Oh please, be very afraid of the evil killer (insert animal word here)! I like wolves, and think I'll give this one a miss.
If you stop going to bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies.
Where are the MUPPETS?
Using the Japanese tragedy as a lead-in to "what a horrible year in film!" is crass and tasteless.
Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion. The "critics" are entitled to theirs and the public is entitled to think certain critics are sometimes snobs, wrong, and self serving.
The "cool" in Lisbeth is too shallow, and that the United States version thinks that as long as she has some cool dragon tattoo and a punk makeup, reveals a point of pale sickly, fragile physique to wear a small a hoodie, coupled with sharp eyes, then people will be very happy to see this movie. This Lisbeth is far away from the one in the book. The U.S. version Completely eliminate the need for Lisbeth's life experience and arson in that period, perhaps for a sequel considerations. The result is that the audience might feel her behavior is strange, and can not fully understand what a person she is in the end. The end of time, the U.S. version of Lisbeth turned to Blomkvist comments and asked if she could kill Martin, this is unthinkable. Original roll in the face after Lisbeth Martin have some inner struggle, seeing the car going to explode, Martin desperately to help her, she ultimately no action, then Blomkvist to her, she also admitted that she did not kill him when Blomkvist asked, and she said the truth is the she did not save him. The U.S. version did not give Martin the opportunity and Lisbeth did not have the time to consider, almost when she finished and the car exploded. The details of the characterization of human nature weakened the intensity, thus reducing the depth of the film.
In conclusion, the U.S. version has a fancy titles, the music, images, atmosphere is very good, the actors are more beautiful type, as a commercial film to film and entertainment is still very successful. But if you like a true story movie, and also care about the film's narrative, rhythm, structure, characterization as well, then the original is definitely more suitable for you.
I liked them both the original and this remake but thats cos i think of them as different movies. I liked both female leads and whilst i am a fan of Daniel Craig, found him rather distracting playing role of middle aged journo whilst trying not to get sidetracked by his excellent physique and his swagger (which i love) which he just cannot lose tho sure he tried:) Do agree that it would have played better if they had just set the story in America - it wouldn't have detracted from it and probably would have helped. I would give the remake a 7 out of 10 for its own reasons. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. Surely there is no need to run down someone else's if its different from yours. Isn't this what these forums are for.
The only thing that "flopped" was your review. Better luck in the future (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - $80M and counting). Looking forward to the next movie.
I've read the books, watched the swedish version, and have watched this version. There really is no comparison, this version was vastly superior to the swedish version. I watch subtitled movies, Pan's labyrinth being the best in recent history in my mind. The talent of Fincher, the actors, the look of the story fit so much better than the seeminly made for t.v. production of the swedish version. I for one prefer Mara over rapace as well, I think she fit the character more. Same goes for Craig who I felt was perfect for the role. You are just a snob who always claims 'the original" is better for the sake of seeming cool. let me ask you this, if you've read the book, did you read it in swedish? Did you picture the characters speaking swedish with a subtitle at the bottom? I think not, this is a good movie.
The original is better and rapace was a better actress in the role i to read the novels when they first came out and in my interpretation rapace's character nailed it.
I agree with the review a waste of time you can even watch the original with an english dub if your that put out by the subtitles.
Why on earth did steve zallian get a writers credit for something thats been scripted before and copied almost identical to the original with the exception of a couple of scenes?.
I found it very refreshing to watch a comedy that starred a woman. I don't recommend this movie for guys. that is all
I disagree. I thought this film was excellent, and I'm a fan of the book, first and foremost. I've admittedly never seen the Swedish version (I do plan on watching it soon), but from what I understand, Mara and Rapace had different takes on the character of Lisbeth Salander. That, to me, flies in the face of your argument that "this is essentially the same movie with performers speaking English rather than Swedish." I thought Mara was excellent, portraying a quiet pain and anger. She was very much like the Salander I imagined when reading the novel. Fincher's direction is also noticeable in creating a moody, dark atmosphere.
I actually wrote a pretty in-depth review of this film. Check it out here:
Wrong. This is actually better than the Swedish version, it is however, darker and the 'major' sex scene is more violent. Mara did an excellent job in the role.
Tucson Weekly/Bob, you had me @ Colbert & Elf. We share the same taste. I like that. A Merry Christmas, Channukah, Kwanzi & all others a happy holiday season.
I sure wish I could stand to even hear one bit of that movie 'It's a Wonderful Life'. It has to be the most overrated and and one of the most annoying movies EVER. BUT, I respect others' rights to enjoy whatever. AND, I do like others listed here. "-)
Here's a correction: the last time Almodovar and Banderas collaborated was 1990's NC-17-rated, internationally acclaimed "Tie Me up! Tie Me Down!". It co-stars one of the most beautiful women on the planet, Victoria Abril, and contains one of the damndest sex scenes ever put to film. This one's definitely a quirky standout in Almodovar's canon.
Matthew E. Johnson
The point of the review is that this documentary does examine something very important in a whole new way. It teaches that archival film needs scrutiny and should not have been taken at face value all these decades. In short, those who witnessed and spoke of the Nazi fraud and manipulation involved should have been believed and were proven right. Also, now that the witnesses are or will be totally gone, historians need to be aware that the Nazis were master manipulators, as well as butchers and bigots of the first order.
This only reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode - and the versions where you have down-and-outers pretending to be robots does even more so. Check it out -- I believe it starred Jack Klugman -- before you spend too much time on your treatment.
This is a terrible review and you are a terrible reviewer. The fact that you looked at the dancing scene so superficially and were only able to compare it to a car commercial shows you completely missed most of what was happening in the movie. Charlie clearly uses that suggestion to help bond with Max and explain how the boxing industry works, how Max's personality can be celebrated in "show" portion of boxing. This directly helps to bridge the divide between them and bring them closer together. This was clearly completely lost on you.
I dont know who hired you to review movies, but they should seriously reconsider their decision after a review like this. Learn how to watch movies before you write about them.
My thoughts are that you're a moron; and rotten tomatoes has gone downhill with most movie ratings being opposite. Real Steel hd great believable characters with realistic portrayals if what and how robots could be integrated into the world, a solid plot development with a feel good good guys win bad guys lose ending really just made this the best movie in theaters right now.
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
P.O. Box 27087, Tucson AZ 85726-7087 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation