The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

[Hawknc]

Surprised there wasn't a thread about this already. I saw the new version earlier this week and thought it was fantastic, if very confronting in parts.

Trailer

Haven't seen the original movie but I'm about halfway through the book that both are based on, and quite honestly I like the movie better - Larsson's writing style can grate on me after a while. Rooney Mara was a fantastic choice for Salander. Anyone else seen it yet? Thoughts?



(Trigger warning for rape, if you don't know anything about the story. The movie does not leave much to the imagination.)

[ArgonV]

Yeah, I'm interested in how it compares to the original movie. But I'll probably find out, since my dad is very excited about this and has asked me to come along.

[Weeks]

It's not coming here till February, but I'm looking forward to it.

Critics seem to think the original was better, by a small margin. (71 vs. 76)

[roband]

I thought the movie was awesome.
I don't want to watch the original, or read the book, as both have readily available sequels - which I will watch/read as soon as possible, if I start.

Rape scenes: wayyyy too graphic for me. The only downside to a great movie. Things shown which could have easily been suggested by a shot of a closing door and accompanying sounds.

Personal highlight:

Spoiler:

The guy at the end (Martin?) getting twatted with the golf club. IN THE FACE.

[ArgonV]

Rape scenes: wayyyy too graphic for me. The only downside to a great movie. Things shown which could have easily been suggested by a shot of a closing door and accompanying sounds.

Yep, you've definitely not seen the originals

[roband]

Oh, wonderful. I will watch them at some point, but there you go - it obviously didn't bother me too much, I still enjoyed the film overall.

[jillton]

I read all 3 books in the space of one week.

I agree that his writing can be a bit.. stunted, or something.. at times but the story itself is great, and Lisbeth is such a fantastic character.

I started watching the original film and was crazy impressed at casting and location etc - I'm not sure if I watched all of it or no...

Went to the new one on new years day (on a first - and last - date, where he knew NOTHING about the books/films, you can imagine the awkwardness when the rape scenes happened). Rooney Mara is phenomenal as Lisbeth, she was perfectly cast! Though I dislike her saying the Swedish actress was "too fat", seriously uncool comments to make.

Anyway, I thought the film was very well executed

Spoiler:

bar the relationship with Lisbeth and Mikael, it sort of comes out of nowhere and you don't really understand why she's suddenly throwing herself at him. As for your comment Roband abour the rape scenes... This is something I was very concerned about in the making of the films. Lisbeth's rape is kind of what the books revolve around - not JUST that but it's a very, VERY important scene regarding the rest of the film. When she gets her revenge on yer man the guy I was with whispered "oh my god she's crazy" - which is EXACTLY what I was worried about.
In the books the first horrid rape scene is crazy graphic and just represents all the injustices this girl has faced throughout her life. When she goes to his apartment, well, I felt in the books, that what she did to him wasn't nearly bad enough for what he did to her. So, they were in a difficult position, how to you totally enrage your audience and get them to feel so angry about what's happened to her that you're pretty much cheering her on as she does the same thing to yer man, without making the scenes horrifically graphic. When they first did the pull-away shot of the door and her screaming, I thought "oh no, they're not doing justice to the story at all". As awful and as warped as it sounds, I'm kind of glad they made it as graphic and as uncomfortable as they did. But that's just my personal opinion.

Anyway, great books - not the best written, but excellent story - the first book/film is just setting up the characters, it only gets better!
Also - let's talk about that Trent Reznor/Karen O "Immigrant Song". Crazy good!!

[Kick]

I could go on longer about this movie, but I'm tired and don't feel like it right now.

What I have to say all boils down to this: the original was fantastic, but this remake changes the perception I had for a few characters and I feel that is a bad thing. Lizbeth's character seems too different and unexplained. I also thought that it was going to be a re imagination of the original, not just a glorified dub with some omissions and minor changes (except for the ending, that was a slightly bigger change).
Slight spoiler:

Spoiler:

They made Lizbeth seem like a ruthless, sex-crazed psychopath. When she was chasing the bad guy over the bridge and he crashes, she seems disappointed when she doesn't get the chance to kill him herself which sends a different message than the original.

Also, about the dead cat...WHAT THE FUCK? How did that add to the story at all? Was that just a gruesome shock thing meant to show us that oh the people on the island don't want them there? Yeah, we got that from the whole nearly-shot-in-the-head incident.

There was also less coffee in the remake, this is unacceptable.

All bickering and tired ranting aside (I actually didn't ramble that much this time, I'm impressed), if you liked the remake, then please watch the original. I originally did not want to see the remake, but many friends told me it was a good movie and I trusted then. The original was just so much better and this one just left a bad taste in my mouth. If anything, I thought the American remake would have down-played the rape and violence, but it didn't and instead it did the exact opposite.

[Hawknc]

All bickering and tired ranting aside (I actually didn't ramble that much this time, I'm impressed), if you liked the remake, then please watch the original. I originally did not want to see the remake, but many friends told me it was a good movie and I trusted then. The original was just so much better and this one just left a bad taste in my mouth. If anything, I thought the American remake would have down-played the rape and violence, but it didn't and instead it did the exact opposite.

I will see the original, I think, but the general impression I've received so far is that the remake is better. I have to give the director a lot of credit for not fading to black as I would have expected from a Hollywood film - as jillton said, the revenge had to feel justified (which it did in the book), and leaving too much to the audience's imagination might have prevented that.

To me, it felt like it mostly held true to the style of the book, rather than becoming the American story set in Sweden that I was afraid it might. There was no heavy-handed morality about

Spoiler:

pretty much everyone smoking, or Salander sleeping with a woman, or Blomkvist being an apparent atheist.

Agree that more coffee is always helpful, though.

[Deep_Thought]

Slight spoiler:

Spoiler:

They made Lizbeth seem like a ruthless, sex-crazed psychopath. When she was chasing the bad guy over the bridge and he crashes, she seems disappointed when she doesn't get the chance to kill him herself which sends a different message than the original.

Also, about the dead cat...WHAT THE FUCK? How did that add to the story at all? Was that just a gruesome shock thing meant to show us that oh the people on the island don't want them there? Yeah, we got that from the whole nearly-shot-in-the-head incident.

Erm...

Spoiler:

I haven't seen either movie version yet, but the dead cat is in the book, so you can't really complain to the filmmakers about that. In the book it shows a progression in Martin Vanger's desperation, and is more evidence about just how sick he is. At first he's just trying to scare Mikael away by leaving the dead cat. When that doesn't work, he tries to kill Mikael and presumably wanted to dump his body in the lake, an action that would have much larger consequences if he had been successful.

I don't want to sound like I'm criticising but I'm also slightly surprised that in a story featuring multiple brutal rapes and the regular abduction, abuse and murder of women it's the killing of a cat that really got to you. Michael Moore commented on a similar phenomenon when he released Roger and Me. He had a scene of a man being shot by police quite close to one of a lady who grew her own rabbits for food. Guess which scene was regarded by teachers as the one they couldn't show?

[Kick]

Slight spoiler:

Spoiler:

They made Lizbeth seem like a ruthless, sex-crazed psychopath. When she was chasing the bad guy over the bridge and he crashes, she seems disappointed when she doesn't get the chance to kill him herself which sends a different message than the original.

Also, about the dead cat...WHAT THE FUCK? How did that add to the story at all? Was that just a gruesome shock thing meant to show us that oh the people on the island don't want them there? Yeah, we got that from the whole nearly-shot-in-the-head incident.

Erm...

Spoiler:

I haven't seen either movie version yet, but the dead cat is in the book, so you can't really complain to the filmmakers about that. In the book it shows a progression in Martin Vanger's desperation, and is more evidence about just how sick he is. At first he's just trying to scare Mikael away by leaving the dead cat. When that doesn't work, he tries to kill Mikael and presumably wanted to dump his body in the lake, an action that would have much larger consequences if he had been successful.

I don't want to sound like I'm criticising but I'm also slightly surprised that in a story featuring multiple brutal rapes and the regular abduction, abuse and murder of women it's the killing of a cat that really got to you. Michael Moore commented on a similar phenomenon when he released Roger and Me. He had a scene of a man being shot by police quite close to one of a lady who grew her own rabbits for food. Guess which scene was regarded by teachers as the one they couldn't show?

I apologize, it must seem a little hypocrytical of me to suggest one see the original when I have not even read the book (and even more silly when I was complaining about something that was in the book). I was also trying to show, in an odd way of mine, that I was more shocked by the cat than the rape, murder, and abduction that the story was about. I was more shocked by the cat, that's not to say I was more disgusted by it. This movie was dark, and it showed a dark side of humanity that I would like to believe doesn't exist, but it does exist and one cannot just ignore that. I would compare the cat scene to something jumping out to scare momentarily. In my opinion it didn't fit in the story, and it seemed such an excessive and unnecessary addition.

Anyway, I tend to watch a lot of movies with my father and we always psudo-review them on the drive home. While we both agreed that we preferred the original film, we agreed on one thing that I think can save this movie in my eyes. When we saw the original film, we somehow thought it was more about the tension in Sweden (having allied themselves with the Nazis in WWII, there seem to be a lot of skeletons in closets) but upon seeing the American film a few years later we realized that it is not a Swedish story, it is a human story. We mused about how the same story can be told in just about every country in the world. That may have been the mistake we made upon seeing the Swedish film, we somehow didn't accept that something like that could happen here, but that is untrue. It has and does.

Something that confused me about this movie, and this is a complaint I've had with several movies of late, was that it didn't seem to know what it was. The intro was in an almost James Bond style, which made me feel that they were trying to set it up as an action thriller when I was expecting a mystery. I will say that the movie was well done, but I feel that the characters seemed more genuine and likable in the original.

[roband]

The intro was in an almost James Bond style

I pointed this out to the friend I saw it with.

I don't know if they're trying to set themselves apart, because they will do the same with the sequels and it could become iconic for the films.

The only other suggestion I had was that it was a Daniel Craig movie

[jillton]

Hawknc - Exactly the same concerns I had re: Hollywood-isation of the movie!

I'm looking forward to seeing how the next one goes...

[Lucrece]

Rooney Mara is phenomenal as Lisbeth, she was perfectly cast! Though I dislike her saying the Swedish actress was "too fat", seriously uncool comments to make.

What? I just saw the original, and the girl had a very boyish body with the obvious tell-tale wider female hips but no ass whatsoever, and really skinny legs and arms. If we call that actress "fat", jesus fucking christ what is skinny if not straving African child.

[Vaniver]

Partial Objects review.

[Lucrece]

Since when is revenge a stereotypically male impulse?

[Vaniver]

Since when is revenge a stereotypically male impulse?

In general, I agree, but I think they may be correct in the context of rape.

[Weeks]

Uh, before I read anything, I'm not exactly wanting to see this because of feminism.

...The article was interesting. I rarely go into a theater expecting a pro-feminist story, though. I'm not as excited about it as before, but I may just watch it as my gritty-gray movie of the season (it's summer over here, you see).

I just hope the rape scene(s?) aren't so bad.

[Hawknc]

Partial Objects review.

Uh, what? (Spoiled for both spoilers and specific descriptions of that scene)

Spoiler:

No sane woman would tolerate being brutally raped just so she could capture it on camera and hold it over her rapist. But that’s what Lisbeth does. The conclusion you should draw from this behavior is not that she is a strong take-charage woman, but that she is not sane. She is severely emotionally damaged. She is so emotionally detached from her own body that she puts herself through the worst torture just to throw it back in her attacker’s face. Over what? Money.

Salander didn't "tolerate" anything. She went over there expecting to have to give some unpleasant head and get footage to hold over the guy's head so she could have control over her own life (yes, that involves control over your own money too). Instead she got footage of being tied down and forcibly penetrated completely against her will. That was implied in the movie, but outright stated in the book.

[roband]

I just hope the rape scene(s?) aren't so bad.

Yeah it's plural. And they're quite dislikable.

Although, it should be pretty obvious when they're about to start, so averting ones eyes (although not ears, in a cinema) should be possible.

[Weeks]

I could bring my headphones, I guess...

[Lucrece]

Partial Objects review.

Uh, what? (Spoiled for both spoilers and specific descriptions of that scene)

Spoiler:

No sane woman would tolerate being brutally raped just so she could capture it on camera and hold it over her rapist. But that’s what Lisbeth does. The conclusion you should draw from this behavior is not that she is a strong take-charage woman, but that she is not sane. She is severely emotionally damaged. She is so emotionally detached from her own body that she puts herself through the worst torture just to throw it back in her attacker’s face. Over what? Money.

Salander didn't "tolerate" anything. She went over there expecting to have to give some unpleasant head and get footage to hold over the guy's head so she could have control over her own life (yes, that involves control over your own money too). Instead she got footage of being tied down and forcibly penetrated completely against her will. That was implied in the movie, but outright stated in the book.

In the original I just finished watching tonight, it is not implied -- she says it out loud while she's got him tied and carrying out her revenge on him.

It's not that far-fetched as that site would claim. I too would have no qualms giving someone an unpleasant blowjob if I thought I could catch that on camera and lead to the end of my bondage. It doesn't make me insane -- it makes me smart. It abuses the notion of a guy who thinks he's in control and thus won't be suspicious about me setting him a trap.

