You are not logged in. Please login or register.
I enjoyed watching it, then I liked it when I walked out. The more I think about it, the more I think I love it. Need to see it a few more times, but off the bat, that was a really enjoyable movie experience for me.
Anyone else?
I'm seeing it tonight, and I'm trying to go in without expectations, but the more I hear about it the more excited I get.
I've seen the original three films, looking forward to see the reinterpretations.
I've seen the original trilogy as well, and I hope Fincher plans to remake all three of them, cause Lisbeth's storyline is pretty great throughout, but the original versions of "fire" and "hornet's nest" felt a lot cheaper and rushed compared to the first one.
I'll probably see it at some point before christmas. I've been pretty excited about it.
Films 2 and 3 of the Swedish trilogy feel more like TV movies (probably due to the fact that they literally are). I don't even like the first Swedish film much. It just feels uninterested and uninvested in the characters.
I just got back, and I loved it. I'm still in that stage where the film is swirling around in my head too quickly for concrete opinions to form, but my initial reaction is very positive.
I just saw it,... AWESOME!
I got the book for Christmas, so I haven't read it yet, and I haven't seen the originals yet, so I can't compare them.
I saw it sitting one seat over from Teague and my opinion of the film is much lower.
It was gorgeous, and in every way a director can make a film good Fincher seems to have knocked it out of the park. But the experience to me of the film was fifteen different plots crammed into two and a half hours, with one of those plots- very loosely related to any of the others- taking up almost the entire movie and the rest not much more than introduced and resolved with very little conflict.
I'm not as good at explaining my problems with movies as a Down In Fronter, so I'm just praying Dorkman or someone agrees with me and can phrase it more efficiently.
Unfortunately for Fincher, he chose to adapt a book that is extremely flawed. I think that I enjoyed the film so much because I could focus less on the plot and more on Fincher's direction.
I have a problem with the info dump at the end. Inside Man had the same issue of having a complicated answer to a simple question.
That said, this is the best movie of 2011. Hands down.
I just saw this yesterday, and I really enjoyed it. Well, enjoy probably isn't the right word, but it was a good movie, anyway. I'd seen the Swedish one, so I sort of knew what to expect out of it going in, but this version is a little neater overall, and had enough going for it that I was still totally engaged. So hoping Fincher does the other two books and makes better films of them than the Swedish fella did.
The real reason I'm posting, though, is that I actually thought of Down in Front in the theater when Mikael Blomkvist had a literal, "save the cat" moment. So I guess the friends in my head have put up a residence...
I enjoyed the book immensely, not as a work of art (as some people would haver you believe) but as a good, entertaining piece of fiction. I wasn't blown away by the Swedish version and was hoping for an improvement from Fincher, yet "the man" said I was too young to watch it and, judging by the various opinions expressed here, I'm missing out on something quite special...
Tell me you didn't try to watch it in Bristol 
I enjoyed it a great deal while watching it, and I think its a pretty awesome detective story movie, but I agree that there's a real lack of any kind of "theme" to the movie. It's full of disturbing and violent things, but it doesn't seem to be saying anything about violence, or what causes it, or how to get over it. Its tough because its a very similar movie to Zodiac in many ways, and Zodiac happens to be a masterpiece, so this movie just being really damn good comes off as a bit underwhelming.
That being said, I dug the hell out of it, and it has the best use of Enya I've ever seen.
Ohhhhhhhhh, hey. This might explain the title sequence.
I think that the modernity, the thing that made it a new take on the locked room mystery, was not the foundation of socialism on the Third Reich war profiteering... That's perfectly good and that's perfectly understandable, but that's what [author] Stieg Larsson was about and what he was up in arms about. He certainly was talking about the dark black liquid underbelly of this other... Sweden is still - I still saw it on the list the other day of the top 10 countries for women to live in. It was number three or something. And yet, Larsson would say, and there are many, many reports that would say to you, there's a disproportionately high rate of rape in this country.
-Fincher
From this.
OH!
I remember thinking it was just a weird Fincher-ized James Bond opening. 
Ohhhhhhhhh, hey. This might explain the title sequence.
I think that the modernity, the thing that made it a new take on the locked room mystery, was not the foundation of socialism on the Third Reich war profiteering... That's perfectly good and that's perfectly understandable, but that's what [author] Stieg Larsson was about and what he was up in arms about. He certainly was talking about the dark black liquid underbelly of this other... Sweden is still - I still saw it on the list the other day of the top 10 countries for women to live in. It was number three or something. And yet, Larsson would say, and there are many, many reports that would say to you, there's a disproportionately high rate of rape in this country.
-Fincher
From this.
That interview keys in on what I'm discovering to be the hardest part of filmmaking. You have plenty of options. If you can't find those, you're in deep trouble cause that's the easiest aspect. The real struggle is deciding which choices are the best.
And while having final cut would be nice, not having it forces more articulated and reasoned choices. Which probably results in a better overall project. Assuming all parties are interested in quality. Because it's much easier to go with a half baked gut-instinct that lacks justification than to go against it. Final cut is probably a curse for a lesser filmmaker. Like an evil genie granting George Lucas' wish.
Speaking of which, I'm assuming Lucas had final cut on the entire prequel, but what about the originals? Did he have final cut after A New Hope?
Just saw it again. Had some new problems, and some new appreciations. For instance, notice the way Fincher users inserts when he's dealing with James Bond. He uses them as if to say "this is what he was glancing at / observing," they always seem to follow Craig's gaze. Someone will close a door, and Craig will look up, and then it cuts to the very top of a door closing. Things like that.
The biggest problems seem to be issues with the source material, as you end up getting a really weirdly placed 20 minute epilogue for seemingly no reason, except that it plays into the sequels somehow I guess? If you were to just look at it as a standalone story though, the lawsuit at the start of the movie just seems like a reason to get Daniel Craig to want to take on this mystery (which is fine, as good a motivation as any), it seems extremely unnecessary to go back and tie off the lawsuit stuff 2 hours later in the movie (though it is still gorgeously shot). It'd be way cleaner if the file Christopher Plummer gives Craig actually has the stuff Craig needs, cut to the media report about his rival being arrested or whatever, and then lead into the current ending with Salander getting him the gift. Shaves 15 minutes out without anything important being lost, unless again, this stuff is super crucial for the next movie.
It'd be way cleaner if the file Christopher Plummer gives Craig actually has the stuff Craig needs, cut to the media report about his rival being arrested or whatever, and then lead into the current ending with Salander getting him the gift. Shaves 15 minutes out without anything important being lost, unless again, this stuff is super crucial for the next movie.
I smell a Phantom Edit!
The real reason I'm posting, though, is that I actually thought of Down in Front in the theater when Mikael Blomkvist had a literal, "save the cat" moment. So I guess the friends in my head have put up a residence...
SPOILERS
Yes exactly, which led me to be not at all surprised by the "kill the cat" moment a few reels later.
SPOILERS
At my second viewing last night, the sweet old lady in front of me had two visceral reactions I could hear. One was when the gunshot went off next to Bond's head, she JUMPED. The other was the eviscerated cat. She said OH FUCK
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
