the best in Texas."
"Yeah, you should get a Ford Focus for yourself."

I don't usually notice. So what if you can see the computer has an Apple logo? Computers have logos on them. So what if the coffee is from Starbucks, and you can see the logo? Starbucks are everywhere, and they have logos all over them.

Saw it last night........ I missed how they explained the Anita/Henrietta thing in the movie and read tha book too long ago to remember exactly how it was handled there.

In the movie, they explain

the girl was smuggled out by her cousin. She used her cousin's fiance's last name and the cousin used her own last name, then swapped IDs after reaching England. So there were two identities established for Anita - Anita took one and Henrietta lived under the other. Eventually Anita died before this film occurs.

Did anyone else think the faded color picture Henrik showed Mikael of the young Harriet looked incredibly like Lisbeth, at least what she would have looked like at that age?

Did not observe that.

[Irishman]

Forgot to mention...

Excuse me, what makes you think that Lisbeth is "sexually fucked-up" and what makes you think she's compulsively drawn to "destructive sexual relationships"? I suppose it's not clear in the remake, but she and Miriam Wu, the woman she picks up at the club, have known each other for years and have a very comfortable casual sexual relationship.

Yes, it is not clear in the movie that they have a longstanding comfortable casual relationship. It appears like an abrupt, no emotional attachment hookup. But that certainly makes a little more sense for the part where

Mikael shows up at Lisbet's door to meet, and Miriam offers to stay. I still sort of processed it as "Hey there's this strange man here, and while you may not know me well, I'm at least an independent third party, and another woman." It worked okay, but having them actually know each other gives that a slightly different subtext.

Also, I did not see any ninja skills in evidence.

The first attack by the robber on the subway, yes she wins the scuffle, but it's very much a scuffle, she wins mostly by sheer rage and not any real ability, and her computer gets broken in the process. No mad ninja skills there.

Then when she is attacked by the "gaurdian", he grabs her and chokes her out pretty easily, she doesn't get much of a fight in. When she gets her revenge she uses surprise and a taser, not ninja fighting skills.

For the climax scene, she sneaks in from behind and clubs the guy in the head with a golf club. Then she chases him down with her motorcycle and causes him to have a car accident. Not really ninja skills there. The sneaking part was acceptable, but a ninja would have been far more effective with that golf club. ;)

Sure, she's something of an extraordinary person, but that's fairly common in books/movies for the hero. Her talent is being very intelligent and having mad computer skills. She's socially distant because of her fucked up childhood, she's athletically not particularly special but knows how to ride a motorcycle well. I'd say it's reasonably balanced for a hero.