CBR: SPINOFF REVIEW: "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"

[CBR News]

In the expert hands of director David Fincher, Stieg Larsson's bestselling novel "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is transformed into a tension-filled, and strangely beautiful, big-screen thriller.


Full article here (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=36045).

[Ilash]

Man, do I not agree. I've seen the film and it's nothing more than a glorified redub of the perfectly decent Swedish original (I know, Swedes talking Swedish! Insane!). All because English speakers seem to have a problem with reading subtitles.

What really sucks though is that rather than making another Se7en or Social Network, David Fincher is going to spend the next three years doing these utterly pointless remakes/ translations.

[the goddamn batman]

And the next two kinda sucked to begin with.

[Ilash]

And the next two kinda sucked to begin with.

I thought the third one was OK. Not so much the second one though.

[Ilash]

And the next two kinda sucked to begin with.

I thought the third one was OK. Not so much the second one though.

[the goddamn batman]

It was better than the second, but what's that saying?
At any rate, I agree Fincher's wasting his potential on these. Personally.

[paulski]

Hell, I disliked the first of the original movies. I thought it was plain boring. So why on earth would I even bother seeing the remake (especially when the preview made it look like a scene-by-scene redo)?

[Jake V]

Hell, I disliked the first of the original movies. I thought it was plain boring. So why on earth would I even bother seeing the remake (especially when the preview made it look like a scene-by-scene redo)?

Because it's made by a more talented filmmaker.

[Ilash]

Because it's made by a more talented filmmaker.

Not that you can tell, sadly.

[the goddamn batman]

How would that even matter of it's a shot for shot remake from a book to begin with? :confused:

[Ilash]

How would that even matter of it's a shot for shot remake from a book to begin with? :confused:

I haven't read the books, are the films that close to them?

[the goddamn batman]

That's my understanding. Didn't like em enough to read them.

[Jake V]

How would that even matter of it's a shot for shot remake from a book to begin with? :confused:

It isn't.

1010

[thwhtGuardian]

It isn't.

1010

Yeah, I've seen both and I don't really see it as anything approaching a shot for shot remake.

[the goddamn batman]

Fair enough. I've heard it basically is from several people. But I haven't seen this and probably won't any time soon.

[Ilash]

Yeah, I've seen both and I don't really see it as anything approaching a shot for shot remake.

It wasn't but it wasn't all that far off either.

[thwhtGuardian]

It wasn't but it wasn't all that far off either.

Any similarities come simply from them sharing the source material, everything from tone and pacing are extremely different in everyway that actually matters.

[the goddamn batman]

So far, you're pretty much the only person I've heard say that.

[thwhtGuardian]

So far, you're pretty much the only person I've heard say that.

Eh, I think you'll find that anyone who approached the film with anything resembling objectivity would tell you they were different films. The only people who I've seen call it a shot for shot remake are those were against it being made in the first place and were just looking for another reason to dismiss it.

I will say that I think I may have enjoyed the Swedish original a bit more, but that doesn't take anything away from my enjoyment Fincher's version, it's still interesting in it's own right and very well made.

[paulski]

Fair enough. I've heard it basically is from several people. But I haven't seen this and probably won't any time soon.


It wasn't but it wasn't all that far off either.

I can only go by the 3 minute preview I saw of the Fincher remake (as I won't be going to see his movie), but basically every scene they showed was identical to the original.

I'm sure the whole thing wouldn't necessarily be like that, but it certainly wasn't any kind of incentive to see the new version.

[Chiasm]

I've seen both the Swedish and now American version and I must say that the American version is vastly superior in every single way from the acting, directing, cinematography, and effects. Any doubts that anyone had about Rooney Mara are fully dispelled as she was utterly fantastic as Lisbeth. Noomi Rapace wasn't bad by any means but Mara did better. There wasn't necessarily anything wrong with the first Swedish movie, though the second was horrible and if I hadn't read the book would have been utterly confusing since there was little attention given to a logical plot, its just that the American version was better in every way.

[Chiasm]

I haven't read the books, are the films that close to them?

Fairly close.

I saw the Swedish version before reading the book but it seemed close enough from what I could recall when I read the book. The American version smartly did some things different from the book by leaving what would have amounted to an hour of film time out of the beginning of the movie where it deals with Mikel's legal problems. Its utterly boring and uninteresting in the book and makes the book very hard to get into and likely if I hadn't seen the movie I would have dropped it. Seriously your several hundred pages into the book and Mikel is still dealing with legal trouble and hasn't yet started his search for Harriet. The resolution of the Harriet storyline is also different in the book and is closer to the Swedish version than the American one. I think I liked the American version better though because it simplified it in a way that didn't take anything away except for what would have been about 15 minutes of screen time.

The second Swedish movie is far different from the book in that so many important plot details are left out of the movie that your just confused as hell as to how the movie gets from point A to point B. I again saw the Swedish movie before reading the book and was baffled by numerous plot jumps that finally made sense when reading the book.

And I didn't watch the 3rd Swedish movie because by that time I'd started reading the books and decided not to bother after how bad the 2nd movie was.

[Forseti]

I can only go by the 3 minute preview I saw of the Fincher remake (as I won't be going to see his movie), but basically every scene they showed was identical to the original.

I'm sure the whole thing wouldn't necessarily be like that, but it certainly wasn't any kind of incentive to see the new version.
I got the same feeling from the first preview I saw.

The original is still far too fresh in my mind to go see the remake any time soon, and I have no inclination to go and see it just to draw a comparison, so I won't be forming my own opinion until a few years from now, when I can see it for free on TV.

[Libaax]

I've seen both the Swedish and now American version and I must say that the American version is vastly superior in every single way from the acting, directing, cinematography, and effects. Any doubts that anyone had about Rooney Mara are fully dispelled as she was utterly fantastic as Lisbeth. Noomi Rapace wasn't bad by any means but Mara did better. There wasn't necessarily anything wrong with the first Swedish movie, though the second was horrible and if I hadn't read the book would have been utterly confusing since there was little attention given to a logical plot, its just that the American version was better in every way.

The american version that spend a billion swedish kronor in sweden to make it should have better effects,cinematography than a cheap Swedish TV FILM.....

The swedish film was cheap and for tv. It got acclaim,money in europe because of Larrson. It wasnt the best Sweden has to offer in directing, filmmaking. It was just license to make money on the book just like the american version.

American one doesnt look much better for being much more expensive, more famous names.

[Brian Gravity]

I just got home from seeing this. My wife is reading the books and she really wanted to see it. So this is coming from someone that has just seen Fincher's version, not read the books or seen the 2009 Swedish movie.

For what it's worth, I thought it was a great mystery/thriller movie and was better than what I had expected. I thought the actors (Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara) did a great job and I love Fincher's vision...so I think if you haven't already seen the international interpretation of this movie yet you may enjoy this a lot more.

With these kinds of movies where a mystery is involved...that usually is the hook. It's not as fun to watch a movie you already know the ending too, unless you just read the book and want to watch it on the big screen.

For me, I'm interested enough to watch the Swedish versions now...and I don't think Fincher is wasting any time in making this trilogy. This is the kind of story that suits his directing styles well.

[Chiasm]

The american version that spend a billion swedish kronor in sweden to make it should have better effects,cinematography than a cheap Swedish TV FILM.....

The swedish film was cheap and for tv. It got acclaim,money in europe because of Larrson. It wasnt the best Sweden has to offer in directing, filmmaking. It was just license to make money on the book just like the american version.

American one doesnt look much better for being much more expensive, more famous names.

You can make a good movie on the cheap. This wasn't a CGI film where effects mattered. The Swedish ones just made bad choices about what parts of the books to include and to not include.

[Libaax]

You can make a good movie on the cheap. This wasn't a CGI film where effects mattered. The Swedish ones just made bad choices about what parts of the books to include and to not include.

If you say it like than i see what you mean. I reacted to effects, cinematography thing. Swedish film didnt get a bit acclaim her except for the lead roles. Rapace,Blomkvist who ended up getting Hollywood roles after it.

It was just popular crime film and not a cheap great film from europe. Let The Right One in got better acclaim as cheap good film over here.

