Review: Fincher's take on 'Dragon Tattoo' is visually striking and dramatically dormant
Rooney Mara does nice work, but to what avail?
- Critic's Rating B-
- Readers' Rating A-
Rooney Mara certainly went all out with the physical transformation into 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo'
Are you a fan of Motion Captured?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
There are few filmmakers whose work speaks more directly to me on an aesthetic level than David Fincher.
Even so, my first exposure to his work as a feature film director left me convinced that he was not worth paying attention to at all. Considering how little he has to say about "Alien 3" at this point, it seems he agrees that it was not the best foot forward, and all accounts of the experience make it sound like it was a nightmare for all involved.
As a result, when I walked into his next film, I had no expectations at all, and I think I even had a bit of a chip on my shoulder about the movie. A few hours later, I sat there, totally flattened by "Se7en," amazed at what the film accomplished and just how rough it played. It seemed like a film made by someone who had decided to never compromise again, and there was something genuinely dangerous about it. Immediately, my opinion of Fincher shifted, and in the years since, he's proven himself to be an immaculate visual artist, capable of creating some of the most arresting, electrifying images of the last fifteen years.
Purely judged on its technical merits, "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" is sensational, another example of just how much control Fincher is capable of exerting over every element of his films. It is gorgeous, and I feel like you could pull almost any frame of the film out as a stand-alone work of art thanks to the contributions of cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth. The score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is just as effective at setting a particular mood as their Oscar-winning work on last year's "The Social Network." So why is it that at the end of the two-hour forty-minute run time, I felt absolutely nothing for this film at all?
The short answer is that I simply don't like the source material. I have read all three books. I have seen all three Swedish films. And now I've seen the Fincher version. And my sum total reaction to all of it is, "Okay. That's nice. I don't get it." I mean, I understand a sort of surface appeal. After all, "Se7en" was 15 years ago, and "Silence Of The Lambs" was a full 20 years ago now. We live in a world of pop culture that was shaped, in large part, by the nuclear-scale detonations of Thomas Harris and David Fincher. What was outrageous and transgressive and dangerous the first time we saw it has been so internalized by our culture that it wouldn't surprise me if I saw an episode of "Spongebob Squarepants" making Hannibal Lecter jokes or doing a parody of John Doe at the end of "Se7en." To be honest, I think Fincher's version is the most clinical, and as a result, I felt like the "dirty" sort of doesn't register at all. It's so austere, so beautifully shot and carefully composed that there's something matter of fact about the casual degradation and sexual power politics at play. That may well be Fincher's point, but it softens the impact quite a bit. Or maybe it's that Fincher pushes Rooney Mara more towards the Hot Topic superhero that I think Larsson's book originally created.
That's the real phenomenon here… not the mystery in the film or the gradual revelation of Salander's background or the way her past folds into her present… but just Salander herself, probably autistic, definitely damaged, but a survivor who can outthink and outhunt anyone. She exists to visit hellfire and pain on men who do terrible sexually violent things to women, and she will win. That's all you need to know to get the shape of the entire trilogy. And if you need Salander as an archetype, if it's something that punches your button, I'm not going to pick on that. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the books. I just think they're okay supermarket checkout read on an airplane sort of books, forgettable except for a few key beats, and enjoyable enough. They are sort of self-mythologizing pulp nonsense, in which Stieg Larsson reinvents himself as the wrongly persecuted but totally dashing and sexually irresistible journalist who gets called on to solve an impossible mystery, a locked-room but with an entire island of various motives and opportunities. And he gives his fictional doppleganger the coolest new sort-of girlfriend in the world, this Batman-with-a-bruised-pout that can do anything with a computer and seems to have no fear at all.
It's sort of hilarious, deep down. And so Fincher makes the only rational choice here and plays it about 10,000 times more serious, pouring on the mood and the miss en scene and the Mara, and it's a pretty straight adaptation. I thought "Moneyball" exhibited definite signs of authorship by both credited writers, Steven Zallian and Aaron Sorkin. In this film, I don't really see much of Zallian, other than a certain degree of quiet economy in shaping the puffed-up prose of the book into something fairly streamlined and propulsive. There is a certain iconic frisson from seeing the current James Bond held helpless like the typical movie heroine at one point, only to have the 92-pound profoundly-pierced girl come to his rescue, and I think Fincher's well aware of that. Craig's good. He plays what he's supposed to play, a cool badass journalist/magazine publisher who has this swinging bachelor life and who just got humbled. And Mara is good. Very good, even.
