LIKE MOST MYSTERIES, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is less about story and more about the grinding mechanics of plot: exposition, process, exposition, process. Dragon Tattoo isn’t just any mystery, though: Based on the first book in Stieg Larsson’s wildly popular trilogy (which already spawned three Swedish film adaptations), this Dragon Tattoo is the latest from David Fincher, and arrives on the heels of his last awards-season effort, The Social Network.
Those expecting anything on par with Fincher’s best work—The Social Network, Zodiac, Fight Club—should probably lower their expectations closer to Benjamin Button levels. Fincher can be one of our best directors, but he’s also one of the least reliable. With Dragon Tattoo, he’s made a film that befits its airport paperback origins—if, you know, they showed movies with brutal rape scenes on airplanes.
That’s not to say it’s bad: Fincher’s Dragon Tattoo is an exceedingly competent thriller, and, as is the tendency of mysteries worth a damn, it features at least one detective who’s far more interesting than all that exposition and process. That detective is gothy hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara, kicking ass), who teams up with journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) to investigate a decades-old death in a super rich, super creepy Swedish family. There are lots of shots of Mara typing, and Craig urgently taking off his glasses, and both of them intently scanning through paperwork and computer files; there is also a lot of snow, suspicion, Swedes who all kind of seem the same, and the aforementioned brutal rape.
As far as material goes, Dragon Tattoo never grows much beyond a TV procedural: Law & Order: Swedish Victims Unit. Sometimes it’s creepy, sometimes it’s silly, sometimes it’s exploitative, and frequently it’s overlong and weirdly bland. There are a couple points, though, where Fincher connects with the material: the beautiful, eerie opening credits, set to a bone-rattling cover of “Immigrant Song” by Karen O and Trent Reznor; a nervous cat-and-mouse skulk through an Ikea-y house; more than a few moments where Lisbeth takes center stage; and a pretty inspired deployment of an Enya number. And most notably, the film’s affecting coda, which focuses not on misogyny or old newspapers, but on the prickly, dangerous Lisbeth, who here reaches out in a way she never has. It’s a striking sequence, and it caps off the film as well as possible—for a few moments, Lisbeth shines out from beneath the shadow of this goofy mystery, and it’s a hell of a thing.
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!
clearly you are not a business major.
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.
Wrong. The original Swedish films were excellent! Why re-make them?
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.
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.
Nah, those Swedish versions were crap.
BOTH THE MOVIES AND BOOKS WERE MEDIOCRE AT BEST.
Have a holly rapey Christmas, courtesy of the Swedes and Fincher.
Clearly, some of you Americans have poor taste in cinema.
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.
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.
I saw it yesterday and was entertained for 2 1/2 hours.