About that Girl with the Dragon tattoo remake (SPOILERS)

[Thanas]

Currently watching it on DVD.

A few random thoughts of mine:
- Compared to the 2009 swedish version, this one has clearly the bigger budget. Yet it does not feel like it as most of the money seems to have been wasted on interior decoration and multiple sets of banks. I miss the shots of the swedish landscape.
- the actors pretty much fall flat compared to the swedish versions. Nyquist is better cast than Craig, Plummer is a worse Henrik Vanger etc.
- The US version has some huge fear of male genitalia which the swedish version does not. OTOH, the US version seems to be obsessed with Lisbeth nipple's piercings. As a result, nudity in the swedish version is credible and natural, nudity in the US version seems both prude and pornographic.
- The way Lisbeth and Mikhael are meeting each other is far superior in the swedish version.
- Likewise, I liked the swedish version of them investigating the murders together far better than the US version where it is just her going off. One does not feel the impact in the US version.
- The US reveal of Martin sucks. As does his death.
- "May I kill him?" WTF?
- I guess it would not be a US movie if we did not have at least three shots of Gun Porn.
- The two actresses playing Harriet were perfect, the one playing the older version was much better than the swedish one.
- The ending, while faithful to the book, was a bit of a drag.

Overall, the swedish version draws you more into it. The setup is slower and you feel as if you are getting drawn into a very deep and rich story. The US version is more in your face about it. A classic scene would be the start where Henrik receives the flowers. Just compare the two and you know what I mean. The swedish scene by not explaining anything intrigues you. The US scene has a telephone conversation and only focuses on the flower at the end.

Rooney Mara does a decent job but she nowhere near reaches Noomi Rapace. Her desperation and emotional acting is not as good, nor does she possess the same piercing stare. For whatever reason, a lot of scenes feel sanitized to me. Despite showing the injuries she sustains in the attacks - something the Swedish version does not do as bad as it works more through Rapace's acting to confirm the extent of them. The extreme closeups of the swedish version are more jarring.
Also, the scene where she plays back the rape tape to the guy. In the US version, she mutes it and proceeds with the stuff. In the swedish version she does not mute it and we get closeups of her face while the screaming goes on. The dildo stuff is pretty bad in the US version. Mara just lacks the ferocity Rapace has in that scene. Her "I am insane. Nod." was just pathetic.

But the worst part is the soundtrack. Deer god, whoever thought it to be a good idea to have suddenly electronic beats underlying the investigation scenes? Or why does every dramatic scene have to torment my eardrums with "LOOK THIS IS DRAMATIC" sounds? Nor do I want or need electronic VROOM VROOM sounds when Mikhael is shot at.

That aside, this is a pretty good movie. If I had viewed it on its own, maybe I would have been more impressed.

[Lord Revan]

while I cannot comment on the movies themselves (as I've not seen either of them), would saying that the swedish version was more in tune with the characters and setting be a fair summary of your opinion?

[Thanas]

As to the characters, I cannot really say that for sure. The US movie does keep a lot of ancillary scenes the swedes cut for the sake of a tighter story and focusing on the three mysteries of the storyline (1.What happened with Harriet, 2.what is up with Lisbeth/her past and 3. what do the bible murders have to do with the overall story). The US movie also does keep the original ending of the first book, whereas the swedish version deals with it in the sequels, again for the sake of a better and tighter story. I would say that the first swedish movie of the trilogy they made is a better standalone film based on that, this one is too geared up for sequels etc.

I would say that based on my personal opinion the swedish actors look the part better and act better. The swedish movie takes more risks and made me at some point almost physically ill, the US movie failed to do any of that. A lot felt sanitized. So to me the performances feel more real and more natural in the swedish version, but that may be just because Daniel Craig is miscast IMO.

As to the setting, definitely. The Swedish movie feels more swedish, has better location shots etc.

[JLTucker]

I hate comparing "remakes" and originals, so I won't. I will say that the remake is phenomenal filmmaking in every respect. I am on a tablet, so the only efficient way to give a brief look into my thoughts is to sin and paste what I wrote when it came out. When I get home I'll comment on Reznor's creepy and fantastic score.

David Fincher’s ninth feature film sees him directing a second adaptation of the literary phenomenon, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, scribed by author Stieg Larsson. What started with his films Se7en and Zodiac is continued with another take on the procedural genre. Dragon Tattoo, however, fits more closely with the latter as it too features an investigative journalist driven by personal and emotional desires to solve a case. Mikael Blomkvist, having lost credibility due to being convicted of libel, is called upon by an older gentleman plagued by a relative’s untimely death. The request is simple: Blomkvist is to discover the murderer and reap the reward that will be bestowed upon him. Lisbeth Salander, the identity of the woman the film’s title refers to, goes about her daily routines to survive and is eventually thrust into the chaotic investigative world Blomkvist operates best in.

Dragon Tattoo is perhaps Fincher’s most brutal film, in terms of the violence and the subject matter. His work is usually riddled with cynicism and how the world revolves around the meaning of that term. That is still the case here, but it’s taken to another level. As the original Swedish title of the novel suggests, there are men who really do hate women. This point is hammered into the audience very bluntly; there is no room for subtlety.

Lisbeth Salander is contrasted with the life of Blomkvist. While he attempts to rebuild his life and reputation, hers continues to decline as she suffers a personal tragedy with a relative that leads to a spiral of emotional and physical destruction. This contrast between Blomkvist and Salander is where the film shines the brightest. The investigation, while highly entertaining and intriguing, is second to the character work. We feel the pain both protagonists endure as they go about their routines before they eventually come together to solve the mystery of Harriet Vanger’s unfortunate demise.

The methodical nature of the film is on point. This is shown through the investigative techniques employed by our heroes. What’s marvelous about the investigation is that we, as the audience, aren’t the only ones scrambling to keep up with plethora of names that play a role in the mystery. Blomkvist himself is taken aback by what he has to keep up with. Even the camerawork is used as an indicator of the laborious process in the investigation: the slow, fluid movement of a drive up to a mansion; the panning to a character reading copious amounts of paperwork; even close-ups on computers when new information is discovered. That’s what makes Fincher’s work in this genre brilliant: he utilizes everything to make the journey every bit as exhausting for his audience as he does for the characters.

An interesting thing to note about Dragon Tattoo is that it does prompt ethical and moral questions regarding Lisbeth’s actions against her predator. Was she morally justified in reciprocating what he did to her? I have discussed this with a few friends and while they say yes, I argue the opposite. I don’t see her actions as justified in any way. She has video evidence of her rape and she could hand it over to the authorities, (spoiler for the final Swedish film) as they see during her trial in the conclusion to the Swedish series. Eye for an eye is not a good morality system to hold and I dare say it’s quite sadistic. I recall members of my previous school’s political club saying rapists should be raped in prison. Murderers should be murdered (arguably they already are, but you know what I’m saying).

edit: I can discuss it in more detail on the weekend if you don't mind waiting, Thanas. I've never been this busy with school.

[JLTucker]

What I'm curious about is why you felt the need to base your opinions on how it compared to the Swedish adaptation, Thanas. Why not judge Fincher's adaptation on its own merits?

[Thanas]

What I'm curious about is why you felt the need to base your opinions on how it compared to the Swedish adaptation, Thanas. Why not judge Fincher's adaptation on its own merits?

Because everything the remake does is worse than the original (except for casting a better Harriet), even in the scenes where they try to copy the style of the original adaptation.

For example, what you find so great - the laborious investigative methods, the original does far better. For one, it keeps the switcheroo that is present in the book (the chain). On another, it is more subtle. It shows, not tells. The pictures of the parade for example. The swedish one lets you look at the pictures for a good half minute and discover that she is looking at something. Fincher is all "IN YOUR FACE AND LET ME EXPLAIN IT". The swedish has a more intelligent feel to it, it does not feel the need to explain to the audience what happens. The investigative work is also much better detailed and takes far longer.

And unlike in Fincher's movie where we only see a montage in the original you see the protagonists actually travel a lot. Instead of meeting faceless police archive after archive you see them talk to actual characters and the recreation of the scenes is much better. The taxing nature of the process is shown - we see them sharing a crappy car etc.

Lisbeth's psychological healing process is also far better shown in the original. I only gotta say ketchup bottle scene for that.


On its own merits, the remake is decent. But with the budget and all the directorial and talent it accumulated it should be much much more, which it is not, largely due in part of what I feel are bad character choices. Heck, just look at the death of Martin in the original and the remake.

[Thanas]

Another thing that rubbed me the wrong way - Fincher's movie is all over the place. Meanwhile, the original is focused for the most part on this tiny little swedish island, which gives it a lot more of a swedish feel to it.

EDIT: sure, no hurry Tucker.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I agree with Thanas on pretty much all points.

There was something terribly off about the pacing of the American version, though I can't be more specific because it was a while ago that I saw it. But I remember the entire time being extremely bothered by the way the movie was progressing, and the choices to draw certain elements out and cut other elements short (I wish I could come up with an example, but again ... it's been a while). It seemed to me that the editing was all over the place, and that Fincher eschewed developing themes and motifs and character development in favor of some flashy half-decent cinematography and lots of extraneous, "OH LOOK LISBETH IS SUCH A REBEL GUYS ISN'T SHE SO CRAZY AND NOT NORMAL?!?!?!?!?!" scenes.

There is a difference between developing a character into someone compelling and interesting (as the Swedish version did) and painting a cardboard cutout of a character with weird clothes/piercings and telling people she's interesting (as Fincher did).

[Thanas]

There was something terribly off about the pacing of the American version, though I can't be more specific because it was a while ago that I saw it. But I remember the entire time being extremely bothered by the way the movie was progressing, and the choices to draw certain elements out and cut other elements short (I wish I could come up with an example, but again ... it's been a while). It seemed to me that the editing was all over the place, and that Fincher eschewed developing themes and motifs and character development in favor of some flashy half-decent cinematography and lots of extraneous, "OH LOOK LISBETH IS SUCH A REBEL GUYS ISN'T SHE SO CRAZY AND NOT NORMAL?!?!?!?!?!" scenes.

There is a difference between developing a character into someone compelling and interesting (as the Swedish version did) and painting a cardboard cutout of a character with weird clothes/piercings and telling people she's interesting (as Fincher did).

You hit on something I wanted to elaborate more on here.

Lisbeth is pretty much a stereotype in Fincher's version. Which is pretty much unforgivable. The story only works to some extent if you are interested in the characters and Lisbeth is unimpressive. She is a good hacker, drives a motorbike and is rude to people. OK, now tell me what differentiates her from dozens of other ANTISOCIAL HACKER characters?

The swedish version did this differently. They kept feeding us information bit by bit, including various dream scenes and information given to us by third parties. You were forced to guess as to her reasons why. My thought process was "had mental issues", then the rape happened etc. And then in the end they showed her father and that dialogue with her mother and all the other scenes between her and Mikhael, like them eating breakfast together, or Martin's death and the conversation afterwards etc. just had a whole new level. These two scenes in fact made me want to rewatch the movie just to interpret her scenes in that new light. The reveal did not destroy any of the intrigue surrounding her, it enhanced it.

Meanwhile, Fincher is like "Totally burned my dad LOL". That does not make you elicit sympathy or makes her any more intriguing, that makes you go "WTF?"

And you destroy a lot of the ambiguity regarding Lisbeth when you consider Martin's death scene. The US scene (which despite the use of more gore somehow makes Lisbeth look less fierce when she beats him with the club) pretty much makes it clear that Martin is beyond saving as the truck immediately goes up in flames.