But Lisbeth Salander is a largely internal animal. That's just how she's written. It's how she's been imagined. It's interesting that both of the big Scott Rudin films this holiday season feature lead characters who are possibly nestled somewhere left of center on the autistic scale, and they each handle them in very different ways. Here, Lisbeth vanishes inside herself when she's hurt or nervous or thinking or sizing someone up or hurting or happy. Basically, she has been trained by life to be ready for a kick, a punch, a knife or a bus and to always be defensive, to never let that down. Mara has to take this highly nonverbal character and she's given her a very clear physical language that the audience can read. She's great. It's just not a lead that interests me in the end, and I feel like the entire thing builds to that last emotional sour note, which is certainly well-played and well-staged, but it feels like a shameless bit of soap opera, and the film tries to play like something more, something serious. I almost wish Fincher had pushed this whole thing pulpier, because as it is, it's like reading something that someone has overthought, a book they edited too many times. It's dead, no matter how much it moves.
The large ensemble cast, including Craig, Mara, Robin Wright, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgard, Steven Berkoff, Joely Richardson, and Goran "Euro Clooney" Visnjic, all have strong moments to play and at least one or two times to really crank it up. But if anything, the disappearance that dominates most of the movie is such a laborious sort of "1+1+1+1+1" type of straight-line, as investigations go,, that there's no tension, nothing for them to really play. Every time the script switches gears into the darker corners of the thing, it backs off fairly quickly. It never really gets scary, it never really gets tense, it never really gets gross, it never really gets hyper-feminist, it never really digs deeper into Salander, content to just get the blunt force recollections she offers up and let that be enough.
Again… if you love these books, then consider this a Christmas present. But if you're going to this for Fincher, be aware that the strongest hint you'll see of his voice is the opening title sequence. I wish I saw something more here. I wish I could just bask in the undeniably burnished glow of Fincher's filmmaking. I think Rooney Mara's going to win a lot of fans for the level of commitment she shows here. But I'm about as excited about the prospects of sequels to this as I am about Tom Hanks starring in Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol," even with one of the strongest craftsmen working at the peak of his prowess.
"The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" opens December 21, 2011.
News From Our Partners
-
Watch This: With Beavis And Butt-head Do America, Mike Judge skewered the idiocy of cinematic adventures
Hear This: Destroy This Place shows how press releases can get it right
Cannes Film Festival: Cannes 2013, Day Two: Iranian director Asghar Farhadi chases A Separation with another stunning drama
-
Critics Consensus: Star Trek Into Darkness is Certified Fresh
Red Carpet Roundup: Star Trek Into Darkness Edition
Video Interviews with Katie Aselton & Lake Bell of Black Rock
-
The Telefile - The Most Heinous Person on Reality TV This Week
The Telefile - Modern Family: The Best Lines of the Night
The Telefile - Fall TV 2013: What's On When
-
'Frances Ha' Review
'Star Wars: Episode 7′ — The Real Reason J.J. Abrams Left 'Star Trek'
Sega Game Gear Classics Headed to Nintendo 3DS Virtual Console
-
What to Watch This Weekend: The Season Finales of Nikita, Doctor Who, The Simpsons, and Family Guy
Syfy Renews Warehouse 13 for a Fifth and Final Season
What to Watch Tonight: The Office's Big Farewell and the Season Finales of TVD, Elementary, and Five More
-
Christopher Nolan for James Bond Movie? Director Allegedly Courted to Direct
Edward Furlong, 'Terminator 2' Star, Arrested Again
Cannes 2013: $1M in Jewelry Stolen at Film Festival
-
YESSSSSSS...
Who Won 'American Idol' 2013?
