The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Series

[Baby Fish Mouth]

Saw it last night. Rooney Mara totally nailed Lisbeth. Great performances and great casting all around. And the score was fantastic.

Otherwise it was sort of forgettable, but that's more the fault of the book it's based on. It's really a weak plot. I did think the ending could have used more suspense. My husband had not read the book, and he felt the ending was anti-climactic.

[Carolina]

Saw it the day after Christmas and would absolutely go to see movie adaptations of the other two novels. I hadn't read any of the books or seen the Swedish version (though may do both now) but did know there would be graphic rape scenes.

I really enjoyed it for the most part. Loved the opening credits. I didn't find the rape scenes at all sexy or titillating, nor did my brother or my two female friends. Rape is brutal, so I had no issue with that and the rapist is portrayed as a disgusting, vile man.

My one quibble is that I saw the ending with Harriet still being alive and Martin being a killer coming for a good while.

I appreciate that the movie shares my belief that the music of Enya is evil.

coolbreezegirl, while yes, it was often dark, I thought there were lots of shots of Sweden, particularly what was supposed to be the northern part and the island that were very beautiful, almost magical looking.

[SApril]

Saw it. Loved it. I think it helps that Mara Rooney (or is it Rooney Mara?) didn't have that many speaking parts.

[baileydash]

Why did such a tough chick shave her arm pits?

[huntergrayson]

Judging by my FB/Twitter/etc feeds, a lot of my friends are just now seeing this. (And liking it/Rooney as Lisbeth.) The fact that they biffed the release date and some of the marketing has absolutely no bearing on the movie itself or its quality. I'm crossing my fingers for Rooney sneaking in for an Oscar nom, but, if nothing else, if sure Reznor/Ross will be nominated again. And the foreign box office will recoup the budget. (Combined, it's already made $72 million internationally.)

If they shoot the second two back-to-back, which seems to be what Fincher & cast want to do, that will cut down on the budget considerably. From the "when did Fincher happen?" question a page or two back -- Other than Benjamin Button and TSN earning money, despite their not-exactly-superfriendly subject matter (a 3-hour meditation on mortality and aging and a borderline autistic dude being all computer geeky), and Oscar nominations, Zodiac received absolutely NO Oscar love and ended up on several best-of-decade lists. Plus, studios/actors/crew seem to LOVE working with Fincher. He's an absolute perfectionist but he's not known for being an asshole or completely unwilling to take notes. He also managed to make two extremely dark, uncompromising movies under the studio system in the 90s that managed to make money and endure as cult/new classics (Fight Club -- 100 million worldwide from a 63 million budget -- and Se7en -- which cost 33 million and made $327 million worldwide).

(I've actually rewatched 'Fight Club' and 'Se7en' over the past few days, with various commentaries and everyone has the pretty much the highest praise for him. Freeman waxes rhapsodic on the latter. Let's put it this way -- Kubrick demanded over 100 takes of Shelley Duvall for a single scene in The Shining and it completely broke her, leading her to absolutely DESPISE the man. Fincher is known for doing anywhere from 30-100 takes for a single scene and you have actors like Pitt and Mara signing up to work with him on multiple films.)

I really enjoyed Craig and Mara's takes on the characters, as well as how they were written, and would like to see them on-screen again.

[ross]

I admit part of me wanted to see the movie... well not fail but at least not become a hit mostly because of personal dislike for Mara (talented I admit but she comes across as personally loathsome) and partly because I still think it was criminally overbudgeted.

(I also have to admit to being embittered that Tintin is so aenemic at the US box office.)

[huntergrayson]

You shoot a Swedish-language movie, in Sweden, with Swedish actors and you get subsidies and tax breaks from the Swedish government, which is partially why the original cost less in comparison. (Also, look at the company credits and see how many are official Swedish Government/Film/Radio/etc. companies.)

You shoot a Hollywood movie, in Sweden/Norway/Switzerland/Hollywood, with British and American and Swedish actors and crew, you not only have to pay the Hollywood film union rates -- meaning your DP is paid the ASC rate, if Zallian shows up to do rewrites or has to do overtime, he gets WGA rates, minimum -- you also have to pay for things like travel, lodging, etc. for hundreds, if not thousands, of people. And I doubt Christopher Plummer is willing to stay at Ye Olde Swedish Budget Motel.

For a film that's a big-budget tentpole release in the start of a new MGM franchise? $90 million is not that obscene, especially considering the cost of shooting on-location versus on the studio backlot. If it were 150 million, I'd agree with you.

Apparently, per IMDB trivia, it was shot during one of the coldest winters Sweden has experienced in 20 years and extreme weather can wreak havoc on a film schedule, also extending costs.

[Deleted]

$90 million is obscene and embarassing to spend on a movie, but that has everything to do with Hollywood. While European movies receive subsidies (which have dramatically decreased in the past few years, for example in France and before that, Great Britain, not to mention the complete disintegration of state-supported film industries in CEE), the Europeans also pay union wages. Of course, the wages vary drastically from country to country. The money spent in Hollywood on movies is ridiculous and I am curious how much is due to union wages because I think it has more to do with the studios lining their pockets.

Hunter, no disrespect to you.

I will not be seeing this, but I am relieved to know that the rape scenes were not sexualised. Now if Patricia would just shut up!

[huntergrayson]

lena -- Hollywood is EXTREMELY union-based, as I found out the hard way by graduating from film school right as the WGA strike was happening. You can take a look at SAG's rates here, WGA's minimums here and DGA's here. To give you an idea -- DGA's minimum rates for films over a 9.5 million dollar budget are $16,500 per week, with a minimum guarantee of 13 weeks (2 prep, 10 shooting, 1 cutting). With a compensation of $3,300 per DAY worked beyond that. So if I am a DGA member and shoot a film in two weeks, I still get paid for the full 13.

Case in point -- a film I worked on, Shade was shot in about a month and a half, using a handful of locations, written and directed by a total unknown, with pretty much all the stars/crew working for scale (the bare minimum). It still cost 6.8 million. One of my friends who worked as an assistant in the set department had to jump through so many loopholes and paperwork because if she joined the set designers union, the dues for that year would mean basically forfeiting her entire salary. I've seen the film -- it does not, in any way, look like a $7 million dollar film, outside of the stars. But it was.

The WGA still prominently has a list of companies that violated the strike or other WGA rules.

Yes, Hollywood is extremely greedy, but the unions are really necessary to protect all the below-the-line people and minor players from the shadiness and greed from of the studio execs and the megalomaniacs and the assholes. If studios could routinely shoot 20-hour days without having to pay overtime or cut corners on stuntwork because stuntpeople weren't protected by their union contract? They would do it in a heartbeat. Over and over again.

[Deleted]

hunter, thanks for that info and I completely support the unions. I cannot imagine the pay and working conditions for non-stars and below-the-line people if the unions did not exist.