Movies & TV Dec 22, 2011 at 4:00 am

The Land of the Ice and Snow

And Sex, and Violence, and Dragon Tattoos

Erik Henriksen
THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO “Just hold still. This will all be over in three hours.”
Back to article

Comments

1
Why in the Hell would anyone waste time and MONEY on yet another unwanted, un-called-for, un-necessary American "re-make" (cash-in) of a faaar superior international film that was released just 3 or 4 years prior?! The ONLY reason this even exists is for the benefit of Americans who're too lazy to read subs!
DamosA on December 22, 2011 at 1:28 AM Report this
2
clearly you are not a business major.
on December 22, 2011 at 12:12 PM Report this
3
I'll go and see it. I have no interest in the material and, yeah, this is obviously Fincher in Panic Room/Ben Button "movie" mode (as opposed to Zodiac/Fight Club "film" mode), but sometimes it's not enough to be a film consumer: you have to be an activist, and helping an R-rated, adult-orientated film get a decent weekend on Christmas can only be a good thing in the long run.

Although, knowing Hollywood, even if it is super-successful, they'll translate it into: "we have to remake more foreign films!" Of course, if they hand more mediocre foreign films into the hands of talented director (and yes, the original film is thoroughly mediocre), it wouldn't be so bad.

PeretDesnos on December 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM Report this
4
Wrong. The original Swedish films were excellent! Why re-make them?
DamosA on December 22, 2011 at 9:30 PM Report this
5
Because they weren't?

It's a perfect example of a mediocre film that get's put on a pedestal for being foreign (See also: Mongol)... it is essentially a Swedish Ashely Judd film from the late 90s.
PeretDesnos on December 22, 2011 at 9:37 PM Report this
6
Well ALL films are 'foreign' if you thing about it. Obviously, they weren't foreign in Sweden and OUR films are foreign everywhere else but here. That's why i referred to GWTDT as an*international film b/c was meant to have more appeal to a more global audience.

As i've said, this re-make was done just for Americans who're too intellectually lazy to read sub-titles.

But yeah, it's definitely YOUR opinion that the original films were "mediocre". Your reasoning for that is certainly off. Perhaps they were put on a pedestal b/c they were actually GOOD. Yeah, Ashley Judd NEVER did anything approaching this!

Except Bug, maybe.
DamosA on December 23, 2011 at 2:55 AM Report this
7
Nah, those Swedish versions were crap.
jim on December 23, 2011 at 10:01 AM Mercury Staff
8
BOTH THE MOVIES AND BOOKS WERE MEDIOCRE AT BEST.
Graham on December 23, 2011 at 1:20 PM Report this
9
Have a holly rapey Christmas, courtesy of the Swedes and Fincher.
tcraighenry on December 23, 2011 at 4:11 PM Report this
10
Clearly, some of you Americans have poor taste in cinema.
DamosA on December 23, 2011 at 7:21 PM Report this
11
Movies made outside of Hollywood do not exist, therefor this doesn't count as a remake. Also, subtitles tend to befuddle the common US moviegoer, so any movie that doesn't require reading or fully paying attention is a great selling point.
disastronaut on December 25, 2011 at 11:49 AM Report this
12
I love how if someone doesn't buy into the hype of a film...or a book...they are deemed "lacking in taste". "Dragon" is a somewhat interesting character trapped in a simplistic bore of a movie. I would watch the Fincher version only to see if it was the story or the execution that was at fault in the Swedish version --I refuse to waste my time reading the book. Either way stating my dislike is based on being American is a pompous, dopey statement. And for the record, if given a choice between seeing a difficult foreign language film with mixed, or even bad reviews, or seeing a mainstream Hollywood piece of fluff with good reviews....the foreign film always wins. You're the one with simple taste DaDaA. You stating "Dragon Tattoo" is excellent filmmaking is like a tween declaring the "Twilight" movies as being the best movies ever.
on December 25, 2011 at 4:48 PM Report this
13
I saw it yesterday and was entertained for 2 1/2 hours.
pdxbuckeye on February 17, 2012 at 2:18 PM Report this

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview
Posted by (your name here)

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.

More In Movies & TV

Film Review: Problemista Is a Bizarre, but Surprisingly Honest, Movie About US Immigration
Film Review: In The Taste of Things Simple Pleasures Shine
Film Review: Hold Your Water, Dune: Part Two Is Worth the Wait
The Hype About The People’s Joker Is Entirely Warranted
Dev Patel's Directorial Debut Monkey Man Is a Paean to Visceral Movie Violence
Film Review: Todd Haynes' May December Is a Lifetime Movie With a Semiotics Degree

Editors' Picks

How Well Do You Know Your Fellow Portlanders? Take the "Best of Our SUBJECTIVE QUESTIONS Quiz" and Find Out!
THE TRASH REPORT: On Dads, Forklifts, AI, and Why I Wanted to Stay in Canada
Tom Cruise and Ed Begley Jr. Are Relatable, We Owe Bats an Apology, and I, Elinor Jones, am now a Sports Journalist
Things Not to Miss at Pickathon 2022
TriMet Joins Portland's War on Drugs
Your Sassy-Ass Weekly Trivia Quiz About Fancy Cop Cars, Twitter Slap Fights, and Republican Dickwhistles
Portland Mercury
is a proud member of the media network
Masthead Ad Info & Rates Jobs at Portland Mercury Contact Privacy Policy Terms of Use Takedown Policy
Support Portland Mercury
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
PO Box 86208, Portland, OR 97286