Can’t Feel It
I don’t believe that David Fincher‘s remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo can amount to very much unless screenwriter Steven Zallian somehow incorporates some form of thematic or emotional resonance that amounts to something. Because the Danish-Swedish original is about nothing except (a) an angry hot tough cyber chick, and (b) an endless unfolding of plot-clue, plot-clue, plot-clue, plot-clue, plot-clue and more plot-clue.
The original trilogy by the late Stieg Larsson is not an interesting or intriguing work. At best it’s an airport lounge page-turner. It’s just “popular,” especially among younger women, which of course means nothing to the Movie Godz. Take a look at the most popular films of any given year going back to whenever. They’re mostly garbage.
So yesterday’s news from Deadline‘s Michael Fleming about Daniel Craig being cast in the Mikael Blomkvist role of the journalist with the damaged reputation who hooks up with Lisabeth Salander , blah blah is of limited interest.
The big news, of course, is which young actress will get the Salander role. Why is it taking so long to decide this? Fleming is re-reporting that top candidates include Ellen Page (too elfin, no sexual component), Mia Wasikowska (can’t remember how to spell her name, too opaque), Emily Browning (who?), Sara Snook (i.e., not Snooki from Jersey Shore), Rooney Mara (who?) and Sophie Lowe (who?).
Sony will release Fincher’s Girl on 12.12.11.
I’ve said it before, but The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo sucks. I’m with the Playlist boys on this one – I thought it was a disgusting, shallow and overlong CSI episode.
I’ll be mildly interested to see what Fincher does with it but, whatever, don’t really care.
Say what you want about the novels, which I haven’t read (though I gather you haven’t either), but that’s a staggeringly Eloi response to the first film. Might as well have complained you had to keep rubbing your eyes from reading all the subtitles.
The books are popular with men, women, aardvarks, aliens from the Alpha Centauri system. What makes you think women are the biggest consumers? I’ve read the first two books and enjoyed them (the third is on my to-read list). I thought the first film version was dark, angry and terrific.
I can see this is your latest hobby horse. Putting down the trilogy. How long are you gonna ride it? I guess until Dec., 2011, when the American version will be released. We will all be terribly bored with the invective by then.
Just finished watching “Dragon Tattoo” last night and am hoping to see “Played With Fire” Thursday night. It’s a shame that it “needs” to be remade in English. According to Box Office Mojo, “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” made as much last weekend as “Tattoo” grossed domestically in total. I can’t understand why people are so adverse to subtitles. Since DVD, it’s the only way to go in our household. No more having to strain eardrums through mumbled dialogue, or hushing the kids for talking during a movie.
“I can’t understand why people are so adverse to subtitles. Since DVD, it’s the only way to go in our household. No more having to strain eardrums through mumbled dialogue, or hushing the kids for talking during a movie.”
Really? Subtitles on an English language movie really annoy me. You can read what’s about to be said before it’s actually happened. So any reaction shots are instantly ruined. It completely messes with the flow of dialogue.
Subtitles are necessary for foreign films, but I’d never use them on English ones unless I was deaf.
Jeff, you forgot to mention the part about how skillfully made the first film is, how the story is a commentary on modern Swedish society, how fascinating the “angry/hot” chick is and the evolving relationship between her and the journalist. There’s a HELL of a lot more happening in that picture than you are willing to give credit to, but I sense we’ll be hearing this ad nauseum until the next one is released. The film features an uncommonly interesting young woman in the middle of a pretty engrossing mystery, very well-made and stylish. It’s strange you’re so dismissive.
I’m willing to accept that trade off, Eloi.
Good career move for Daniel Craig. He’s got two franchises on the go while Bond is on the backburner. With Cowboys & Aliens and the Dragon Tattoo series, he’s guaranteed he won’t go the way of Pierce Brosnan. He’s excellent, so I’m glad he’s getting these big parts.
If I’m not mistaken, 12.12.11 falls on a Monday. Never heard of a movie being released on that day.
I picked the first book up in an airport and found it to be a real slog. I read the first 200 pages and told a friend who’d read it what I figured was the solution to the “mystery”. They confirmed that I didn’t need to read the rest. I love a good piece of pulp, but this one just didn’t deliver for me at all. I’m a huge Fincher fan and maybe he can transcend the material… but it’s not something I’m excited about.
For what it’s worth, I’m reading THE PASSAGE right now and it’s amazing — not at all surprised the film rights sold for $1.75M. (Though I hope Ridley Scott is no longer attached…) Wish to hell I was doing the adaptation.
I’m with JChasse… Of course I’m biased because it somewhat relates to day jobs I’ve had, but I always watched US movies on DVD or TV with the subs or caps on. Maybe entirely psychological, but it helps me focus better, especially as an apartment dweller who works nights… I watch most movies at 1am with the volume on level 2, 3 tops, so it’s absolutely necessary. Another reason I insist that anyone who shouts RENTAL! is a homeowner, because NO WAY you can enjoy SURROUNDSOUND if you live in an apartment, and side issue: Anyone who lives in an apartment and has a 5.1 audio system or EVER LISTENS TO A STEREO is a selfish asshole who deserves an epic beatdown. Headphones, asshole, day or night. NOBODY should have to hear your music or movie, EVER, if they don’t want to.
But somehow watching with the subs on makes watching a movie on DVD less boring, it commands your attention more, gives you something to stay focused on so your mind doesn’t wander.
ON TOPIC: Rooney Mara is very, very, VERY hot. She is the sister of Kate Mara, and was recently the lead in the NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST remake, and had a sexy bit in YOUTH IN REVOLT. She’d be awesome, but she’s not a name. Emily Browning is the lead in that SUCKER PUNCH movie linked not six posts down, and was also in that Elizabeth Banks movie THE UNINVITED.
WASIKOWSKA and K-STEW would be the perfect choices though.
I’ve never understood how people could enjoy remakes and adaptations of procedurals where they’ve already read or seen the source material. Once you know who the killer(s) are in a book or film that’s been remade, what’s the point of the journey? I have no desire to see the remake of this one (even if Fincher is directing).
I stopped reading the first book halfway – watched the excellent Swedish film – and resumed reading the book. Now that I know the story and all its secrets and revelations, what is Fincher’s movie going to offer me other than a fresh face in the role of Salander? With all the fans of the novel around the world, I can’t see Sony and Fincher changing the essential plot and who the perpetrators are. So what’s the point? Unlike reading and then seeing JAWS and the EXORCIST, where there’s real spectacle and curiosity about “how are they going to pull it off?” DRAGON TATTOO has none of that. And if you’ve already seen the Swedish film, you know just how it’s going to look on screen, minus a few strong Fincher flourishes. I think the Da Vinci Code suffered from the same problems and never overcame them. If you really want to make a meal of this material, take the character of Lizbeth Salander and plug her into a fresh, original storyline – which is clearly what Sony is hoping to do after they’ve exhausted the first three books – but will anyone be interested by then?
Don’t forget Kristen Stewart. She has to be in the running, though I doubt she’d do that rape scene.
The film was so uninteresting I can’t even bring myself to try the books.
Young women? Really? What could they possibly see in that story?
Lex, invest in a decent pair of headphones. The majority of my home viewing comes after my fiance goes to bed, and since the TV is literally right next to the bedroom door, it’s either subtitles or headphones. I have a modest 11-year-old Sony receiver and some old studio monitor headphones. They’re more than adequate.
You’ll probably need at least a six foot extension as well, but it’s well worth it when you’re not compromising the integrity of the soundtrack.
“You’ll probably need at least a six foot extension as well…”
I’d like to give all the chicks in the running mentioned above a six-inch extension, if you know what I mean.
I’ve read the first two books and am working on the third, not because I enjoy them, but as a test of will. If you want to be creative, you at least you have to know what’s out there.
They are not well written. However, Lisbeth Salander is an interesting character. Bad books sometimes make good movies.
I have no idea hoiw this works in America. The whole franchise is about critiquing specifically Swedish social and political problems that don’t have much American equivalency.
Haven’t decided if I will read them, still on the fence about them. Reading “The Passage”, a long and scary book. LexG, that was funny, don’t quit writing that stuff.
MovieBob: I think they’re keeping Sweden as the setting. Like the BBC’s recent Wallander adaptations, with Kenneth Branagh in the lead role.
lawnorder: The Departed is a great example of how to freshen up a remake. Granted, Infernal Affairs was nowhere near as widely known as the Dragon Tattoo books, but they took the basic plot of the original and fleshed it out with a whole lot more. If Fincher follows this path, they could be onto a winner.
But it’s clearly “one for them” from Fincher, who’s done a pretty good job at balancing the two. Roughly, you could say of his films:
“One for Them”:
Alien 3
The Game
Panic Room
Benjamin Button
“One for Me”:
Seven
Fight Club
Zodiac
Social Network
I really like the books, particularly the 1st and 3rd. I also like Daniel Craig in various films but I have a hard time with him in this role. One of the intriguing things about the journalist character is that though he is a good investigative journalist, he spends much of his time with things happening TO him and quite passive. That doesn’t sound like something Craig can do very convincingly after the roles we associate him with. Lisbeth is the other side of the coin with her very active sense of vengeance. Not sure there is much need for these to be remade but I’m interested pretty much only because it is Fincher.
I’m bummed that JW seems to be setting this project(s) up as his horse to flog. Especially since Zodiac is so clearly one of the great masterpieces of the last decade. Surely we can give DF some due and wait until we see what he comes up with.
Actually this would make FOUR “franchises” (when did everyone start using this corporate-speak term anyway?) that Craig is involved with – Bond, this, Cowboys, and Spielberg/Jackson’s Tintin, which is also opening Dec 2011. Can you say “coming soon to a highest paid actor list near you”?
Anyway this is great casting, Craig and Michael Nyqvist from the original could be brothers!
@dinovelvet
Daniel Craig has those franchises, plus would have had another when he was involved in The Golden Compass, the potential start to the “His Dark Materials” trilogy. Craig want to make sure he’s around for awhile.
I too don’t care about a remake for this movie but thats because the original is good enough. The DVD offers a good dubbed version for those who don’t want to deal with subtitles. I do find irony in Jeff putting this movie down with this line “It’s just “popular,” especially among younger women, which of course means nothing to the Movie Godz.” Jeff do you know what the original title is to the story? Man som hatar kvinnor, also known as Men Who Hate Women.
Technically Fleming’s “news” about Daniel Craig wasn’t news at all, considering Sharon broke that story months ago on TheWrap.
As for the remake, I worship David Fincher but I’m not sure I see what he sees in the material. I’m with Gruver and The Playlist — the first two Swedish movies ARE NOT GOOD. They’re mildly interesting/entertaining but they’re hardly movies I’d recommend to my friends. They’re boring, particularly Blomkvist’s character, and I’m a journo myself. Sorry, but that’s the truth.
Personally, I found the story and characters engrossing. And I EXPECTED to find it boring, when I saw the runtime was 2 and a half hours. I figured I’ll give it half an hour and see where we’re at. 2.5 hours later, and I had been riveted.
Good luck besting Noomi Rapace as the Lisbeth Salander that everyone identifies with the role.
I’m convinced David Fincher can make something interesting out of these movies, but the original films really are drivel.
Eloi: obviously, you’ve been lucky enough never to live in a place where outside noises can affect what you hear inside. My first apartment in Brooklyn must have been located near where the Brooklyn chapter of Hell’s Angels met, because every damn night, I’d hear motorcycles whizzing by whenever I was trying to watch TV or a movie. You’d better believe I had the closed-captioning on my TV so I could at least know what they were saying even if I couldn’t always hear it.
“One of the intriguing things about the journalist character is that though he is a good investigative journalist, he spends much of his time with things happening TO him and quite passive. That doesn’t sound like something Craig can do very convincingly after the roles we associate him with.”
Reno, you should watch DEFIANCE. Whatever you think of the movie, it should be noted while Craig’s character is ostensibly the leader, there are times throughout the movie where he doesn’t make the important decisions, and is somewhat paralyzed emotionally. That’s not the same as being a passive character, to be sure, but I don’t think it’s a big leap to assume he could do it.
I get your point Lipranzer and actually have seen Defiance and know what you’re talking about with his character. I think he is a good actor fwiw.
Actually, in thinking about it further, I wonder if Craig, or the producers/screenwriters/director will manage to LET the character be passive in an American Hollywood remake. I can imagine the groupthink being that if you have a big male lead like “Bond” you can’t have him not doing anything in terms of action sequences.
But who knows, it’s a different medium and maybe they’ll create a completely original take on the “partnership” between the two main characters that works. Bottom line, with Fincher involved, even if it’s a failure, I think it will be an interesting one worth watching. Somebody listed DFs works above and there is not a film there that didn’t have something interesting going on that made them worth the ticket price (not counting Social Network since I haven’t seen it).
i thought Carey Mulligan had been cast in the Salander role?
