Ever since the likes of GODZILLA in the 50s, good ol' USA has decided that other countries can't make proper films (or can't read subtitles) and have decided to make their own versions. Often a pale and useless shadow of the original. Some however have been totally OK, such as THE RING, that was totally alright.
Being a fan of "Millennium" books and (original) films I have actually been following this remake of the Swedish modern classic since I first heard about it a few years ago.
So, David Fincher was on board for the remake....hold on, the maker of Se7en and Fight Club? Ok, this can not be bad!
So I waited and now I have seen it....¤voice of Catherine Tate's "Nan"...¤ - What a load of old shit!
A few minutes in and I notice that everyone is speaking with these really bad pretend Swedish accents, or what they think a Swedish accent should sound like anyway - it ends up sounding Irish at times. All apart from our main man James Bond who does it for the first two minutes then gives up.
It's filmed in Sweden and as a result all the road and shop signs are in Swedish, the magazine Millennium is in Swedish yet in the film everyone speaks and writes in English, apart from the old Poirot habbit of putting in the odd Swedish word (except he did it in French, you know what I mean!)....in fact this just get confusing.
Rooney Mara as Salander is horrible.
She seems to have stripped the original idea of all it's charm and is just very...un-Salander like! She is even NICE to James Bond sometimes! When Noomi Rapace played Salander she was stern and bitter but filled with charisma, Mara just left that bit at home and brought her terrible fake Swedish accent instead.
They throw in some plot bits that are not plot bits and are unneeded and rush the whole thing along so that it makes no sense (and I have seen the films and read the books...I know what's going on!) In the end (SPOILER ALERT!) - when all is revealed, there was no build up and you're left thinking...what was that all about?
A lot of good bits missed out, a lot of pointless bits throw in, it feels like a rushed through botch job. Personally I would of preferred to see a "re-imagining" than an attempt at getting it done Swedish-style.
It did have one redeeming feature....you know when you see an actor (or in this case actress) and you know that you know them from somewhere but can't think where? Well that was me with this woman...
Who plays Cecilia Vanger....where did I know her from? Ah yeah, that's right. Bitty woman.
5 comments:
I think it's a bit unfair to call it a 'remake'. Fincher didn't remake the Swedish film in the way that Let The Right One In was remade, or even The Ring.
What he did do was make a film 'adapted' from the same book. I'm pretty sure the writer of the screenplay hadn't even seen the Swedish film when he wrote it.
But being in the unique position of having read the book but NOT seen the Swedish film, I can add a few points.
1) The accent-but-in-english thing wasn't great. But a big-budget adaptation was never going to be in Swedish...Especially as there is already a Swedish version.
2) My big pet-hate for remakes is when the whole story gets moved to another country, where it makes less sense (The Ring worked quite well, Dark Water was ruined by moving it the US). So maybe the accent thing was a compromise to keep it in Sweden. Whether this was a good idea or not is a matter of opinion though. Memoirs of a Geisha was set in Japan, was acted by Chinese actresses yet spoken in English...lots of people thought that was nuts :D
3) My reading of Lisbeth from the book was of a tiny, anorexic girl. And having not seen the Swedish film, I had nothing but the book to go on...And tbh, I thought she was spot-on. When I see pictures of Noomi as Lisbeth, I can't help but think that she looks a bit too strong and healthy to be the tiny Salander as described in the book. I've even seen a few people online concede that, whilst not liking the Fincher film much, Mara's Salander seems a bit more authentic.
I normally don't like remakes, and rarely watch them by choice. But having never seen the Swedish film (and realising that this was a different adaptation, as opposed to a film remake) I was quite happy to watch this.
Of course, like any remake, re-imagining or competing adaptation, the only thing that *really* matters is if it's any good or not. And I get the feeling we've drawn different conclusions here :D
Sorry for the essay fella...I have blatantly drunk too much coffee and was just having a very similar conversation with someone recently.
I'll go back to my cave now ;o)
If you have read the book maybe it's a bit like "the right James Bond" then? For example I am sure for you and I we're gonna like Roger Moore, for our parents it's Sean Connery etc.
After reading the book and being swept away by it - apart from the awful translation into English and them giving multiple translations of the same thing in the same context, and sometimes not even translating at all...anyway...
I felt the new film didn't capture any of that, usually films are never as good as the book but it just hopped over so much good stuff and left in some unneeded stuff, even took parts from the 2nd and 3rd book and popped them in, so they are in the wrong order.
For example the affair between Micheal and his boss, which is not revealed until the 2nd Swedish film and only subtly hinted at in the 1st. Salanders mentor being quite alive (again not known until the 2nd or 3rd film in Sweden)...these things seemed more important than keeping in any of the rest of the plot.
On the island they cut seriously back on characters, so instead of a "whodunnit" you had "was it him, or him?" and just skipped a lot!
If you've read the book then you'll know that the 1st 100 or so pages on the wennerström case can quite easily be skipped anyway...
Salander was just, yeah small and annorexic, but she is also a kickboxer trained by a professional (as revealed in the 2nd film) so I thought Noomi Rapace was kind of perfect, in look and in character (again, best James Bond) but Mara was just static. Somehow Rapace manages to be both static AND charismatic...Mara was just static and then started being nice and friendly, and again it showed that her and Michael carry on seeing each other, which is not known until the 2nd book/film.
Clive Owen as Micheal was just kind of dry also, not a hint of the stressed worried and troubled undertows.
I'm with you on remakes though, always gonna be bashed, and never really as good as the original (apart from 300, that was awesome).
I'd be interested Mike to see what you think of the Swedish film, with that being your 2nd impression and not the first, but having read the book. So do that and get back to me!
Haha..I obviously can't comment on the flaws in the translation. You're very lucky if the original Swedish is markedly better than the English!
However, I'm guessing the Swedish films pace things quite differently to the books then (I've only read the first book too, so it's quite easy for me to know what has and hasn't been covered).
So, to the best of my memory...
Mikael having an affair with his boss at the magazine is covered in the first book...And seems to be revealed in a manner similar to the Fincher version of the film.
I'm pretty sure that Salander's mentor (if you mean the dude that used to look after her until having a stroke) still being alive is in the first book too.
I agree about the amount of family they cut from the island. It did narrow the mystery down a little.
You're probably right about the Salander/Bond metaphor...That probably sums it up pretty well!
Although (and I feel like I'm bordering on being annoying now) the first book does describe Salander and Mikael spending four weeks in a cabin together whilst he writes the book on Wennerström. So I think, again, the Fincher film hasn't strayed far from the book on that.
In fact, the ending of the David Fincher version is almost exactly the same as the book!
When I've seen the Swedish films I'll get back to you so we can discuss it more ;o)
Has to be said though..The book is great!
No no, I gotta say that you are actually right as far as the book goes - yup, and in that respect actually it does make more sense as an interpretation of the book - I guess I just liked it better when in the (swedish) film they only hint and say some things about the affair but not letting you in on it such as
"when will you get a girl micheal"
"I already have one"
"When will you marry her"
"She's already married"
No hint who he was talking about but if you had read the book then you were "in on it" sort of thing.
Salander is much more of a character also, she sort of is the snti-hero more than any of the other players. Was there even any mention to her being "the wasp" even? And "plague" who was just a pop on and off role in the new film...although played by Ali G's mate so that was well funny =)
Yeah you are right about that bit when he's writing all about Wennerström - In the Swedish film they just kind of hop over a lot of that as it's not that important or exciting when compared to the rest of the story - and then for all we know Salander has vanished and has no more contact with Michael but is it Salander that helps him prove his case - in the next film we learn that he has had contact with her.
Defo worth to check that version out anyway, the suspense and feeling is much more intense and deep and on the edge!
And Salander goes to the right pub.
Is this a good time to mention the fact that Rooney Mara just got nominated for an Oscar? :D
The Oscars are shit, mind ;)
Post a Comment