The Ultimate Office Blooper Reel
-
Demi Lovato vs. Perrie Edwards – PopCrush Prom Queen of 2013, Round 3
Justin Bieber vs. Austin Mahone – PopCrush Prom King of 2013, Round 3
Demi Lovato Sings Selena Gomez's Praises [Video]
Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured
Latest Posts
-
This is one you'll want to watch as soon as you've seen the movieFriday, May 17, 2013
-
Plus we look back at a more spirited encounter with the comic actorThursday, May 16, 2013
-
The Channing Tatum/Mila Kunis science-fiction action movie is shooting nowThursday, May 16, 2013
-
Hollywood's busiest alien spends a little more time with StarfleetThursday, May 16, 2013


Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signuppinkdotmania
December 13, 2011 at 6:31AM EST Reply to Comment"another example of just how much control Fincher is capable of exerting over every element of his films"
"But if you're going to this for Fincher, be aware that the strongest hint you'll see of his voice is the opening title sequence."
He has total control of every element of the film, but his voice doesn't come through?
drew Yes. Technically, the film is really impressive. The opening credits are crazy and bizarre and unleashed. The rest of the film is Stieg Larsson's book, made by a brilliant craftsman who seems to have kept his own personality out of the adaptation.
December 13, 2011 at 6:43AM EST
I always felt I'd see this out of obligation to Fincher - I'd seen the Swedish version and thought it was fairly entertaining but didn't exactly want to revisit it - but after this whelming review I think I'll skip it at the theatres, maybe catch it in a few years. Onto newer and fresher things, finchy!
December 13, 2011 at 7:42AM ESTpinkdotmania Ah, gotcha. Thanks.
December 13, 2011 at 10:00PM EST8thsamurai
December 13, 2011 at 6:59AM EST Reply to CommentHey Drew
As I recall you did not care much for the Swedish version eiher, but I am still curious:
How does Fincher's adaptation compare to the Swedish version in your opinion?
alex_howes
December 13, 2011 at 7:10AM EST Reply to CommentOne of the strongest elements i found to the film was how Fincher managed to make looking at photos on a mac into something engrossing. I've also read and seen the other source materials but strangely found Fincher's investigation to be the most interesting. Also Drew who was the actor you referred to not to long ago that was about to make a big splash in the Best Actor race? i thought it might be Craig but it's not a showy enough role for Oscar. Are you still embargoed on whoever it is?
I. S.
December 13, 2011 at 8:10AM EST Reply to CommentI would have liked to see the filmmakers port the story to the USA. That would have involved some thinking, and more than just going through the motions, however well executed. Salander is not just an avenging angel against Men Who Hate Women, but the dysfunctional European culture that creates them. It's not even subtext, but it's easy to overlook and I don't expect it to come through in this adaptation. And I don't think there is much Fincher could have done about that.
LN what?
December 13, 2011 at 11:01AM ESTI. S. What? "She exists to visit hellfire and pain on men"... there's more going on than that. There's political and social comment all through it.
December 13, 2011 at 11:08AM ESTdrew Yeah, the political and social commentary is almost as subtle as the sexual politics. "Hey, our bad guys in the first film are NAZIS! Because remember... NAZIS NEVER REALLY GO AWAY."
December 13, 2011 at 11:45AM ESTLaHaine
December 13, 2011 at 10:37AM EST Reply to CommentHey Drew, How did you feel about the film editing in this movie?
MarcD
December 13, 2011 at 10:45AM EST Reply to CommentCould it simply be that because you read the books and seen the Swedish versions of it that it just doesn't hold any appeal to you at all? Because that's how I am. It was great the first time around but I just didn't see why such a talented guy (Fincher) would waste his time on a remake that was already very good. My 2 cents. :)
batphantom
December 13, 2011 at 11:58AM EST Reply to CommentI caught the advance last night, it's a hell of a film, but I had a hard time getting into it. Visually it's stunning, and there's lots of technical elements we'll be breaking down for years, especially in the editing side. There are very few wasted motions, and some transitional elements are torn through at breakneck speeds, mostly to tell the story in less than three hours. It also breaks conventional act structure, especially with the last section of the film. They should have kept the original title, MEN WHO HATE WOMEN, because DAMN, there's a lot of suffering going on here. There's a lot to digest overall, but I'm in no rush to experience it again.
