The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
discussion
How was the Movie?
message 1:
by
Hannah
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Dec 26, 2011 01:11PM
I read the book, but I haven't seen the movie. What did you think of the movie? Was it good? ...bad?
reply
|
flag
i saw it the other night, if you haven't read the book and you don't mind some graphic scenes its pretty good. They did change the ending a bit - (view spoiler) - that was the main change, but I liked it - I think Rooney Mara did a good job as Lisbeth, wasn't so sure about Daniel Craig, but he grew on me as the movie progressed
I saw it tonight and liked it and like the dee said there is some graphic scenes in it i was kind of shocked that they did show what they did.
just saw it. was impressed at how true it stayed with the book, except for the ending like what Dee said, but overall i was happy with it. i still like noomi rapace as lisbeth but i believe rooney mara did a good job.
I'm thinking you mean the American one. I've seen all of the Swedish ones and the new American one. Read all the books. I think they actually did a better job on the American one. There was a few things they cut out or changed from the book but I think it was necessary to fit everything in. It is a little graphic as everyone said but I think its important to get the whole work across, even the hard to watch parts.
It's good, but so is the foreign version. I give them both big marks for cutting some of the fat from the novel and making it compelling. Craig is a better Blomkvist. Noomi Rapace is a better Lesbeth... more intense.
Thank you for the opinions. :) It sounds like the movie is good. :D
I'll have to watch the Swedish one, because I really liked Rooney Mara as Lisbeth. I thought she did a great job.
Which one is better, the Swedish or the English?
I thought they did a damn good job with the script----I couldn't picture R. Mara as Salander at first, but she definitely changed my mind.
I saw it yesterday. There were a couple things that they changed from the book and honestly I don't understand why they did. Could have kept it the way it was in the book with no issues. I liked it but I didn't get the same feeling from it as I did the book, meaning that I didn't care about the characters as much. But overall I think that they pulled it off nicely.
I liked the Swedish movie better than the 2011 American release. I think Noomi Rapace is a better Lisbeth--or at least closer to what I visalized when I read the book. And Lisbeth is the heart of the series.
Henryetta wrote: "I liked the Swedish movie better than the 2011 American release. I think Noomi Rapace is a better Lisbeth--or at least closer to what I visalized when I read the book. And Lisbeth is the heart of ..."I totally agree. I saw no reason to remake the movie at all.
I think they only remade it because Americans have (for some odd reason) trouble reading subtitles. I actually was warned before seeing a foreign film once...really?! I liked Noomi Rapace better too but I liked Daniel Craig. Both films have their pros and cons. I don't really prefer one to the other.
When talking to my english/american friends i was gobsmacked how most of them would say that they don´t see foreign movies BECAUSE of the subtitles - what is that all about? Since here, we have to subtitle all of it, except Disney´s movies, we get to be subtitled all the time....they are missing great cinema out there because they can only see "domestic" movies as they are donne in english.I just saw the Swedish version of it and Noomi was THE Lisbeth, to me: she has that kind of european feel to it; as for Mickel, i really envisioned a semi-blonde man, a litle on the scruffy side - maybe a bit like Daniel Craig. But the Swedish movies were awesome! I really didn´t saw a reason for a Hollywood remake based on the reason that....Americans don´t like subtitled films! It´s a bit elitist, if you ask me.
mine isn't so much that i dont like sub-titled movies, but that my brain has problems processing the words and the movie at the same time...its ok at home because i can pause it, rewind etc, but that is a no go in a movie theatre and I refuse to watch anything that is dubbed
I'm seeing it this weekend. I'm going to compare it to the book, my boyfriend is coming with me (he never reads) to see two girls get naked. Hey... if I can get him to the movies, I'll take it any way I can!
I was really bummed at how Mkail's character was reduced down to the typical "quietly brooding but ruggedly handsome" leading man archetype. The politics of Sweden are ignored, Polmgen's relationship and recovery, and her hacking skills/contacts are all but ignored. Lisbeth is such a complicated character and well articulated in the book, but in the film, yet again, she's reduced - albeit with more brooding and more nudity. As other readers of said, if you haven't read the book, the film is not bad at all and I would agree. I just was expecting so much than a reductionist version - especially given the fact that the director had 2:40 to tell the tale.
but her relationship with polmgren and his recover wasn't really touched on in the first book that I remember, more in the later ones after she took the money
You're right, but she does set up the fund to take care of him in the first book. In addition, she played chess with him all the time. Through her involvement and support for Polmgen, her humanity and compassion were revealed (at least for me). I don't think viewers of the film would get how seminal a character Polmgen was in her life and how devastating her reassignment was (besides the obvious loathsomeness of her new guardian). For me, they turned her into a quirky action figure with an insatiable libido. I liked her complexity in the book, her unpredictably and her contradictions. I know you can't always depict these nuances in film, especially mainstream attempts, but I was bummed.
i thought she set up the fund early on in the second book because you kinda knew she took the money at the end of the first but not for sure...when she found him that day, she did has a chess book for him, and there were a few scenes...i just think it was one of those things, that time contraints just had to cut out...like the whole ending and the change...that could have conceivably taked up like another 20-30 minutes
I thought the Swedish version was good . The interesting thing is that the actors were not at all glamorous
Dee wrote: "mine isn't so much that i dont like sub-titled movies, but that my brain has problems processing the words and the movie at the same time...its ok at home because i can pause it, rewind etc, but th..."I agree, Dee; I always worry that I am missing some important facial expression or other detail. Filmmakers get so incensed about cropping movies square instead of the original letterbox because they don't want the audience to miss the range of vision. well, what do subtitles do? They basically blindfold us to at least 50% of the visuals in the movie.
I too despise dubbed movies, and I don't speak Italian, German, Japanese, Russian, or any number of other languages in which excellent movies have been made. So I am reduced to watching these great movies with subtitles. But don't try to make me say I am really getting the "whole" movie that way.
Regarding "The Girl Who," I have read the first two books and am on the 3rd now, but I don't have the courage to see the movies because I find it too disturbing to watch rape scenes in a movie. I am surprised I managed to read all the way through books one and two; that's a testament to how good the books are. 99% of the books are filled with non-rape scenes so it was endurable. I will probably see the movies eventually; I just have to steel myself first.
Now that I think about it, you're probably right about the timeline, and I'm conflating the different books.
I have not seen the movie yet, but would you like to see all the books made into a movie?
I liked the casting. All the actors I thought did a great job. Omitions and less character development are inevitable in the film versions, so those were not really a surprise. Some of the changes seamed unnesesary and didn't really sreve the plot. And it was probably more grafic than it needed to be.
Haven't see the movie yet, It won't open here till January 20 but for what I've read and I've seen it stays closer to the book than the swedish version. Rooney mara looks closer to the book descriptions of lisbeth even her voice and the pippin longstocking resemblance (which I didn't see in Noomi)"Her extreme slenderness would have made a career in
modelling impossible, but with the right make-up her face
could have put her on any billboard in the world." see? noomi is not that slender and she doesn't seem to need anymake up to look like a billboard model
"Sometimes she wore black lipstick, and in spite of the
tattoos and the pierced nose and eyebrows she
was⋯well⋯attractive. It was inexplicable" Noomi looks attractive at first sight and Rooney doesn't look that attractive till you see her with the right make up, then she looks like a runaway model.
"She had simply been born thin,
with slender bones that made her look girlish and finelimbed
with small hands, narrow wrists, and childlike
breasts. She was twenty-four, but she sometimes looked
fourteen." Noomi looks to old for that.
"On more than one occasion he had thought of
Salander as precisely Pippi Longstocking." Well, neither rooney nor noomi resemble pippi that much but mara looks more vulnerable.
and I'm glad that hollywood decided to make another adaptation of the book. Not everybody liked the swedish film, for me it was a little bit too much like CSI and the cast didn't look close to the book and the movie wasn't true to the book. Plus not everyone have seen or are interested in seeing the swedish movies. I only saw them while waiting the american version to come out but I didn't want to see them at first because for me Noomi looks to fierce and well fed and beautiful for lisbeth. I live in a country where people are used to subtitles and even so I didn't like the swedish version. The more millenium the better! Now those of us who didn't like, didn't see or didn't care for the swedish version can choose.
I watched the hollywood version of the movie a few days ago and I enjoyed it very much. I think it was relatively true to the book except the ending which was somewhat altered and a few minor events that were not shown in the film. But you can never really except the movie to be the same as the book. The characters of Lisbeth and Blomkvist when very well portrayed by the actors, unlike in the swedish version.
I haven't seen the American version yet, but watched all 3 Swedish movies. Rooney has big shoes to fill. Noomi was a perfect Lisbeth.
I didn't care for the guy that played Mikael in the Swedish version. He seemed a bit dense compared to the character in the books.
I have seen all three Swedish movies and read all the books. I went to see the American version as soon as it opened. Even with my doubts, I thought it was a credible adaptation. I loved Noomi in the Swedish films, but was surprised by how good Rooney Mara was in the American version. Some events were compressed and others altered, but the American movie was satisfying. I will see the American sequels, too. I just wish for more stories about Lisbeth Salander. She has to be one of the most fascinating characters in literature today.
see, what I saw of Rooney, physically she might have looked like Lisbeth, but she felt/looked too tall...but that might have just been the angle that the camera was shooting at
Just seen the English film version. Not sure if I liked Swedish or English version best. I have read all three books, and have other two Swedish DVDs to watch. I think the Swedish Lisbeth was better. English scenes very vivid of the rape, and very perturbing.
I saw the movie yesterday and really liked it. I agree with much of what has been said already. The Swedish version was excellent, but Daniel Craig was a better Blomkvist. I liked both of the actresses that played Lisbeth. I wished the American version hadn't messed around with the ending. It wasn't a huge deal, but was it necessary? It's been over a year since I saw the Swedish version and over 2 years since I read the book. I need to go back and reread the book and watch the Swedish version again. Lisbeth Salander is one of the best characters and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo one of the best reads of the decade! Not to be forgotten!
I loved the movie and thought both Craig and Rooney did an excellent job. Lisbeth Salander( Rooney) as Kelly said is one of the great characters of this decade. Look forward to the next movie. I rate it 5 stars too
Henry wrote: I didn't care for the guy that played Mikael in the Swed..."To me, was the sense that he didn´t looked like the Mickael in my imagination - have to say that Craig has more phisical resemblance: the Swedish actor seemed too Latin for the part.
If you haven't watch the Swedish version of the it by far is better and stays true to the book, the US version is okay but too much changed especially the ending =(
I haven´t seen the Hollywood version - just the Swedish films - but still, the Swedish actor didn´t had the look that Stieg described in the books...still, he had a very good interpretation.I think the Swedish movies are very tru to the books, athough they cannot contain the whole books in it - still, very true and realistic to Stieg´s visions.
I agree I like Daniel Craig as a better Mikael, but still think there is a better one out there, liked the US character of Buhrman better, more evil looking
But in order for Bjurman to be creepier he has to look like the upper-class, bourgeousie lawier that he shows to other people that he is.
I actually liked the Swedish version better although they both r really good. I just think the Swedish book was truer(if this is a word) to the book and the Swedish Lisbeth was more how I pictured her to be emotionally.
I read the book and I saw the movie - I felt that if I had not read the book, I would have been lost. I watched all three of the Swedish versions on pay-per-view and I liked them all much better. The actors were better and I felt it was more in line with the book.
Maria wrote: "But in order for Bjurman to be creepier he has to look like the upper-class, bourgeousie lawier that he shows to other people that he is."Excellent point. I haven't seen the US version yet but the Swedish Bjurman was exactly as you stated, and damned disgusting looking in the buff.
Henry wrote: "Maria wrote: "But in order for Bjurman to be creepier he has to look like the upper-class, bourgeousie lawier that he shows to other people that he is."Excellent point. I haven't seen the US ver..."
Haven´t seen the US version either, but if they can get an actor that can unite these qualities, then it´s all good - the Swedish Bjurman to me was excelent.
Rooney Mara killed the part. She was the perfect Lisbeth from my interpretation of the books. I also watched Swedish movies dubbed in English and Noomi was way too tough and too pretty. She lacked the vulnerability of a recluse, and was just a tiny bit too agressive. Especially her first interaction with Draganski and Frode -way too bitchy. Rooney's deadpan expression, indifferent tone of voice and vulnerability were just what I was expecting. I perceived Lisbeth to be someone who does not want to interact with anyone, hides her feminine looks and snaps back if attaked but not someone who is aggressive just by definition.And .. am happy Natalie Portman or ScarJo were not picked for the part.
Craig looks the part of Mikael Blomkvist but displayed too much Bond in him for me to imagine him being a journalist. You know with writing and all. nerd glasses helped a little ;)
And finally, great great casting of Robin Wright as Berger. Her acting in the “New York I love you” when she tries to seduce Chris Cooper must have gotten her the part.
What surprised me the most is how slow the movie was moving for me, may be its because I knew the plot but I just could not shake the feeling that I got faster through the 700 pages of the book than through the 2 hrs of the movie.
Dee wrote: "see, what I saw of Rooney, physically she might have looked like Lisbeth, but she felt/looked too tall...but that might have just been the angle that the camera was shooting at"yes, she was a little tall. and neither Noomi or Rooney could have been confused with a teenager....
Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansen were eve considered for the part? They are way too mcuh Hollywood steryotiped to grab that part - if they did that, it was a sure way to kill the movie at birth. And if Noomi can´t pass for a teen much less does Scarlett...
Maria wrote: "Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansen were eve considered for the part? They are way too mcuh Hollywood steryotiped to grab that part - if they did that, it was a sure way to kill the movie at birt..."they didn't get the part, and noomi did because noomi was willing to agree to the bit of her contract that said she had to maintain the look and body image of the character for the duration of making all 3 films. That's right, she has to keep the piercings and the haircut, etc etc, until they're done making it all. The more famous actresses weren't willing to do that.
Thanks Hazel - didn´t knew that bit. It makes some sense, though: if they were going to do all 3 movies, the main actress, whose particualr looks are reconizable had to maintain that image throughout the making of them.Still, dont think that either Natalie or Scarlett had the right image, even with all the make-over that they would have to undergo....
I saw the movie last Sunday. I did not think the American version did well capturing Lizbeth's true self. If you read the book, the movie was fine because you already know everything she was thinking and feeling during those terrible scenene. Then again, if you never read the book, you'd probably still like the movie because it did tell just about the ENTIRE story and the story itself is strange and captivating. I just felt the Swedish film did a better job showing how strange and captivating Lizbeth is!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
