I have seen both, and usually am not one for english remakes.... but fincher's one was better, with better directing, editing, music, cinematography and better central performance... plus i liked the ending way better in fincher's one
I really like the original Girl With The Dragon Tatoo so I wasn't overly happy to hear last year that an enlgish language remake was being made [even though I'm a huge fan of David Fincher]. However the trailer looked so cool I had to see it
Honestly.....it is great. Very well written and acted, wonderfully directed. I felt Fincher gave the story a more cinematic feel. It's the first remake I've seen in a long time that didn't feel pointless or disappointing.
From the level of high caliber actors including Rooney Mara, WHO DESERVES AN OSCAR NOD, Fincher's version brought a fully realized depiction which only honor's Steig Larrson's Millennium Series. This is the kind of adaptation readers and movie going should demand. Not some cheap budgeted TV movie that ended up in foreign cinemas. Fincher did justice to Steig's first novel.
Could anyone imagine if the film REALLY flopped what the kind of pompous crap he would spill online? I think Fincher's film is better because of the high standard Sony went with. The swedish version was a TV mini-series that was later released in theaters. The cast, despite Noomi Rapace stand up performance, and the prod. designs were based on the limited budget the producers had for the TV series and it shows.
I know in your book you say there is a guaranteed ingredient to a super-blockbuster (my words not yours) but surely the point is, for all other films when they are made of course the studios want a monster hit, but there are no guarantees.
And as you said, in the original film didn't do that well in the US, so that market is alone must have been considered a 'punt' by the filmmakers. And that's why they do it.
I don't agree with Mark's opinion that box office proves the worth of the film. Despite the Fincher version being a remake, it's still a good, well-made film. Probably the best film I've seen all year in terms of engaging story, characters, and visuals. I'm opposed to almost all remakes that have come out in the last decade, but if there was to be an American remake of TGWTDT, I'm glad they got the right people to do it and as a result, it's a great film and very faithful to the original novel.
Usually I would have to agree that most american remakes out of European movies, are garbage, and it makes me sick how someone would rather watch a bad movie instead of great movie, only because the characters don't speak english
In this case however, I find the Fincher's remake a superior film to the Swedish adaption
The Swedish movie is good mainly because the book is great, while Fincher's movie could always be great, no matter what the story was on.
So, you're basing the success of the US version of GWTDT off of box office intake, yet you rip people who say Transformers is good because of box office intake... seems a bit hypocritical. And They remade it because the US will never watch original GWTDT. American's hate subtitles. We are so used to not having them because most of the BIG films that come out in a year are from the US or another English speaking country. Not saying it's right, just the way it is.
Could not agree more! Took a moral stance against the new Americanised film for the simple reason the originals were so good. There was no need to re-make them, especially in so short a space from the originals being released.
@acerbia17 But they weren't that good, they were overrated by many just because they were "foreign" films, I don't feel like anyone really judged them on their own merits other than "it's european therefore its ART!", when in all reality they were just decent, or at least the first. The second two were extremely weak TV movies.
i'm not too sure we should really be paying such close attention to the box office results anyway. Look at the recently announced Oscar listings and consider how many of them have actually been a huge financial success.
Fincher's Dragon Tattoo has done reasonably well compared to many other big films released during the winter season. To cite that the quality of the movie or that it's a remake of a subtitled film as the cause of it's 'failure' in Dr K's eyes seems a little shortsighted.
I personally think the original is better and I enjoyed it more. However I don't discount the US adaption as a bad film or anything. If I had watched it without seeing the Swedish films then I would have enjoyed it all the same.
I really disagree that some of you think the character development is better in the US one, not at all. I felt a lot more passion for the characters in the Swedish adaption; I also felt as though I knew the characters much more in the Swedish one.
The American version is a much better adaptation even if it is not in the original language. The character of Mikael was completely different in the Swedish films to in the book, it was as if they were not related. Craig was closer to my imagination. (I am Swedish by the way)
It is not a remake when the source material is a book. It is an adaptation. And Fincher's version was a much better adaptation whose characters were much more fleshed out and allowed scenes to breathe.
Who said box office earnings HAS to do with the quality of a film?
Earnings could be due to the fact that its an adaptation of a famous novel, because the production/content of the film has a certain notoriety, because of a novelty associated with the films plot, because of a strong marketing campaign, because of the 'big names' attached to the film, because its got a ginormous budget, because it is the 'cool thing' to watch.
i think that's a catch 22. when significant alterations are made fans of the originals cry 'ruined it', usually with justification, but when remakes are faithful people ask what the point was. well the point, as always, is to bring the story to an american audience widely perceived (apparently with justification) as lacking the patience for subtitled foreign films. it's commercial, not artistic. but if the remake is a worthy homage, who cares? 2 excellent versions of something are better than 1.
this is an insightful point (i was expecting just a reiteration of the old 'it's fine but no better than the original so why bother?' line) and i can see how purists might delight in the prospect of remakes not being commercially enticing. however, another recent trend in remakes is that they're being treated with more care and respect. both TGWTDT and Let Me In were in my eyes of more or less equal quality to their foreign language originals. Although they didn't bring much new to the table,
You have to take back 2 times what you spent to make your money back?? That sounds totally wrong by definition. Could someone explain why it's this way in the movie business?
I have seen both. The first halfs of both films are very similar but in the second half the Fincher version comes into its own with its character development.
I absolutely cannot tolerate subs at all and I genuinely don't know why. I like the idea of remakes but if I'm honest I'd like to see some high quality dubs of the original being done.
I know I know, people like me shouldn't even be allowed to watch films lol.
I think it's perfectly natural for Swedish people to have conversations with each other in broken English. Just like we always speak Russian at the dinner table in Norway. Apart from that, Rooney Mara's Salander is a shock rock singer, while Rapace's Salander is actually dangerous. But I knew that would be the case before I saw the Fincher-version. Hollywood will never be able to recreate the grit of the original, and Mara's Oscar nod for her interpretation sums the difference between the two:)
@horgandavid Not about what to have for dinner the next day, but I knew Hollywood is incapable, or unwilling, of recreating the grit of the original, yes. If you are still naive enough to think they can, I actually sort of envy that, apart from the foreshadowing reality check of course.
I must expand on my last comment, I realise the ending is different in the fincher version, but otherwise the film featured a lot more about millennium
Is there an elephant in the room, or am I going slightly crazy, the Fincher version has an entirely different ending does it not? And as someone who has seen both and read the book, I felt the Fincher version was more faithful to the book.
@t8yman exactly! Mark missed this point out COMPLETELY concerning this issue.
Also, Lisbeth in the book was alot more like the character in Finchers version, than being a straight up badass that was difficult to have much sympathy for. In the Swedish version most of the time she was just downright rude. Rooney Mara's depiction was more like Lisbeth in the book than Noomi Rapace's 'Jason Bourne' version.
Problem with Mark, is that he'll like a foreign language film more for the sake of it.
Mark, so your actually know what you're talking about? The rest of the world? In the German market you never see a film with subtitles, they are all dubbed.
I CAN'T stand that arrogant tosspot Kermode - why the hell should we be told by him to gladly put up with sub-titles - other minority-speaking countries only do it because they have to. When watching a film you don't want to be continually looking at the bottom of the screen to understand what is being said (that has a negative impact on your enjoyment of the film - geddit dickhead). It's like saying silent films offer as much as talkies - wrong! Here's a better idea - do away with film critics!
99 million isnt bad for a movie like this. Its dark and not easy to watch, it not an easy movie for general audiences to take in. I think the studio went over board with the budget because they just got really excited about the american book sales and people going after the originals on dvd. I dont mind remakes, there gonna happen either way, if we can keep getting ones like this and people like david fincher doing them i dont think its a bad thing.
Okay so I stupidly opted to watch Fincher's version before I'd seen the original. Couldn't stick more than 90 minutes of it. To be honest I wish I could say that it was due to some bad directing or drawn out dialogue or some such other complaint. The reason I had to turn it off was because I honestly could not look one second longer at Rooney Mara's stupid fuckin eyebrowless face. The Girl With A Paper Bag On Her Head or The Girl Who With Eyebrow Tattoos would've been a better description for me
@BaronVonPenguin You should watch the Swedish original, it was indeed much better. However, Rooney Mara was brilliant in the Fincher version, no doubt about it.
@MrMoviemaverick I'd be interested in seeing them; if they could be done properly. Some films like No Country for Old Men would be very good in a foreign setting I think.
Didn't like this film. I haven't read the book. The film seems designed only for those who read into the entire franchise.
It compresses the plot into crazy short time, which makes little unless, again unless you have read the book. It was no high-octane action. It was long, boring and unnecessary.
That's why H-wood remakes films to begin with...some empty suits want to profit off the hard work and creativity of others, so they crank out a shiny turd and laugh all the way to the bank.
You have to remember...H-wood doesn't make movies for the audience.
In H-wood, it is literally all about the Benjamins. They want money and only money. This Swedish film is making money for other people?! Bullsh-t. I'll remake it and then I'll be the one profiting.
You could make the same points about my all time favorite film Infernal Affairs and its remake The Departed. The Departed won the Oscar for its rehashed scenes from the original except with Boston accents and more profanity. As a result people think Infernal Affairs was crap because it was a Hong Kong production. Fucked up right?
Mark, when I recall scenes from a foreign language film I remember the dialogue in English, that's how fast I, or anybody, can get used to subtitles. After five minutes you don't even realize you're reading them.
NOO MARK Your argument assumes a films validity or prestige is bound to its box office takings, is that really the argument we should be having? It is an embarrassing sick joke that Hollywood has to remake any good foreign films it glances at
They almost remade Cinema Paradiso with Bruce Willis and Macaulay Culkin. The prosecution rests
@keflar5 His argument actually is that the film is really no better than the Swedish version and is really only a bit visually flashier. On that basis the only real strength that the remake could have (and indeed the real point of them making it) is if it took the story to a wider audience. However, box office figures indicate that it hasn't achieved that aim. Worth listening to his 5Live review.
@keflar5 But that's not even what he said? Shouldn't we know by know that that is the opposite of what Kermode always says (read pirates of the carribean). He pointed out that the american remake was not a box office hit and thus he asked why even make a film if there's no profit (directors have signed a sequel contract as well).
@keflar5 Wasn't your point that Kermode argued that box office success was an indicator of the quality of the film? My point was that this was not the point Kermode was trying to make. A bit confused here :/
@keflar5 You did not get his point. What he was saying is, that, unlike the americans,the european people have no problems with reading subtitles. How can he tell that this is the case? Well, according to the box office takings, european people went to see the film, americans did not. He merely uses the box office takings as an indicator, he isn't putting a films validity in relation to the money it made.
@MrMoviemaverick well fight club is based on a book and the fincher version is very different from it, so a (foregin) version sticking to book could be considered an adaption of the book over a remake of my favourite film of all time.
@hanshotfirst1138 I think he quite gets the difference and its a very purposeful comment because american its becoming a different language than english, a poorer language too, filled with grammatical and orthographic incorrectness
old Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee films taugth me how to read subs, i see no problem, id rather watch with subs than dubbed. my mate will not watch a film with subs, not 1. his loss
I find this constant badgering of people to like subtitles pretty annoying and patronising. Some people just don't like watching films with subtitles. Plenty of people aren't particularly strong readers. I personally read quite slowly and if I'm reading subtitles, I can't really take in any nuances of facial expressions because I spend the whole time looking at the bottom of the screen. To Mark, apparently that is unacceptable and I should learn to deal with it. Not everyone is the same.
I read a review of the American version that said ".. and Mara rocks." I couldn't agree more. Like a goth metal singer, Mara rocks. If you're into goth metal that is. Rapace's Salander on the other hand, is lethally dangerous. Bit of a difference. But I knew that before I saw it, Hollywood is uncapable of recreating grit like that. The Fincher-version was alright, and that's about it.
The thing is both the US and Swedish versions of this film are essentially of equal quality. Everything that was good about the Swedish film is equally as good in the US film and everything that was bad about the original is equally as bad in Finchers film. And, for the record the US film is a remake not an adaptation, adaptations require dramatic and relatively large changes to be made such as plot, characters, scenes, locations etc... It's a remake, end of story.
Though I understand where he is coming from with remakes being pointless, and I agree that it didn't stray too far from the original, I think it is wrong to go by relative box office figures. The Fincher version had a point because it was a big, shiny multimillion dollar version, and pushing boundaries and presenting dark themes in Hollywood is more impressive than doing the same thing in a smaller budget arthouse film. It's about context really, they're different enough to coexist/are both good
Thank you Mark! I've been thinking this since they remade Rec., the Spanish horror. It is not necessary to rehash these already great films. All the American's are doing is marking their territory. This, Quarantine and Let Me In are leaching off their smaller scale originals and flashing cash nobody should care about (although sadly people do); how must the cast and crews of these silly films see themselves?
I enjoyed the remake as I'm a big fan of Fincher, although I do feel as he makes so few films so rarely that it's kind of a waste of his talents to be bound for the next few years to a franchise that already exists. He didn't add anything particularly memorable to an already well-made film & while Rooney Mara was excellent, Noomi Rapace was far superior. It's a shame that Mara gets the Oscar nom when Rapace was snubbed. Still, with Prometheus around the corner maybe she'll have the last laugh.
Kermode, I love your work but, Fincher;s Tatoo is NOT a remake, but a seperate adaptation of the original novel, in the same way the Coens' True Grit is not a remake, but another adaptation of the novel. I mean, let's dig deeper: by that logic, every version of Alice in Wonderland is a remake of the previous even though they are based on the same book and not each other.
Its only a bad excuse that it is all about subtitles. The real reasom America remakes foreign movies is that the movige goers are afraid of other cultures - or at least, that is what the movie film companies are afraid of.
this comes back to the what is a remake debate? The same arguement goes for the Coen's True Grit film and personally I side with the film-makers. Novels are there to be adapted, so does that mean that with the film-maker that gets there first, everyone who choses to adapt that novel after is judged to be remaking that film-maker's work? I say no, I do believe that Fincher's remake is another adaptation in the same way that the Coen's True Grit is. And its irrelevant as they are both great films.
Please please please stop saying 'Ringoo'. You sound like a fool. The film is called Ring. Ringu is just Ring said with a Japanese accent. It's not pronounced like Pingu. For the love of God will someone please tell stupid hack critics this.
@davidfgranger Eh, no thats not entirely true. It is not just Ring with a Japanese accent. The Japanese actually take english words and adapt them for their own language and spelling system. Since you cant spell Ring in japanese, they name their movie Ringu, which ends on a vovel in a way that the Japanese alphabet can handle. They give plenty of things adapted English titles in Japan and it is more than just an accent issue.
@ExtremeBogom Lol! way to make a pointless attack on someone merely making a (possibly) valid point. Very mature indeed! But its ok. Im used to it. This is the internet after all.
@ExtremeBogom There you go again with a pointless comment. What is the purpose of even commenting on my comments in this fashion? The point is entirely lost on me.
