Escape to the Movies: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

[Muspelheim]

if anyone want to know, Stieg Larsson was planing 10 books and died when he was half way through book 4. also the Swedish name on the first book is män som hatar kvinnor (Men Who Hate Women). I don't know way I wright this, maybe someone is interested.

Actually, it clarify something for me. the french title of the movie is "Millenium : Les hommes qui n'aimaient pas les femmes" (Millenium : men who dislike women). I was wondering if it was the english title or the french title that was incorrect. now i know.

Correct. It's the original title of both the book and the Swedish adaptation (Män som hatar kvinnor).

I've always found the titles of that series rather random in a silly way, tell you the truth... I do like simple, snappy titles, but in this case, it's just weird.

The first one (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) is called "Män som hatar kvinnor" (Men who hate women), which works rather well, I suppose. Not the most lovable bunch, that.

The second one is called "Flickan som lekte med elden" (The Girl that played with fire) which also fits... Rather well, but it does sound like if Astrid Lindgren got a gritty reboot and wrote a children's book on pyrophilia.

The last is called "Luftslottet som sprängdes" (The castle of air that were blown up). Yes, that's what the title directly translates to, and it honestly sounds just as cheesy in unmolested Swedish. I see what they're getting at, luftslott refers to some grand promise that doesn't actually exist, or proves to be false, and I suppose it fits with the novel. But it still sounds very silly. It's like a 12-year-old chose the title, no doubt submitting lovingly drawn crayon-explosions for the cover-art. All together now! Kaa-beeeeewm!!

If they decide to remake the other two (jänkare...), I hope they'll be able to conjure up some better titles. It's a big, fat opportunity they have there.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Solid review Bob, but your comment about tropes...really?

Aren't we past "tropes" already?

Tropes are in everything. They always have been and always will be. The only reason tropes can ruin a film is when they are done poorly, otherwise it is just time trusted idiosyncracies that can be enjoyed timlessly.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Meh...In my opinion, if you want to watch it, watch the original. Also, I have to laugh at Bob suddenly being all snooty about this movie not having enough "artistic merit".

There is no "original" of David Fincher's film, for it is not a remake, but a totally different adaptation of the same source material.

Both movies are good and both deserve to exist.

Also...I agree, this is coming from the reviewer who called Street Racer "innovative" and "cinematic"

 

[FallenMessiah88]

Meh...In my opinion, if you want to watch it, watch the original. Also, I have to laugh at Bob suddenly being all snooty about this movie not having enough "artistic merit".

There is no "original" of David Fincher's film, for it is not a remake, but a totally different adaptation of the same source material.

Both movies are good and both deserve to exist.

Also...I agree, this is coming from the reviewer who called Street Racer "innovative" and "cinematic"

Do you have a source on that? On the Fincher version not being a remake but instead a different adaptation. Because if that is indeed the case, then fair enough, but until then im going to assume that this version was made exclusively because certain demographics didn't want to read subtitles.

Im not attacking the quality of the movie itself, but rather the implications behind it's inception.

 

[Aureliano]

Good review, Bob. I feel like there's a little more to say re: Daniel Craig though.

First, this was utterly a Bond movie for some reason. It had a Bond intro (albeit complete with ladies this time, a thankful change from Casino Royale), Craig is still a muscly shirtless dude even though he pretty clearly should have been a chubby writer, and he got strung up and beaten to a pulp just like in Casino Royale.

Also...wow. He is a godawful actor. He expresses no emotions at all (even when boning) and he couldn't even get it together to get a Swedish accent. It's a really stark contrast with all the talented actors in this film.

 

[Realitycrash]

As I come from Sweden, I think I might watch this JUST for the hilariously awful Swedish "accents" (which, as a previous poster has mentioned, very few under 30 actually have when speaking English).

 

[Markunator]

I get the strong feeling this was remade mainly due to average american's inability to watch a movie with subtitles. Point is they should just read more often. The original was better.

I can't speak for all Americans, but the reason I hate subtitles isn't because I don't like to read, it's because when I'm reading subtitles, I'm missing out on the actor's expressions and other visuals in the films.

Books and blogs are for reading. Movies are for watching and listening.

If you refuse to watch subtitled movies, you miss out on a lot of great movies. But, it's your loss.

