I was duped again into seeing another unnecessary remake because of the talented director behind the project. I feel so bamboozled. First full disclosure: I've read the book and have seen the Swedish film. Because of that it's impossible for me to judge this David Fincher's adaption without comparing it to the source material and the other film it inspired into being. I don't want to go into a huge diatribe about why this film didn't even need to be made (because it didn't) and instead focus on its entertainment value and the quality of its film making. Is it a good film? Sure, because it's a thrilling dark story worthy of the silver screen. What it's not is a great movie. If you're like me and you've read the book or seen the Swedish version, I'd recommend you skip it. Save your money and go see Mission Impossible instead. If you have no intention of reading the book or seeing the Swedish film then go check it out, you'll probably love it. The acting is great, the visuals stunning and they get the story mostly right (although it could have been way more faithful to the book). Grade: B.
Spoilers: Now let's get to the real review of this film. First the good: Daniel Criag and Rooney Mara are wonderful as the lead characters. They have great chemistry and are equally as good as their Swedish counterparts (Michael Nyqvist and Roomi Rapace). Basically the casting is fantastic (especially Christopher Plummer). The cinemphotograhy is beautiful (albeit too perfect at times) and Fincher's skills prove exceptional. Now the bad: oh boy, the script is pretty weak. Sure, Steven Zaillian keeps Blomkvist's daughter in the story and her noticing the bible verses which I liked, and I get the need to cut things out like how Blomkvist once lived with the Vanger family as a child and his sexual relationship with Cecil, that's fine, but to change the ending is almost unforgivable. I know you've won an Oscar but that doesn't mean you should change the outcome of the story. I've read an interview that he wanted to get to the resolution faster but that's just a cope out. Having Blomkvist go to Austriala and meet Harrit for the first time wouldn't have taken any more screentime. The audience has waited over two and a half hours, why not an extra minute here or there to get the ending right (an ending that fully realizes the mystery). And if you're so concerned with time, why the unnecessary scene where Lisbeth threatens her Guadian Bjurman in the elevator; that's a couple minutes I didn't need. I don't think the editor can be let off the hook either. It is a long movie and it feels long too. True, I know what's coming because I know the outcome but it still felt sluggish. What amazes me is the Swedish version moves more quickly and is able to stay more faithful to the book (even keeping the part where Blomkvist goes to prison). So no one can use the argument that the book is too dense, and Zaillian had to change things to make a good film, because some Sweds already did it and did it better.
No comments:
Post a Comment