The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (film)

[Neil]

So, do I watch the original Swedish film, or see the new remake instead?

[Purge]

I saw the Swedish version in its limited release a year or so ago and was unimpressed. The remake is directed by David Fincher, so maybe it'll be better.

[Neil]

I saw the Swedish version in its limited release a year or so ago and was unimpressed.
Oh :(

[MinionZombie]

Oh :(

I watched all three Swedish flicks with my Dad and they were good. The second two weren't as good as the first, but yeah - Tattoo was pretty rad, I thought.

I'll definitely be trying to see this flick at the cinema, and failing that it's a certain purchase for me (big David Fincher fan right here). However, having seen the Swedish version, when I saw the trailer for Fincher's version I recognised a lot of stuff - so I'd imagine there can't be much about Fincher's version that will come as a surprise to me now, and it'll be interesting to see how Mara tackles Rapace's definitive performance as Lisbeth Salander.

So it's up to you really, but I thought the original Swedish film was pretty darn good. However I've seen a couple of rather spiffing reviews for Fincher's flick too - so I'm certainly looking forward to his interpretation of the material too.

[EvilNed]

I saw the new version of it yesterday. I didn't really think the original was all that good (and I live in Sweden), mostly because the storyline was quite dull.

Well, this one is really no different. I had imagined that the two versions would be different from each other. They're really not, they are pretty much alike. If you didn't like the Swedish one, you won't like this one and vice versa.

[bassman]

I've just seen Fincher's version and really enjoyed it! It may have helped that i've never read the books or seen the previous films, but I walked out of the theater very pleased. I kinda felt sorry for the people in the theater that didn't know there are two more films to follow. The ending left the theater with a general chatter of "wtf?!?".

Rooney Mara and of course Daniel Craig were excellent. If it weren't for all the INTENSE sexual scenes, I could see Mara winning awards for this one. Trent Reznor's score may have stood out more than the actors' performances, though. He really does some interesting and new things with his movie scores. I hope he continues. Am I the only one that thought the opening credit sequence felt like it would've been great for a bond film?

In all, I would give it a solid 8/10. Fincher still hasn't made a bad film. Tattoo may not be my favorite of his work, but it's definitely worth the price of admission or purchase. Hopefully everyone will be back for the next two installments.


BTW, on a strange personal note - This horrible, horrible, horrible mother brought her two sons into the movie. These kids looked about 5-7. At first I gave her the benefit of the doubt and thought she didn't know the movie was very graphic. Having read reviews mentioning the graphic scenes, I thought "They'll leave when the so-and-so scenes start". I was wrong. These two young boys set and watched this entire movie. If you've seen it....you know why that's bad. Some people just shouldn't have children.

[AcesandEights]

I've just seen Fincher's version and really enjoyed it! It may have helped that i've never read the books or seen the previous films, but I walked out of the theater very pleased. I kinda felt sorry for the people in the theater that didn't know there are two more films to follow. The ending left the theater with a general chatter of "wtf?!?".

Rooney Mara and of course Daniel Craig were excellent. If it weren't for all the INTENSE sexual scenes, I could see Mara winning awards for this one. Trent Reznor's score may have stood out more than the actors' performances, though. He really does some interesting and new things with his movie scores. I hope he continues.

Sounds good! I was fairly interested to see this before, and now definitely want to try and catch it in the theaters.

[EvilNed]

BTW, on a strange personal note - This horrible, horrible, horrible mother brought her two sons into the movie. These kids looked about 5-7. At first I gave her the benefit of the doubt and thought she didn't know the movie was very graphic. Having read reviews mentioning the graphic scenes, I thought "They'll leave when the so-and-so scenes start". I was wrong. These two young boys set and watched this entire movie. If you've seen it....you know why that's bad. Some people just shouldn't have children.


Hmm, I watched movies more graphic than this one at around that age. I wouldn't judge so easily. (It should be noted I don't think this film is very graphic, however, tho I doubt any kid would understand the plot.)

[MinionZombie]

I think the scenes of sexual violence appear more graphic than they technically are, because of how they're filmed and the overall tone of the scene - as well as the performances - Mara's in particular.

Bassman - aye, the opening credits is kind of like a Bond film. I'm sure that must have been a bit of an inspiration - it's a killer title sequence, alright. :)

I saw it this week with my Dad (we've watched all the Swedish films together too - and he's read the books), and this is what I made of it:

http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2012/01/quadruple-bill-mini-musings-new-year.html

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011):
The uniquely talented and ever-reliable David Fincher sidesteps the 'English remake syndrome' with aplomb by delivering an equal to the original Swedish-language film in which Noomi Rapace so memorably portrayed Lisbeth Salander, the punk-with-a-photographic-memory. Complimenting the Swedish version, David Fincher's take provides us with two same-but-different looks at one international best selling book about a journalist's investigation into the decades-old unsolved case of the murder of a girl - a member of the wretched Vanger family (a self-involved, in-fighting lot, some of whom were members of the Nazi party).

Fincher's vision is a perfect match for the subject matter; his precise direction and particular style are as darkly intriguing as the content of the dense script. Many of the scenes are brief, but crammed with information. At two-and-a-half-hours it is surprisingly pacy, however there is one issue - Salander (Roony Mara) and Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) don't share enough screen time. In the Swedish original they felt like a real pairing, whereas here they feel like two able-minded independent bodies who sometimes check-in with each other. That said, Mara's Salander is every bit as spring-coiled as Rapace's famous rendition, and interestingly Craig's Blomkvist is a slightly different character here - in the Swedish version he felt very much like a rumpled journalist with a hardcore agenda that bordered on vengeance at times ... in this version he's much more understated and stoic.

