Slant Magazine

If you didn't like the book why did you even go to the flick let alone do the review?

"...Dragon Tattoo, in all its incarnations, is really nothing more than the story of girls running to and from their daddies..."

I can't say that I, or anyone I know, has ever interpreted Dragon Tattoo in such a fashion. And to call Lisbeth a "banal stock [character]" when she's a character that has taken the world by storm is frankly mind-boggling.

I'm excited to hear that despite the general slant (no pun intended) of the review, you were pleased with Rooney Mara's performance. However, I cannot help but think that your opinion of the source material has prevented you from providing us with a review that has much, if any objectivity whatsoever.

I understand that film reviews are inherently subjective, but you should be judging the film on its merits, not in accordance with your bias against the novel. If Zaillian's script improved on something you did not care for, as you seem to indicate, why not focus on that rather than the flaws inherent in Larssen's novel?

DL, I don't see anywhere in the review where Ed "indicates" that Zaillian improved the story.

I liked the film a lot more than Ed, but the script is pretty weak sauce. "Those are bible codes!" etc. To me, Fincher made the best possible film out of the material, which itself is both sensational AND dull at the same time. But dialogue is a thing, stupid character choices are to be reckoned with, as are stock characters.

As to "taken the world by storm," you really want to go there?

The original film, watchable as it was, somehow, made me dislike the book. (Did they really have to be Nazis to be psychos?) Lazy and tedious but morbid enough to be faintly interesting, (thanks to the Lisbeth character). I think Mr. Christley above is right when he points out that the material itself is, simultaneously, 'sensational and dull'—not to mention fascinating and crude.

DL, outside of accurately conveying narrative & character details, exactly what form of objectivity do you hope to glean from a film review?

Also, how does mass popularity automatically negate charges of banality?

That's right, if mass popularity could negate charges of banality, then The Twilight saga would come off as the best artistic work of the 21st century. Anyway, no matter how much I enjoy reading Ed's reviews, I genuinely believe Fincher's take on Tattoo would be a much improved one than Oplev's. I did not like the Swedish version much and have my hopes high on Fincher's (the film, in my country, hasn't released yet). Thanks, Ed, for a wonderful review anyway.

Though I was very late to the Larsson circus, and very dismissive until I got there, I bought into the caffeinated Millennium glop, even though I intentionally read the series in reverse. To each her own: I can live with the disciples and the dismissives. My only quibble with the review (I'll be in line Wednesday for the opening here in the boonies) is the Blomkvist as Sherlock / Salander as Watson (your Downeys are showing) comparison. In my caffeinated Swedophile mind, Blomkvist is Watson to Lisbeth's Holmes.

"(Fincher doesn't even bother flashbacking to Lisbeth's horrible burning of her father, and he films the climax so anti-climactically that it practically becomes anti-matter.)" To show your arrogant ignorance, you have referenced a scene from the second book in the trilogy, "The Girl Who Played With Fire." Get it, dip shit?

"One could more successfully argue that the original title is a self-diagnosis by Larrson, a self-professed feminist, as every aspect of Lisbeth's behavior, from her almost autistic withdrawal from the world to her libertine sexual appetites, seem sprung from the imagination of a misogynist, or at least someone with a rather rudimentary, Psych-101 understanding of victimhood." Had you any real understanding of the character Larrson created in Salander, you would have realized that she was certainly not autistic at all. And, especially not toward from the whole world, only psychiatrists and police officers. It's all in the book, which I wonder if you really read. Harriet didn't "used to draw plants", she did so each and every year, that's how the book opened.

I love it when self-important critics like you slam a film only to see said film become a huge blockbuster at the box office. Perhaps it is you who is out of step with the real world. I think the t-shirt is meant for you!

@Sallier - Ed actually gives viable reasons for disliking the book. If he had just said he disliked the book and gave no real reason, that would be one thing. But he clearly states that the book is, in his view, misogyny masked as feminism, and then relates that to his view of the film. That is the type of valuable criticism this website engages in; you don't have to agree with it, but it makes for much more thoughtful and interesting reading than sites like Entertainment Weekly, who skim the surface of a film and package their review for a dumbed-down public. Not trying to come off as "elitist" here, that is just how I see it.

@abeetung - I am not sure about the first book, but in the first film I almost certainly remember a flashback scene that shows Lisbeth, as a child, burning her father in a car. Maybe that is what Ed was referring to in his review? And "dip shit," really? What are you, 12?

Not to get postmodern, but by calling the reviewer "self-important,' abeetung, you yourself sound arrogant. I'm not sure if you've ever taken a college journalism course—I have—but Ed follows most of the general "rules" for journalism. The "subjectivity" you bitch about is called evaluation, and Mr. Mainstream himself, Roger Ebert, does it in every review. They gave him a Pulitzer for it. And Rd referring to Fincher not showing a flashback to burning her father is pointing out the flaw in the film's narrative; she very briefly mentions burning 80% of her father, hence her being sent away. This is the only mention of it, and a flashback would have helped those who haven't read the book.

And those who keep complaining that a reviewer shouldn't base his/her opinion on the previous movie or the book: that's impossible. It's called New Criticism and it's not possible because we judge everything based on context and previous knowledge. The inherent flaw in art is how everyone reads it differently, though some can misread art (i.e. claiming the movie to be pro-Nazi would be a misreading, I'd say). The story of the novel is shit and the writing in the movie wasn't Zaillon's best (nor his worst, ass Hannibal will attest), but Fincher created an austere atmosphere and the performances were apt. Craig's subtly and quietness was a perfect contrast to Lizbeth. If both were very eccentric, Lizbeth would have lost that obscure quality.

And telling a critic they're out of touch with "the real world" is just stupid. Like, really, really stupid, as well as a logical fallacy. I don't know what world you proclaim them to inhabit, but not liking a movie that makes a lot of money doesn't make someone out of touch with reality. Loads of people hate Titanic, and it was the highest grossing movie ever.

In conclusion, you're an idiot.

As far as I remember, the original film does have a flashback of a young Salander throwing a burning (something) in her father's car.

I would like to comment about your accusations of misogyny. People often don't write books to entertain others or to make money. For some, writing is a coping mechanism.

As a teenager, the author was a witness to a gang rape and failed to intervene. When he asked the victim for forgiveness she refused. The victim's name was Lisbeth. The character of Lisbeth shares many attitudes and behaviors in common with the author. It's not so much that the book reflects how actual victims feel and respond. Even the author never claimed that. The book reflects how Larsson felt. The character of Lisbeth is an embodiment of his desire for revenge and his self hatred.

@bandwagon - The original film does have a flashback of Lisbeth torching her father's car but the book doesn't, it's only mentioned in the second book and was one of many things altered in the original film that spoiled the essence of the book for me and am looking forward to seeing what Fincher does with it.

@larome- I don't if it destroyed the essence of the book but I remember thinking it as unnecessary. (Un?)fortunately I am not a fan of either film so I don't care.