 

[ezeroast]

I'll never understand how Daniel Craig is an actor

 

[Mullahgrrl]

Am I the only one who thinks of Mikael Blomkvist as Kalle Blomkvist grown up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KECeGVQkXQ

 

[Shadowsafter]

Bob I gotta say stop whaling on people who do what you call "Author-insert characters", it's kinda inevitable and I don't really notice it unless someone points it out.
To quote the latest episode of Sherlock "The thing about a disguise is that it's always a self-portrait"

 

[AbstractStream]

Confession time: I never read the books. No, I have not been living under a rock, I just never got around to them. Anyway, I think I might see the original first before I see this one. Or maybe the other way around, the point is that I'll see both.

I want a Mcmuffin now.

 

[Muspelheim]

Am I the only one who thinks of Mikael Blomkvist as Kalle Blomkvist grown up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KECeGVQkXQ

Hmm, now that you say it... This answers a lot of questions. But this isn't really the first time one of Astrid Lindgren's characters have gone rogue... We really ought to keep better track of them.

Solid review Bob, but your comment about tropes...really?

Aren't we past "tropes" already?

Tropes are in everything. They always have been and always will be. The only reason tropes can ruin a film is when they are done poorly, otherwise it is just time trusted idiosyncracies that can be enjoyed timlessly.

I don't really remember him mentioning them as being "bad" by themselves, I'm quite sure he knows far better than that. However, I'm quite sure this film does mishandle one or two tropes, and I suppose that is what he meant.

And really, we can't ever move "past" tropes. Like you say, they will always be present, and thus, we will always be talking about them. Bringing them up isn't a fad, it's what a clever critic should do. Hell, it might even increase trope awareness.

 

[Zagzag]

It would appear that I'm a rather distinct minority here.
I've never read the book, nor have I had much of a desire to, but I loved (no, really, LOVED) this movie.
I found the directing and acting all around to be amazing, specifically Mara's performance.
But beyond the movie itself, for me, this really cemented Fincher as an auteur. Nobody else could have given the rape scene as much of a horrifying atmosphere, and the revenge scene following is nothing short of jarring. And the whole way through, I saw Fincher behind the camera.

I saw it today, and have to agree with you. I haven't read the books, but it sounds like I enjoyed it about as much as you did. Basically I agree with everything you said, I don't think anyone else could have done this as well.

 

[Koroviev]

I know that all works in fiction have some degree of author self-insertion, but the ways they can be handled are extremely varied.

Lisbeth, for example, seems like the author's idea of what a kick-ass woman should be, but at the cost of any semblance of realism. She shrugs off multiple rapes with little to no hint of emotional trauma, she has prodigious computer skills despite being institutionalized for most of her life and thus having no real access to a computer, and despite her the-bastard-had-it-coming approach to justice, she gets away with far more crimes than some of the villains she takes down.

And while the author makes her sympathetic (due mostly to an almost comically over-the-top tragic past), she's still sort of a ***** to the people who are only trying to help her. Several times over the course of the novels characters suggest she may have some sort of autism, but that seems like a shallow diagnosis to explain all that's messed up with this character.

As for Blomkvist, he's the most likable male in series by virtue of being the least rapacious. I'm all for writing about social issues and women's rights, but the books divide men into serial rapists and journalistic superheroes. Putting all of the characters at such moral extremes (and I wouldn't consider Lisbeth one of the good guys) sort of undercuts his message about such a complicated and nuanced topic.

Fincher did not sell me on her computer skills at all. It's all well and good that the journalists were using Apple products, but I found it really distracting that the brilliant hacker was using a Macbook Pro. And then she needs a new one and it's very expensive...um, go with something that isn't sold on the brand name alone? The product placement overall was pretty unabashed.

 

[TheSchaef]

It's so cute hearing non-swedes trying to pronounce swedish names :3

Agreed. If the Audible version of the novel had any accuracy to it, I always understood it to be something along the lines of MEE-keil BLOOM-kvist.

Anyway, everybody but the title character affecting overblown generic accents is a Hollywood staple. Anyone remember Prince of Thieves? Everyone apparently was from the East End despite Sherwood Forest being halfway to Scotland from there. Everyone except Kevin Costner, anyway.

If Bob's description of Lisbeth's character in the Fincher version is to be believed, it's much closer to the way I interpreted her personality in the novel. But having read the book and not being in any particular hurry to finish the trilogy - also lacking the Swedish cultural context - I'll probably pass on the film. Funny that he mentioned Se7en, it was the first movie that sprang to mind when he started harping on the cliche manner in which the murders were carried out.

