MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Dragon Tattoo SPOILER SPACE!!!!

If you don’t want to know… don’t enter the comments section!!!

Be Sociable, Share!

47 Responses to “Dragon Tattoo SPOILER SPACE!!!!”

  1. LexG says:

    Ask and ye shall receive!!! Many thanks!

    Okay, here goes…

    Thoroughly enjoyed it, LOVED Mara and Craig, Fincher’s direction is its usual top-notch technical shelf…

    But just me, or did Finch TOTALLY blow off half the procedural elements? I didn’t entirely mind, as I remember having to rewind the Swedish original 600 times to figure out the Australia twist at the end… But the TWIST here is even more baffling; Good thing nobody stopped by the office in two decades, eh? How would that even work? I know the family was estranged, but didn’t grumpy old Aunt Ballbricker flat out TELL CRAIG where “Anita” was working in London? I think Mr. Magoo could’ve solved this mystery in half a day– plus I can’t see THIS particular Anita-Harriet mailing that artwork to Plummer every year– she didn’t seem to give a shit about the family (rightly so), and the bond between her and Plummer wasn’t very tangible.

    But can someone even explain how that worked? I was so baffled that even over the montage of her hiding in the trunk, I was all WTF? head spinning thing where you’re not going along with it enraptured, you’re saying ‘Wait, but– But how– Why wouldn’t–‘, all of which is odd considering Fincher is this detail-oriented taskmaster.

    Also: That photo the old Nazi hands over to Craig– what WAS THAT? It looked like Julian Sands handing out coffee on the front lines of WWI in the trenches to the troops… But it was actually the day of the disappearance? I think it’s some big AHA! moment, and the music and acting is so good during that crosscutting of Lisbeth pinpointing the locations with Craig mooning over that photo, but later it just seemed underwhelming that it was all about the logo on you-know-who’s blazer.

    And maybe this is a nitpick, but wasn’t the PHOTO RECREATION some BLOW OUT style SETPIECE of Blomkvist piecing photos together to turn them into an unsettling Zapruder-like movie, with Harriet eerily glowering into the lens? HOW DID FINCHER OF ALL PEOPLE manage to fuck THAT UP? Here Blomkvist dicks around at his Windows Movie Maker for four seconds… How do you cut out the central suspense/sinister procedural stretch like that?

    Where he improves it is… everywhere else, with the awesome chemistry between the leads (Nyqvist and Rapace looked ill-matched and that one went DOWNHILL when they joined forces, whereas the Fincher version kicks up a notch at that point), the cinematography, etc etc…

    Also that CAT THING is going to cost this MILLIONS at the box office. Of course as always, it’s hilarious that in a movie with rape, revenge-rape, Nazis, incest, countless murders, that a dead animal is the only thing that made the audience gasp, but there you have it.

  2. Edward Wilson says:

    Maybe dead cats is a new movie trend, between this and The Future..,

  3. berg says:

    the cat was not in the Swedish version and it’s a perfect example of how FINCHER makes the film pay off in a 1, 2, 3 manner, he introduces the cat, we love the cat, who let the cat in …. the cat is dead … also Flincher wisely cuts the part about Blumkvist having been at the Vanger estate as a boy …. both films have their merit in my opinion but the new one is great

  4. LexG says:

    Also LOOK AT HER.

    Most perfect female body ever in the history of cinema.

  5. Mr. F. says:

    “Also LOOK AT HER. Most perfect female body ever in the history of cinema.”

    I used to agree with you, Lex, but Robin Wright is getting old.

  6. berg says:

    Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy has some marked differences between the 1979 BBC version and the present version

  7. Sloanish says:

    Not a full moon but Lex is right. On both posts. Also, could not believe the last 13 minutes. Is that really what we care about? Greatest compliment I can give it is that it makes me want to see the sequel. The original did not.

    One more thing…Fincher anal rape was more brutal than the original but the revenge rape seemed muted in comparison to the same. Is that just me?

  8. GexL says:

    Only an ignorant sot wouldn’t realize that the central mystery of Dragon Tattoo is a MacGuffin.

  9. actionman says:

    Question re: the rape scene, as it’s been a while since I saw the swedish version. In the swedish version, is there a shot, after the rape, of the bag on the chair with the hidden camera? I found it interesting that Fincher went as hard-core as he did during the rape scene, only to sort of let everyone off the hook with that slow zoom on the bag/camera. Even if you don’t know there’s a camera in the bag, that shot makes you think that there’s something duplicitous going on. And then when she turns the tables on him and gets her revenge, the reveal that she’s taped him raping her isn’t as powerful. Just curious…does anyone remember?

