The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Movie Review
"The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: C+
Rating: R
Released: Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Directed by:
Cast:
The problem with both movie adaptations of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" -- Niels Arden Oplev's 2009 Swedish version as well as David Fincher's new American one -- is that they believe we are far more interested in Mikael and Lisbeth's relationship than we actually are. The central mystery is finally solved, after more than two hours, in a thrilling fashion -- but instead of ending, the movie returns to the lives and loves of its characters for another 20 minutes, intent on wrapping up loose ends that we weren't aware existed. I assume this is done out of faithfulness to Stieg Larsson's novel, and maybe the bond between journalist and computer hacker is more resonant in print. On film it feels very much beside the point, or at least it has both times so far. Maybe the third adaptation of this book, if there is one, will make the pair's personal connection feel plausible.
When it's dealing with the crime investigation and Lisbeth's harrowing ongoing battle with a corrupt social worker, Fincher's "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" works well enough. It's a cold, mechanical procedural at heart, which makes a perfectionist like Fincher ("Seven," "The Social Network") a good choice to direct it. He and veteran screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Moneyball," "Schindler's List") wisely retained the desolate Swedish setting, which not only avoids outraging the book's fans but is the perfect location anyway for a story about such frigid people.
High-profile Stockholm journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) has just suffered a public disgracing when he's recruited by Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), the head of a wealthy industrialist family, to investigate the 1966 disappearance and presumed murder of his great-niece. The girl, Harriet, was a teenager at the time, and the killer has been taunting Henrik by sending tokens whose meaning only Henrik and the other Vangers could know. Whoever did away with Harriet must be a relative.
There are plenty of suspects, as nearly every member of this venal family is despicable and holds some icy grudge or other against someone else. Many of them live, in separate houses, on a small island near the town of Hedestad, and it is here that Mikael comes to investigate. He pores over the evidence gathered by police 40 years ago, applying a fresh perspective and the mind of a journalist to it, while simultaneously getting away from his professional scandals back in the city.
Meanwhile, only tangentially connected to all of this, there is 23-year-old Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a pale, skeletal computer hacker adorned with the kinds of tattoos and piercings that make you afraid of her when you see her on the subway. She makes a living doing thorough (and I mean thorough) background checks on people for clients who are happy to look the other way if she does something illegal like hack into the subject's email. Her childhood evidently filled with horrific trauma, Lisbeth was a ward of the state in her teen years, and continues to be supervised by government agencies. She no longer tolerates being victimized, however.
Lisbeth's past experiences and present expertise make her suitable for the job of helping Mikael find out who killed teenage Harriet. The film is half over before they join forces, and when they do there is some uncertainty about whether their relationship will remain strictly professional. (OK, maybe not that much uncertainty.) But beyond that, there's nothing compelling about their partnership. The characters are intriguing separately, but their relationship to each other is no more interesting than the one between the two lead cops in a "Law & Order" episode, and it's fraught with a lot more implausibility. Mikael and Lisbeth are barely believable as a professional duo, let alone a personal one. Whatever Craig and Mara needed to do, chemistry-wise, to make this partnership work, it didn't happen.
Still, the Harriet mystery, growing deeper and more gruesome as new facts come to light, is whatever you'd call the movie equivalent of a page-turner. Stellan Skarsgard, Steven Berkoff, Geraldine James, and Joely Richardson shine in supporting roles as Vangers and Vanger associates. (Robin Wright is wasted as Mikael's editor and lover.) A viewer who hasn't read the book or seen the other movie -- i.e., who doesn't already know what's going to happen -- will no doubt find the story's whodunit aspect satisfying.
But while this is clearly a David Fincher creation, with the images meticulously composed, the violence shocking but clinical, and the Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross musical score suitably dispassionate, the director never finds a way to make it his own. Making a film based on a recent book that's already been adapted once puts the fiercely independent Fincher in the position of having to convince viewers that his heart is truly in this, that he's not doing it as a favor to the studio or out of some contractual obligation. What he has delivered is adequate, but it doesn't have any flavor -- and of all the things Fincher is, "bland" is not usually one of them.
Grade: C+
Rated R, a lot of nudity, some very strong sexuality, some very strong violence including torture and rape, some harsh profanity
2 hrs., 38 min.
This item has 8 comments
-
Brett says:
December 21, 2011 at 9:33 pmFor what it is worth, the book suffers from the same flaw you mention here. The bond between computer hacker and journalist does not at all resonate in the book either.
-
Shellie says:
December 23, 2011 at 1:49 pmYou've missed the mark on this one Eric, a rare event.
-
Russ says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:35 amBest movie of the year.
-
Russ says:
December 29, 2011 at 12:01 pmI was puzzled by the end, and I thought they had mashed in something from the next book, tbh. But I read the book afterward (in 2 sittings) and the first book ends with almost the exact same ending as the movie.
Actually they cut a scene/twist from the end to make it shorter, which I still agree with after reading the book.
I don't really see what you're getting at by criticizing the relationship between Craig and Mara. They aren't supposed to get along, even though they sleep together. She doesn't open up even to him, and that was what they were conveying.
I really liked the way that they interact, it wasn't conventional and they don't end on a "happily ever after" like so many movies do. Craig's character is actually quite a womanizer, and not about to fall for someone half his age, even if she does have a photographic memory.
All in all, I loved it, though I think it was about 30-40 minutes too long. I don't see how they'd get around not tying up the "loose ends," given that they are major plot points for the remaining books, but it really extended the running time beyond what it needed to be.
The "whodunit" factor was great too (I hadn't read the books at the time of viewing), it was on a much higher level than "Sherlock Holmes" and that ilk.
-
Chelsea says:
January 26, 2012 at 1:30 pmCompletely agree with above comments that the book suffers from the same issues as the film. The mystery is solved with too many pages left. And since it was a few years ago that I read the book I had actually forgotten that Mikael and Salander even hooked up, that's how not-compelling that relationship is. That said, I enjoyed the movie and thought Rooney Mara's performance was brilliant.
-
Debbie says:
February 4, 2012 at 12:26 amYou missed the boat, Eric. The subject of Mikael's magazine and his personal core is about ETHICS. Lisbeth has been abused and been taken advantage of by everyone in her life. She begins to trust Mikael and reaches to form a connection that is sexual, but what he is really offerring her is the deeper and more lasting connection of friendship and loyalty and he continues to prove this out in the next two books.
-
Val says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:08 pmDon't listen to the haters, Eric! I think you were right on! I was pretty disappointed in the movie, having just read the book. It was cool stylistically but it wasn't really firing on all cylinders for me. Now that I think about it, I'm not really sure if they should have ever tried to make a movie from this book at all- it's too long and too detailed to be able to translate well into traditional cinema. Many of the questionable elements in the movie (the Salander-Blomkvist relationship, i.e.) were not so questionable in the book because they could be explained fully from each character's perspective. Maybe it would work better as a mini-series?
-
David says:
March 23, 2012 at 12:50 amNever read the book but did view the Swedish version months before this was released. So I already had a visual narrative floating around in my head while trying to push it aside while watching the Fincher adaptation. What put me off from the beginning was the horrid title sequence. Knowing Craig was in the film I was cringing because you could have fooled me into believing it was a new Bond release. Sweet lord almighty! That was a mistake. The rape scene was also quite gratuitous when compared to the Swedish one. There are clearly times when less is indeed blissfully more. What I'm trying to say to our dear director is "OK... We get it!" And Mara came off to me as too mousey. Rapace looked icy and capable of eating Mara alive. There were good and bad in both so I wouldn't write it off. It just wasn't as good as it could have been.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.



Notes:
Reprinted from Film.com.