BLOGS
When it was first announced that David Fincher had signed on to helm an American version of Swedish author Stieg Larsson's absurdly popular crime thriller, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, my chief fear was that the resulting film would be Fincher's Ron Howard movie; i.e., a by-the-book adaptation of a bestseller (The Da Vinci Code, in Howard's case) that put profit first and artistry second. The other wrinkle Fincher faced (which Howard didn't) was that a perfectly serviceable (and quite faithful) film adaptation of Dragon Tattoo already existed -- a 2009 Swedish-language picture directed by Niels Arden Oplev and starring Noomi Rapace as the titular heroine, leather-clad, heavily-pierced hacker extraordinaire, Lisbeth Salander. So unless the Fight Club director was prepared to do some radical re-working of the novel -- thus pissing off its legions of fans -- it seemed as if his prodigious talents were going to be wasted on a project that would, at best, be a straightforward slice of pulp fiction or, at worse, a warmed-over rehash of too-familiar material.
Obviously, I should have trusted Fincher a little bit more. Perhaps not surprisingly, the new Dragon Tattoo turns out to be a far more artful movie than its predecessor and light years removed from the bland, impersonal book-on-film that The Da Vinci Code was. Shooting on location in Sweden, Fincher's carefully composed wide-screen frames complement the chilly desolation of the remote island where much of the action takes place. His visual style also emphasizes the isolation of Larsson's two central heroes, Lisbeth (played here by Rooney Mara) and crusading journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig, taking over a role originated by Michael Nyqvist, who can currently be seen playing spy vs. spy with Tom Cruise in the fourth Mission: Impossible movie).
Because this is a Hollywood production after all, both of the leads are more conventionally attractive than their Swedish counterparts, but the actors prove to be a good fit for their roles. Craig smartly avoids any Bond-style heroics as Blomkvist, playing him as an all-too-ordinary guy who isn't quite a match for the extraordinary circumstances he finds himself in. And since Mara is noticeably younger than Rapace, her Lisbeth has an inherent vulnerability that enhances the character in some ways and detracts in others. For example, this time around the affair that develops between Salander and Blomkvist carries a tinge of romance that was largely absent in the earlier movie; Rapace's Lisbeth used Mikael as a human vibrator -- Mara's hacker kinda sorta falls for the guy. While this change is apparently in keeping with the book, it's a more predictable dynamic for the characters. On the other hand, Rapace was so steely in the part that Lisbeth came across like a comic-book vigilante that had been carved out of iron. In Mara's hands, it's easier to see the frightened, damaged child that hides behind Salander's imposing exterior. There are still comic-book elements to the role -- the leather uniform, the sweet ride (a zippy motorcycle), her photographic memory -- but overall the difference between Rapace and Mara can be perhaps best summarized as the difference between Frank Miller's Batman and Jeph Loeb's Batman (comic book fans will understand the distinction).
I don't really need to bother with a full plot synopsis, right? Let's just go with a thumbnail recap: After a libel suit leaves him in disgrace, Blomkvist is hired by the elderly scion (Christopher Plummer, distinguished in a small role) of a prominent Swedish family to investigate a crime from the clan's troubled past. Meanwhile, Salander -- still technically a ward of the state due to her troubled upbringing -- plans and carries out a vicious (though, as some will no doubt argue, entirely justified) act of revenge against her abusive new guardian. Eventually, these parallel narratives meet when Blomkvist hires the tech-savvy Salander to aid him in his sleuthing and, in return, she later helps him take down the corrupt businessman that ruined his reputation. In other words, it's standard potboiler stuff and Fincher, for all of his technical prowess, can't -- and doesn't really attempt to -- elevate it beyond that. While it feels churlish to complain about a genre piece that's been executed with such precise craft, I have to confess that, in both versions, I've found Dragon Tattoo's plot profoundly boring (for the record, I haven't read Larsson's book and neither movie has convinced me that I'm missing anything).
Chief among the story's flaws is the way it keeps Salander and Blomkvist apart for a good chunk of the narrative, finally bringing them together about 90 minutes in. Once they do meet, their odd couple chemistry thankfully sparks the routine proceedings to life, but inevitably the grinding mechanics of the mystery shoves their personalities to the backburner. The movie also lacks the paranoid atmosphere and overarching theme of obsession that distinguished Fincher's last foray into the realm of crime thrillers, the superb Zodiac as well as the propulsive dialogue the fueled The Social Network, which played like a procedural in many ways. Dragon Tattoo feels far more like a technical exercise on his part, as if he's trying to show the studios that he's eminently capable of making a middle-of-the-road adult blockbuster in between more provocative and riskier fare. It's his version of comfort food... albeit with a small pinch of sadism to season the mix.
Rape, torture, fire, animals, religion... Trailers Without Pity celebrates the holidays with Dragon Tattoo in this video:
Click here to read our interview with David Fincher and the rest of the film's cast
Think you're a TV or movie expert? Prove it! Play Trivia Without Pity, our new online trivia game with over 2,000 questions about the shows and films you love -- and love to hate.
What are people saying about your favorite shows and stars right now? Find out with Talk Without Pity, the social media site for real TV fans. See Tweets and Facebook comments in real time and add your own -- all without leaving TWoP. Join the conversation now!
Sponsored Links
11 Comments
Add a comment
MOST RECENT POSTS
Sunday, January 29, 2012: Luck
Indie Snapshot: Albert Nobbs, We Need to Talk About Kevin and After Fall, Winter
Today's TWoP News: Friday, January 27, 2012
The Most Heinous Person on Reality TV This Week
Parks and Recreation: Who Made the Comedy Grade Last Night?
Chuck: What We Loved (and Hated) About the Series
TWoP 10: Best Child Actors This Season
Friday, January 27, 2012: Chuck
BLOG ARCHIVES
The Moviefile
January 2012
21 Entries
December 2011
27 Entries
November 2011
22 Entries
October 2011
22 Entries
September 2011
29 Entries
August 2011
27 Entries
July 2011
30 Entries
June 2011
25 Entries
May 2011
13 Entries
April 2011
23 Entries
March 2011
22 Entries
February 2011
33 Entries
January 2011
39 Entries
December 2010
21 Entries
November 2010
29 Entries
October 2010
23 Entries
September 2010
25 Entries
August 2010
26 Entries
July 2010
29 Entries
June 2010
36 Entries
May 2010
22 Entries
April 2010
26 Entries
March 2010
30 Entries
February 2010
19 Entries
January 2010
19 Entries
December 2009
15 Entries
November 2009
21 Entries
October 2009
27 Entries
September 2009
30 Entries
August 2009
28 Entries
July 2009
34 Entries
June 2009
27 Entries
May 2009
24 Entries
April 2009
23 Entries
March 2009
18 Entries
February 2009
30 Entries
January 2009
56 Entries
December 2008
51 Entries
November 2008
61 Entries
October 2008
102 Entries
September 2008
86 Entries
August 2008
99 Entries
July 2008
116 Entries
June 2008
95 Entries
May 2008
86 Entries
April 2008
67 Entries
March 2008
14 Entries
I probably won't see the movie, but I just wanted to let you know that this was the best-written thing I have read on this site in a very long time. Even though this particular movie doesn't interest me, it was very nice to read a well thought-out opinion piece that wasn't riddled with factual, grammatical, or spelling errors. Of course, I can remember when that was the norm for TWOP and not the exception, but it's still appreciated.
Can it really be a flaw of the movie to keep the two leads apart for so much of the story? That's how the book was written. I think fans of the book will expect this, but I suppose if you've never read it it would be confusing.
What I'm getting from this is that you thought it was a well-executed film with a boring plot. This is actually a helpful analysis, because for those who have read and loved the books, one of our biggest fears was that the movie itself would suck. From what you're saying, it's a beautifully shot film, but doesn't have a plot that you particularly care for. I DO like the plot, so I can definitely live with this.
Thanks for writing this! It's rare that you get a critique that's both fair and well-written these days.
It sounds like it's faithful to the book. I just finished the first book and I can't say I get the hype around the book for the exact same reasons you aren't sure on the movie.
Well, I thought it was unbelievable - completely unnerving. I think everyone involved was working at a very high level. Here is my favorite review from a Finnish critic who appears to hate Swedes...
http://mankabros.com/blogs/btp/2011/12/20/the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo-review/
It sounds like the kind of thing that will only be enjoyed by fans of the book and/or the Swedish film. Which I am, so I will see it. Otoh I didn't care for the second two installments of the trilogy, so we'll see.
I really don't get all the hype around this movie. Once the main characters "hooked up," that was it for me. A completely unnecessary angle for what could have been a much better story, if not for the May/December relationship.
Oh, and LOL regarding the comment about Lisbest using Mikael like a human vibrator. That is SO true! That part of the original movie was stomach-churning and just completely gross.
F.Y.I., all Finns "hate" Swedes. Sweden is to Finland as England is to Ireland (i.e., historical colonizer).
Your's is a point of view where real intelliegnce shines through.
Thank you so much for this arcltie, it saved me time!