    LOVED the Fincher version while I liked the Swedish one. Fincher is just such an amazing technician.

  10. chris says:

    Not sure what you’re not getting in the escape sequence, Lex. But the Sands photo was a Nazi connection reveal.
    And I think Fincher was wise to dump most of the film-assembly sequence. It felt like a fairly good “Blow Off” knockoff in the Swedish film. Why would he want to do a better retread of a retread in his film? Particularly since we got the point without it.

  11. LexG says:

    How/When does Craig figure out that Anita is Harriet?

    He goes to the BANK where she apparently works in the lobby, shows off his noose injury… cut to the park bench and she’s spilling the whole brother/dad rape/escape narrative– but how did Craig FIGURE THIS OUT?

    I was at a total loss.

  12. Evan says:

    I saw this last night. Granted, I haven’t read the book, or seen the Swedish version, but I found it boring and confusing. The person I saw it with, loved the books and also thought it unsatisfying. She said certain aspects, toward the end, seemed rushed and glossed over. There was only about 20 people in the theater, and I think several of them fell asleep. Maybe I’m not the target audience, but I found it slow and tedious. Mara was very good, though. I have to say, though, that Daniel Craig is one unattractive guy, on a huge screen.

  13. LexG says:

    MARA is hotter than Kristen Stewart.

  14. Don R. Lewis says:

    This thread reminded me of a suspicion I had about the film. I agree the central mystery of the film is a McGuffin but then….WTF is the point of the movie? Lisbeth doesn’t take rape lying down and Mikael is a self-serving creep. End scene.

    I was definitely entertained and Fincher’s distanced formalistic approach is solid as always but again as I mentioned, I knew nothing of the books or original film and was pretty non-plussed by the whole thing. Very solid movie but nothing great. Also- what was the point of that Jonathan Glazer opening credits sequence?

  15. Krillian says:

    Haven’t seen it yet, but if they’re cutting out the detail of Blomkvist having been there as a boy, I’d be confused too how he’s going to figure out the Anita/Harriet twist.

  16. waterbucket says:

    The book was so unsatisfying and essentially a mess for the last third. Hopefully, this movie will be better but I don’t know how if they’re not drastically changing the plot to make it a little more coherent.

  17. LexG says:

    can somebody answer my questions please thanks

    HOW DID CRAIG FIGURE OUT THE ANITA TWIST????

    And how did NO RELATIVES (WHO ALL KNEW EXACTLY WHERE SHE WORKED!) stop by in two decades? How did that bitchy aunt not notice that it was the other chick?

    Between the blown plot points and the ENYA MUSIC, I’m almost thinking Fincher was just fucking with everybody on this one… And YES I get that “THE PLOT IS A MCGUFFIN,” but if there are plot points THAT ARE UNCLEAR, it is impossible to 100% enjoy the other good stuff, because you’re always fixating on the details. THE MIND IS PROCESSING AT EVERY SECOND, and any time a DETAIL IS NOT CLEAR, it fogs the brain from even paying attention to the remainder of the movie.

    Then you have to go back to the FILM THEATER the next day like a jerkoff and pay another 13 bucks to see it again so you get everything 100% straight.

  18. Mike says:

    From the book, I always assumed the mystery was a McGuffin so he could have the journalist/author-stand-in write a damning and weirdly best-selling book about Swedish accounting practices. But I hated the book and zoned out for about the back half.

  19. anghus says:

    It was ok. The first hour was rough. Two unconnected narratives bouncing back and forth every two minutes. It took an hour for the movie to get a rhythm going. I bet a lot of people check out mentally well before lisbeth and mikhail meet.

    Big casting mistakes. Did anyone not know who did it the minute a certain actor shows up on screen? And I haven’t read the book or seen the swedish version.

    Craig and Mara are great. The mystery and subplots are happenstance. Fincher pulled a Return of the King and delivered 4 endings. None were satisfying. The second one with Harriet returning would have been far more tidy. Alas they had to set up a sequel.

    The credit sequence was embarrassingly bad. Like an emo bond movie.

    Oh. Just thought of something. In the opening of the movie you have pressed flowers being mailed and unless I missed it they never explained why. My wife had read the book and she filled me in but I don’t remember it being addressed in the movie. That’s kind of a huge plot hole that is never addressed.

