The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011 US Version) - A Little Review I wrote

With Respect to Technology and Storytelling | The Moving Idiot

Call this shameless, but I thought I'd share this film review of mine (which is of a more technical flavor) to anyone whose interested. I personally thought the film was fantastic, and I now intend on reading/watching the original material. Normally, I have reservations about Americanized remakes (though this is hardly Americanized beyond the lead actress and English language), and remakes in general, but I gave it a go after doing much reading on the technical background of the film, plus David Fincher's direction.

Needless to say, I do not regret it.

While I'm at it, if anyone here cares for the obsessive approach I use on my site in regards to film and television tech specs, feel free to comment.

I haven't seen the american version, but the original swedish was pretty good. Probably one of the best scandinavian movies I have seen in quite a few years. I doubt I'll go out of my way to watch this version, but I'll probably do it if someone invites me over to somewhere to watch it or something.

The swedish title is also much much better, but it translates poorly to english.

I was kind of surprised when I first heard this series was being remade so soon after the Swedish version. The Swedish versions were good interpretations of the books; I can only surmise that Hollywood needed to milk the cash-cow before time turned it into so many ribeyes and new york strips.

The poster for the movie first told me that these guys were going to deliver visual perfection in the movie. I haven't seen the movie, but based on your review, it seems they were able to correctly match the underlying mood of the book with a visual theme and attention to detail. The technological honesty in the movie that you referred to is an extension of the stripped-bare often painful honesty in the story itself.

I also am leary of the remake. Everything about it screams "cash in while its hot." The swedish films were also extremely good. I guess I'm just being extra cynical because it was already a very competent modern movie, and I really didn't see a need to remake it at all.

It's remade mostly because americans can't stand subtitles, and using voiceovers would make the whole thing look weird.

At least that's what I think!

It's no more of a remake than the Coen Brothers' version of True Grit. Like that film it's another adaptation of the original novel. And they've got a great director and an impressive cast for it - don't hate it just because 'omg Hollywood is going English language version!' Obviously it's a cash-in in that its an inevitable film adaptation of a literary phenomenon, but it hardly looks like they've been lazy in the people they got for it.

I think I'm the first person in this thread who's actually seen both versions. I think they did a good job adapting the novel for international audiences. The original film was great and in a lot of ways couldn't have been improved upon much, but in several ways the American film was actually more faithful to the original novel (or at least the English translation; I have been told there are several ways in which the translation itself is pretty inaccurate, but do not speak Swedish and thus cannot investigate for myself); details such as (SPOILER)Blomkvist's daughter being the one who figures out the "telephone numbers" are Bible verses and Blomkvist's sexual relationship with Berger were left out of the Swedish film but made it into the American film. On the whole I'd say the American film is about as good as a Hollywood adaptation could be; in a lot of ways it was pretty gratuitous to remake the film so quickly after the previous version but they did about as good a job as could be expected I think. I would actually say the American version was more visually impressive, though the opening credits are a blatant case of Design Student's Orgasm (see tv tropes if you're confused; I am not going to link to that time vacuum of a site) if ever I saw one. Also, it is worth noting Rooney Mara had gigantic shoes to fill playing a part previously played by Noomi Rapace, and did so admirably, basically stealing every scene she appears in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

It's no more of a remake than the Coen Brothers' version of True Grit. Like that film it's another adaptation of the original novel. And they've got a great director and an impressive cast for it - don't hate it just because 'omg Hollywood is going English language version!' Obviously it's a cash-in in that its an inevitable film adaptation of a literary phenomenon, but it hardly looks like they've been lazy in the people they got for it.

---

Couple things. Nobody said they were being lazy. Laziness has nothing to do with it. Also, the Coen Brothers' version of True Grit was made 41 years after the original. This new TGWtDT version came out 2 measly years after the previous version came out. Additionally, the Coen Brothers' version wasn't cashing in on a book in the midst of its hype. Most people didn't even know there was a novel. Hell, most people didn't even realize there was an older version of the movie. Two wildly different situations.

Whether the new movie is good or not (I expect I'll enjoy it immensely) is beside the point. It wasn't a movie that needed to be made. There was already a movie version that filled the role admirably, and no manner of quality film-making will change that fact.

If people are too stupid to watch a movie with subtitles, they're too stupid to understand the psychological and sociological subtleties that permeate Larsson's works, not to mention his commentary on Swedish society.

I saw the American version and I thought it was pretty good. It stays pretty true to the novel and only excludes a few frivolous things. I also liked this ending better than the novel's ending. The acting was also impressive. Rooney Mara did a great job playing a very introverted character. In a novel you have the narrative to explain what the character is thinking and feeling and she was able to convey that using attitude and brilliant facial expressions. Daniel Craig was also good.

I too thought it was weird to make another version so soon but I agree that it was an attempt to milk the cash cow and that American audiences won't pay to see a movie in subtitles.

I wonder what a person who didn't read the book thinks about this movie. I felt like the pacing was a little fast but I followed along perfectly only because I read the novel within the last couple years.

Rooney Mara was incredible as Lisbeth.

I thought the movie was good. Very visually impressive and I loved the soundtrack.

But I was never in love with the books, and so while I thought the adaptation was spot on, I wasn't in love with the movie. Maybe the movie would have played better to someone who didn't already know the mystery? I dunno. The same issues I had with the book, I had with the movie.

But I think I could have watched Rooney as Lisbeth for days, she was quite fascinating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chionos

If people are too stupid to watch a movie with subtitles, they're too stupid to understand the psychological and sociological subtleties that permeate Larsson's works, not to mention his commentary on Swedish society.

---

I never said stupidity had anything to do with it. It probably doesn't, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chionos

If people are too stupid to watch a movie with subtitles, they're too stupid to understand the psychological and sociological subtleties that permeate Larsson's works, not to mention his commentary on Swedish society.

---

I never said stupidity had anything to do with it. It probably doesn't, either.

---

Well that's what it boils down to essentially. They're stupid because they're lazy because they're stupid. And by stupid I guess I really mean ignorant. Willfully ignorant.

I really really really wanna see this film, but I love the books and the Swedish films so much that I'm almost afraid it won't live up to them. Also on the subtitles thing...I find it distracting to have subtitles because I just want to be able to look at the actor's facial expressions and what they're doing. Having to stop to read subtitles sometimes takes away from that.