Meanwhile, the swedish scene adds ambiguity. You can see her fighting with herself on wether to save him or not or you can see her watching him burn to death according to whatever interpretation you prefer. Either way, the US version once more is just "HUGE EXPLOSION LOL".

They removed nearly all of the scenes between Mikhael and Lisbeth which made them interesting, which showed her coming out of her shell and trusting a man after her rape. In the US version it is like "I guess we work together now--> Oh you got shot at, I guess we have sex now". Meanwhile, the swedish version shows a gradual process instead of them instantly falling into that buddy-cop routine.

Scenes that were totally unnecessary: The multiple bank scenes. The multiple archive scenes. THE WHOLE FREAKING TITLE SEQUENCE.

[JLTucker]

There's really no way for me to rebut these criticisms because I don't compare remakes and adaptations to the source material and other re-adaptations. I don't remember anything specific in the Swedish adaptation either to compare. I'll have to leave the discussion.

[Thanas]

There's really no way for me to rebut these criticisms because I don't compare remakes and adaptations to the source material and other re-adaptations. I don't remember anything specific in the Swedish adaptation either to compare. I'll have to leave the discussion.

Sounds a bit like a butthurt Fincher fanboy. Alright then, why don't you just respond to the specific criticisms raised here regarding the US adaptation only, like loss of focus, a miscast Craig and unnecessary scenes that do nothing to enhance the story.

Specifically:
- Lisbeth is pretty much a stereotype in Fincher's version. Which is pretty much unforgivable. The story only works to some extent if you are interested in the characters and Lisbeth is unimpressive. She is a good hacker, drives a motorbike and is rude to people. OK, now tell me what differentiates her from dozens of other ANTISOCIAL HACKER characters?
- the death of Martin lacked drama
- Scenes that were totally unnecessary: The multiple bank scenes. The multiple archive scenes. THE WHOLE FREAKING TITLE SEQUENCE.
- an overall lack of character development
- massive location switches that are unnecessary (WTF, suddenly London?)

[JLTucker]

Sounds a bit like a butthurt Fincher fanboy. Alright then, why don't you just respond to the specific criticisms raised here regarding the US adaptation only, like loss of focus, a miscast Craig and unnecessary scenes that do nothing to enhance the story.

Specifically:
- Lisbeth is pretty much a stereotype in Fincher's version. Which is pretty much unforgivable. The story only works to some extent if you are interested in the characters and Lisbeth is unimpressive. She is a good hacker, drives a motorbike and is rude to people. OK, now tell me what differentiates her from dozens of other ANTISOCIAL HACKER characters?
- the death of Martin lacked drama
- Scenes that were totally unnecessary: The multiple bank scenes. The multiple archive scenes. THE WHOLE FREAKING TITLE SEQUENCE.
- an overall lack of character development
- massive location switches that are unnecessary (WTF, suddenly London?)

It's not buthtthurt Fincher fanboyism because I think it's ill-advised to compare one version of the same story to another. I look at them on their own merits and judge accordingly. I do the same with book adaptations. I don't care about the differences in the books and that the novel did X but the movie did Y. I did this with Potter and people were appalled that I thought the additions to the story were good. I think it's better to do your best to shut out all outside forces when watching something, whether it's critic reviews, a former version of the same story, or a friend's comment.s I like going in to a movie free of all that so I can have a mostly unbiased opinion. I say mostly because things like trailers tend to stick with you. I care only about what's one screen in that version of the adaption or the story. So, I will not and cannot (I remember very little) discuss the scenes you have a problem with based solely on the fact that you think the Swedish adaptation did it better. If this is fanboy-ish behavior, well, I don't know what else to say. This should be my last post until the weekend (Friday at the earliest). Chemistry and Differential Equations are giving me a hard time and I need to devote more time to those.

I disagree with Lisbeth being unimpressive. I was captivated by Rooney Mara's performance. The character's sadistic behavior toward her predator isn't your antisocial hacker cliche. I've never seen that remotely attributed them. If it is, I'd like some examples.

The death of Martin does lack drama. It lacked drama because it was predictable from the moment he showed up on screen. The predictability didn't bother me because I found the investigative journey of Lisbeth and Mikael to be intriguing. The montage works for me because it's crafted in a manner to grab my intention. It wasn't quite as inventive and glamorous as the montage in Zodiac (the newspapers and black screen with audio throughout the years), but it still kept my attention. Also, I found Martin's entire spiel about why he did what he did while Mikael was hanging in front of him to be good. Usually those "villain explains his motive for his misdeeds" cliches rarely work, but for me it did. I think it's because of the performances from both parties. Also, the black humor with the Enya song "Orinoco Flow" made it more delicious. Black humor in a dark film is good.

The archival scenes to me, just like in Zodiac, exemplify the laborious process of investigation and of course to contrast what Mikael is doing. He's being tied up by that killer while Lisbeth is still finding out out who it is. The dramatic irony is palpable: we know what's going on while Lisbeth doesn't. The location switches are the same regarding investigation. Reporters sometimes travel to do their work.

The lack of character development is indeed a problem. I do feel that we'll get more if the other two films are made, but that's still no excuse. I also did not like the bit where Lisbeth and Mikael are having sex while still thinking about the case. It felt out of place and didn't jive with the tone set before it.

You mentioned this:

Meanwhile, Fincher is like "Totally burned my dad LOL". That does not make you elicit sympathy or makes her any more intriguing, that makes you go "WTF?"

Is that really going to make her interesting? She raped and disfigured a man, utilizing the "eye for an eye" nonsense. There's no way I'm going to like her now, with or without her back story.

[JLTucker]

I also think the entire "men hate women" theme is handled well. Lisbeth hurts her father because of things he did. She is raped. She reciprocates the rape onto her predator, along with disfigurement. She finds someone who isn't appalled at her appearance and treats her with respect. She falls for him. He didn't. Her expectations are crushed. Of course Mikael doesn't appear to hate women, but she may see it that way. She may see it as being used for her investigative skills and her sexual appeal.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I also was really bothered by pretty much everything after the death of Martin in Fincher's version, though this relates to the lack of focus Thanas mentioned. The movie was paced in such a way as to use the death of Martin as the climax, and all the events after were treated as a weird denouement montage. That entire sequence of events was very rushed, and it almost felt like Fincher thought the movie was over, but then picked up the book and said, "Shit, there's still all this other crap, isn't there? Well, fuck it, let's remove all suspense and relevance from this scenes by making it a crappy montage."

[Atlan]

The worst thing about Fincher's movie was that it was almost completely unneccesary. You can argue the various merits of the two movies, but there's no denying that the Swedish version is a perfectly good movie, made only a little while before, and does a great job of telling the story with believable actors giving great performances.

The only real reason the Fincher movie was made is because americans can't be bothered to read subtitles.

And that, frankly, is a shit reason to remake a perfectly fine movie.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I have the swedish version on box set, unfortunatly I can't seem to get it or boondock saints doulogy back from my best friends...

[JLTucker]

Sorry for not responding, Thanas. I will watch it again this weekend for a full discussion on it. While waiting, watch this video clip. It talks about the title song (seek to 3:50), which I picked up on after a second viewing.

[Elfdart]

I just saw this movie and I have mixed opinions about it. Keep in mind I have not seen the original. It was suspenseful enough until Stellan Skarsgaard went into Bond Villain mode complete with underground lair and knockout gas!


The ending... The last time I saw such a pointless addition of 20+ minutes to the end of a movie was Prince of the City, or maybe Steven Seagal's 10-minute speech in On Deadly Ground -which felt like 20 minutes.