  20. Don R. Lewis says:

    Great points about the flowers and the general lack of closure on any of the storylines, anghus. I was annoyed that the twist that lands Mikael in that horse collar thing was never previously shown. I mean, I’m not some blood thirsty freak who wants to see EXACTLY what the baddie did to the girls but without introducing that contraption early on or something, the suspense of it is lessened. He’s strung up and there’s power tools in the background. Oooooh….scary.

  21. Hallick says:

    Holy crap, if the spoiler space discussion on every other website is going this well, this poor movie’s got NEGATIVE-ZERO-POINT-ZERO-ZERO (don’t math nerd me now, it’s a made up number) chance at getting an award for anything.

  22. gooddog says:

    Lex –

    Here’s how he knows:

    Blomkvist knows that Anita was the closest person to Harriet. When Martin admits to killing all those women but not Harriet, he starts thinking that maybe Harriet got off the island alive. So, to find her, he has Lisbeth and her two hacker buddies go to London with him. They rig up a device that gives them access to Anita’s computer and phone. Then when Anita comes home, Blomkvist goes and tells her that Martin is dead. Because they have figured out that Harriet had figured out what Martin was doing, they believe that Anita will now email or call Harriet and tell her there is nothing to worry about anymore. But Anita does not call anyone or email anyone. She goes online shopping and plays Solitaire. They cant figure out why she doesnt call Harriet. Then it occurs to Blomkvist that possibly the reason she doesn’t contact Harriet is that she is Harriet. Is that clear? I could probably explain it in more detail if you want. It is crystal clear to me.

  23. cadavra says:

    “Maybe dead cats is a new movie trend, between this and The Future…”

    Don’t forget STRAW DOGS (both versions).

    Also: If we’re comparing Lisbeths, Rapace is still fucking gorgeous, whereas Mara looks like she wandered in off the set of a Rob Zombie movie.

  24. LexG says:

    Mara is the hottest woman of ALL TIME, EVER, EVER EVER as Lisbeth.

    Gooddog, I… get that, but HOW DOES HE MAKE THAT LEAP? Anita goes dicking around on HSN and Blomkvist automatically assumes she’s the missing Harriet?

    I think the Swedish movie made a bigger deal about the visual similarity between the two, which doesn’t come up here til literally in the flashback.

  25. PastePotPete says:

    I thought it was funny Anita/Harriet is apparently the most boring person alive. She goes home and spends hours looking at gold chains and playing computer solitaire?

  26. anghus says:

    Does anyone think this movie is awards worthy?

    Its an average thriller saved by two good actors.

  27. actionman says:

    nobody can answer my question, huh…?

  28. movieman says:

    Fincher is truly a master filmmaker, and “Dragon Tattoo 2.0” totally lived up to my expectations.
    My only caveat is that it (inevitably) lacks a certain (propulsive narrative) urgency if you’re familiar with the material, and know how it all turns out in the end.

  29. jake_gittes says:

    Actionman: In the Swedish version, Lisbeth walks into the bedroom and places her backpack on a chair near the bed; all before the rape. The shot is held for maybe one second, possibly less, and then a reverse to her with the lawyer coming up behind her. No other shot of the backpack in the scene. After she walks back to her apartment she then unpacks the camera from her backpack.

  30. Don R. Lewis says:

    The only award this film is getting nommed for is score….maybe. And that might just be residual from last years win. I was underwhelmed by the whole affair.

  31. LexG says:

    ROONEY for Best Actress.

    Also should handily win Best Giving Lex a Boner, 2011.

    I mean, were you guys NOT SEEING HER? Hottest woman EVER. And how about when she’s in the BLONDE WIG at the end, and when she’d do her makeup and they showed her in her lingerie with her FETCHING short hair matted down?

    So hot. Ultimate woman.

  32. actionman says:

    Thanks, Jake! So Fincher fucked that up. That’s my only complaint about the flick to be honest.

  33. cadavra says:

    I think it’ll get nommed for Score, Adapted Screenplay (they love Zaillian, and with good reason) and possibly Art Direction. Mara would be a sure thing in a less competitive year, but I still wouldn’t count her out.

  34. PastePotPete says:

    Anghus, no I don’t think it’s awards worthy, other than possibly Rooney Mara. Noomi Rapace was good but she benefited a great deal from the fact that I’d never seen her in anything else. Now that I have, Rapace’s performance seems more actorly. Mara’s performance was a complete transformation from her other roles.

