It's a genuine question. How can you find tension in a scene that you've seen dozens of times before which always ends at the same outcome. The only explanation jumping to my mind being that you haven't seen enough films to have seen said clichéd moment.

So please consider the exaggeration slightly muted to "if you've never seen a thriller before?"

I'm just stating that there are ways of articulating your opinion without talking down to others, which you sometimes do in your posts. That is all.

But Martin is still a person in an established family with an established dynamic. To so strongly go against the Plummer character's wishes would seem out of character for him, and he obviously wouldn't want to appear at all out of character in relation to the Harriett case, since he has a lot to lose. So he's forced to play along, and since he's forced to play along, it behooves him to go a step further and project a friendly and supportive demeanor.

And I honestly can't defend the torture-chamber confrontation beyond how I already have: I found it disturbing and suspenseful. I thought it played well. Even the obvious Goldfinger vibe--"But, wait, before the laser, my plans and motives..."--is completely overcome by the quality of the acting and Fincher's directorial choices (cutting away throughout to Lisbeth returning and realizing there is trouble afoot counteracted any potential monotony and gave the passage of the film a propulsive energy).

It's not a very original scene. But. It's a very entertaining scene. In my view, this is possible. Good acting, direction, etc. can do wonders.

Sorry you hated the movie, lol.

But he has such an obvious 'get out of jail free' card to avoid suspicion. The fact Mikhael is digging up the Harriett case is too hurtful for him. There you go. Pisses Plummer off, but not in a way that arouses too much suspicion.



See, I'm the opposite. Cutting to Lisbeth was the equivalent of bashing me in the head with the fact she was going to show up and save him.

If you're criticizing this movie for plot holes and narrative shortcomings, you're missing the point.

Except, it wouldn't be the same cut because Fincher is an incredible director, something that is apparent in every shot of the film. And I can guarantee you that a lot of the film's praise has to do with his directing.

Martin wanted to know what happened to his sister as much as anyone. He demanded Blomkvist tell him what happened to her when she was brought up, and was annoyed at the accusation that he killed her... a scene that was brought up by Blomkvist about 5 minutes later. I fully believe the cat murder and Martin shooting Blomkvist was meant to spur him into investigating more vigilantly, which it did.


If you're not scared of an "average joe" after he confesses to killing women for 40 odd years, that's your problem, not an issue with the film.

It's a cliché because it's effective and generally works. I don't see anyone here claiming originality for it, and I don't really have the time or the will to search your posts to see if you berate any film with a clichéd scene. Given your affinity for horror films, I'll assume that you don't, so I really don't get how you can question how some find tension here.

I don't buy this.

The character in this instance was a serial killer who got immense gratification from the act of talking to his victims. I think it makes complete and utter sense that he would draw it out, savor it, if you will.

I'd love to see that movie!!

Oh, I see, I typed an "i" instead of an "a." Oh, Herr Doctor...

Go back to Egypt.

I still haven't seen this but I don't expect much because, as talented as he is, David Fincher never makes two good films in a row. He's obviously a firm believer in the one for them, one for me philosophy.

As a preface, I haven't read the novels or seen the Swedish films. That said, David Fincher's version is an atmospheric, enjoyable success that never quite reaches a stratosphere of greatness. I'm not sure if it's the source material or what, but this movie ends up feeling kind of bloated and overlong, and perhaps not as provocative as I'd been to led to believe it would be. Fincher establishes a consistently tense and icy mood throughout, although I think he really set a high bar last year with The Social Network and it's hard to compete with that. Despite all that and perhaps the overly high expectations on my part, this is still a quite solid film overall. The film's biggest asset is Rooney Mara, who bravely throws herself into the role and makes by far the largest impact of anyone/anything in the film. It's a rather marvelous performance that always works even at moments when the film itself is becoming a little plodding. Daniel Craig is solid and likable in his role, although he is consistently overshadowed by his co-star (which makes sense, so that's not really his fault). The supporting cast, including Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgard, Joely Richardson and Robin Wright, is also more than adequate (although I feel like the casting of Skarsgard in a film like this should instantly set off alarms). The opening credits were also extremely cool and did a great job setting the film's mood (perhaps second only to Se7en in Fincher's filmography), as others have pointed out. B+

WOAH LIBS WOAH easy on the hyperbolic praise, okay?

lol

I'm not going to praise them. They're good actors who did competent jobs, but this film doesn't really permit especially noteworthy acting from anyone other than Mara.

I thought Plummer was fantastic. He completely sold his character's pain, without much screen time.

And this is one of Daniel Craig's best performances, up there with Layer Cake and Casino Royale. It's not full of smash-the-plate Oscar-clip moments, but it has this very sturdy, magnetic quality. It feels lived-in, down to the small details--the way he smokes a cigarette, the way he wears his glasses.

Plummer is always fantastic.

It took a while to get into this one as I'd already seen the original. Was a little bored at first. But it got great and I liked some of the changes made from the Swedish version (loved the ending), though I disliked a couple too (such as there not being a flashback of a young Lisbeth starting her father on fire, and I found it ridiculous the villain's car blew up as she's walking towards it versus her just letting him die like in the original). It's certainly a handsomely made picture and Rooney Mara is fantastic, though not better than Rapace. They are equal, IMO. With the same script Rapace could have given the same performance. Still, Mara is better than I could have ever expected.

It did feel a bit overlong (was originally going to take my parents to it as well but I don't think I would want to sit through this again in theaters) and too convoluted (I also thought the same of the original trilogy but it felt even more so here), but it's still on par with the original, maybe even a hair better. If I had only seen this version I may have been blown away.

A-

I enjoyed the more subtle, intimate revelation of her history (setting her father on fire) vs. a big fiery flashback. Plus, there's still room in the sequel if they choose to show the incident.

IMO, Mara brings a lot more vulnerability to the role. Rapace was terrific, but in a more purely badass, Trinity-in-The-Matrix way. Mara hits those notes, but also infuses them with sadness and skewed innocence.

Liked it a lot

I loved it much more the second time around. After viewing the Swedish version again before seeing this I can now say hands down the remake is the superior film and that Rooney Mara is indeed better than the also great Noomi Rapace. It certainly helps that the remake has a much bigger budget to work with. And oddly enough I was more engaged this time around.

Bumping my rating to an A.

Massive disappointment. Came off as a flat and lifeless thriller front to back. Maybe it was seeing the original first that made the plot and mystery so uninteresting this time - But moreso, Fincher just does a piss poor job making any of the family suspects on the grounds except Skarsgaard even register in the movie. Does the bitch mom even have a scene outside of the hospital ether? And when he talked to one of the nazi brothers of Harry, I frankly had no idea who his kids were

The whole thing just felt poorly edited to me, it could've easily been 1 hr 50 if not for the obvious fact that Fincher had to include all the scenes from the original movie. The whole bit with Lizbeth donning her blonde wig and emptying out Hans' bank account came off as extremely sloppy to me. Poorly explained, poor reasoning for it (guy was already dead guilty), etc. I don't think Fincher includes that scene if he doesn't have to. In general the fat after the car crash climax is Return of the King esque

As a whole I simply did not care for 90% of the plot or characters in this. Nothing about it rang a single bell of my emotions or anticipation. It's watchable because Craig and Mara are excellent and Fincher occasionally has flashes of brilliance (like the last scene). Otherwise it's just there.

C

Poor reasoning? She is emptying his banbk accounts to keep the money for herself and become rich and not be dependent on anyone...what kind of reasoning do you need there, really?

Well, I wasnt sure if that was the motive or if she was trying to just further tighten the noose on Hans

I purposely skipped seeing the original or reading the book so I could see David Fincher's film without any baggage... And it was decent, but unmemorable. I definitely agree that the ending felt very perfunctory and like set-up for the sequel more than an organic conclusion. The opening credits were definitely the best part, and while individual scenes pop and all the technical aspects are every bit as polished and professional as one would expect, the lack of meat and cohesion to the larger narrative makes this feel like a minor work in Fincher's oeuvre.

This version slicker, neater, easier to follow than the Sweedish version. It's also a little less... gritty? disconcerting? It's still freaky and dark but just feels a little more neutral, but the ending was better and dragged less to me. I didn't love Mara, I kept thinking she was very nice and believable, but more simple and less intense than Rapace. Not to just compare the two, but they are the same film with some very distinct artistic differences, except not that much. I mean obviously Fincher's version has better techs, excellent cinematography a better, tighter editing job, but also more slicked over hollywood in some ways. Ugh, I like it more on the whole but there are problems. Fincher always has problems to me when he's doing fincher, social network is his most flawless effort. I think it certainly deserves the best picture nomination that ridiculous post 9/11 Daldry flick stole. I wanna watch it again, but there's nothing that particularly stands out to me, even Mara's performance, which isn't what I said about the Sweedish version.