The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

[Flashbang]

Newsweek December 26th/January 2nd 2012



worldmags

 

[sobriquet87]

David Fincher's adaptation was perfect. Absolutely perfect. I can't even think of another adjective to describe it, because it was so perfect (see there I go again).

The casting is perfect. I think this is the first book-to-film adaptation in which all the characters look exactly how I pictured them when I read the book. Also, I love how David Fincher included ALL the characters from the book. The Swedish version cut out Berger and Blomvist's relationship and also some of the Vangers (like Cecilia). It also cut out some of the darker scenes like the part with the cat, a certain scene involving Martin and Blomvist, and it didn't really discuss the murders in detail. This version covered everything. Nothing is toned down. I really hope Fincher does The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest.

Oh and Rooney IS Lisbeth from the moment she stepped on-screen. She was the one actress that I was skeptical about, but she seriously proved me wrong.

 

[loladonna]

^I can't wait to see it. I'm glad Fincher chose to do a new adapation.

 

[sobriquet87]

It's a definite must see. You won't be disappointed. If I have to choose one fault with it, it's really long. Close to 3 hours...that's how faithful it is to the book.

 

[wickedcrazyness]

David Fincher's adaptation was perfect. Absolutely perfect. I can't even think of another adjective to describe it, because it was so perfect (see there I go again).

The casting is perfect. I think this is the first book-to-film adaptation in which all the characters look exactly how I pictured them when I read the book. Also, I love how David Fincher included ALL the characters from the book. The Swedish version cut out Berger and Blomvist's relationship and also some of the Vangers (like Cecilia). It also cut out some of the darker scenes like the part with the cat, a certain scene involving Martin and Blomvist, and it didn't really discuss the murders in detail. This version covered everything. Nothing is toned down. I really hope Fincher does The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest.

Oh and Rooney IS Lisbeth from the moment she stepped on-screen. She was the one actress that I was skeptical about, but she seriously proved me wrong.

I am so excited to see this movie! I'm happy to hear your good review! I'm glad that everything in the book is in it and that it's not toned down. I can't wait to see it for myself!

 

[heelscatchfire]

I just saw it, it is very very good. The movie was faithful to the book and the actors are perfect. I agree, when I read the books, I pictured these actors. Rooney did a great job, she really played Lisbeth so well.

 

[TianSoFine]

I just watched the trailers for the American version. First, I have to say that I've read the book but I haven't seen either movie. Second, no one and nothing are how I pictured anyone and anything, especially the direction and feel of Lisbeth Salander.

 

[KoV]

A very good film. David Fincher's signature brooding atmosphere and eye for harsh beauty serve this film very well. Rooney Mara is able to take this already iconic character that's been portrayed by another actress so recently and make it her own. It's so much more than the physical transformation and it's so much more than just a quiet and intense performance. She brings out Lisbeth's humanity more than I was expecting, and she's quite sexy, but in a way that doesn't betray Lisbeth's character. And it's remarkable that she's is able to be relateable and even funny while portraying a character who is so guarded and unusual. Daniel Craig is also very good for the most part, but the script hinders him more than it does any other cast member and his accent was inconsistent. Having seen the entire film I'm honestly not sure if he was trying to keep his British accent or if he was trying to do a very light Swedish accent. Confusing. Anyway, the film overall is very well done. Some scenes are perfectly realized and from a visual standpoint the film is just tremendous. From the streets of Stockholm to the wintery Hedestead, the locations are perfectly selected. I liked the score as well. It was quite quiet, much to my surprise, which I think was a wise decision. My major complaint about the film is simply that the script doesn't go above and beyond. Steven Zaillian's screenplay covers the story, but he didn't really explore all the possibilities. I don't know if I'm jaded just because I've read the book and seen the Swedish film, but I felt that he should have taken more time with the story and been more detailed. Motivations and character relations are skimmed over. And honestly, despite the film being over two and a half hours, it never dragged and I wanted more development and more character. That's what made the story so special to me when I first experienced it. I just wanted something special from the film in terms of how the script handled the investigation and some of the characters. As it was, I was entertained, but didn't really have any kind of emotional connection to the story. It was adequate, but not ideal. I feel like I need to reinforce that it's a film I enjoyed immensely. Fincher brings his unmistakable panache to the film and the performers, particularly Rooney Mara, turn in performances that are more than worthy. I feel like this will be a movie that I can watch multiple times and perhaps get even more out of it on repeated viewings. All in all, it's a good film but I can't pretend I'm not disappointed on some level. I really hope they make the sequels with a different screenwriter.

 

[saann]

Just saw this and I have mixed feelings about it. I loved the way Stockholm was shot, that was really beautiful.

I definitely felt like it dragged for too long, there was so much in the beginning that could have stayed in the editing room and the script wasn't that great. I also felt like Fincher's effort here made this all too similar to his previous work, Zodiac, and compared to that I felt this to be much weaker. And to be honest, I wish he would have sensationalized the drama a bit more, the r*pe scene was pretty well made but I felt the final climax to be a bit lacking.

I thought Craig's character was too thin to work as a main and I found Mara's character to be interesting but also a bit too calculated (does that make any sense?). It's like she nailed everything on a superficial level but I didn't see a fully rounded individual. She had the looks and the glares down but there wasn't much else. I don't know how much of that can be blamed on Fincher or on Mara but her character wasn't quite there (I haven't read the book though, so I don't know everything that lures beneath her). I think both characters needed a bit more work for this to work as a standalone film.

And I just have to say that the swedish accents bothered me SO MUCH. Mostly because one could obviously tell which ones were real swedes and which ones weren't. They were ridiculous and made me appreciate that Craig's character didn't seem to put one on. Mara's accent was not good at all, especially when she saying swedish names and phrases. I mean, they're already making a movie taking place in sweden with swedish characters speaking english, why even bother with the accents?

All in all I would place this in the category of movies that I should like but actually feel meh about.

6/10

 

[advo]

I mean, they're already making a movie taking place in sweden with swedish characters speaking english, why even bother with the accents?

I always thought it was funny too that they bothered with accents because if they were Swedish they would SPEAK SWEDISH!

 

[modelista]

^that's only one of the many problems I had with this movie.. Honestly, I'm simply astounded to hear all these great reviews, when it was good at best I admit, I didn't read the books but I DID see all 3 of the original movies & I feel like the original movies were an accurate representation of the books

1) First, I'm annoyed with the weird accents.. Seriously, what was that & why was that even necessary plus, I don't know if anyone else noticed but there was like 4 different accents going at one time (phony swedish, actual swedish from Stellan, british, & americanrolleyes:

2) David Fincher was absolutely the wrong director for this.. His moodiness didn't work for me. I liked the towns & general cinematography but sometimes the scenes didn't call for that gloomy atmosphere. And, when the scenes changed from light to dark, my eyes hurt

3) Someone mentioned before that Rooney Mara's acting being too "calculated".. I totally agree. Noomi's portrayal gave Lisbeth some dimension, depth or whatever you wanna call it cuz she WAS the character whereas Rooney was trying to BE her, if that makes any sense. Noomi was alouf, mysterious, but mostly just cool (literally & figuratively). She radiated strength even just standing still & I always wanted to know what Noomi/Lisbeth was thinking & what her motives were for what she was doing. I wouldn't been surprised to find out if that's the way Noomi is in real life.. Rooney acted how she thought someone like that should act but sometimes she came off twitchy like a paranoid druggie

3) I don't completely blame Rooney's acting cuz she could've been better directed. But mostly, they could've had a better script what was with all the lame wise cracking

4) The film was out of chronological order

5) they added random unnecessary characters like a daughter for Daniel. Was that in the book?? Plus, why did they change characters storylines & how an event transpired when the original ones were FAR better

6) I'm gonna try not to be a spoiler but, at the end, Rooney told to much It really should've been edited out. What she talked about is supposed to be one of the storylines in a sequel

7) lastly, I didn't like how it got all sentimental at the end when the sense with Joely lacked it.

I went to see this with my bestie a couple of days after it was released & I throughly annoyed the heck outta him with my cringing, sighing, eyerolling & mumbling. He LOVED it & is CONVINCED I would've too if I hadn't seen the original but a couple of strangers next to us totally put him in his place & now I'm looking for a NEW movie buddy to go with us

Imo, don't waste $8-$12 & see the original cuz I'm really disappointed.. I was totally excited to see this movie especially with all the publicity she's getting for this I truly hope she doesn't get nominated/win anything for this cuz if anything, Noomi deserves it.. And I don't even like Noomi
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[kokobombon]

Damn, I still have to wait a few more weeks for this movie to come out in my city

Modelista: I have read the books and seen the first swedish movie, I can tell you that that movie wasn´t an accurate portrayal of the book. Like some characters and scenes were missing, Mikael indeed has a daughter in the book. I´ve read some reviews saying that this movie was more accurate in that regard.

Anyway, can´t wait to see it!

 

[sobriquet87]

Anyone who thinks the Swedish versions were accurate representations of the books, should read the books. End of story.


It's not fair to compare the Swedish films to Fincher's version. They're two completely different adaptations of the same book. I read the books first, then saw the Swedish versions and I thought they were meh, because so much was cut out. Fincher's version is definitely more faithful to the heart of the book...flaws and all.

 

[jemina]

I read some pretty bad critiques.

Is it really that bad ?

 

[saann]

Anyone who thinks the Swedish versions were accurate representations of the books, should read the books. End of story.


It's not fair to compare the Swedish films to Fincher's version. They're two completely different adaptations of the same book. I read the books first, then saw the Swedish versions and I thought they were meh, because so much was cut out. Fincher's version is definitely more faithful to the heart of the book...flaws and all.

I haven't seen the swedish films nor have I read the books and viewing it from merely a film standpoint I felt that it lacked a lot. I can imagine fans of the books being glad to see a more faithful adaptation and will probably find viewing the film much more satisfactory but as a standalone film I didn't find it all that great. Maybe it's because of weak source material or something but it dragged, especially the subplot with wennerström that could have been left out completely.

With the characters especially there was something lacking to make them fully rounded. While the books might have provided this, as a viewer who hasn't had any previous experience with the series, I thought the characters turned out to be cool but merely on a superficial level.

Sometimes being true to the source material isn't really the best way to make a great film. These are two different mediums that demand different approaches.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Fashionturnip]

never read the book, or seen the other films, but I really enjoyed the Rooney Mara version. Highly recommend. Looking forward to parts 2 & 3.

......how can someone say 'ive never read the books but I feel like the original movies were an accurate representation of the books'....um how would you know u've never read the books?!?!

​

 

[blueorchid]

I liked the movie a lot more than I was expecting to. Instead of mentioning things that have already been brought up, I have to say that I loved the way the credits were done at the beginning. I wish I could watch them again without paying to see the whole movie.

Maybe it's because of weak source material or something but it dragged, especially the subplot with wennerström that could have been left out completely.

Wennerstrom was the reason that Mikael was working for the Vanger family though. If they completely left out that plot how would there even be a story? They left much of it out in the Swedish version too, this one did a better job dealing with that subplot.

 

[Nomada]

As a fan of Robin Wright I would like to ask you one question? How much screen time has her as Erika Berger?

 

[cestmagique]

While the books might have provided this, as a viewer who hasn't had any previous experience with the series, I thought the characters turned out to be cool but merely on a superficial level.

I haven't seen this yet (actually I don't plan to), but this is exactly what I was afraid of. I think a lot of the publicity leading up to the release totally ruined my idea of the film. I mean, great, Mara and Fincher have a creepy relationship, Mara got her nipple pierced for the role (ooooh wow), Mara wrapped herself around Daniel Craig and posed half naked for a billion different magazines... it was too much. Hearing Noomi talk about the role, I have so much more respect for her and how she approached it. She seemed to understand Lisbeth and the feminism of the novels, whereas Mara in that part, at least in the marketing, comes across like the entire role = a goddamn 'edgy' haircut.

 

[modelista]

......how can someone say 'ive never read the books but I feel the original movies were an accurate representation of books'....um how would you know u've never read the books?!?!

Touche Let me back pedal & explain what I meant...

Imo, the original movies were basically all around good films. The characters were well acted, well developed & you cared what they were all about. They had good dialogue; what needed to be said, was said & they didn't ramble on or made corny, lame wise cracks that made me roll my eyes. And the storylines blended seamlessly, didn't run on to long & didn't have any questionable holes in the story that needed to be answered..

Basically, to me, it was sooo good that I thought they saw how popular the books were on their own so they made a conscience decision not to deviate from the books & went in & just do a almost shot for shot retelling, like it was done exactly how it was written if that makes any sense

P.s that sequence at the beginning of the film was HOT!!! Very James bond-esq.. It was probably the only part I loved I'm kinda glad the movie technically flopped
Posted via Mobile Device