I also resent the notion that revenge makes someone dysfunctional/damaged. Fuck that reviewer. If someone raped me, I actually consider it quite healthy to seek and carry out retribution in all my capacity. It would be insanity if I were to just up and forgive a man who not only forcibly sodomized me, but has been slapping me around with the dangling carrot of my livelihood and expecting blowjubs in exchange for a sniff at the carrot.

[jillton]

A friend of mine is currently writing her Modern English Lit dissertation on how Lisbeth isn't actually as super pro feminist as we thought.
She's not saying what she does isn't good, but she's just arguing some things about her character/actions. She makes some good points, however I've been told I'm not allowed to reveal anything about it to anyone as it has to be a totally original piece of writing.
Once she's handed it in I'll discuss more, it is an interesting argument.

[the_bandersnatch]

Having seen the Swedish trilogy and read the first book (about to start on the second), I thought the David Fincher film was superior to the Swedish version. Not by a long way, but enough to edge it, it was definitely better cast in general and had benefited from Fincher's direction. Maybe it's because Noomi Rapace was so excellent as Salander I went into this not expecting it to be as good, but I have to say I thought Rooney Mara really captured the character. Maybe Rapace slightly edges it for me, but that may be because I saw her version first.

I'd also like to add the Fincher version wasn't a remake of the Swedish film as many are saying (which annoys me no end), but it was another version based on the same source material. In the same way, for example, that the Coen Brother's version of True Grit wasn't a remake of the John Wayne film of the same name, or how Jackson's Lord of the Rings wasn't a remake of Bakshis.


Oh, and I'd like to add one of my favourite comments on the book yet, from The Daily Mash:

'"'Apple Tattoo' is based on a middle-aged liberal journalist's tale of a lithe, mink-like young girl who meets a middle-aged liberal journalist and shags him to within an inch of his life."

"What a sly old feminist he was."'

[charliepanayi]

And Rooney Mara now has an Oscar nomination for it.

[Lucrece]

Well, according to Wikipedia part of what motivated the author was seeing a young woman gang-raped while he did nothing as a boy, but it still annoys me that he follows the formula of "If there's a male protagonist and a female equivalent, they must hook up." Why couldn't have they remained just "business partners"? The whole "redeem through love" cliche gets on my nerves.

[podbaydoor]

I haven't seen either movie, but I've read the book and parts of the second one. (Spoiler for ending spoiler)

Spoiler:

In the book there is definitely no happy ending to the love story (if it could possibly be even associated with that term), so it didn't bother me that much.

Yes, the cat incident is in the book, and it was definitely intended as an ugly, shocking, scary in-your-face thing.

Partial Objects review.

Uh, what? (Spoiled for both spoilers and specific descriptions of that scene)

Spoiler:

No sane woman would tolerate being brutally raped just so she could capture it on camera and hold it over her rapist. But that’s what Lisbeth does. The conclusion you should draw from this behavior is not that she is a strong take-charage woman, but that she is not sane. She is severely emotionally damaged. She is so emotionally detached from her own body that she puts herself through the worst torture just to throw it back in her attacker’s face. Over what? Money.

Salander didn't "tolerate" anything. She went over there expecting to have to give some unpleasant head and get footage to hold over the guy's head so she could have control over her own life (yes, that involves control over your own money too). Instead she got footage of being tied down and forcibly penetrated completely against her will. That was implied in the movie, but outright stated in the book.

Spoiler:

Yeah, Salander definitely was not expecting to be graphically raped, she had to change her original plans afterwards. In the book, it's repeatedly emphasized and explicitly stated that Lisbeth refuses to go to the police or any authorities because they repeatedly ignored her and/or actively screwed her over in the past - it was the authorities who assigned her Bjurman as a therapist to begin with. So she took her Salander-flavored brand of hacker problem-solving instead, which meant being brutal and ruthless to the point that Bjurman was thoroughly neutralized as a threat. Since the book explained all this, I thought she didn't come off as crazy at all, considering her circumstances. I haven't seen the movie yet, I'll be disappointed if they did not make that clear.

[roband]

Spoiler:

In the book there is definitely no happy ending to the love story

I'm not normally one to fuss about this, but is this not worthy of a spoiler warning?

[podbaydoor]

I fixed it, but you'll have to fix yours now.

[roband]

I fixed it, but you'll have to fix yours now.

I've done so also Thanks

[Lucrece]

By the way, what did she tattoo into the guy's chest? I only saw the original so I couldn't read what she wrote on him.

[the_bandersnatch]

In the book she tattoos on him

Spoiler:

"I AM A SADISTIC PIG, A PERVERT, AND A RAPIST"

whereas in Fincher version it says

Spoiler:

"I AM A RAPIST PIG"

... which is a little more realistic, being much shorter to write out using a ink thingy, especially if you don't know what you're doing.

[ArgonV]

... which is a little more realistic, being much shorter to write out using a ink thingy, especially if you don't know what you're doing.

Spoiler:

Well, she IS the girl with the dragon tattoo, most of the people I know with lots of/large tattoos do have some experience themselves.

[Kick]

... which is a little more realistic, being much shorter to write out using a ink thingy, especially if you don't know what you're doing.

Spoiler:

Well, she IS the girl with the dragon tattoo, most of the people I know with lots of/large tattoos do have some experience themselves.

Spoiler:

Touché, however she does say that "I've never done this before" (probably not a direct quote).

[ArgonV]

... which is a little more realistic, being much shorter to write out using a ink thingy, especially if you don't know what you're doing.

Spoiler:

Well, she IS the girl with the dragon tattoo, most of the people I know with lots of/large tattoos do have some experience themselves.

Spoiler:

Touché, however she does say that "I've never done this before" (probably not a direct quote).

Spoiler:

I forgot about that. But might just be to scare him

[dbsmith]

I thought Fincher's worked better as a movie for the most part. The last third, I definitely felt a strong sense of dread and tension, vs the Swedish one where those feelings were largely absent. At first, I thought Fincher's was way too fast paced, but after the first half hour of exposition, it settled down a bit.

[Kick]

I think I went into the movie with a biased opinion. I think I wanted it to be worse than the Swedish film also based on the book, which I thought was quite good. So, after reading more good reviews from friends of mine and via word of mouth, I think I'll go see it again some time.

[Weeks]

I watched this two days ago. It was much better than I expected.

Spoiler:

Salander's "romance", if it can be called that, with Mikael was nearly non-existed. She basically fucked him a couple of times and that's it.

Oh and she started to like him. That's not a redemption, that's her warming up to someone who doesn't completely suck at being a decent human being.

The rape scenes were well done. It was a genuinely horrible experience.

As to the article mentioned above: I agree with hawknc's rebuttal.

[Deep_Thought]

Just finished the second book and started the third one. 400 more pages to go and then I can watch the Swedish versions, after that the Fincher one and then I will finally be fully qualified to post in this thread

[Diadem]

Just watched this movie. I thought it was quite good. I haven't read the books nor seen the Swedish version, so I can't compare. But as a stand-alone movie it was quite good. Very good actors and the characters were interesting enough that I ended up caring about them.

The ending annoyed me a lot though. I was wondering if others felt the same way about it.

Spoiler:

The movie ends with Lizbeth running away heartbroken as she sees Mikael and Erika walking hand-in-hand. The first thing that always reminds me of such scenes is that people in movies never seem to feel the need to talk about stuff like that. They must always immediately jump to a conclusion and act on it by burning all bridges behind them.

But this particular ending I disliked even more because it came out of nowhere. The explicitly mention at the start of the movie that Mikael and Erika only have a sexual relationship, and that Erika is married. In fact that's mentioned by Lizbeth herself, so she certainly knows about this. When Lizbeth starts sleeping with Mikael it's initially portrayed as just sex. They could have kept it at that. It would have been fine. A strong character who's not dependant on men, and not ashamed of enjoying sex despite being a victim of a lot of abuse. That would have been great. But no, they spend the last half hour of the movie building up a romantic subplot between Lizbeth and Mikael. Ok, that's fine too. A bit cliché, but that's not always bad. She's the one who initiates the relationship, and clearly does not feel threatened by Erika. So still a strong feminist character. But no, then they have to throw all that way in the last minute with this utter bullshit scene.

It reminds me of another movie review I read some time ago. I don't even recall what movie it was about, but the review made an interesting observation. Victims aren't allowed happy endings in hollywood movies. Characters are allowed to experience bad stuff, but only as long as it doesn't affect them. The typical action hero has a lot of bad stuff thrown his way, but he's never traumatized, and even if he is, he'll be fully recovered by the end of the movie. Characters that are damaged do not get happy endings.

This ending was especially egregious because it came out of nowhere. Everything was going along very well for Lizbeth. The only reason they put in a twist ending that was completely out of character for everybody was just to make sure she didn't have a happy ending.