I subscribe to Entertainment Weekly but I’m not an avid follower of the book world, so I kind of got the impression that EW was forcing things in the wake of “Harry Potter” when it became obsessed with “Twilight,” “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and “Hunger Games.” To me, these all seem to be niche franchises that are being pushed into mainstream status for lack of anything that fits the mold better.
But while the much-hyped U.S. adaptation of Steig Larsson’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” isn’t totally my thing — what with its extreme rape scene and equally extreme rape-revenge scene — it is directed by David Fincher, and he’s incapable of making a bad movie these days. Also points in its favor: It has a juicy mystery set-up on a wintry Swedish island, and the main hero is a down-and-out journalist.
Still, “Dragon Tattoo” doesn’t have the thematic depth of “The Social Network,” “Zodiac” or even “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” It’s a mediocre mystery yarn with two strong characters and a nice sense of style and pacing. The lack of humor — along with references to Bible passages over the course of the investigation — makes me think of “Se7en” or “Alien 3,” both earlier, shallower Fincher works, although “Dragon Tattoo” is more polished.
I don’t need to dwell on Rooney Mara’s Lisbeth Salander except to say she lives up to the hype as a visually striking heroine (desexualized via tattoos and piercings and leather and short hair) with a brutal upbringing that makes her antisocial and a photographic memory that makes her a great assistant in Mikael Blomkvist’s investigation of a cold case. Daniel Craig, who plays discredited journalist Blomkvist (he was set up by a bad guy), is also worth rooting for.
But what’s not mentioned in many reviews is the mystery, which is the main reason why I was willing to check out the movie. The set-up is good, as elderly Swedish patriarch Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) shows Mikael around the island where many of his relatives live in scattered cabins and mini-mansions. Some are friendly enough, some are recluses; some talk to the other family members, some don’t. One of them most likely is responsible for the disappearance of a teenage Vanger girl in the 1940s.
And while Mikael and Lisbeth’s investigation — rich with old microfilm photos and dusty archived records — held my attention due to Fincher’s sense of style and place, I have to admit that I didn’t really follow how they got to the point of discovering whodunit. So I have to say the mystery was merely OK.
After the mystery is solved, the Salander-Blomkvist relationship — a heretofore secondary element — moves to the forefront, and the film ends with a surprisingly poignant final shot that made me realize I cared for Salander more than I thought I did.
But it’s not quite enough for me to get excited about the second and third entries in the “Millennium” trilogy (the name comes from Blomkvist’s magazine; it has no relationship to the Chris Carter TV series of the same name, except that both franchises deal very much with the dark aspects of humanity). Nor does the conclusion justify why Lisbeth’s experiences had to be quite so R-rated brutal; a similarly sad story could’ve been told with more subtlety. But that’s just a matter of taste; some people obviously do get horribly raped and scarred for life, and their stories deserve to be told whether I enjoy watching them or not. Also, there’s no indication that this is part of a series; that’s somewhat of a risky move, although I understand it’s consistent with how Larsson wrote the books.
If Fincher’s back, I probably will be too. But honestly, I think he deserves better material to sink his directorial teeth into. Maybe he’ll find the next “Zodiac” or “Social Network” instead, and the “Dragon Tattoo” series can be handed off to another director and settle back into its rightful spot as something with a niche following.
I admire “Dragon Tattoo” from a distance — and I don’t care to get any closer.
Comments
Not really hyped on this series, alough my sister has read and enjoyed all the books. She was also a fan of “Hunger Games,” but the one I am pretty excited for is the “Ender’s Game” movie that is set to begin shooting somewhat soon, if I recall correctly, which is another book series I would expect to get some more attention as the movie/s roll out. Have you heard anything or have any thoughts on how that one might translate to the big screen?# Posted By Another Matt | 1/10/12 7:02 PM
Yeah, “Ender’s Game” should be awesome; classic novel by Orson Scott Card. One of the few stories about warfare that I actually enjoy, right up there with Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers.” The interesting thing about that movie, of course, is that all of the soldiers are kids. Casting will be crucial. Should be more controversial than the book because we’ll actually get the visual of kids fighting a war. I agree, this is much juicier material than “Hunger Games” as far as I can tell (although I haven’t read that book series).
Another must-see movie in 2012 is “Prometheus.” The marketing behind this movie is fascinating: It’s a direct prequel to “Alien.” The preview shows the alien spaceship, the space suits from “Alien,” even one of the female crew members wearing Ripley-style underwear. And yet the word “Alien” isn’t mentioned at all in the marketing. It totally goes against standard operating procedure in this era of emphasizing everything as a prequel, sequel or remake. And of course it’s directed by “Alien’s” Ridley Scott, which puts it a notch above the recent “Aliens” and “Predator” pictures. As of right now, “Prometheus” is my No. 1 must-see movie of 2012.# Posted By John Hansen | 1/10/12 7:52 PM
Jenelle and I will probably rent it. In fact, I have the book on hold at the library, but still debating whether to pick it up. Considering what I’ve heard and read about the brutality of the sexual assault scenes, I’m not exactly in a rush to read or watch the movie; maybe it’s all those Law and Order SVU shows that have burned me out on sodomy? Other than that, sounds like a decent watch. As for “Ender’s Games,” I agree that should translate well on film.
But as for “Hunger Games,” It will be hard to capture the violence in anything but a Rated-R label. John, not sure why you’re so resigned to say it’s not “juicy material.” We talked recently about how it resembles “Surviving the Game” (Great movie) but we neglected to mention “Running Man,” a very good book and move starring the Governator that pits him against his peers in an arena and televised for the masses. But like you mentioned about “Ender’s Games,” the wrinkle here is it involves kids. Like Stephen King said, “Hunger Games” is a book you just can’t put down. You would love Katniss Everdeen’s character, which will be played by the great Jenneifer Lawrence on the big screen, and enjoy it John. Go to the library and check it out. It’s not a huge investment if you don’t like it.# Posted By Seth Stringer | 1/12/12 11:43 AM
But “Surviving the Game” and “Running Man” are great because they are unintentionally funny with their absurd sci-fi situations and over-the-top villains and cartoonish violence. If you promise me that “Hunger Games” doesn’t have a cackling, comically evil government villain, then I’ll check it out. Certainly the premise is not original, so hopefully it has some other appeal to it. (Due to EW’s obsession, I always wondered if “Dragon Tattoo” had some deeper appeal beyond the surface, but I have to conclude that it really doesn’t, unless the book is somehow much better than the movie.) I guess the twist is that kids are being hunted down by the government, but that is horribly unappealing and unsavory to me. I agree that Jennifer Lawrence is a good actress. I enjoyed her as Mystique in “X-Men: First Class,” although her character was underused. I guess in general I’m tired of all this gloomy, violent stuff that EW is pushing as it tries to force the next “Harry Potter” on us. I guess that’s what makes more optimistic stories like “Harry Potter” and “Star Wars” special: Franchises like that don’t come along like clockwork; we just have to wait sometimes.# Posted By John Hansen | 1/12/12 3:32 PM
John, there’s no cackling, comically evil government villain in “Hunger Games.” In fact, the “Hunger Games doesn’t even introduce the dictator, President Snow, until the end of the book. The villain is the tyrannic government and what it stands for, not any sole individual. You could include the gamemakers, but they are just a product of the government, which subjects its citizens to the Hunger Games to reinforce its power.# Posted By Seth Stringer | 1/12/12 4:12 PM