    The problem with this movie is the same as the Swedish version: the source material is shit, and the filmmakers slavish devotion to it sunk the possibility of making a really good movie. I realize there’s parts of the novel that were cut out, but just watching the movies you can see it was not enough.

    In both films the time it takes to get the two leads in the same room is torturous – both films improve a great deal after that point. Both films have far too much screentime devoted to the research, and both continue far beyond the climax of the story. Fincher’s version truncates that ending a bit, but it’s still too much. It’s not interesting that she escaped, or at least it’s not any more interesting than the idea her brother killed her. And the crooked Swedish businessman stuff was not interesting in either film.

  35. anghus says:

    I saw the movie with my 65 year old father and wife who both had read the book. They both liked the movie but didnt love it.

    They told me the book has a lot more early on about lisbeth researching mikhail and becoming curious about him which helps foster the eventual attraction. I couldn’t figure out why they wouldn’t have gone that route in the movie rather than make her investigation into him another routine glossed over tidbit

  36. Don R. Lewis says:

    That’s another irksome thing about the movie. In most “2 characters who are not alike at all are thrown together” type movies, the two characters fit a need the other has. In this one, Mikael needs another research person, almost like an intern and a hot chick with issues fits the bill. They don’t fill a need in one another and Mikael seems fairly disinterested in the sex so there’s not even a carnal need that gets fulfilled. Maybe the book background and eladup points out what each of them need but here it’s “to solve a crime.” Lame.

    The more we talk about it, the more I hate it.

  37. Jerryishere says:

    Nonplussed means utterly perplexed and/or completely puzzled.

    The movie didn’t leave me nonplussed. Just bored.
    I’d seen it before. Even if this was a marginal improvement it was still the same movie.

  38. JKill says:

    I am in the same boat as actionman’s liked the Swedish version, loved the American version scenario. The casting, and subsequent performances, of Lisbeth and Mikal was genius, and I was impressed with how specific and Fincheresq it was, considering the well known, popular source material. As someone who had read the book and had seen the prior film, I was still in suspense, particularly during the scene late in the game where Craig is, um, suspended. I thought the whole thing rocked, and, to each his/her own, but I also thought the opening credits were among the most striking and provocative I’ve seen in years.

  39. Joe Straatmann says:

    I caught this earlier today and it is pretty much a better and more complete adaptation than the Swedish version. It’s hard to say how much the mystery elements worked or didn’t work after reading the book and seeing the Swedish version, but I felt the Swedish version montaged through the middle hour and we never really get to meet anyone outside the essential characters, so of course the insane one pops of nowhere. It could be anyone if we don’t really get to know anyone. This one has the opposite problem in that we get to hang out with Martin a little too much while the little appearances of the rest of the family scream red herring. But again, this is seen by someone who already knows all the secrets (Except changing the Anita/Harriet detail, which I agree is a little weird, but with this shitty family, I can buy it).

    The movie is extremely well made, well acted (Plummer might’ve been up for supporting if he didn’t sort of disappear after the first 15 minutes), the Reznor/Ross score is excellent, and for a story I’ve already experienced twice, to have a 150-minute movie where I didn’t check my watch once is impressive.

    Don R. Lewis, to kind of address this, Lisbeth was the one showing interest in Mikael and while Mikael didn’t seem interested, they sort of restore Mikael’s character trait from the book that he finds his way into women’s bed and while he’s not really being a predator about it, he doesn’t really resist when the moment arises, but they also cut the detail from the book that he fucks Cecilia, so thats not made entirely clear. I imagine there’s a lot about Mikael for Lisbeth to admire before he breaks her heart, and since a lot of Lisbeth is dealt with non-verbally cues and she’s not outspoken unless she has to be, the the clues that she’s interested if they are there are very very subtle.

  40. palmtree says:

    The two big plot twists (that Martin is a killer and that Harriet is Anita) could be seen a mile away. When they were revealed, there was a feeling of disappointment. Not having seen the original film or read the books, the most surprising parts were the two rape scenes and just how graphic they were. Nothing else really fulfilled the sense of dread that Fincher created.

  41. Krillian says:

    I’d like to see a 190-minutes cut of Fincher’s film to be honest. My only complaint were the elements he had to touch on then get to the next plot point.

    Although it was a little less obvious in the Swedish version the killer was Martin. In this one, you didn’t see enough of anyone else to possibly suspect them.

