For MikeB, I assert that while it is relevant to the effort as a whole how closely or competently adapted the movie is, or the quality of the book itself, the real emphasis in a movie review is how the movie stands on its own as a movie. Often reading the book is informative as to what the movie might have intended or how it failed; sometimes it proves the brilliance of the adapters. Two examples come to mind: "Carrie" was a fairly short novel that was more than anything else of hint of what Stephen King was later able to do, but the movie version realizes the story and character much better. And if you liked the movie "Cocoon", stay far away from the book upon which it was sort of based; it was awful.
That said, and as a sort-of disclaimer: having read the first four "Game of Thrones" books, all three "Dragon Tattoo" books, and the first "Hunger Games" book, I look forward to watching for the first time season 1 of "Game of Thrones" and "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", and will see "Hunger Games" when it comes out on premium cable. (After I read the books I then also watched the Swedish Dragon Tattoo trilogy; the American version will be an interesting comparison.) But I stand by my original assertion that a movie review should evaluate the movie primarily as such, independent of the source material or stories surrounding the making of the movie.
This might not matter as far as your film review goes, but the outfits as portrayed in the movie pretty much match the descriptions in the book. Clown-like and ridiculous. This review feels like it is from someone who never read the books, and I think the movie was designed for people who had.
"this is the first time a Dr. Seuss movie is less scandalous than the book itself" == whaaa???
I am trying to think of a Dr. Seuss movie that is scandalous.... Were you thinking instead of Henry Miller?
I think some critics are afraid to say oscar nominated people can do wrong. This movie is not the best of Bill Condon just like some oscar nominated actors and actressess are mediocre at best in spite of their oscar nods. Salma Hayek, Halle Berry, Jennifer Lawrence tend to give terrible performances but sometimes critics don't want to say so since these actresses carry their oscar nominated status wherever they go. And it's the same with directors. This movie proves that bill condo abilities are overrated. Even Chriz weiz made a better job with this crappy saga.
So's I'm watchin' the latest flick from Katie Heigl. Lemme tell ya, that dame's eyes are too far apart. Can't trust a fish-facey mug like that, though I'd still bone her. Who wouldn't?
See, the problem with that Katie Hi-girl is her movies are always mounds of turdage. Katie took a dump on her "Gray's Proctology" gig. Then she's in "Knackered Up" and what the fock does the bizzatch do in an interview? Drops a loaf on Judd Appachow, calling his sh*t "sexist." So yeah, Katie's a real ballbuster.
Anyhoo, here's Katie's new slab of sh*it-ema, "One for the Monkey." She plays a bail-bondsman, kinda when Ma'am Grier was in "Jockey Brown" playing opposite Robert Forskin. Lil' Katie Hi-Girl ain't as bitchin' as Grier and there sure as shag ain't no Quentin Tarantoenail at the helm. No way, this is a jive-ass production of the likes not seen since the last time Cameron Diaz threw a bulimiac slumber party. Talk about ho-bags in sleeping-bags.
I'm all up in the front row of the theater and my rear shanks get to itchin'. That's how I know this movie sucks rectal tunnel like a meth hooker on a silly straw. Speaking of the oldest profession, "One (Handjob) for the Money" has a character who is a hooker with a blood-pumper of precious metal, or "heart of gold" as the confused leprechauns say. She will even turn (verbal) tricks in exchange for Eegee's sandwiches. No word on her policy toward Eegee's jizzy fries.
"Eve Plumb for the Money" is the worst toilet-load of accumulated excrement I've ever seen outside of the Reese Withered-poon films they showed me when I was strapped down and my eyes clamped open for reprogramming. Real whorer-show.
This movie is like a drunken polar bear on roller skates who has taken LSD and is pirouetting with vomit spraying out of its mouth which is soaked with blood from the campers it mauled who had really bad B.O. and the polar bear has an ear infection and a bad case of fleas and he falls through the ice and dies and that's some tragic shiat, yo.
"all of her other starring vehicles blew ass"
"didn't have a hand in the writing of this crap"
"I guess Betty White wasn't available—or perhaps she thought the script was a piece of shit."
"even though he's a total dick."
"the stud who shows Stephanie the ropes and saves her ass multiple times"
"Jersey should be pissed."
That's six -- count 'em, six -- references to feces, urine, buttocks, and genitalia. Thanks for the creativity, Grimm.
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:
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation