THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Mega Gallery Featuring 50 Images and 15 Posters
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Secret Catwoman Poster Revealed
New Images from THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone Talk THE TOMB, THE EXPENDABLES 2, Their Careers and “Male Pattern Badness”
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Set Visit Preview and 4 Awesome New Posters!THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO Review
by Matt Goldberg Posted:December 20th, 2011 at 11:48 am
|
|
 |
|
Director David Fincher has reached the point where he can work his magic on almost any movie. There’s nothing journeyman about his approach and he hasn’t shied away from taking complex narratives and turning them into powerful cinema. But what can he do with a simplistic, poorly-structured narrative? The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is too sprawling to be a tight little thriller like Panic Room, lacks the complexity of Zodiac, and has a weaker hook than Se7en. But it’s an international best-seller and readers have warmed to a lukewarm detective story embellished with a unique female protagonist. There’s enough energy in the score and the performances to support the inconsistent technical aspects, but The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo currently stands as Fincher’s weakest crime-thriller to date.
Swedish journalist Mikael Blomkvist’s (Daniel Craig) reputation is in ruins and he’s deeply in debt after losing a libel case against the head of a powerful pharmaceutical company. Soon afterwards, Mikael gets a call from Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), the dying head of the wealthy Vagner empire. Henrik has been vexed by the disappearance of his beloved niece, Harriet, 40 years ago. He offers to pay Mikael a considerable sum if he’ll look at the case with a fresh set of eyes and hoperfully discover her killer. As Mikael begins to examine the case, we cut back to Stockholm and learn about enigmatic, dangerous, and brilliant hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara). Lisbeth was hired by a consulting firm to do a background check on Mikael, but she’s also a ward of the state. When her legal guardian suffers a stroke, she is placed under the supervision of the sadistic Nils Bjurman (Yorick van Wageningen).
Lisbeth and Mikael spend the first act totally apart with their only relationship being her research into his private life as part of the Vagner’s background check. While Mikael familiarizes himself with the Vagner case and the band of despicable players who make up the Vagner family, Lisbeth’s story with Nils is only relevant thematically, and doesn’t relate to Mikael’s investigation. When the second act begins and Mikael enlists her as a researcher in the Vagner case, his investigation feels small compared to the intensity of Lisbeth’s recent trauma. For the rest of the movie, Lisbeth serves three purposes: supporting the subtext, adding spice to Mikael’s storyline, and helping the audience indulge in a revenge fantasy.
Violence and rape towards women is the worthwhile subtext The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The book’s late author, Stieg Larsson, wanted a woman to get revenge on her attacker, and so he created a Lisbeth, a smart but violent avenger who deals with her rapist with utmost brutality. We cheer for Lisbeth during her revenge (Fincher even designs her eye-shadow to look like a black mask), but then that story is over and she’s bringing her unique personality to help Mikael “catch a killer of women.” The revenge fantasy stops Dragon Tattoo from dealing with rape in a realistic fashion, and so any psychological trauma is left by the wayside in favor of Lisbeth joining Mikael’s investigation. One could argue that her assistance is her way of dealing with the trauma, but it’s an investigation she would most likely take on even if she had never been attacked, and so her rape in the first act is nothing more than feels exploitative. The slow and poorly-plotted first act is the major failing of Dragon Tattoo‘s story, but there’s no way around it without providing a major change to the book. Unfortunately, film adaptation of international best-sellers can only be handled with a scalpel even when a chainsaw would be the more appropriate tool.
Both Fincher’s adaptation and the 2009 Swedish adaptation attempt to salvage the first act by letting the audience become enraptured with Lisbeth, and they’ve both succeeded by casting a strong female actress in the role. The search for the new Lisbeth took months and eventually Fincher settled on Mara, who had a brief but memorable role in The Social Network. Mara underwent a full physical transformation for the role, but it’s her commanding presence that makes the character work. She lets just enough vulnerability slip through to let us know that Lisbeth is a real person, but her main task is selling Lisbeth’s borderline-psychopathic tendencies. She succeeds admirably and you would instantly understand her personality even if she didn’t wear a t-shirt bearing the words “Fuck You You Fucking Fuck.”
The t-shirt (which doesn’t appear until later in the film) isn’t an attempt to cover for Mara, but one of the blessed moments of comic relief. Fincher and screenwriter Steve Zaillian understand the bleakness of the story and wisely threw in more dark comedy than the Swedish version. There are other smart nips and tucks along the way that give the story the investigative intensity of Zodiac rather than sending Lisbeth and Mikael on an unnecessary road trip across Sweden. Zaillian and Fincher understand that in the modern age, most research can be done online or in a library and that field trips would only slow down the investigation.
While Dragon Tattoo has Fincher’s trademark control, it lacks his thoughtful consistency. There are moments where the cinematography comes alive through interesting shot choices and perspectives that push the film beyond its bland story. But those moments are outweighed by dull, static conversations where the only the grey-and-white color palette provide any personality. The same goes for the editing, which manages to draw the viewer into the investigation, but rarely ratchets up the tension (although it should be noted that since I knew how the story ended, this aspect would have probably been lost on me no matter what).
The only consistently terrific aspects are the performances and the score. As I previously noted, the long casting search for Mara paid off in spades, but Craig is equally strong despite his less-flashy character. Craig wisely plays Mikael as subdued, slightly-meek man. Mikael is intelligent (although he doesn’t hold a candle to Lisbeth), but he’s reserved and unprepared for the dangers of the investigation. It’s a thoughtful performance from an actor who usually plays tough, masculine roles, and here Craig gives over that personality to Mara. The relationship between Mikael and Lisbeth is the heartbeat of the film and further highlights the weakness of the first act that keeps them apart.
Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross once again provide Fincher with an unforgettable score. While their new score is still in the same ambient-electronic genre of The Social Network, the difference is night-and-day, especially since daylight almost never breaks in the world of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. It’s bleak, ominous, and haunting, but rarely depressing. Reznor and Ross know when to throw in an angry heartbeat and a melancholy sigh and their work here manages to carry the film through its weaker moments.
Unlike Bill Condon‘s direction of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1, Fincher doesn’t feel like he’s fighting the story of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Granted, Dragon Tattoo‘s plot and characters are infinitely better than Breaking Dawn‘s, but Fincher feels like he’s trying to work with his story rather than overcome it. However, there always seems to be some confusion on how to best deal with the weaker aspects of the plot, and how to balance the subtle and unnerving with the forceful and disarming. But not even Fincher’s immense talent can completely offset the story’s weak structure, its simplistic subtext, and the bland narrative.
Rating: C+
Please Like Collider on Facebook
|
|
|
|
Related Links
- THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO Blu-ray Review
- Rooney Mara Talks at THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, the Sequels, David Fincher, and More at SBIFF
- Oscars 2012: Adam Predicts the Nominees
- Directors Guild Nominations Announced; Contenders Include Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and David Fincher
- Sony Says DRAGON TATTOO Sequel Still Moving Forward
A story with intesnely horrific violence towards women, incestual abuse, murder and secrest is ‘bland’? Completely idiotic choice of words. This guy is a hack.
Yea, Rohit, you really got that right…and right to the point. This guy, Matt, is a hack…has always been one and will always be one. What more can be said? He’s never liked this project…has never read the book…and refuses to do his homework. Perhaps the violence towards women that the book and films reveal that run rampant in our society and culture frightens him too. It is no surprise that he would write a review like this. One could see this coming for months and months. He’s predictable. Like any hack is. Well said and simply said Rohit. Why bother with him. To all the others who might read his junk do yourself a favor and read some of the more well known and well respected critics. Keep an open mind and go see this film and try to absorb the dark, heavy stuff about our culture and society and the people in it. Ignore this hack. He’s not informed or well read and not worth the bother.
Dear Rohit, It is not the surface that makes the contents. You should write about incest, murder and secrets, but if the plot of your story is weak, everything is bland. I think people isn’t reading enough good literature, and therefore their judgments are a little bit too childish and simple. I perfectly agree with Matt (and I read the book, so I know what I’m talking about…)
Hey guys, micoy is totally NOT Matt Goldberg.
His weakest crime thriller to date? Have you seen Panic Room lately? Yikes. Worst reviewer on the internet.
I read the book. I can easily admit that without the unique characterization of Lisbeth the novel itself wouldn’t have stood out in any way against the hundreds of other murder-mystery novels now clogging the shelves of every bookstore. I don’t think the plot was extraordinary or even that clever, but I did enjoy it. It was a fun, dark, engrossing read. Not a bad way to wile away a Saturday afternoon. But to hear Matt say it, anyone who enjoyed the novel and pronounced it as “good” is a feeble idiot with no sense of culture or intelligence. I’m not sure why Collider is so interested in mean-spirited, cynical “journalists” but they got more than they bargained for with Mr. Goldberg. Write on Matt, I can’t wait until you tell me what I’m stupid for liking next!
Ebert gave it 3 1/2 stars.
83% on Rotten tomatoes.
A critic shouldn’t base their opinions off of others. If Matt disagrees with the consensus what is the big deal?
Also, Ebert isn’t the beginning and end of all films good. The guy rated Tattoo highly for its extravagant use of violence and yet gave Kick Ass a poor review for the same. People have their conceptions on what content is appropriate, or acceptable in a movie that don’t really belong when determining the quality of a film as a whole.
Either way it is up to each individual to determine the quality of a film for him or herself. As for the accuracy of Rotten Tomatoes consensus, they gave Twilight 3 somewhere around a 50% and yet a film like Pandorum is rated at 27%. You’d have to be a maniac to think that Twilight is better than Pandorum. There are obvious benchmarks being placed based on genre and expectations rather than judging the film without any pre-conditions.
You know that the book itself is a criticism towards the violence against women right? That’s why the movies is full of it. Maybe you should do your homework before writing innocuous reviews.
The reviewer is right. This movie is supposed to shed a light on rapes and violent crime against women. However he only see the crimes not the emotional after-effects that the women have to suffer through. The main star Lisbeth only shows us her avenger side, not the emotional pain or PTSD one must suffer after such trauma. In fact the character is especially created to not show her feelings. Not after a rape, not during sex, not in relationships, etc. In that way she is I guess a male’s version of the perfect woman, never having to deal with her talking too much or sharing her emotions. There is also another rape/incest victim disclosed at the end but we don’t have to explore her feelings either nor the emotional toll it took on her. So in that way it seem exploitative. You get to see the rape but not the after effects. I don’t blame Fincher, I blame the book he was forced to adapt the script from.
Totally agree Belinda….absolutely wise words…
I agree with what the movie shows in terms of avenging side of lisbeth salander. But not every woman that suffers from rape has the same response. Lisbeth Salander is a very complex character with a quite unique personality traits (this one of the strongest points of the novel) , so dont expect her to react to a trauma like an every day average neurotic girl, because she is more troubled than that. The author delivers a great development of two characters, sallander and blonquist, and that is kind of lost on the movie, but is a movie and not a book…
Family’s name is Vanger, not Vagner
A reviewer loses so much credibility when they screw up simple facts like that, especially when claiming to have read the book on top of seeing the film.
Sigh….wow!! I’ve never commended on this before but after reading Matt’s review. I realize that Matt needs to be fired!! Apparently, he doesn’t know how to review movies when he hasn’t even done any research for the film…he can’t even get some of the names spelled right its Vanger not Vagner dipshit! Come on Matt!! Read the book and we all can get on with our lives and never listen to what you have to say ever again! Douchebag!!!!
We need to understand that this is one person’s opinion about this movie. Roger Ebert may have given it 3 and a half stars, and James Berardinelli may have given it 4/4. This my have been said too many times, but a movie review is the opinion of the reviewer. The fact that your opinion differs does not make matt wrong.
No, it doesn’t make it wrong, but it helps clarify how much of an idiot Matt Goldberg is. It’s not wrong to dislike a film that the majority praises, but when you can’t even critique it effectively and without making a strong, professional argument for your reasons, you just come across as an illiterate hack.
he actually makes a pretty coherent argument throughout the article, and summarizes it in the last sentence. the way i read it, he feels that despite the strong performances from the lead actors, the weak source material keeps it from being up to par. some people here complain that he doesn’t know the source material cos he didn’t bother to do any research. i really don’t know anything about that. if that’s true, then “boo matt goldberg”. however, i have a feeling that as a professional film reviewer, he does what is necessary in order to do his job. at least, i hope so.
Never enjoyed and understood all the hype of the original Swedish series either.It’s okay,but nowadays vain people seem to follow anything.
Holy crap, wtf is wrong with people?? The dude just didn’t like the movie, what’s with all the hostility? “Strong, professional argument?” What are you expecting, an 8 page essay? This is a site for movie gossip and news, for jesus’ sake. And the consistency in tone for all these needless, moronic naysayers giving a negative review of this review, look to be one person typing under different names, because I refuse to believe that there are so many people with so little to interest them that they need to berate someone for having a negative opinion of a goddamn movie, an opinion at that, that was expressed more than succinctly.
Wtff I LOVE YOU!
Amen brother!
I’ve seen the swedish version and judging by the trailer for this remake they looks very similar.
I’d agree on one hand that Matt tends to focus on the negative sides of most things, often pointed out in his previews etc.
On the other hand I’d agree that the story of this film is nothing special. There are indeed major issues with the plotting of the first act and overall the story is pretty average.
I don’t see why the guy should have read the book either. He reviews movies as they stand.
I don’t know why people are getting so offended, the guy didn’t like the movie, it’s his opinion. He made a number of fair criticisms on what he thinks is wrong with the movie.
Matt’s words might be biting, however I don’t think it is an unfair critique to say that Tattoo is a mediocre novel. Very few bestsellers are ever good works of fiction, and that is even more true today than it was in times past.
Only time will tell if Dragon Tattoo is a lasting work of fiction, my guess is no. Fortunately, there is a lot more to a good movie than the narrative, and the message. Let’s hope that Fincher comes up with a good way to frame this picture.
How dare you write a partially negative review for the film, Matt? How dare you not fall straight in-line with Fincher fans and adore every one of his films like they do? How dare you forget the completely forgettable Panic Room? How dare you not fall in love with a property that everyone else loves, despite having valid criticisms of your own?
… and Ash Talon, i love you too!
Amen brother!(pt.2)
The only reason to post the Ebert and Rotten Tomatoes reviews is to give perspective on Matt’s ability to judge a movie.
If you want to put Roger Ebert into perspective, he thought KNOWING starring Nicolas Cage was a good movie. I’m pretty sure he actually wrote a long article on how good and interesting it was.
It’s a pretty badly executed movie.
I saw the film last night and highly enjoyed it. I knew Fincher said there was a dramatic change in the ending, but I did not mind it at all. I managed to finish the book before seeing it, and will soon continue reading the Millenium trilogy. I know the critics are iffy on the film and some praised it, but I don’t want the negative reviews to push Fincher away from continuing the trilogy. I thought he did a fantastic job, as well as the screenwritter. Ross and Reznor were terrific as always. Everyone should go and see this movie. It is really a piece of art!
Original much darker, particularly the violent subway/rape/revenge/cellar scenes, than Swedish original. I much prefer subtitled, authentic language/location films than English/Hwood-remakes, but this one nearly pulled it out, despitea few visible inconsistencies (e.g., Harriet’s impossible number of pre-age 16 botanical specimens sent to uncle).
Really liked the movie and can’t wait for the next. The from the amazing opening credits to the change in the end. I was really impressed to see this book come alive.
Matt you nailed it. The source material in all three books has been given a free pass for the poor writing Larsen obviously wrote as a guilty pleasure in his off time. Salander is an amazing creation in print and by the two talented actresses who brought her to life, but she is still just the product of massive male fantasy. The Swedish take did a better job chopping out the sprawling and nonsenscal pacing from the book.
There are seemingly fanboys for everything. Get a life folks – all Matts points are valid. The people on this board have either not actually read the book or have never seen other movies besides this one. Fincher has made the most beautiful boring movie since The Social Network.
I don’t know why people are so butthut over this review. The book was mediocre and so was this movie. Shut up and find better taste in cinema. MATT IS DA MAN!