[Mia]

You can make a good movie on the cheap. This wasn't a CGI film where effects mattered. The Swedish ones just made bad choices about what parts of the books to include and to not include.

Can you provide an example of what was necessary in the book that was left out of the Swedish film? Because I can't remember it.

The only thing I remember the Swedish film leaving out was 1. Mikel's legal problem's/crusade against big business. 2. Mikel's screwing viritually every woman he came into contact with. 3. Gratuitous scenes of women being tortured and raped. 4. Lisbeths' anti-social background.

All stuff which I found to be a bit superflous to the film and would have killed the flow. Personally reading the book points 1-3 came across as the authors personal fantasies and added nothing to the story.

[Chiasm]

Can you provide an example of what was necessary in the book that was left out of the Swedish film? Because I can't remember it.

The only thing I remember the Swedish film leaving out was 1. Mikel's legal problem's/crusade against big business. 2. Mikel's screwing viritually every woman he came into contact with. 3. Gratuitous scenes of women being tortured and raped. 4. Lisbeths' anti-social background.

All stuff which I found to be a bit superflous to the film and would have killed the flow. Personally reading the book points 1-3 came across as the authors personal fantasies and added nothing to the story.

Its been too long since I've seen the Swedish movie or read the book for me to give a play by play but I do recall these mistakes that the Swedish one made (especially obvious now because the American one didn't do them):

1. Too much time spent on Mikel and his legal troubles. While they are sort of important for setup they really kill the flow of the book early and the Swedish movie. The American one did better by only briefly touching on it and skipping the prison sequence altogether.

2. Too much time showing Mikel will sleep with anyone. In the Swedish and book there is a point where he sleeps with Cecelia. We already know he's a slut because he sleeps with his married boss so its unnecessary and is probably why the American one left it out.

3. The end conclusion with the Harriet mystery. The Swedish version followed the book which put a couple of unnecessary steps in finding out what happened. This all occurs after the conclusion with the serial killer storyline and is all very anti-climactic so shortening it as the American one did was good.

As to what parts they should have included from the books, I'm largely referring to the second book. The Swedish movie is almost incomprehensible since so many details are left out and your left scratching your head about who certain characters are or why they are doing what they are doing. Very little detail about Lisbeth's father and brother. The boxer guy comes out of nowhere with little background why he cares. The whole motorcycle gang parts. Etc. I saw this movie about a week before I started the book and it was only after reading the book I finally understood what happened.

[Jared]

Just go back from seeing this. I haven't read the book, so my only comparison going in was with Fincher's Seven. It's not as good as that, but it I did enjoy. From what I've heard, it's better than Zodiac.


It wasn't nearly as dark as that film. Aside from rape scene and the language and nudity, it wasn't any more graphic than some episodes of Criminal Minds. The awesome credit sequence also had me expected some much more twisted imagery in the movie than what we got. There are two main flaws:
1) Casting Stellan Skaarsgard. At this point, it's just too obvious. The person next to me didn't know his name, but she recognized him and said "he's always the bad guy."
2) The pacing. The film keeps cutting back to Lisbeth in the archive room, in such a way that one would assume she's going to be attacked or threatened in some way, but nothing happens. Apparently, the security guard was supposed to call Martin when she left...but I guess he was taking a piss break? After the murder angle is resolved, the stuff with Wennerstrom just takes a bit too long. I think that could have been trimmed to get to the same end.

Also, didn't the picture of young Harietta look a lot like Lisbeth? I thought for sure there would be some relevance to that, but nobody in the film seemed to notice.


Overall, I liked it but I didn't love it It's beautifully shot and very well acted, but it doesn't have that special "oomph" to really make it memorable.

I had never heard of Rooney Mara before, but now I know she's Kate Mara's sister and their family owns the Giants and the Steelers. So it's nice to see gazillionaire princesses who actually work and have talent, which they both do. I think Rooney will be getting some award recognition first, however. Also, she's much hotter and more beautiful than what I'd expected from the trailers.

Lisbeth struck me as a grittier, non-poser version of Abbey from NCIS.