Each film does many things the same, but they also do a number of things differently in different ways, and each includes or excludes certain elements more or less than their counterpart. I very much enjoyed the Swedish film, and I very much enjoyed this.

[bassman]

Hmm, I watched movies more graphic than this one at around that age.

So that's whats wrong with you! :p

If the kids were a bit older, I could possibly understand. But these guys were innocent little five year olds. If it were just casual sex I wouldn't have such a problem but this, as you know, is much more than that.


I think the scenes of sexual violence appear more graphic than they technically are, because of how they're filmed and the overall tone of the scene - as well as the performances - Mara's in particular.

Yeah. The score, acting, and overall tone of the scene helped to make it seem over the top. I personally don't have a problem with that. I can handle those sort of scenes(my lady covered her eyes, though). It was just the fact that some horrible mother was subjecting a five year old kid to it that really bothered me.

[JDFP]

I've seen the original so, like any American remake, I don't really see the point of re-seeing the same film just because it's in "Ameri-cuhn!" now as opposed to the original language ("I'm an Ameri-cuhn! I shouldn't have to read me no damn subtitles in watching a film! Everyone should speak Ameri-cuhn!"). I've been surprised a few times by American remakes though ("Pulse" and "The Ring").

With that said, the few scenes I've seen it appears that Rooney Mara is pretty freaking hot in it (mmm, Goth girls, slobber) so I'll probably watch it just to see her fine ass, er, assets as an actress. I think my dad wants to see it anyway, so I'll probably see it with him.

j.p.

[EvilNed]

I've seen the original so, like any American remake, I don't really see the point of re-seeing the same film just because it's in "Ameri-cuhn!" now as opposed to the original language ("I'm an Ameri-cuhn! I shouldn't have to read me no damn subtitles in watching a film! Everyone should speak Ameri-cuhn!"). I've been surprised a few times by American remakes though ("Pulse" and "The Ring").

Did you like the original? If not, don't bother. They are very similar.

[MinionZombie]

I absolutely agree with you that it was totally inappropriate to bring kids - five year olds no less - to see that movie. The sexual violence scenes made me uncomfortable, but I also have context and many more years of knowledge and understanding over those five year olds (although some might argue against that! :p:lol::p) ... so really, I think it's rather irresponsible to show such scenes to an undeveloped mind. Indeed I'd say, in general, it's rather pointless to show such a movie to a child at all - they just won't get anything out of it.

[fulci fan]

I noticed the chick in this movie has Yo-Landi Vi$$er hair.

[Neil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2012/02/too_many_tattoos.html


The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo has been made twice - once in Swedish and once in the English language.

The Hollywood remake has had a favourable reception but what does the box office tell us about the two films?

[MinionZombie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2012/02/too_many_tattoos.html

I saw that video just this morning actually ... however one thing that always makes me laugh is how so many English-speaking people pontificate about "watching stuff in the original language" like it's heathenous not to, yet countless countries around the world routinely watch Western/English-language output (TV, movies) with all the voices dubbed over in their respective native tongues, and they're fine with that.

I'm not averse to reading subtitles, but the reason I do sometimes prefer to watch a dubbed version is because subtitles force you to stare at the bottom third-or-less of the screen, so you're missing so much visual information (from meaningful glances to big spectacle moments) ... I wouldn't watch Downfall in a dubbed form, but I routinely watch Italian giallo movies or Japanese genre movies entirely dubbed. Indeed, the Japanese action movie "Versus" is better dubbed in my view, because the voice actor who dubbed the hero sounds much tougher than the real actor ... but also because that movie is so visually oriented, it'd be daft to keep looking at the bottom quarter of the screen everytime someone speaks in that particular movie.

[Neil]

I think the point being made wasn't any form of elitism, but simply did the film need to be remade. ie: Was the remake superior to the original?

And as regards sub-titles, I find that odd - I've watched foreign films and afterwards I've forgotten that it was even subtitled as my subconscious has just taken over and I just 'hear' English :) Kinda cool really... And we know dubbing is generally pretty poor, so it's not really an option :)

[MinionZombie]

Some dubbing is piss-poor, but it's not a rule by any means ... and as I say, if it's good enough to be accepted by countless millions/billions of non-English speaking people around the world, then who am I to sniffily reject it out-right? (Not saying you're being sniffy - I'm speaking about commentators out there who make such a big deal about it).

I'm not averse to subtitles (e.g. in Inglourious Basterds it made a lot of sense, and indeed part of the pleasure was seeing Germans-as-Germans, French-as-French, mostly-Brits-as-Brits, etc), and dubbing doesn't really fit into something like Downfall, but so what? Also, if it's something like the Swedish TGWTDT they actually get good actors and put some effort into the dubbing - I've seen it with the dubbed dialogue and it's fine.

Likewise I've seen Let The Right One In with subtitles and that's fine too (indeed there's not much dialogue in that one) ... and let's not forget that some people can struggle to keep up with the subtitles, especially when it's a scene/movie which is dialogue heavy and in which the actors speak very quickly - so quality dubbing should be encouraged to further increase the reach of such movies into the American market without the need to remake them "in American" - just like how English-language content is routinely dubbed for countless foreign markets.

[EvilNed]

I'm not buying into the whole "I don't want to watch the bottom half of the screen, waaah waaah!" argument as an anti-subtitles argument. Your mind is way too quick in reading subtitles. You're not in any danger of missing anything ever. It takes miliseconds to read those lines of subtitles. It just doesn't hold water.

No respectable cinephile would watch anything dubbed. Elitistic view? Yeah, probably, but you'll find similar views in most culture fandoms. Film is art and culture, no?