I don't pay to see remakes. It takes a special case to make me break my rule. After being duped by last year's Piranha, which, while not bad, was not worth the money I paid to see it, I decided the next exception would have to have more going for it than the promise of a fun lark.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is my latest rule-breaker. I enjoyed the original but as I did have some issues with it, I was not at all fazed by the concept of an American remake the same way I might be by a remake of a cherished horror classic. On the contrary. David Fincher is not only a great director but more importantly, a perfect fit for the project. I also appreciated Columbia Pictures' marketing approach.

For those of you don't know, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo follows journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) whose career, reputation and company, Millennium magazine, are left in shambles after being sued for libel by a billionaire industrialist whom he accused of criminal activities. In a fortuitous turn of events, Blomkvist is sought out by another billionaire, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), who is impressed by Blomkvist's character as evidenced by the gutsy article that ruined him. Henrik wants Blomkvist to use his journalist skills to find the killer of his niece, Harriet, who disappeared 40 years ago. Harriet's disappearance is consequently linked to a slew of brutal misogynistic murders perpetrated by an unknown member of Henrik's family (which is also consequently full of ex-Nazis).

To assist him, Blomkvist seeks out an assistant: the titular Girl, 23 year old Lizbeth Salandar (Rooney Mara), a gothed-out computer hacking genius with a photographic memory and a seemingly impenetrable personality (it's called antisocial a few times).

Apologies for the longwinded plot description. It is something of a complicated story.

Anyway, Fincher's adaptation of the acclaimed Stieg Larsson is, shockingly, better than the Swedish film in pretty much every way.

Both films are slow. However Fincher makes it feel breezier than it is with glossier cinematography and quicker editing. The editing is one of the first things I noticed about the film, actually. At first, I was nervous that Fincher wasn't letting his shots breathe, which would be a detriment to the dark atmosphere the story requires. However Fincher more than manages to maintain the original film's frigid Norse feel whilst still making a distinctly Fincher film. And as much as I hate to say it, the fact that it was in English helped too. I didn't feel like I had to be so intensely focused just to understand what was going on like I did in the original.

The violence, especially sexual violence, is, shockingly (again), even more brutal and exacting than the original film and even Fincher's previous films... and let's face it. The dude's done some nasty stuff in the past. The scenes with Lizbeth's new guardian are especially harrowing, even when the scenes in the Swedish film seemed like they couldn't be anymore so. With Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross's superb soundtrack laid over it all, I was on the edge of my seat. There's another scene at the end of the film as well that made my hairs stand on end. It's a dialogue scene involving a character in a compromised position as opposed to an out and out violent scene. But the dread of violence and the words the character speaks make it absolutely chilling.

None of it feels Hollywood at all. But what really caught me off guard was that I didn't expect to see this level of intensity and visceral imagery from Fincher, Fight Club and Seven notwithstanding.

In many ways, Fincher is the star of the film. But what about the actors?

Daniel Craig - excellent. I could tell right off the bat that this was a different character than James Bond. I was highly impressed that he was able to make it through the film without any signs of that franchise's baggage. And in regards to his portrayal and Mikael Blomkvist compared to the original, my friend put it best when he said Craig just walked with a lot more balls in this one.

Rooney Mara - I will use the word "shockingly" a third time... Shockingly, better than Noomi Rapace. One thing that impressed me about the original film was that despite having what has had to be an extremely painful life, Rapace never once carried the stigma of a victim as Lizbeth Salandar. She was a bonafide trooper and has an air of personal security that is rarely seen in these types of characters. So I was nervous seeing the pictures of Mara as Lizbeth as I felt there was too much emotion in her face. But as it turns out, Mara's Lizbeth is still the same trooper and somehow, the brief glimpses of emotion we get from the character just adds a whole other level that was not present in the original film, not to mention that are appropriately subtle and almost intentionally understated. I was also impressed by Mara's courage as an actress to do as much graphic nudity that she did. It really upped the authenticity of the film.

Plummer is terrific. Extremely sympathetic and even as a supporting character, his absence is felt when he leaves for most of the second half. Stellan Skarsgard's performance is the best I've seen from him. A standout, no question. Yorick van Wageningen is horrifying. Utterly repugnant and not in a movie-ish way. Disturbingly realistic. For such a small part, he leaves a huge mark, like a bleach stain over the memories you take from the film.

All performances were great, really.

Finally, as this is an American adaptation, there is another element that deserves appreciation that cannot be applied to the original and that is how true to film is to the source material. Everyone speaks in English, yes, but they didn't move the story to America. It takes place in Sweden and the characters are all Swedish. Rooney Mara even maintains a Swedish accent and I just saw an interview with Craig where he justified his British accent by noting that he's met many Swedes who've developed such accents from watching BBC and the like. Overall, the film shows remarkable integrity, especially as a big budget Hollywood picture based on an immensely popular, contemporary and well known book series.

Okay, I'm done gushing. Now I'm going to lay down it.

While I did enjoy the film a lot more than the original, it does have all the problems that the original had and because both are very faithful adaptations, all the same problems as the book. Half the film is characters looking over old photographs and newspaper articles or typing on computers. It gets boring from time to time and if you're not on top of the plot, you can get lost or just flat out lose interest. The first half of the film is better than the second half (as in the original) and it's all very slow. Like the original, the ending drags forever and I was honestly getting antsy around the last half hour.

Nevertheless, a solid flick. A rare instance where a film is everything that it could be. And as only a casual Fincher fan, I was extremely impressed. Definitely one of his best.

Check it out!

kudos on the thorough review my good friend. seriously, i think you covered everything haha

in all seriousness, i couldn't agree more with your review. i love Fincher. and his adaptation was brutal and intense, yet beautiful and poetic. the performances were amazing and mara is a knockout.

strangely enough, this is the second film this year that feels very foreign despite being produced by hollywood. i remember people shuttering when ryan gosling kicks in some guy's face in Drive. now, if you watch foreign films, the violence and gore was nothing new. but it shocked american audiences. the same can be said about this film. i'll be the first to admit that the anal rape scene was difficult to get through. but foreign films like irreversible are equally intense...and it's been out for years. So it's interesting to see American film studios and filmmakers syphoning the intensity of foreign films. and it makes films like the girl with the dragon tattoo, all the more powerful.

my only gripe with the film is the story. it's simply sub par. but that's not Fincher's fault.

Quoted from albinopenguin kudos on the thorough review my good friend. seriously, i think you covered everything haha

No. I neglected to mention Fincher's amazing opening credits sequence. Fincher totally one upped himself.

Quoted from albinopenguin strangely enough, this is the second film this year that feels very foreign despite being produced by hollywood. i remember people shuttering when ryan gosling kicks in some guy's face in Drive. now, if you watch foreign films, the violence and gore was nothing new. but it shocked american audiences. the same can be said about this film. i'll be the first to admit that the anal rape scene was difficult to get through. but foreign films like irreversible are equally intense...and it's been out for years. So it's interesting to see American film studios and filmmakers syphoning the intensity of foreign films. and it makes films like the girl with the dragon tattoo, all the more powerful.

Agreed. I hope that this is a trend that continues.

It's interesting though. Drive was directed by Nicolas Winding Refn who is Danish and was already an established director before Drive. He was cherry picked by Ryan Gosling for the film and many of his creative decisions were backed up and defended by Gosling who was the star and whose opinions naturally carried a lot of weight with the producers. As a result, there was a genuine European influence behind Drive.

What's interesting is that this was not the case for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. This film had an American director picked by the studio and not the film's star. It seems very much a conscious decision on the part of the director and studio to make a European-style film. So in that regard, this film is much more remarkable.

Interesting. I did not know that. And you're absolutely right, the opening sequence was amazing. So slick!

I agree with pretty much everything you've said there James. However in a strange twist I hated the opening sequence. It felt totally out of place, like I was actually just about to watch a Bond film.

As for the film there were a few places that dragged a tad, but not enough to ruin it by any means. Overall though I thought it was a good watch. As a fan of the books and the Swedish films I was worried that it might be 'Hollywooded', which thank god, it wasnt. The rape scene was a horrible watch, and having watched it with a friend, a female, it was even more uncomfortable. I turned to her during to see her reaction and it's fair to say she was pretty horrified.

For me it was better than the Swedish film, one reason being, like you mentioned, it was just a lot easier to follow in English. Also I much preferred Daniel Craig as Blomkvist than Michael Nyqvist. When I read the books in my head he was quite a ruggedly handsome man, with a bit of charisma about him, and I think Craig ticks those boxes, whereas Nyqvist didnt quite cut it. I agree with my mum here, 'Daniel Craig has it, the other guy hasnt'.

A lot of very good performances from all the cast IMO, though the real stand out, even though he wasnt in the film a great deal was Yorick van Wageningen as Bjurman. I dont think Im ever going to forget him. He brought the character from the book to life so well its disturbing. Its making me cringe now just thinking of him.

Anyway thats about all Ive got, happy new year.

Arty.

James,

Thanks for another detailed review.
I've yet to see Fincher's Film, but I'm a fan of the Swedish production.
However, I'm very into the Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross score.
What did you think of it set against the film?

Regards,
E.D.

Quoted from Electric Dreamer James, Thanks for another detailed review. I've yet to see Fincher's Film, but I'm a fan of the Swedish production. However, I'm very into the Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross score. What did you think of it set against the film? Regards, E.D.

I thought the score was excellent. It was intense, foreboding, distinct and unconventional but generally ambient and atmosphere. It compliments the imagery rather than take it over. There's moments where it kicks into more industrial territory but the film's a thriller. It's merited. Honestly, if you liked what they did with The Social Network, you should be pleased.

Agree with a lot of this. Cannot agree with the credits, though. Kind of felt like an offcut from a '90s Marilyn Manson video. Nothing wrong with that per se, but totally out of sync with the movie. A very small gripe. I posted a little more (not a great deal) about this film on my blog if you wish to see it: http://andrewallenblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/135/

I'm surprised this flick didn't garner more attention on the boards here.

I finally watched this the other night on a movie channel - well, actually, it took me a total of 3 nights to get all the way through it, which is obviously not a great sign.

I've had the original trilogy in my Netflix que for awhile now and still haven't seen any of them.  I still hope to, but no guarantees.

So, just to be clear, I was looking very forward to seeing this and when I found it playing on whatever movie channel it was, I was thrilled.  Lots of great word of mouth, award nominations (wins?), high profile cast and director, big budget, you name it, this supposedly had it.

I actually loved the opening credits and music and I am far from a Trent Reznor fan.  It worked though. It was cool. It was well done.

I honestly did my best to stay with this, but IMO, it was way too slow, way too dull, and way too convoluted a plot and story.  The backstory of Craig's character's freefall was not developed enough for me to really even understand it  Early on, I was very bored, even though I was still doing my best to enjoy it.

Another major issue I had was that Lisbeth really had very little to do with the overall story/plot.  Her "story" early on, up until she meets Craig, just didn't flow with the rest of the movie, the plot, or the story.  I think because of this feeling I had, I couldn't really relate to her and Craig hooking up like they did.  It just didn't seem real, and then in the end, when he basically blows her off, I was left questioning if I really cared.

Having not read the original novel or seeing the original movie, I don't know how Lisbeth was different here.  She was a cool character in many ways, but to me, a little over the top - a little too out there looking, a little too troubled, and definitely alot too tough and badass.  Don't get me wrong, I did like her and think that Mara did an excellent job with her - and showed real balls for her constant nudity.

I knew who the Antag was before he was even intro'd.  I guess it's just me, but when I see a "name actor" show up in a small supporting role, there's usually a reason, and sure enough, this was the case here.  I like Stellan Skarsgard as an actor.  I think he always brings it and he did here as well.  For me, the only scene that really worked and hit me off guard was near the end when he's revealed to be a monster.  That whole scene was intense and had me on the edge for awhile.  IMO, this movie was lacking on such powerful scenes and with a running time of over 2 1/2 hours, it needed more.

So, I definitely didn't hate it, and I definitely don't think it's a crap movie, but for me, it really didn't work.  Too slow.  Too dull.  But most of all, the story itself for me was very "small" and uninspired.  Without Lisbeth, this would be a snoozefest.