Layer Cake had Craig in a somewhat passive role – he would think he was in control of the situation but the rug would be constantly pulled out from under him.
And there is the Jaws-like henchman in the second book/film, I wonder if they will rewrite it so Craig can tussle with him!
I’m in the middle of the book right now. It’s a lot better than you’re making out, Wells, but at the same time it’s not as good as others are making out. It’s a solidly written thriller with some interesting political themes at the heart of it. No more, no less. At least it’s better than anything Dan Brown has ever written. Honestly, The Da Vinci Code makes The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo look like Crime and Punishment.
Weird how this became the Daniel Craig thread almost as much as the thread about Fincher or the leading lady-to-be…
But my two cents: Kinda weird to hear everyone talking about Daniel Craig securing these great roles in big movies for himself, like he’s super huge outside of Bond.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Craig as Bond, liked Defiance, like him just about everything… But unless he’s in the tux with the Bond riff behind him, I HONESTLY don’t think viewers even know who he is, neither by name nor by sight.
It’s kinda like how Gerard Butler in 300 was some greased, ripped motherfucker in a disgusting seven inch beard covering his whole face, then on the basis of that they put him in 30 more movies, and when this bloated, boozy, unshaven fat guy in a bad Caesar cut turned up in Law Abiding Citizen or PS I Love You, all the bean counters were like, “Hey America, what’s WRONG? Don’t you remember, this is the guy you loved SO MUCH in 300???? Why aren’t you paying to see him again?” And America was like, “I liked 300 and I vaguely remember there was some main dude with abs, but I don’t know his name and couldn’t pick him out of a police lineup.”
Kinda the same deal with Daniel Craig; Remember that embarrassing video where he and Hugh Jackman surprised Oprah, and Oprah went apeshit at the sight of Jackman, and just kinda thought Craig was his assistant, clearly had NO CLUE who he was?
I get the sense that’s what’s going on with the general public… I don’t think 99% of the population recognizes the name “Daniel Craig” unless you qualify it with “you know, JAMES BOND!” His solo efforts like The Invasion or Defiance didn’t do well… That’s nothing against him, his wattage, or his chops, but he’s on that Butler trajectory on his way down to Clive Owenland, where he’s IN a lot of stuff, but unless it’s Bond, no one’s really going to see it BECAUSE of him.
Then again, Christian Bale kinda has the same problem, so it’s not an entirely bad problem to have.
Lex: Bale and Craig are better actors and have better agents than Owen and Butler.
Butler’s the worst – he has squandered all his 300 goodwill with an absolute parade of horseshit movies.
Owen is okay but bland; he plays the same guy in every movie, and has a strange tone of voice that suggests he thinks he’s better than everyone else. It’s like he repeats his Closer character in every film.
Bale is excellent and will probably become some Daniel Day-Lewis-esque recluse when he’s done with franchise films. He’s a genuine nutjob, but he definitely has Oscars on the horizon so he’ll be fine.
Craig, meanwhile, will be a big name not just for Bond after Cowboys and Dragon Tattoo hit. At the moment he’s in a similar position to Chris Pine. Men’s magazines love him, film fans know who he is, but he really needs more than just his signature franchise to really become a household name. Pine’s going after Jack Ryan to supplement his Star Trek fame; Craig has attached himself to two more franchises to break out of Bond typecasting.
I was hoping the guy from Frost/Nixon, Michael Sheen would play the lead in Dragon.. I think he’d be perfect. Outside of the Bond movies Craig has no box office clout so why not go with the better actor? I liked the book, not literature, but a fun thriller.
Craig probably saw what happened to Pierce Brosnan post-Die another day, and did the math.
Anyway, I think this group of Craig/ Bale/ Jackman/ Butler/ Worthington type guys (no Americans, notably. Oh alright, Pine then) represents the new kind of ‘star’. There are no Tom Cruises anymore. Your best bet is to get a superhero role, and just accept that you’ll be known as Batman/Bond etc for the rest of your life, but it’ll at least get you some other work.
Oh My God…..It’s a hilarious post. This is really great. I liked the book, not literature, but a fun thriller. Thanks for sharing this fantastic book with us. Keep sharing.
i liked the movie, i think the same actress should be in both, i didnt know the other swedish movie was out, have to see it. i liked subtitles to, it helps you hear everything
That Louis Vuitton guy is fulla shit.
If this film could’ve been made 10 years ago, Bill Murray and Angelina Jolie would’ve been PERFECT casting. Face it, folks: There isn’t an American actress I know of that can pull of what that Swedish chick did. None of them even remotely are that menacing or unafraid to be that sexual.
I think Tulse Luper is right on target with his book review, and I would extend the same comments to the first movie as well.
Jeff, you forgot to mention the part about how skillfully made the first film is, how the story is a commentary on modern Swedish society, how fascinating the “angry/hot” chick is and the evolving relationship between her and the journalist. There’s a HELL of a lot more happening in that picture than you are willing to give credit to, but I sense we’ll be hearing this ad nauseum until the next one is released. The film features an uncommonly interesting young woman in the middle of a pretty engrossing mystery, very well-made and stylish. It’s strange you’re so dismissive.
I can give you “well-made” in a classical sense, I suppose, but “stylish?” Really? I would slot it in the Gary Fleder/Greg Hoblit stratum of visually competent thriller.
But more to the point: What, really, does Larsson address that is so specifically Swedish? (SPOILER) The fact that there were Nazis in Sweden? The fact that a lot of desperate women emigrate there? That in Sweden there are men who hate women, and corrupt industrialists, and a lack of tenacious investigative reporters? I can grant you that by the time you get to the third book, the special conditions that govern the security police may indeed by specifically Swedish without appropriate American analogue, but even then I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to cite overweening American spies and do-gooders crying “Constitutional crisis!”
The ‘swedishness’ is absolutely there and vital to the story.
The setting, the pace, the politics (I struggle to think of a more left-wing popular series) the sexual openness. I thought it interesting/sad that they de-complicated Blomquist’s sex life for the film.
All the books are a slog, but there is something attractive to them, that I can’t immediately rationalise.
What I love most about the films/books is that you would never have a story told this way out of Hollywood. In the first film the main characters don’t meet up until an hour in! Also, nobody dramatically changes, or comes to realize anything deep about themselves. If that becomes popular, huzzah!
mtnz, you’re only sort of convincing me. You talk about how Swedish the book’s setting and pace are and I immediately think of http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/07/05/100705sh_shouts_ephron
There’s a level at which the sexual openness is very Swedish, but really the only element that would strike people as countercultural is Erika’s double relationship, which ended upon the cutting room floor. Without that, yes, Mary Sue Blomkvist beds one to two new conquests per book, but really, is that an element of some radically new literary tradition, or are they just Bond girls?
As far as anti-Hollywood is concerned, yes and no. In the books, by the end of the trilogy the books do change — Blomkvist seems to have a bit of an epiphany that his sexual openness isn’t really as good for the women in his life as he likes to think, and Salander is essentially ordered by a judge to become a productive member of society (all of the pleasure of HORNET’S NEST is the guilty middlebrow pleasure of a good courtroom scene).
That said, I agree 100% with “All the books are a slog, but there is something attractive to them, that I can’t immediately rationalise.” I was compelled from chapter to chapter, even as I was bemoaning the black-and-white characterizations and their plot-clue-plot-clue doggedness. The epilogue to HORNET’S NEST is one of the best chapters I’ve read in anything, a great short story that reflects back on the whole trilogy and is positively thrilling.
Near-garauntee for the American version:
Blomkvist has some sort of immediately-apparent personality flaw that Salander will “fix” just in time for him to show off his improvement in the epilogue.
The two leads meet up almost-immediately, and hate eachother to a comedic degree at first.
Salander’s bisexuality limited to sly wink/hand-hold/exit with minor female character, so the audience can “oooooh!” and Blomkvist will react like she just performed some kind of magic trick. “Women and women? Heh! Now I’ve seen everything.”
More framed photos of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft in the Nazi guys’ homes than a presidential library. So we know they’re reeeaaalllllyyyy bad.
Blomkvist will be a “gentleman” and decline her advances, gradually making her reassess her negative view of men. Because women who WANT to fuck always have something wrong with them.
No question…the first book takes patience to plow through
(Blomkvist wading through a murky whodunit amongst
a huge dysfunctional corporate family dynasty)….but the second and third are all about Salander and her vast array of enemies….who come in virtually every size, shape and variety…from smooth talking shrinks to hulking Bond-movie psychos…..and that’s the story that captured the world’s
imagination.
I assume they’re keeping it in Sweden because a major plot point has Salander trapped in some kind of Swedish legal government guardianship….even though she’s an adult….sort of parole for former nutcases.