The movie was photographed beautifully by Jeff Cronenweth, and the detective work was fascinating for a while, but overall this movie struck me as a rehash of much better films like Smilla's Sense of Snow (from which it borrowed its look and tone) and Blow-Up.

I am curious about seeing the original now, so overall this movie worked for me.

[JLTucker]

I still keep forgetting to watch this.

Elfdart, would you mind elaborating on how it's a rehash of a completely different movie unrelated to the material? What was similar to it in its tone and look? To me it has Fincher's trademark look that's stamped all over his movies. You know, the slow cynical dread.

[Thanas]

The movie was photographed beautifully by Jeff Cronenweth, and the detective work was fascinating for a while, but overall this movie struck me as a rehash of much better films like Smilla's Sense of Snow (from which it borrowed its look and tone) and Blow-Up.

I've seen those, but the movie seemed to emulate the original much more in tone and look.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I disagree with Lisbeth being unimpressive. I was captivated by Rooney Mara's performance. The character's sadistic behavior toward her predator isn't your antisocial hacker cliche. I've never seen that remotely attributed them. If it is, I'd like some examples.

Here is why comparisons between two versions of the same story can be useful--not as a direct comparison, but as a point of reference. I saw the US version first, then the swedish version. The US version left me wondering "why?". Why is Lisbeth this way? What did she do that made her a ward of the state into adulthood? Why does she view men the way she does? Why did she get revenge on her rapist in the way she did rather than going to the police? The interaction between her and Mikhael was completely buggered in the US version. It has been mentioned before, but it is worth repeating. When someone is raped--particularly as brutally as she was--women (particularly women who already have emotional issues) do not generally warm up to strange men anytime soon.

The US version does not give the impression of a large amount of time passing. It does not give a credible reason for why and how Lisbeth might come to trust him--let alone get into bed with him.

And yeah, Thanas is right about the location shots. The US version does not feel like Sweden, at least not from memory. I will need to go back and re-watch it be certain my memory is not clouded by suggestion. Stockholm is this glorious hodgepodge of modern, baroque and medieval architecture. The Stockholm shots do not feel like Stockholm--even though a lot of it was shot in the city. It felt like any other genetic western city, because most of it was shot in the central business district.

[JLTucker]

Here is why comparisons between two versions of the same story can be useful--not as a direct comparison, but as a point of reference. I saw the US version first, then the swedish version. The US version left me wondering "why?". Why is Lisbeth this way? What did she do that made her a ward of the state into adulthood? Why does she view men the way she does? Why did she get revenge on her rapist in the way she did rather than going to the police? The interaction between her and Mikhael was completely buggered in the US version. It has been mentioned before, but it is worth repeating. When someone is raped--particularly as brutally as she was--women (particularly women who already have emotional issues) do not generally warm up to strange men anytime soon.

The US version does not give the impression of a large amount of time passing. It does not give a credible reason for why and how Lisbeth might come to trust him--let alone get into bed with him

LISBETH: I'm not a child.
BJURMAN: You are not. But you were. And between then and now, you were committed to the locked ward of St. Stefan's where you continued to display violent aggression. And you failed to adopt to four foster homes, were arrested twice for intoxication, twice for narcotics, again for assault, smashing a bottle into a man's face. And it's not even that long ago. And you may have conned Mr. Palmgren into thinking that you have changed, but when I'm looking at this, not to mention the way you'rel looking at me now, I don't think you have.
And are you sure about the passage of time? Lisbeth's hair styles are frequently changing, denoting the passage.

---

To me this is the sign of a man who has a grudge against her for some reason. Perhaps because he hates the way she looks (he comments on her piercing)? He hates women in general (note that when she threatens him, she says not to fuck with other girls, leaving the impression he has probably done it before)?