  42. Paul D/Stella says:

    The big plot twists were definitely predictable. I also didn’t care for the last 10 minutes. It felt over when Harriet embraced Henrik. I was halfway out of my seat. Everything after that felt very tacked on. And this is related to the aforementioned predictability, but at times it’s a little bit too much like a late ’90s Paramount thriller starring Ashley Judd and/or Morgan Freeman. The killer talks and talks, explains himself, does everything but kill the person so that the potential victim can be rescued.

    All that said, I still really enjoyed it. Fincher is such a good director, I was pretty riveted from start to Harriet and Henrik’s reunion. Craig is good, I always love seeing Plummer and Skarsgard, and Mara is remarkable. I loved the character and her performance. The music is excellent. It looks great. Overall I liked it a lot. B+.

  43. Krillian says:

    The last ten minutes are what they are, but they’re necessary for the second movie. Which now probably won’t happen.

  44. JKill says:

    I wouldn’t count the sequels out yet. I think it has a significant chance of building WOM over the next weeks, and it should clean up overseas. I thought it would be doing better, but for a nearly three hours long, hard-R, dark dramatic thriller, it is certainly not doing badly. If you look at the movies above it on the chart, they are all four-quadrant or family films. Since DRAGON goes older, the audience may be more inclined take their time showing up, and they may also be waiting because the material didn’t exactly scream Happy Holidays to them.

  45. Paul D/Stella says:

    Having not read the books or seen the Swedish version, I assumed the meaningfulness of the last 10 minutes would reveal itself in the next one.

  46. cadavra says:

    Except that the Swedish version doesn’t end that way.

  47. Geoff says:

    Saw this yesterday and LOVED it – I was blown away, very pleasantly surprised. I read the book and saw the Swedish cinematic version and bottom line, this was a softball thrown to Fincher that he just hits out of the park.

    The actors are all impressive – Mara was fantastic, fully inhabited the character and even though I really dug Rapace’s performance, this felt more like a real character with real emotions. The bigger suprise was Craig, especially that climax in the Skaarsgaard’s secret room…

    Casino Royale is one of the best action movies of recent years, every knows that Craig was fantastic doing Bond – highlight scene for him was when he’s getting tortured and is positively defiant about it. In that context, he was even more convincing convincing being freaked out by Skaarsgaard in that climax – Orinoco Flow, what a great choice, too!

    The movie just flew – yeah, some of the last 15 minutes felt a little tacked on and some of the latter plot twists and turns stretch a bit:

    Come on, Martin would take Blomkist down to his secret room that he has been raping and murdering victims for decades and he leaves EVERY fucking door open?! Yeah, it kind of happens that way in the book from what I remember, but it would have added a world of credibility if maybe Lisbeth had to hack through the codes for one door.

    The score was fantastic – Rezor and Ross helped Fincher deliver something that I thought was pretty impossible for this story, considering the subject matter: warmth. Seriously, this is why Fincher was the guy to pull this off. After Seven and Zodiac, he has done this type of content with all the requisite creepiness and coldness. Most other directors (looking at you, Ratner – though not fair to put Fincher in even the same ballpark as him) would have dwelled on the details and sensationalized them with bombastic music notes and close-ups of retinas, whatever……Fincher is comfortable enough with the material that he shows just enough without wallowing in it. That first rape scene – not to say I enjoyed it, but what a brilliant stroke replacing most of the score with a carpet cleaner in the background. Gave it just the right amount of dread, without going over-the-top.

    Really, I was genuinely surprised by how much warmth Fincher brought to this movie – it had a lot more than Benjamin Button, for sure. Not just the two main characters, but Plummer, Wright Plenn, Joely Richardson – how many movies of this type can you think of when you actually LIKE so many of the characters?

    Dug the little shout-out to NIN, hard not to chuckle at that. The photography was gorgeous, opening credit sequence REALLY rang of Bond (especially when you see Craig’s face morphing into other images) but still works, and the accents were just convincing enough to not distract.

    One of the best films of the year, no doubt. David talked about this a few months ago as having the potential to pull off what Coppola did with Puzo’s original Godfather novel, which was pulp as most forget. Not quite that level, but still a prime example of a master filmmaker elevating solid source material into a fantastic movie. I would compare this with what Sydney Pollack pulled off with The Firm – gave a cliched story written in paint-by-numbers prose and classed it the fuck up with a slambang cast and attention to detail in the writing and presentation that makes it really crackle.

    (All the talk about Cruise on these blogs lately, how come no one mentions that one? I would put it among his top three films!)

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon