The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

[Professor Wagstaff]

having everyone release reviews well before makes the film seem like "old news" to the public.

Isn't this the widespread experience of anyone who cares about films that come out in 'limited' release and doesn't live in a handful of major cities?

For me it was always the opposite. I became more eager when I had to wait weeks to see the awards season releases as they slowly rolled out across the country. Now that I live closer to a major city again and can see every limited release film almost immediately, I get bored faster. I can see virtually all the major new releases and then some before the year is out, but my friends who live in more rurals areas will have the pleasure of spreading out the wealth throughout the beginning of the new year while I will have less to look forward to seeing.

[flyonthewall2983]

Fincher on Denby.

[Fiery Angel]

NY Times feature on Fincher

[rs98762001]

Hopefully Mr. Rudin's online police force won't track me down for this....

I quite enjoyed it. It's Fincher operating close to his smooth and wicked best. Dark, funny, confident, it does just enough to separate itself from the well-known media on which it's based (the fact that I'd read the book and seen the Swedish film, yet my interest rarely lapsed, is in itself a testament to how watchable it is). It's obviously much slicker than the Swedish version, which felt to me like a slightly elevated television movie, but it's also more concerned with character and really takes its time setting up Blomqvist and Salander so that when they finally come together their relationship feels quite touching and believable. It also consolidates many of the dull research/investigative beats, so that, unlike the original, the characters don't seem to spend half the film staring at computer screens and photographs. Craig is affable and less granite-like than usual, but the film unsurprisingly belongs to Rooney Mara, who really holds her own in the inevitable Rapace comparison. She's a slightly more vulnerable Salander, which I suppose could be looked at as Hollywoodization, but to me it just made her character feel less of a construct and more of a human (this also has the surprising effect of making her sexier too- not sure if that was intentional or not). And there are moments where she really is quite intense and scary. It's quite amazing to think this is the same actress that stole the opening of Social Network; her range at such a young age is already impressive.

Fincher falters towards the end - the final confrontation with the villain feels perfunctory, his changes to the fate of the Harriet character don't quite make sense, and the extended epilogue is overlong and slackly paced. Then again, I don't feel like he cared too much about the plot, which even in the novel is overly dense and brimming with an exalted sense of its own importance considering it's little more than a potboiler. He sort of shrugs off the silliness of the story, and instead places his focus quite successfully on the relationship at its heart.

[flyonthewall2983]

"Immigrant Song" video

[Professor Wagstaff]

Strange, can a movie feel too long and rushed at the same time? Cut 40 minutes out of this and I might have liked it, but the climax drags out long past the resolution of the central mystery which concerned me more than anything going on in the lives of Daniel Craig's or Rooney Mara's characters. Meanwhile, the research aspect of the film feels glossed over with a lot of fast editing to condense what no doubt must have been too much material from the book to cover in a film. Shame, because in movies like Zodiac or The Social Network, Fincher has a knack for making investigative research and working on a computer absolutely riveting, but here I felt uninvolved. There's a lot of talent behind this movie and it shows, but the source material doesn't feel worthy of the effort being put forth.

[Jeff]

I liked it as least as much as the Swedish version. Even if Fincher still isn't really able to transcend the pulpy story with it's overabundance of narrative, I think it's more stylish than the Oplev film, which was already very competent. Some of the research and procedural stuff harkens to Zodiac, but ultimately its place in the Fincher ouvre is alongside another potboiler like Panic Room. There certainly won't be escaping constant comparison of the Swedish and American versions. I haven't watched the earlier film since its theatrical release, but this certainly seemed to hit most of the same beats. I never read the books, so I'm not sure which is more faithful, or if that's even a virtue. There are a couple of new complications for Blomkvist this time, and I suppose Zaillian should be commended simply for cramming so many plot threads into two and a half hours. To me the real standout of the film is Rooney Mara. Noomi Rapace did a fine job with the role, but Mara's Salandar feels much more layered and complex. She conveys a lot of vulnerability beneath her scary exterior. There's a lot of intelligence and wit to her character and less of a feeling of "otherness." I think it works.

[mfunk9786]

I could watch Fincher direct an investigative film about who stole the cookies from the cookie jar, quite frankly. I loved this film and will write more about it tomorrow, probably, but I leave you with two words: Rooney Mara

[Andre Jurieu]

I thought the bookends of the film were a bit too ragged, but the middle section was spectacular stuff, mostly because the material is pretty much within Fincher's wheelhouse, particularly the familiar research/investigation elements and the exploration of another socially-awkward genius. The technical aspect that I thought Fincher really improved upon was his ability to cross-cut between separate locations/events. It's really amazing how he ensures everything is easy to follow, which is always an under-appreciated skill.

Unfortunately, as absolutely gorgeous as it may have been, the 3rd ending just felt entirely superfluous

SpoilerShow

other than to convey just how much work and risk Lisbeth is willing to place upon her shoulders for the sake of Mikael's well-being.

If Fincher had released that final sequence as a short-film or online/blu-ray extra, it might have been more engaging rather than somewhat arduous. Even now,

SpoilerShow

I keep thinking Fincher could have conveyed the depth of Lisbeth's adoration of Blomkvist

with just a few of the moments he chose to include in the final string of events.

To me the real standout of the film is Rooney Mara. Noomi Rapace did a fine job with the role, but Mara's Salandar feels much more layered and complex. She conveys a lot of vulnerability beneath her scary exterior. There's a lot of intelligence and wit to her character and less of a feeling of "otherness." I think it works.

While I agree with these comments (shocking behavior from me, I know), particularly how Rapace's performance really conveyed a feeling of "otherness," while Mara's feels less disjointed and alien and more organic within the film, I was mildly troubled by how Mara's Salandar comes off as far more of a sexual object within the film. Not that this is a poor choice on the part of the filmmakers, but it's an aspect that alters the perception of the filmmakers' intentions and focus within some already thorny subject-matter.

[Jack Phillips]

The technical aspect that I thought Fincher really improved upon was his ability to cross-cut between separate locations/events. It's really amazing how he ensures everything is easy to follow, which is always an under-appreciated skill.

Amen! Amen, amen, amen!

[Jeff]

Fincher seems to always be using (admirably invisible) computer trickery, just because he can. The New York Times has a little slideshow breaking down a sequence in the film. Would you believe that the scene in this shot comes from three separate takes? He picks the performances that he likes best from each actor and then digitally splits the screen and "glues" the performances together.

[mfunk9786]

I can't possibly love this man enough. You're forgiven for Fight Club, Mr. Fincher

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Softening and Sexualizing Lisbeth Salander, an analysis of the sexual politics of the Swedish and American versions.

[Cold Bishop]

First impressions: About as good as the film could get, but there's no getting around the fact that it's a potboiler, plain and simple. A more ambitious director could have tried to actualize the pretensions of Larsson's books, namely making a work that truly examines the institutionalized misogyny and looming spectre of fascism: that would take rebuilding the narrative from the ground up. Fincher quickly distinguished this as one of his "movies" the moment he decided to set it in Sweden, and his own chosen assignment seems to be just doing justice to the source material as well as he can. Luckily, he can do that very well: he wisely puts the Salander-Blomkvist relationship front and center, but that can only take thin material so far.

Softening and Sexualizing Lisbeth Salander, an analysis of the sexual politics of the Swedish and American versions.

...Nonetheless, I find much of this line of criticism ridiculous. There are problems with Finchers portrayal, and she pinpoints two scenes that rubbed me the wrong way (Craig flipping her; Salander asking for permission), but I find her whole point confusing. She says the film (like Hollywood) has a problem with the "unclassifiable", but it seems to me that Fincher/Mara actually try to understand the "unclassifiable", while the Oplev/Rapace combo are glad to treat her as an unrealistic cypher. Maybe there are thing that could be done different, but certainly Fincher/Mara took the harder, and only commendable, route in actually treating her in three-dimensions.

As for the ending "reading different", that's arguable, and frankly, in my opinion, reaching. I also wonder whether she'd seen the "extended" Oplev TV adaptations, which includes the same exact "agency-robbing" ending.

[Roger Ryan]

I wasn't too troubled by the greater emphasis on the Lisbeth/Blomkvist relationship which seemed undercooked in the Swedish film, but there are still too many subplots here for one film to comfortably handle. Interestingly, Fincher tends to follow fairly closely to how Oplev handled his version, but whereas Oplev seemed to be paying homage to Fincher in some of the more visceral moments, Fincher himself seems ready to avoid his own cliches and plays things in a much more stylistically neutral way than he might have 15 years ago. The "computer trickery" mentioned a few posts up suggests someone overly concerned with details (the composite shot plays for less than four seconds; I'm amazed that they combined three separate takes to achieve it) because he can't really mess with the structure of the story much. It's a fine entertainment, but not significantly better than the Swedish version apart from Mara's Lisbeth - she really is a remarkable creation and I wish the film could be more about her.

[mfunk9786]

I love the idea that Fincher is so bogged down into perfecting small moments. It really shows in Zodiac, The Social Network and even in the otherwise silly The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - he doesn't let even the smallest moment go by with any flaws (that he can prevent, that is). It's tough to fault a filmmaker when he decides to use advanced computer effects for good rather than evil. Much like Zodiac, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo manages to throw a whole lot of information at the viewer without abandoning the importance of the actors' performances and the script's inherent sense of humor. And, much like Zodiac, I'm going to have to see this film again in order to absorb a lot of the facts that I had to ignore because I was too busy being stunned, amazed, and amused by the performances - spend a few seconds marveling at one of Mara's sly one-liners, and lose a big chunk of information that makes the experience that much richer.

Then again, I have avoided the Swedish version up to this point, so maybe I'm just making myself look ridiculous by showering praise on Fincher's handling of this film, but I doubt it.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

The best parts for me were Christopher Plummer's scenes, Cronenweth's photography, and the "Orinoco Flow" scene. Otherwise, I prefer the Swedish version. Craig is adequate, but he lacks the vulnerability, warmth, and intelligence that made Nyqvist so compelling and sympathetic. I wanted to like Mara's performance, but aside from body language and vocal characterization I didn't have a lot to hang onto. She's too brittle and tense. I think that Rapace did a better job with the character. Her physicality and focus seemed grounded better. After awhile, it felt like makeup and scowling at computers was doing more of the work than the actual talent that I've seen in Mara. The rest of the cast was good - I enjoyed how everyone looked the part so well - but it was all too functional. Not bad as a movie, but not too exceptional, either. That title sequence was godawful, though. Save it for the next Underworld movie, people.

[matrixschmatrix]

Softening and Sexualizing Lisbeth Salander, an analysis of the sexual politics of the Swedish and American versions.

...Nonetheless, I find much of this line of criticism ridiculous. There are problems with Finchers portrayal, and she pinpoints two scenes that rubbed me the wrong way (Craig flipping her; Salander asking for permission), but I find her whole point confusing. She says the film (like Hollywood) has a problem with the "unclassifiable", but it seems to me that Fincher/Mara actually try to understand the "unclassifiable", while the Oplev/Rapace combo are glad to treat her as an unrealistic cypher. Maybe there are thing that could be done different, but certainly Fincher/Mara took the harder, and only commendable, route in actually treating her in three-dimensions.

I broadly agree- I thought one of the real strengths of this movie was how they handled the Salander character, making her tough and obviously the dominant partner in her relationship with Craig (to me, she still seemed in charge from the bottom in the flipping part, and I think the asking permission thing was meant to reflect more the fact that Craig was the wronged party and thus the one who in her eyes had the right to make that decision), while still not pretending that she was instantly capable of shrugging off the trauma of what we see done to her. I don't see how heightening the apparent autism of her character would have done anything but make her more alien- and reducing Rooney Mara's performance to "sexy, tough, in-your-face, always belligerent, and childishly snarky" makes me wonder what movie the writer was watching.

Overall, I liked most of the movie- the actual plot seemed sort of run of the mill, but I thought the performances from all three leads were great, the photography was gorgeous, and I enjoyed the way the traditional cavalry comes to save the day sequence was inverted. It felt like all the dialog was clipped a bit short at the end of each line, like there was a conscious effort to make everything move a little faster than was comfortable, which created an interesting effect that I thought worked for what the movie was doing. But honestly? I didn't need

SpoilerShow

the seemingly endless scene the second time Salander is raped. I don't think it was handled exploitatively, and I thought the movie did an excellent job of portraying the way she was afraid to be touched thereafter- rather than pretending that her vengeance meant it was a closed matter- but it was almost more than I could bear, and it seems like it would be a totally unbearable trigger to anyone with issues related to the topic. I also thought the thing with the cat was totally unnecessary, designed just to give the viewer a little extra jolt of feeling sick.

I'm not sure if this is a movie I'll ever watch again, but I can't deny that it's very well made. It should probably be on my top ten list, but I don't think I can weight it against other movies properly.

[mfunk9786]

I also felt like the movie moved very quickly - almost like they used that (fuck, I can't remember the name of the technique right now) imperceptible speed-up technique that shows like The Simpsons use sometimes to shave off runtime and fit everything they want into the required length. Someone help me out here...

[matrixschmatrix]

Oh also my favorite moment in the movie is when Mara is sitting at the desk barely able to tolerate Craig's slow use of the laptop, that was gorgeously well observed.

[mfunk9786]

YES. The film is given room to breathe through these little touches, and it ensures that a second viewing will be required - I found myself getting so lost in the performance quirks (the constant shuffling around of Craig's glasses is another example) that I needed to see it again to really wrap my head around all the details of the story. It's not all that great at explaining things clearly when it comes to the pretty extensive, grandiose mystery with a lot of characters and details to keep track of - it's not as well-balanced as Zodiac in that respect, but what is?

[Murdoch]

I liked it when Mara said, "hey hey."

[mfunk9786]

Hey hey.

[matrixschmatrix]

Haha I bet you'll enjoy this mfunk

[mfunk9786]

Hatemail sent!