 

[TheSchaef]

I get the strong feeling this was remade mainly due to average american's inability to watch a movie with subtitles. Point is they should just read more often. The original was better.

I can't speak for all Americans, but the reason I hate subtitles isn't because I don't like to read, it's because when I'm reading subtitles, I'm missing out on the actor's expressions and other visuals in the films.

Books and blogs are for reading. Movies are for watching and listening.

If you refuse to watch subtitled movies, you miss out on a lot of great movies. But, it's your loss.

I grew up with a deaf brother, so closed-captions just became a natural way of life in our house. Now in my adult years, they are nearly always on as force of habit, but have the nice side-benefit of cutting down drastically on hearing "what did he say" at various quiet moments (I'm looking at you Battlestar Galactica).

Also, some movies are meant to be heard in their native language. The original language and inflection is every bit as important to the actors' delivery as expression and visual cues. Markunator is missing out if he didn't watch The Passion in its "original" Hebrew/Latin, or Life is Beautiful in the original Italian, or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon in the original Mandarin Chinese. I would think it would take any American viewer ten seconds of watching his favorite movie with the Spanish or French audio track to appreciate this subtlety. Although listening to Galaxy Quest in Thermian is good for a laugh.

 

[Eruanno]

Agreed. If the Audible version of the novel had any accuracy to it, I always understood it to be something along the lines of MEE-keil BLOOM-kvist.

Actually, it's pronounced more like "Mih-kah-ehl Blohm-khv-isst".
And Lisbeth Salander is pronounced somewhere along the lines of "Liss-bett Sah-lahn-derr".

Also, Moviebob says it really fast. Slow down, and try to fake a russian accent and you're almost there! XD

 

[Tribalism]

I went to see it today. I'm actually really glad I did, too. The intro was pretty damn amazing for anyone who is a fan of Nine Inch Nails/Trent Reznor. The scenes that are meant to hit hard pack one hell of a punch and really nail the tone/message set by the book. I'm actually very happy with how little was cut out from the storyline (though Mikael's romantic side-plots literally amount to a peck on the cheek and 2 bouts of sex. I'm not after more, but it underplayed the source material). It also managed to make the movie easier for an international audience. The initial segments of the book filled with banter about Swedish industry and business economics was difficult to relate to. Equally, I don't know what movie some of you were watching, but I found it to be jam packed from start to finish. 2 and a half hours of film and my eyes were glued intently to the screen for the duration. However, it's not without its complaints:

- The material was very thinly spread. There are 2 real possibilities as to who the bad guy is (based on screen time and tropes of murder mysteries) so it really shouldn't come as a shock, which is a shame because it caught me off guard in the novel because of the amount of content and possible motives for everyone. Inter-character relationships weren't worked on beyond the 2 lead characters. For anyone who hasn't read the book, this makes the ending hard to grasp.

- Based on the above point, but it was VERY hard to follow. When reading the book, you feel overwhelmed with information and every character is fleshed out by Henrik's recollection of his family. In the film, we get none of this. We get told where everyone lives and a bit about them, but that's it. In the end, you don't care for the case but just want to let the film tie the loose ends for you. You switch off. This isn't a foul on Fincher's part since the book had a lot of content which you wouldn't cram in a film and manage to keep it under 3 hours. Inter-character relations are what made the book fascinating for me (Cecilia is ignored in the film almost entirely, Armansky's tie to Lisbeth is summarised in the scene where Mikael visits him, Mikael's lover whose name escapes me wasn't fleshed out at all, the company dynamics of Vanger's company and Millenium magazine were hardly touched on) and there are other missing details that would have made the film better (Mikael never felt alone in Heddestad, perception of time is lost, a summary of the Wennerstom case is heard in snippets of audio from a background television and Mikael's background in the matter is hardly discussed etc.)

It was a good film and worth a watch. The problems most lie in the source material and time constraints that this leads to. It could be broken up into 2 films, easily, but if that was the case I wouldn't have watched it. The end result is very fast paced and you lose the intimacy in the process. It doesn't make it a bad film and when it wants to work its magic in emoting the audience, it does so in a way I rarely see in films. You'll get the most pleasure out of this by reading the book first so you can sit back and admire the subtleties of the screenplay, where, and no word of a lie here, I felt there was not a frame wasted.

So while I understand your criticism, Bob, I feel you've judged this one a bit harshly.