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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nope. Read the book.
DISGUSTING!
Why would I PAY to see that?
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
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)
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.
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.
You just described Batgirl.
And?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Good on you for arguing against something that no one said! Keep on fighting the good fight!