By Jason Apuzzo. It’s probably time to start talking about David Fincher’s forthcoming adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. A ‘pirated’ red band trailer of the film recently ‘leaked’ on-line – or was it actually ‘leaked’ by Sony? – created a lot buzz, and now … as if by magic … the official version of the trailer (above) has been released, along with a new website.
I’m curious as to what people think of the trailer – and of the edgy, NSFW new poster featuring Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara. Also: have LFM readers actually read the novels? If so, your comments would be appreciated.
My own thoughts are these: on balance I think this is a good trailer, excellent for a thriller, but Fincher’s films have repeatedly let me down … always somehow promising a great deal more than is actually delivered. A case in point recently was The Social Network, a film that implied it would have a great deal to say about the phenomenon of social networking – but actually said little (other than: ‘nerdy Jewish guy seeks revenge against WASP elites who rejected him by creating non-hierarchical on-line social scene’). So I remain skeptical. Nice Led Zeppelin cover, though …
Posted on June 2nd, 2011 at 2:19pm.
I’ve read the books and watched two of the three Swedish films. Regarding the books, let’s be clear: Steig Larsson was an awfully weak writer. The wooden characters clump about making speeches and saying obvious things. He can spend pages on exposition of obscure bits of Swedish history, stuff that could have been disposed of in half a paragraph by any reasonably skilled writer. He is obsessively fixated on the evils done to women. The plotting is plodding, the events wildly improbable. Yet, he’s got one great thing going for him, and that’s the utterly terrific character of Lisbeth Salander, and she’s the reason – the only reason – that the books have become bestsellers.
The Swedish films were like dull made-for-TV movies that marched in lockstep with the novels, except where stuff was left out to save time. No shocks, no surprises, no startling images, the hacky actors (with the exception of Noomie Rapace) saying the expected, everything happening just as you figured it wouldt, only more boring. I watched the first and second, but couldn’t muster the fortitude for the third.
I’m sorry to report that the trailer above reminds me strongly of the Swedish films – some scenes are so very familiar – and that’s not good for what should be a collection of the movie’s biggest moments.
Thanks very much for the input on this, Kishke. I’ll take all this into account …
It’s pretty much a by the numbers mystery novel with an excessive dose of liberal macguffin’s. However, Noomie Rapace’s portrayal of Lisbeth Salander is so stark and unique that in my opinion it makes the first movie (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) worth watching just because of her. (And the Swedish setting adds to the uniqueness too) Her portrayal has that elusive quality that you look for in a actor for a movie in that you cannot take your eyes off of her. She’s so physically slight but yet so dominate in presence that it’s almost electric. That’s why so many actresses wanted this role for the remake and of course the ultimate/perfect actress would have been Angelina Jolie. But….she’s too old for it.
I thought the trailer looked very good and I loved the Led Zep cover. Fincher has the talent to pull it away from the TV movie feel of the originals and give it that first run cinematic quality. However and unfortunately, I’ve never felt completely satisfied with anything he’s ever done. In the end, I never feel compelled by his movies. Which in a weird way makes me think he has the talent to make that truly compelling movie. Maybe this time? (Fight Club is just a guilty pleasure)
And is it just me or does Daniel Craig look physically weird and I just don’t mean this trailer, for sometime now?
Thanks, JG, for your interesting take. I really appreciate your input here, along with kishke’s.
A brief thought about Daniel Craig: a lot of contemporary actors – George Clooney comes to mind – seem eager to avoid being ‘typecast’ as classic, handsome leading men of the Cary Grant variety. So, for example, they go to great lengths to ‘dirty-up’ their image or ‘complicate’ it, by taking roles such as this one or … ahem … appearing in drag in TV commercials. Beyond that, however, I agree with you that Craig is looking uncomfortably craggy for a man still only 43. He should take better care of himself.
I agree about Rapace. She has a lot of presence and she really inhabited the role. Easily the best thing about the movie, just as Salander is the best thing about the book.
I saw the three original films on Netflix one weekend when I was in a weird mood. They filled my need at the time, but I can’t see myself revisiting them.
I also agree with the others: It’s Noomi’s presence that carries the films that are somewhat potboilers to me.
Rooney Mara is pretty, and he may be talented, but I can’t get past the fact that her parents are the unholy union of the families that own Steelers and Giants — THE two sports franchises I hate the most.
As for Fincher, I always run out to see his films, but it’s more to enjoy his craftsmanship behind the camera, and not so much as a storyteller. Jason, you nailed it on “The Social Network”, I actually even thought it had the potential to be a little Rand-ian in terms of intellectual property and individuality, but that was a reach considering the screenwriter.
This trailer is solid, but the film could be the first Fincher pic I skip in the theater. The story isn’t nearly compelling enough for me to see it — even if Fincher’s take is more polished than the originals. I never really saw the point of making American versions of these, anyway.
Thanks for your thoughts, Vince, as always. On your final point, I’m also wondering here about the need to remake these films. I suspect Fincher’s first film will do well financially due to audience curiosity, but it’s hard to see this overall becoming a major, lucrative franchise.
Anybody else notice that Christopher Plummer is in this film? It’s amazing to still see him going, now almost 50 years since films like The Sound of Music and Fall of the Roman Empire …
Christopher Plummer is outstanding…what a body of work
I liked the trailer – I think it will be very effective in attracting an American audience who didn’t want to read over six hours of English subtitles in the original Swedish version.
I agree with an earlier poster who said, “I’ve read the books and watched two of the three Swedish films. Regarding the books, let’s be clear: Steig Larsson was an awfully weak writer. The wooden characters clump about making speeches and saying obvious things. He can spend pages on exposition of obscure bits of Swedish history, stuff that could have been disposed of in half a paragraph by any reasonably skilled writer. He is obsessively fixated on the evils done to women. The plotting is plodding, the events wildly improbable. Yet, he’s got one great thing going for him, and that’s the utterly terrific character of Lisbeth Salander, and she’s the reason – the only reason – that the books have become bestsellers.”
Yes, the character of Lisbeth Salander was an awesome creation. My initial reaction when I first met her in the movie was, “What a freak!” But once you get into the reason Lisbeth is what she has become due to years of sexual terrorism while a teenager at a mental hospital, even the most stalwart conservative heterosexual will become the fan of the leather lesbian, and ignore the obvious leftward tilt of the story’s author and the good guy socialist journalists, who in real life are anything but…
–Cheers, Ronbo
It’s interesting that you point this stuff out, Ronbo. A friend of mine, an older lady with strongly conservative leanings – watches the O’Reilly Factor religiously, etc. – absolutely loves these novels. I’m still trying to figure that out, and you’re helping get there since I haven’t yet read the novels or seen the films.
The Swedish film was blatantly exploitative. There was violence and rape when it wasn’t necessary. The plot wasn’t that hard to figure out, I knew who did it as soon as the character was mentioned. And I guessed the end. Really wasn’t impressed.
Maybe the books are better?
Interesting. Thanks for the input, JL.
That’s a good point about the film being exploitative. They showed what most would have implied.
The books are no better. Worse, because of the inept prose.
I haven’t read the books. As an aside, I would characterize myself as a devotee of well-written crime fiction, but reviews of the English translations of Larsson’s books and the clunky prose I encountered while dipping into them put me off making the effort to wade through them. Having said that, I thought the Swedish films were better than average crime dramas (hokey Nazi villains notwithstanding) and are best appreciated after watching all three. Visually, I thought the Swedish films had some arresting shots and that has caused them to linger in memory more than any originality (or lack of same) to the plots. The trailer for the Fincher film did, as an earlier poster mentioned, have shots that reminded me of the Swedish films. For that reason (and the presence of Craig, an actor whose work I enjoy) I’m looking forward to Dragon Tattoo.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful input here, Phil.