As for going to the police, she planned to be raped again to have something for blackmail. There's a shot of her, as Fincher put it during production, "think[ing]evil shit." She's sitting by herself smoking in front of the fire. She uses that tape for black mail to get her money whenever she needs it. That was spelled out clearly. Also, the third film in the Swedish series has Spoiler

her showing the video to a court, but I do not know if a third adaptation will be made in the US. I only remember the third film somewhat because I like court dramas and that's all it was.

SALANDER: Once you can sit again, which could be a while, I admit, we're going to my bank and tell them that I alone have access to my money. Nod. After that, you will never contact me again. Each month you will prepare a report of a meeting we will never have. In it, you'll describe how well I'm doing, how "sociable" I'm becoming. Then you will negotiate with the court to have my declaration of incompetence lifted. If you fail, this video will spread across the internet like a virus. And if anything should happen to me, if I get run over by a car, if you run me over with a car, this will upload automatically. I'm taking the keys to this apartment because I'll be checking on you. And if I find another girl in here with you, whether she came of her own free will or not... no, not the video. I'll kill you. DO you doubt anything I've said? Do you doubt what's in the reports that have followed me around all my life? What do they say if you have to sum it up? They say I'm insane. No, it's okay. You can nod because it's true. I am insane.

That answers your questions about not going to police and why she gets revenge. Well, not quite. Here's dialogue about why she's became a ward of the state initially:

BLOMKVIST: How come a 23-year-old is a ward of the state?
SALANDER: I'm mentally incompetent and can't manage my daily life.
BLOMKVIST: Since when have they said that?
SALANDER: Since I was 12.
BLOMKVISTWhat happened when you were twelve? I'm sorry, that's none of my business.
SALANDER:I tried to kill my father. Burned him alive. Got about 80 percent of him.

Now, as for her warming up to and bedding a man after being raped many times, you have an excellent point. However, as films tend to do, what happens on screen isn't based in realiy. I personally saw it as her thinking "this man actually doesn't hate me." If you watch closely during their first encounter, she's scared because the man whose personal life she broke into is at her door. She was recently raped, so she is scared and grabs a taser. He doesn't back off on how she looks. he doesn't care. Things go from there until the end where she sees him as betraying her. Her progress, as the film shows, circles back to where it started. Does he hate her, a woman?

Finally: Are you sure about the passage of time? Lisbeth's hair styles frequently alter denoting that change. I noticed it when I first saw it and it was confirmed in the extras.

[Thanas]

It is funny how you can think any of that answers Alyriums questions/criticism, especially the ward of the state stuff. Merely quoting from the script as if that would answer the questions assumes that either Alyrium is stupid or was asleep at the time.

[JLTucker]

It is funny how you can think any of that answers Alyriums questions/criticism, especially the ward of the state stuff. Merely quoting from the script as if that would answer the questions assumes that either Alyrium is stupid or was asleep at the time.

I am not familiar with how Sweden handles such matters. I quoted the dialogue because that's all I know. But it DOES answer his questions. He wanted to know why she was a ward, so the quotes say why. He wanted to know why she didn't go to the police, the quotes say why. I wasn't just going to say "this happened" and chance not remembering it clearly. I wanted to provide some semblance of evidence.

If it doesn't answer his questions, would you mind explaining why?

Edit: Also note that I even mentioned how the rapist deals with her when he questions her. He already hates her. His disgust at how she looks is just the beginning of his hatred.

[Elfdart]

I still keep forgetting to watch this.

Elfdart, would you mind elaborating on how it's a rehash of a completely different movie unrelated to the material? What was similar to it in its tone and look? To me it has Fincher's trademark look that's stamped all over his movies. You know, the slow cynical dread.

The way the film skips back and forth between the snow-covered, bluish-tinted exteriors and the crowded, stuffy interiors (with the exception of some of the shots inside the mansion) reminded me of Smilla. Oh, and the anti-social heroine.

The sifting through photos reminded me of Blow-Up, and about a half dozen other movies that borrowed from the film.