Dan
December 13, 2011 at 12:32PM EST Reply to CommentLove the review. I haven't seen the film yet, but you nailed my sentiments regarding the source material. The real draw here was and is indeed Fincher (and to a lesser degree Craig) for me.
ray
December 13, 2011 at 12:48PM EST Reply to CommentHi Drew,
To this point I haven't read the book or watched the Swedish film version, in anticipation of Fincher's take on the material. Now I'm wondering which one of these should be the one I go with.
Any thoughts on this? I know you don't care for the story, but which would you recommend as the most entertaining interpretation?
Thanks
John Judging from the review, I'm inclined to think "go in cold" is the best way for this, if you see it. Certainly what I'll be doing.
December 13, 2011 at 10:47PM ESTTrevor Whitecliff
December 13, 2011 at 3:46PM EST Reply to CommentDrew: Yes, yes, yes!
I felt like I was watching a Fincher-esque movie while viewing the original, so its really weird to me he would remake this. Almost like a parody of his own work.
I liked the original flick, don't get me wrong. Didn't like the sequels, nor do I understand the hype/love. But I'll likely check it out because its Fincher and he da man (mostly).
Brendan
December 13, 2011 at 4:06PM EST Reply to CommentWait...it's HOW LONG?
Brad
December 13, 2011 at 4:26PM EST Reply to CommentHaving read Zaillian's draft of Moneyball a few times (I loved it, and despised Soderbergh's aborted take on the material), I must say that the final movie had NOTHING to do with Zallian. NOTHING. I cannot even point to a scene where his dialogue or original intent remained intact. His MONEYBALL was a little closer, in feel, to Jason Reitman's Thank You For Smoking and Up In The Air, in the sense that it was about a polarizing, cynical figure with a very particular skill set and a sharp wit, and a total womanizer. The Moneyball I saw in theatres didn't have his Zaillian's framing devices, and had added in all of Sorkin's usual over-the-top sentimentality that he is sometimes guilty of (i'm a fan of his, but nobody is perfect).
Bev
December 13, 2011 at 6:52PM EST Reply to CommentI watched it and I have to disagree. I thought it was very good, I didn't see the Swedish Versions though. I saw the new one @ http://b4releasemovies.com
Bev
December 13, 2011 at 6:54PM EST Reply to CommentI thought the movie was great although, I didn't see the foreign films. I think it was a pretty good representation of the book. If your wondering how I saw it already http://b4releasemovies.com
Bev
December 13, 2011 at 6:56PM EST Reply to CommentI thought the movie was great. Although, I haven't seen the foreign films, I thought this was a good portrayal of the book. I found it online http://b4releasemovies.com
Honey Badger Tattoo
December 13, 2011 at 8:17PM EST Reply to CommentI wonder how the film will play for people who have zero knowledge of the story. I, like Drew, have read the first book and seen the Swedish adaptation. I'm not really looking forward to another version but will go because of Fincher. I bet I'll have a similar to Drew. Still, I can't help feeling that I'd enjoy myself more going in ignorant.
CinemaPsycho
December 14, 2011 at 3:08AM EST Reply to CommentI haven't read the books, but based on the Swedish films I never saw the character as a "feminist avenger", just someone who has been wronged and gets revenge on those who have wronged her. If feminists want to read something more into that, I'm not exactly shocked. But I don't think that's really what the story is about either. Sounds like Drew is overreacting a bit to me. Her relationship with the reporter shows that she clearly doesn't hate ALL MEN, right? I don't see the problem here.
My issue with the remake (which I haven't seen yet) is that I feel like I've already seen this, and not too long ago. I don't see why Fincher needed to remake it just because my fellow Americans are scared of subtitles. I saw the first 2 Swedish films theatrically, in an area where foreign films don't often open, so it's not like they only played in 2 cities like most foreign films. I seem to recall they did pretty well (still haven't caught up with the third). So why bother to make the same film over again? If you're going to make an American version, why not make it American? Change it up a bit? I'll probably see it anyway, but I just don't get the thought process here.
JoeK
January 18, 2012 at 11:49PM EST Reply to CommentComing to this late. Haven't read books nor seen the Swedish trilogy.
It certainly helped me appreciate this more and a lot of the passes I'm reading seem to have a fair amount of freight in them, no disrespect to this one intended as it is fairer than most.