@ExtremeBogom Well, yes, yes I did, because it's a pet peeve of mine when people think they're being clever by pronouncing the names of Japanese films with English titles in a stupid way. When he stops doing it I'll stop moaning about it.
@modplugrad Well ok I oversimplified, but my point is that it is not pronounced 'Ringoo', more like 'ring-uh', but at the end of the day the film is called Ring.
American remakes are nearly always just capitalising on what has been a success in other places, I've never seen one made simply because they had a genuinely new take on a story. The Swedish version was much better - the chemistry between Nyqvist's slightly podgy Blomkvist and Rapace's feral Lisbeth was far more effecting.
With Fincher's version, I couldn't stop that voice in the back of my head bickering away about the dialect continuity long enough to enjoy it.
I'm Irish and I've never seen a dubbed movie in the cinema. I don't get the aversion to subtitles, there's no action on the screen while people are talking and you can read much faster than people talk... And you're still looking at the screen!!
The remake is better than the original in ever way, with the exception of the portrayal of the eponymous character (oh, and the terrible, unnecessary accents that Daniel Craig obviously just, rightly, refused to join in with). The plot is much better structured and seems a lot less like a boring epsiode of Frost, which was all the original was for me.
There is ZERO reason for me to watch the remake. Well, actually there is zero reason for the remake to exist. Well, apart from greed and laziness.
The originals are fine as they are, not perfect, but still brilliant. In my eyes when you remake a film, then it should be of film that originally wasnt very good, and you improve upon it in the remake.
Remaking a multi award winning and critically acclaimed film is beyond stupid.
The new one brings so much to the table that the original didn't have, Lisbeth in this version is so much more vulnerable, a number of important plot points are closer to the book than in the original, the casting is much more accurate, whether you think it's better or not is a different story (though I'd also say it's better), all of the characters have felt much more complex.
The modern audience is lazy and won't read subtitles, same reason The Artist hasn't been a popular as it should be because people won't watch a black & white movie or a movie with no sound.
I think Mark's being unfair to the remake here. The Swedish version, although brilliant in the first half, was massively flawed in its conclusion. Fincher's version is completely true to the characters in the novel and, frankly, betters the Swedish version in almost every way.
The film wasn't as successful due to a massive marketing mishap by the producers (releasing at Christmas? Really!?) but I feel that the film did the novel the justice it finally deserved.
Dubbing is all nice and well I guess but personally I can't stand it. I much prefer to keep the original language and add subtitles. The intonations and body language is an important part of the movie experience and while remaking or dubbing a movie part of that will be lost.
As far as box office goes, yes, the box office hasn't been as amazing as one would hope, but the fact is that you don't need to look at the film's box office in order to see what is a good film and what isn't, because we have had some good films that do well (The Dark Knight, Avatar) and we have some bad films that really do better than they deserve to (Transformers 2 and 3). Like Emilio13805 said, it's not about the subtitles, it's about the quality of the picture.
The biggest thing I want to point out is that the American version is not a remake, but rather a re-adaptation (and in my opinion a better adaptation than the Swedish version) of the original novel. I think what's good about the Fincher film was that it didn't feel like a shot-by-shot redo of the Swedish film. It told the same story but told it in a different way. It was similar, but not identical, which is why it worked for me.
@ShaneRBeacham That's one of the excuses these guys give to justify their plundering that really gets my goat. If a book existed you can call it a 're-adaptation' so you're not cashing in on anyone else's hard work/risk-taking at all. Ugh. If it's been filmed before it's a remake, no excuses. It doesn't have to be an insult to be called a remake, like a cover version of a song can be as good as the original, but it's when they try to wriggle out of admitting what it is that really irritates me.
@PhoenixWright101 No sir, a remake is not the same as an adaptation. As I presented in my other comment, 'by that logic, every version of Alice in Wonderland is a remake of the previous even though they are based on the same book (adapting from a non-cinematic source) and not each other (a remake).' Other examples include Tim Burton's Charlie and the chocalate factory (not a remake of the 70s version, but another, more accurate, adaptation of the original story).
@SavageBroadcast It's a contentious issue, which only becomes clearer once a book has been adapted countless times over many years. The simple fact, as far as recent examples are concerned, is that lazy, cowardly Hollywood producers are cashing in on the critical success of acclaimed foreign films and fast tracking remakes within a year. This odious term 're-adaptation' only started getting thrown around when audiences visibly started to tire of endless remakes, reboots, re-imaginings and so on.
@PhoenixWright101 You really think this is recent? No, my friend: if you knew cinema history, you'd realise almost every film ever made since the silent era was either a remake (including the much-beloved Scarface, The Thing, Magnficent Seven among others) or an adaptation of another story (Alice, the classic Monster films such as Dracula and Frankenstein, Shawshank, King and I, Sherlock Holmes among countless others).
@SavageBroadcast No sir. Hold your condescension there my friend. Where did I say that remakes are a recent thing? The volume and frequency of remaking the same material has dramatically increased over the last decade however, without a doubt, and my ire is directed at all these buzzwords that have been concocted/appropriated from the noughties onward to make these films seem original. No one called Scarface or The Thing a reboot, re-imagining or a re-adaptation. A little honesty is all I want.
@PhoenixWright101 No, I'm not defending remakes, but this 'oh, everything is being remade, we are out of ideas mentality' is just repulsive, and futhermore, where is your evidence for people either wanting more or less? Box office stats don't prove a thing (Dark city is a classic, but made little money. So was Blade Runner, and many other films I could list here).
@SavageBroadcast Right, just spotted this comment after I posted. I give in. Your opinion is the only one that matters and if I and many others happen to disagree with you then that is indeed repulsive. Your knowledge and appreciation of cinema is unparalleled, unimpeachable and we are all wrong-headed and narrow-minded fools for being tired of the same 'brands' cranked out in an endless joyless cycle. I bow to your superiority and shall refrain from commenting further.
@PhoenixWright101 There is no need for a defensive mentality. I'm not saying that you have no right to comment, but if you are going to make broad claims, the least you could do is substantiate with fact, not your own own opinion, which is, as is mine and everyone elses, subjective and base don taste. And hey, fi you can attack Hollywood, I'm entitled to be brutally honest with you, simple as that.
@PhoenixWright101 And one more thing: if you read reviews or coverage of either Scarface or Thing, you'd know that the film makers made no effort to hide the fact that they were based on those prior films.
@SavageBroadcast That was his point, numb-nuts. They referred to them as REMAKES and didn't hide from the fact with terms like 'readaptation' or 'reimagining'. They were honest about it. And since when did anyone on a YouTube comment section have to substantiate anything they say? We have a handful of characters to state an opinion, we're not in court or in parliament. Also why does criticizing Hollywood leave one open to insults? They're making films for us, so they're answerable to us.
@dccl37 And if you had paid attention, you'd realise that was not the crux of his argument, which was based on the misconception that adaptation and remake are one and the same, which they are not. Second, if we are discussing film, then yes, we do have to substantiate out arguments, otherwise they fall flat under the weight of 'opinion for opinion's sake, without regard for debate or discussion'.
@SavageBroadcast I'm talking about the particular individual comment you were responding to rather than the full conversation, to which you replied with "the filmmakers made no effort to hide the fact that they were based on those prior films". My point was he already knew that they were remakes and is happier when the directors are honest enough to call them remakes rather than divorce themselves from the originals and say "it's not a remake, it's a readaptation, I'm doing something new."
@SavageBroadcast And if people just offering their opinion without justifying every syllable annoys you, I suggest you back away from the internet right now for your own psychological well-being.
@dccl37 And thirdly, there is a huge difference between being brutally honest and calling out someone when they make a flawed argument, and just insulting them with your run of the mill swear word. If can criticize studios, then what stops him from being criticized in turn by peers?
@SavageBroadcast I don't see the connection at all. Criticizing a Hollywood organisation is like insulting someone's mother, is that what you're saying? Why would someone attacking a film studio's business practices have any effect on you unless you worked for that studio in question?
@dccl37 Scale is irrelevant as criticism is applicable to almost anything that has some kind of function or reasoning behind. One can criticize practices and can be in turn criticized for his views on the matter. Also, as I said, we are talking about films here, not some generic youtube video where it's all 'lolz' and 'thumbs up'. Here, if you don't bring up some kind of substance when making a claim about cinema, then yes, it can be questioned. Just look at the other comments on here.
@ShaneRBeacham I was about to comment on this blog then I realised you have made all of the points I was going to make. The only additional comment is that the Fincher version covers more of the original source novel than the Swedish version.
Reading subtitles,huh?? lol.... One might as well just go and read the book or something. English speaking audiences probably just find reading a movie enjoyable.
In defence of the original (not that needs defending in my opinion) the DVD and I believe certain screenings also have the option of being dubbed serviceably enough into English as well, a tactic most anime viewers will be familiar with. So even before the remake came out, language needn't be a barrier to watching it.
In defence of the original (not that needs defending in my opinion) the DVD and I believe certain screenings also have the option of being dubbed serviceably enough into English as well, a tactic most anime viewers will be familiar with. So even before the remake came out, language needn't be a barrier to watching it.
In defence of the original (not that needs defending in my opinion) the DVD and I believe certain screenings also have the option of being dubbed serviceably enough into English as well, a tactic most anime viewers will be familiar with. So even before the remake came out, language needn't be a barrier to watching it.
In defence of the original (not that needs defending in my opinion) the DVD and I believe certain screenings also have the option of being dubbed serviceably enough into English as well, a tactic most anime viewers will be familiar with. So even before the remake came out, language needn't be a barrier to watching it.
The 18 certificate it has doesn't help it, if it were a 15 it would garner much more of a success (12A is out of the question given the subject matter), but it had to be an 18. I haven't seen the original, I saw Fincher's remake in the cinema around Christmas and thought it was exceptional, I will watch the original soon, but the remake is superb. How did Let The Right One In fair compared with Let Me In, out of curiosity?
@RuhBuhJuh1 His opinion was pretty scathing. The video about it is up on youtube. And, having only watched the original, I can sincerely recommend it although I can't judge it against the remake.
@bordarboy Same, I've only watched the fantastic original, I never bothered with the remake after Kermode's review of it, what I meant to ask was how did the American remake fair in the box office (as K talks about the box office about both Dragon Tattoos) compared with the original? Sorry it wasn't more clear!
@RuhBuhJuh1 Let me in was apparently just a shot for shot remake in English with Americanised versions of the original's names and is Complete and Utter SHIT where as the original is a Masterpiece. Look for the Kermode Uncut let me in thing.
Basically Let the Right One in is a film about kids that happens to feature vampires, where as the remake is a film about vampires that happens to feature kids.
@fatboyslim142 People tell me that the american remake of Let Me In is very good, even as good as the original. Not only am I sceptical about that, but it is just a matter of principle as well. The original is only a few years old, it is very well made and the new one is supposed to indeed be like a shot-for-shot remake. That doesnt make the new one bad per se, just entirely pointless and a waste of resources. The kind of thing that makes me shake my head and mumble about "idiots"
What was the point of this Kermode? Are we judging films based on how they performed at the box office now?
The American version of this film is far better than the Swedish one. It's got nothing to do with subtitles, it's got to do with overall superior quality.
@Emilio13805 tosh, the swedish version was far better. if only from a structural point of view. the only bit the american version got right was not going to australia for harriet.
@Emilio13805 Maybe I misinterpreted what he was saying but I don't think he was passing any judgement on the quality of the films based on their earnings or profit, he was just proving that re-making a film in English doesn't mean it will be successful or a worthy venture. He made his opinions on the 2 versions clear at the beginning of the video before he started talking about box-office figures etc.
I think they are both fantastic films with their own triumphs and flaws. I thought Rapace acted fantaastically, but seemed to mature to play the character. Mara also gave a fantastic performance, and becasue she was closer to the characters age, seemed to fit Salander better. Both are fantastic and i look forward to the sequel that will come.
Time for America or should I say more specifically Hollywood to get over itself and understand that the world of cinema is a far bigger place, where the english language is not always spoken. You can't claim to love film or be a cinephile until you learn to love foreign film in it's first language with subtitles.
Haven't seen the remake, but can't say I'm surprised it's not been a massive hit - it's not a 12A film, which seems to be the most fiscally rewarding cert.
I really enjoyed the first film and I see absolutely no reason to see the remake. I'm not even bothered about seeing if Rooney Mara's performance is better, or Fincher's camerawork, visuals and direction is better.
I have seen both, and usually am not one for english remakes.... but fincher's one was better, with better directing, editing, music, cinematography and better central performance... plus i liked the ending way better in fincher's one
onepurpose315 3 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Kermode jumping the gun as usual - box office performance was eventually 226 million Dollars.
SlartiMarvinbartfast 5 days ago
I really like the original Girl With The Dragon Tatoo so I wasn't overly happy to hear last year that an enlgish language remake was being made [even though I'm a huge fan of David Fincher]. However the trailer looked so cool I had to see it
Honestly.....it is great. Very well written and acted, wonderfully directed. I felt Fincher gave the story a more cinematic feel. It's the first remake I've seen in a long time that didn't feel pointless or disappointing.
:)
WAAAAAAAAAAAY 1 week ago
From the level of high caliber actors including Rooney Mara, WHO DESERVES AN OSCAR NOD, Fincher's version brought a fully realized depiction which only honor's Steig Larrson's Millennium Series. This is the kind of adaptation readers and movie going should demand. Not some cheap budgeted TV movie that ended up in foreign cinemas. Fincher did justice to Steig's first novel.
SamKarns 1 week ago
Could anyone imagine if the film REALLY flopped what the kind of pompous crap he would spill online? I think Fincher's film is better because of the high standard Sony went with. The swedish version was a TV mini-series that was later released in theaters. The cast, despite Noomi Rapace stand up performance, and the prod. designs were based on the limited budget the producers had for the TV series and it shows.
SamKarns 1 week ago
He wasn't really talking about how good the films are, he was talking about the point of making them.
If it isn't going to take any significant money, is there a point remaking it when the original was perfectly good to start off with?
littlelicksable 1 week ago
Why is it described as a Danish/Swedish movie, instead of just a Swedish movie?
Konve 2 weeks ago
Well as long as people don't watch the original... Finchers version is the best.
MoonIightGraeme 2 weeks ago 3
Why couldn't he talk about how good the films are instead of comparing how much money they made?
Nomoredrama2000 2 weeks ago
I know in your book you say there is a guaranteed ingredient to a super-blockbuster (my words not yours) but surely the point is, for all other films when they are made of course the studios want a monster hit, but there are no guarantees.
And as you said, in the original film didn't do that well in the US, so that market is alone must have been considered a 'punt' by the filmmakers. And that's why they do it.
21stCenturyCat 3 weeks ago
I don't agree with Mark's opinion that box office proves the worth of the film. Despite the Fincher version being a remake, it's still a good, well-made film. Probably the best film I've seen all year in terms of engaging story, characters, and visuals. I'm opposed to almost all remakes that have come out in the last decade, but if there was to be an American remake of TGWTDT, I'm glad they got the right people to do it and as a result, it's a great film and very faithful to the original novel.
nmoravec1 3 weeks ago 5
Usually I would have to agree that most american remakes out of European movies, are garbage, and it makes me sick how someone would rather watch a bad movie instead of great movie, only because the characters don't speak english
In this case however, I find the Fincher's remake a superior film to the Swedish adaption
The Swedish movie is good mainly because the book is great, while Fincher's movie could always be great, no matter what the story was on.
To me, this indicates a better filmaking.
mikeboy0001 3 weeks ago
he's talking but all I can think about is a three-way with Rapace and Mara
skinwalkerxxx 3 weeks ago
I love Mark but this argument is not even relevant and doesn't mark sense.
SweetMintPie555 3 weeks ago
So, you're basing the success of the US version of GWTDT off of box office intake, yet you rip people who say Transformers is good because of box office intake... seems a bit hypocritical. And They remade it because the US will never watch original GWTDT. American's hate subtitles. We are so used to not having them because most of the BIG films that come out in a year are from the US or another English speaking country. Not saying it's right, just the way it is.
greenbayfan392 3 weeks ago
Could not agree more! Took a moral stance against the new Americanised film for the simple reason the originals were so good. There was no need to re-make them, especially in so short a space from the originals being released.
acerbia17 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@acerbia17 But they weren't that good, they were overrated by many just because they were "foreign" films, I don't feel like anyone really judged them on their own merits other than "it's european therefore its ART!", when in all reality they were just decent, or at least the first. The second two were extremely weak TV movies.
TheeOneWhoTalks 3 weeks ago
i'm not too sure we should really be paying such close attention to the box office results anyway. Look at the recently announced Oscar listings and consider how many of them have actually been a huge financial success.
Fincher's Dragon Tattoo has done reasonably well compared to many other big films released during the winter season. To cite that the quality of the movie or that it's a remake of a subtitled film as the cause of it's 'failure' in Dr K's eyes seems a little shortsighted.
smylexx 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
In the words of Mark Lamarr, "I love reading and I love watching films, but not at the same time"
ycanionlyevafind1sok 4 weeks ago
I personally think the original is better and I enjoyed it more. However I don't discount the US adaption as a bad film or anything. If I had watched it without seeing the Swedish films then I would have enjoyed it all the same.
I really disagree that some of you think the character development is better in the US one, not at all. I felt a lot more passion for the characters in the Swedish adaption; I also felt as though I knew the characters much more in the Swedish one.
Noomi Rapace :)
FakePlasticJames 4 weeks ago
The American version is a much better adaptation even if it is not in the original language. The character of Mikael was completely different in the Swedish films to in the book, it was as if they were not related. Craig was closer to my imagination. (I am Swedish by the way)
lordtufty 4 weeks ago
It is not a remake when the source material is a book. It is an adaptation. And Fincher's version was a much better adaptation whose characters were much more fleshed out and allowed scenes to breathe.
AdamBustin 4 weeks ago
Who said box office earnings HAS to do with the quality of a film?
Earnings could be due to the fact that its an adaptation of a famous novel, because the production/content of the film has a certain notoriety, because of a novelty associated with the films plot, because of a strong marketing campaign, because of the 'big names' attached to the film, because its got a ginormous budget, because it is the 'cool thing' to watch.
None of which has anything to do with quality.
dunnededunnedunne 4 weeks ago
i think that's a catch 22. when significant alterations are made fans of the originals cry 'ruined it', usually with justification, but when remakes are faithful people ask what the point was. well the point, as always, is to bring the story to an american audience widely perceived (apparently with justification) as lacking the patience for subtitled foreign films. it's commercial, not artistic. but if the remake is a worthy homage, who cares? 2 excellent versions of something are better than 1.
DAandFrank 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
this is an insightful point (i was expecting just a reiteration of the old 'it's fine but no better than the original so why bother?' line) and i can see how purists might delight in the prospect of remakes not being commercially enticing. however, another recent trend in remakes is that they're being treated with more care and respect. both TGWTDT and Let Me In were in my eyes of more or less equal quality to their foreign language originals. Although they didn't bring much new to the table,
DAandFrank 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
You have to take back 2 times what you spent to make your money back?? That sounds totally wrong by definition. Could someone explain why it's this way in the movie business?
richardcadbury 4 weeks ago
Fincher's one is actually The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. the other adaption of the book is more like The Woman With The Dragon Tattoo
horgandavid 4 weeks ago
I have heard that the remake was actually more well-made.
Markunator 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from kermodeandmayo
Umm ... Finchers TGwtDT has take 200 million worldwide... mark get your facts right
lordtufty 4 weeks ago
I have seen both. The first halfs of both films are very similar but in the second half the Fincher version comes into its own with its character development.
CraigSips 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
£$£$
frogtastic1000 1 month ago
It's not about a remake Mark, it's about a different adaptation that the original version wasn't so faithful too.
The American version focuses more on the journalist than on Lisbeth. The original missed out LOADS of stuff from the book.
Mark- I know you hate remakes, but READ THE GODDAM BOOK! Even many Swedish critics say it's more faithful to the book.
Also, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. The original & the sequels were intended to be a TV series but they cut loads out and made them into a feature film.
Muskateering 1 month ago
I absolutely cannot tolerate subs at all and I genuinely don't know why. I like the idea of remakes but if I'm honest I'd like to see some high quality dubs of the original being done.
I know I know, people like me shouldn't even be allowed to watch films lol.
Quickblood1 1 month ago
the new one is definitely better
thekingofcorsairs 1 month ago
well its at 200 million now (and 100 million domestic) and will get 220/230 and it cost 90 million to make
a slighty biased view from Mark I do believe
gillri 1 month ago
Why can't americans just dub the swedish movies if subtitles are such a big problem?
AntonGorodetsky 1 month ago
I think it's perfectly natural for Swedish people to have conversations with each other in broken English. Just like we always speak Russian at the dinner table in Norway. Apart from that, Rooney Mara's Salander is a shock rock singer, while Rapace's Salander is actually dangerous. But I knew that would be the case before I saw the Fincher-version. Hollywood will never be able to recreate the grit of the original, and Mara's Oscar nod for her interpretation sums the difference between the two:)
dilmao 1 month ago
@dilmao so you had your mind made up before you saw the film?
horgandavid 1 month ago
@horgandavid Not about what to have for dinner the next day, but I knew Hollywood is incapable, or unwilling, of recreating the grit of the original, yes. If you are still naive enough to think they can, I actually sort of envy that, apart from the foreshadowing reality check of course.
dilmao 1 month ago
Comment removed
dunnededunnedunne 1 month ago
So Fincher's Tattoo just made more money from Foreign audiences than the Swedish version did from Foreign audiences, same goes for Domestic.
TheeOneWhoTalks 1 month ago
I must expand on my last comment, I realise the ending is different in the fincher version, but otherwise the film featured a lot more about millennium
t8yman 1 month ago
Is there an elephant in the room, or am I going slightly crazy, the Fincher version has an entirely different ending does it not? And as someone who has seen both and read the book, I felt the Fincher version was more faithful to the book.
t8yman 1 month ago
@t8yman exactly! Mark missed this point out COMPLETELY concerning this issue.
Also, Lisbeth in the book was alot more like the character in Finchers version, than being a straight up badass that was difficult to have much sympathy for. In the Swedish version most of the time she was just downright rude. Rooney Mara's depiction was more like Lisbeth in the book than Noomi Rapace's 'Jason Bourne' version.
Problem with Mark, is that he'll like a foreign language film more for the sake of it.
Muskateering 1 month ago
Mark, so your actually know what you're talking about? The rest of the world? In the German market you never see a film with subtitles, they are all dubbed.
fleischwolferl 1 month ago
I CAN'T stand that arrogant tosspot Kermode - why the hell should we be told by him to gladly put up with sub-titles - other minority-speaking countries only do it because they have to. When watching a film you don't want to be continually looking at the bottom of the screen to understand what is being said (that has a negative impact on your enjoyment of the film - geddit dickhead). It's like saying silent films offer as much as talkies - wrong! Here's a better idea - do away with film critics!
39thejust1 1 month ago
99 million isnt bad for a movie like this. Its dark and not easy to watch, it not an easy movie for general audiences to take in. I think the studio went over board with the budget because they just got really excited about the american book sales and people going after the originals on dvd. I dont mind remakes, there gonna happen either way, if we can keep getting ones like this and people like david fincher doing them i dont think its a bad thing.
reelred13 1 month ago
Loved the original, thought Fincher's was quite average and very boring. Pacing was a mess.
xAdventFilms 1 month ago
Okay so I stupidly opted to watch Fincher's version before I'd seen the original. Couldn't stick more than 90 minutes of it. To be honest I wish I could say that it was due to some bad directing or drawn out dialogue or some such other complaint. The reason I had to turn it off was because I honestly could not look one second longer at Rooney Mara's stupid fuckin eyebrowless face. The Girl With A Paper Bag On Her Head or The Girl Who With Eyebrow Tattoos would've been a better description for me
BaronVonPenguin 1 month ago
@BaronVonPenguin You should watch the Swedish original, it was indeed much better. However, Rooney Mara was brilliant in the Fincher version, no doubt about it.
sam91004 1 month ago
@sam91004 Without a doubt I definitely will. I just wish I'd watched it lastnight instead of Fincher's
BaronVonPenguin 1 month ago
@MrMoviemaverick I'd be interested in seeing them; if they could be done properly. Some films like No Country for Old Men would be very good in a foreign setting I think.
TheNotthediver 1 month ago
Comment removed
2505994 1 month ago
Didn't like this film. I haven't read the book. The film seems designed only for those who read into the entire franchise.
It compresses the plot into crazy short time, which makes little unless, again unless you have read the book. It was no high-octane action. It was long, boring and unnecessary.
Olafandlafandlaf 1 month ago
@Olafandlafandlaf Once you have read a book you have to see the film safe bet for them .
woofalot13 1 month ago
Insomnia
LewisCraggs 1 month ago
Kermode didn't like the original Dragon Tattoo when it first came out. Didn't he make Legion his film of the week instead?
Fatpie42 1 month ago
@MrCassavius Yes, I understood that, I just found the comment pompous and offensive to assume that.
hanshotfirst1138 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What did it bring to the table?
Money.
That's why H-wood remakes films to begin with...some empty suits want to profit off the hard work and creativity of others, so they crank out a shiny turd and laugh all the way to the bank.
You have to remember...H-wood doesn't make movies for the audience.
In H-wood, it is literally all about the Benjamins. They want money and only money. This Swedish film is making money for other people?! Bullsh-t. I'll remake it and then I'll be the one profiting.
racewiththefalcons 1 month ago
Comment removed
racewiththefalcons 1 month ago
Whats the point of this video?
dunnededunnedunne 1 month ago
You could make the same points about my all time favorite film Infernal Affairs and its remake The Departed. The Departed won the Oscar for its rehashed scenes from the original except with Boston accents and more profanity. As a result people think Infernal Affairs was crap because it was a Hong Kong production. Fucked up right?
kit52385 1 month ago
original good, remake bad...i get it mark, i've read your book :D
frogtastic1000 1 month ago
Mark, when I recall scenes from a foreign language film I remember the dialogue in English, that's how fast I, or anybody, can get used to subtitles. After five minutes you don't even realize you're reading them.
GatorM 1 month ago
@GatorM so you're remaking it in your head? :P
horgandavid 1 month ago
NOO MARK Your argument assumes a films validity or prestige is bound to its box office takings, is that really the argument we should be having? It is an embarrassing sick joke that Hollywood has to remake any good foreign films it glances at
They almost remade Cinema Paradiso with Bruce Willis and Macaulay Culkin. The prosecution rests
keflar5 1 month ago 19
@keflar5 His argument actually is that the film is really no better than the Swedish version and is really only a bit visually flashier. On that basis the only real strength that the remake could have (and indeed the real point of them making it) is if it took the story to a wider audience. However, box office figures indicate that it hasn't achieved that aim. Worth listening to his 5Live review.
MrMozwell 1 month ago
@MrMozwell Wider audience? You have just made my own point
keflar5 1 month ago
@keflar5 But that's not even what he said? Shouldn't we know by know that that is the opposite of what Kermode always says (read pirates of the carribean). He pointed out that the american remake was not a box office hit and thus he asked why even make a film if there's no profit (directors have signed a sequel contract as well).
sam91004 1 month ago
@sam91004 Thank you for disagreeing with me and then making my point for me at the end of your comment
keflar5 1 month ago
@keflar5 Wasn't your point that Kermode argued that box office success was an indicator of the quality of the film? My point was that this was not the point Kermode was trying to make. A bit confused here :/
sam91004 1 month ago
@keflar5 You did not get his point. What he was saying is, that, unlike the americans,the european people have no problems with reading subtitles. How can he tell that this is the case? Well, according to the box office takings, european people went to see the film, americans did not. He merely uses the box office takings as an indicator, he isn't putting a films validity in relation to the money it made.
eliinnos 1 month ago
I think you're preaching to the choir here Mark, its the American's who can't appreciate foreign films!
lucklessluke 1 month ago
Of course the big money will be made from the 3D version ;)
geoffreyweller 1 month ago
it think us europeons and asians should remake american movies and call them "ADAPTATIONS".
Niels Arden Oplev should remake fight club
Tomas Alfredson should remake cloverfeild
Chan wook park should remake do the right thing
MrMoviemaverick 1 month ago 18
@MrMoviemaverick well fight club is based on a book and the fincher version is very different from it, so a (foregin) version sticking to book could be considered an adaption of the book over a remake of my favourite film of all time.
horgandavid 1 month ago
@MrMoviemaverick Good Point Conor
jackxl53 4 weeks ago
@MrMoviemaverick Tomas Alfredson did remake Tinker Taylor Soildier Spy, so it seems he's not above it.
TheeOneWhoTalks 3 weeks ago
"American?" Seriously Mark, the language is called "English."
hanshotfirst1138 1 month ago
@hanshotfirst1138 I think he quite gets the difference and its a very purposeful comment because american its becoming a different language than english, a poorer language too, filled with grammatical and orthographic incorrectness
MrCassavius 1 month ago
old Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee films taugth me how to read subs, i see no problem, id rather watch with subs than dubbed. my mate will not watch a film with subs, not 1. his loss
mitzibishi 1 month ago
I find this constant badgering of people to like subtitles pretty annoying and patronising. Some people just don't like watching films with subtitles. Plenty of people aren't particularly strong readers. I personally read quite slowly and if I'm reading subtitles, I can't really take in any nuances of facial expressions because I spend the whole time looking at the bottom of the screen. To Mark, apparently that is unacceptable and I should learn to deal with it. Not everyone is the same.
mmatycoonDOTcom 1 month ago
The American version is better, that's all that matters.
Who cares how much it took?
Mankind081 1 month ago
@Mankind081 It shows how many people have seen it.
martialbro5 1 month ago in playlist More videos from kermodeandmayo
It's not a remake, the Swedish people just happened to make the film before the Americans, that doesn't mean that they have the rights to the book.
qwertyuiopdan1 1 month ago
Transformers stormed the box office... And adding visual style is not 'adding nothing' in a visual medium...
horgandavid 1 month ago
I read a review of the American version that said ".. and Mara rocks." I couldn't agree more. Like a goth metal singer, Mara rocks. If you're into goth metal that is. Rapace's Salander on the other hand, is lethally dangerous. Bit of a difference. But I knew that before I saw it, Hollywood is uncapable of recreating grit like that. The Fincher-version was alright, and that's about it.
dilmao 1 month ago
The thing is both the US and Swedish versions of this film are essentially of equal quality. Everything that was good about the Swedish film is equally as good in the US film and everything that was bad about the original is equally as bad in Finchers film. And, for the record the US film is a remake not an adaptation, adaptations require dramatic and relatively large changes to be made such as plot, characters, scenes, locations etc... It's a remake, end of story.
petertyson2 1 month ago 2
@petertyson2 Thank you, for talking sense. I could hug you!
dccl37 1 month ago
Though I understand where he is coming from with remakes being pointless, and I agree that it didn't stray too far from the original, I think it is wrong to go by relative box office figures. The Fincher version had a point because it was a big, shiny multimillion dollar version, and pushing boundaries and presenting dark themes in Hollywood is more impressive than doing the same thing in a smaller budget arthouse film. It's about context really, they're different enough to coexist/are both good
BillionBalconies94 1 month ago
Thank you Mark! I've been thinking this since they remade Rec., the Spanish horror. It is not necessary to rehash these already great films. All the American's are doing is marking their territory. This, Quarantine and Let Me In are leaching off their smaller scale originals and flashing cash nobody should care about (although sadly people do); how must the cast and crews of these silly films see themselves?
newg123456789 1 month ago
I enjoyed the remake as I'm a big fan of Fincher, although I do feel as he makes so few films so rarely that it's kind of a waste of his talents to be bound for the next few years to a franchise that already exists. He didn't add anything particularly memorable to an already well-made film & while Rooney Mara was excellent, Noomi Rapace was far superior. It's a shame that Mara gets the Oscar nom when Rapace was snubbed. Still, with Prometheus around the corner maybe she'll have the last laugh.
PhoenixWright101 1 month ago
Kermode, I love your work but, Fincher;s Tatoo is NOT a remake, but a seperate adaptation of the original novel, in the same way the Coens' True Grit is not a remake, but another adaptation of the novel. I mean, let's dig deeper: by that logic, every version of Alice in Wonderland is a remake of the previous even though they are based on the same book and not each other.
SavageBroadcast 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Its only a bad excuse that it is all about subtitles. The real reasom America remakes foreign movies is that the movige goers are afraid of other cultures - or at least, that is what the movie film companies are afraid of.
modplugrad 1 month ago
this comes back to the what is a remake debate? The same arguement goes for the Coen's True Grit film and personally I side with the film-makers. Novels are there to be adapted, so does that mean that with the film-maker that gets there first, everyone who choses to adapt that novel after is judged to be remaking that film-maker's work? I say no, I do believe that Fincher's remake is another adaptation in the same way that the Coen's True Grit is. And its irrelevant as they are both great films.
vhead1 1 month ago
@vhead1
Great point, and I agree completely. That pretty much sums it up.
ExtremeBogom 1 month ago
@vhead1 Agreed
SavageBroadcast 1 month ago
Please please please stop saying 'Ringoo'. You sound like a fool. The film is called Ring. Ringu is just Ring said with a Japanese accent. It's not pronounced like Pingu. For the love of God will someone please tell stupid hack critics this.
davidfgranger 1 month ago
@davidfgranger Eh, no thats not entirely true. It is not just Ring with a Japanese accent. The Japanese actually take english words and adapt them for their own language and spelling system. Since you cant spell Ring in japanese, they name their movie Ringu, which ends on a vovel in a way that the Japanese alphabet can handle. They give plenty of things adapted English titles in Japan and it is more than just an accent issue.
modplugrad 1 month ago
@modplugrad
You made a comment just to moan about that?
Deary me...
ExtremeBogom 1 month ago
@ExtremeBogom Lol! way to make a pointless attack on someone merely making a (possibly) valid point. Very mature indeed! But its ok. Im used to it. This is the internet after all.
modplugrad 1 month ago
@modplugrad
Can't see how that's an attack, unless your extremely sensitive...
ExtremeBogom 1 month ago
@ExtremeBogom There you go again with a pointless comment. What is the purpose of even commenting on my comments in this fashion? The point is entirely lost on me.
modplugrad 1 month ago
@modplugrad Oh, and it is "you're", not "your"
modplugrad 1 month ago
@ExtremeBogom Well, yes, yes I did, because it's a pet peeve of mine when people think they're being clever by pronouncing the names of Japanese films with English titles in a stupid way. When he stops doing it I'll stop moaning about it.
davidfgranger 1 month ago
@modplugrad Well ok I oversimplified, but my point is that it is not pronounced 'Ringoo', more like 'ring-uh', but at the end of the day the film is called Ring.
davidfgranger 1 month ago
@davidfgranger Fair enough :)
modplugrad 1 month ago
American remakes are nearly always just capitalising on what has been a success in other places, I've never seen one made simply because they had a genuinely new take on a story. The Swedish version was much better - the chemistry between Nyqvist's slightly podgy Blomkvist and Rapace's feral Lisbeth was far more effecting.
With Fincher's version, I couldn't stop that voice in the back of my head bickering away about the dialect continuity long enough to enjoy it.
claireditzelable 1 month ago
I'm Irish and I've never seen a dubbed movie in the cinema. I don't get the aversion to subtitles, there's no action on the screen while people are talking and you can read much faster than people talk... And you're still looking at the screen!!
OSWReview 1 month ago
Cut out the last 30 minutes, and I would have dug the hell out of it
southerndandy89 1 month ago
Swedish version was better, but the cat would have been a really creepy/eerie part if it was in the Swedish version.
JRTET21 1 month ago
The remake is better than the original in ever way, with the exception of the portrayal of the eponymous character (oh, and the terrible, unnecessary accents that Daniel Craig obviously just, rightly, refused to join in with). The plot is much better structured and seems a lot less like a boring epsiode of Frost, which was all the original was for me.
danzibar401 1 month ago
Seen all the original films, loved them.
There is ZERO reason for me to watch the remake. Well, actually there is zero reason for the remake to exist. Well, apart from greed and laziness.
The originals are fine as they are, not perfect, but still brilliant. In my eyes when you remake a film, then it should be of film that originally wasnt very good, and you improve upon it in the remake.
Remaking a multi award winning and critically acclaimed film is beyond stupid.
RadioDetuned 1 month ago
He's judging the movies as movies. Not as book adaptations. So finchers version being closer to the book makes no difference in this case.
cklambo 1 month ago 2
I'd also like to add most foreign countries don't read subtitles, they dub movies not in their language the majority of the time.
TheeOneWhoTalks 1 month ago
The new one brings so much to the table that the original didn't have, Lisbeth in this version is so much more vulnerable, a number of important plot points are closer to the book than in the original, the casting is much more accurate, whether you think it's better or not is a different story (though I'd also say it's better), all of the characters have felt much more complex.
TheeOneWhoTalks 1 month ago
he'll never get it will he?? ¬¬
LucasW180 1 month ago
The modern audience is lazy and won't read subtitles, same reason The Artist hasn't been a popular as it should be because people won't watch a black & white movie or a movie with no sound.
ChildOfTheWilderness 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think Mark's being unfair to the remake here. The Swedish version, although brilliant in the first half, was massively flawed in its conclusion. Fincher's version is completely true to the characters in the novel and, frankly, betters the Swedish version in almost every way.
The film wasn't as successful due to a massive marketing mishap by the producers (releasing at Christmas? Really!?) but I feel that the film did the novel the justice it finally deserved.
SeeLeekFilms 1 month ago
Comment removed
SeeLeekFilms 1 month ago
Dubbing is all nice and well I guess but personally I can't stand it. I much prefer to keep the original language and add subtitles. The intonations and body language is an important part of the movie experience and while remaking or dubbing a movie part of that will be lost.
boretrk 1 month ago
As far as box office goes, yes, the box office hasn't been as amazing as one would hope, but the fact is that you don't need to look at the film's box office in order to see what is a good film and what isn't, because we have had some good films that do well (The Dark Knight, Avatar) and we have some bad films that really do better than they deserve to (Transformers 2 and 3). Like Emilio13805 said, it's not about the subtitles, it's about the quality of the picture.
ShaneRBeacham 1 month ago
The biggest thing I want to point out is that the American version is not a remake, but rather a re-adaptation (and in my opinion a better adaptation than the Swedish version) of the original novel. I think what's good about the Fincher film was that it didn't feel like a shot-by-shot redo of the Swedish film. It told the same story but told it in a different way. It was similar, but not identical, which is why it worked for me.
ShaneRBeacham 1 month ago 9
@ShaneRBeacham That's one of the excuses these guys give to justify their plundering that really gets my goat. If a book existed you can call it a 're-adaptation' so you're not cashing in on anyone else's hard work/risk-taking at all. Ugh. If it's been filmed before it's a remake, no excuses. It doesn't have to be an insult to be called a remake, like a cover version of a song can be as good as the original, but it's when they try to wriggle out of admitting what it is that really irritates me.
PhoenixWright101 1 month ago
@PhoenixWright101 No sir, a remake is not the same as an adaptation. As I presented in my other comment, 'by that logic, every version of Alice in Wonderland is a remake of the previous even though they are based on the same book (adapting from a non-cinematic source) and not each other (a remake).' Other examples include Tim Burton's Charlie and the chocalate factory (not a remake of the 70s version, but another, more accurate, adaptation of the original story).
SavageBroadcast 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@SavageBroadcast It's a contentious issue, which only becomes clearer once a book has been adapted countless times over many years. The simple fact, as far as recent examples are concerned, is that lazy, cowardly Hollywood producers are cashing in on the critical success of acclaimed foreign films and fast tracking remakes within a year. This odious term 're-adaptation' only started getting thrown around when audiences visibly started to tire of endless remakes, reboots, re-imaginings and so on.
PhoenixWright101 1 month ago
@PhoenixWright101 You really think this is recent? No, my friend: if you knew cinema history, you'd realise almost every film ever made since the silent era was either a remake (including the much-beloved Scarface, The Thing, Magnficent Seven among others) or an adaptation of another story (Alice, the classic Monster films such as Dracula and Frankenstein, Shawshank, King and I, Sherlock Holmes among countless others).
SavageBroadcast 1 month ago
@SavageBroadcast No sir. Hold your condescension there my friend. Where did I say that remakes are a recent thing? The volume and frequency of remaking the same material has dramatically increased over the last decade however, without a doubt, and my ire is directed at all these buzzwords that have been concocted/appropriated from the noughties onward to make these films seem original. No one called Scarface or The Thing a reboot, re-imagining or a re-adaptation. A little honesty is all I want.
PhoenixWright101 1 month ago
@PhoenixWright101 No, I'm not defending remakes, but this 'oh, everything is being remade, we are out of ideas mentality' is just repulsive, and futhermore, where is your evidence for people either wanting more or less? Box office stats don't prove a thing (Dark city is a classic, but made little money. So was Blade Runner, and many other films I could list here).
SavageBroadcast 1 month ago
@SavageBroadcast Right, just spotted this comment after I posted. I give in. Your opinion is the only one that matters and if I and many others happen to disagree with you then that is indeed repulsive. Your knowledge and appreciation of cinema is unparalleled, unimpeachable and we are all wrong-headed and narrow-minded fools for being tired of the same 'brands' cranked out in an endless joyless cycle. I bow to your superiority and shall refrain from commenting further.
PhoenixWright101 1 month ago
@PhoenixWright101 There is no need for a defensive mentality. I'm not saying that you have no right to comment, but if you are going to make broad claims, the least you could do is substantiate with fact, not your own own opinion, which is, as is mine and everyone elses, subjective and base don taste. And hey, fi you can attack Hollywood, I'm entitled to be brutally honest with you, simple as that.
SavageBroadcast 1 month ago
@PhoenixWright101 And one more thing: if you read reviews or coverage of either Scarface or Thing, you'd know that the film makers made no effort to hide the fact that they were based on those prior films.
SavageBroadcast 1 month ago
@SavageBroadcast That was his point, numb-nuts. They referred to them as REMAKES and didn't hide from the fact with terms like 'readaptation' or 'reimagining'. They were honest about it. And since when did anyone on a YouTube comment section have to substantiate anything they say? We have a handful of characters to state an opinion, we're not in court or in parliament. Also why does criticizing Hollywood leave one open to insults? They're making films for us, so they're answerable to us.
dccl37 1 month ago
@dccl37 And if you had paid attention, you'd realise that was not the crux of his argument, which was based on the misconception that adaptation and remake are one and the same, which they are not. Second, if we are discussing film, then yes, we do have to substantiate out arguments, otherwise they fall flat under the weight of 'opinion for opinion's sake, without regard for debate or discussion'.
SavageBroadcast 1 month ago
@SavageBroadcast I'm talking about the particular individual comment you were responding to rather than the full conversation, to which you replied with "the filmmakers made no effort to hide the fact that they were based on those prior films". My point was he already knew that they were remakes and is happier when the directors are honest enough to call them remakes rather than divorce themselves from the originals and say "it's not a remake, it's a readaptation, I'm doing something new."
dccl37 1 month ago
@SavageBroadcast And if people just offering their opinion without justifying every syllable annoys you, I suggest you back away from the internet right now for your own psychological well-being.
dccl37 1 month ago
@dccl37 And thirdly, there is a huge difference between being brutally honest and calling out someone when they make a flawed argument, and just insulting them with your run of the mill swear word. If can criticize studios, then what stops him from being criticized in turn by peers?
SavageBroadcast 1 month ago
@SavageBroadcast I don't see the connection at all. Criticizing a Hollywood organisation is like insulting someone's mother, is that what you're saying? Why would someone attacking a film studio's business practices have any effect on you unless you worked for that studio in question?
dccl37 1 month ago
@dccl37 Scale is irrelevant as criticism is applicable to almost anything that has some kind of function or reasoning behind. One can criticize practices and can be in turn criticized for his views on the matter. Also, as I said, we are talking about films here, not some generic youtube video where it's all 'lolz' and 'thumbs up'. Here, if you don't bring up some kind of substance when making a claim about cinema, then yes, it can be questioned. Just look at the other comments on here.
SavageBroadcast 1 month ago
@SavageBroadcast I take it you don't have a lot of friends then? ;)
dccl37 1 month ago
@ShaneRBeacham I was about to comment on this blog then I realised you have made all of the points I was going to make. The only additional comment is that the Fincher version covers more of the original source novel than the Swedish version.
SuperCitizenDick 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@SuperCitizenDick I think I said that too lol but yes it does.
ShaneRBeacham 1 month ago
Reading subtitles,huh?? lol.... One might as well just go and read the book or something. English speaking audiences probably just find reading a movie enjoyable.
wataki2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In defence of the original (not that needs defending in my opinion) the DVD and I believe certain screenings also have the option of being dubbed serviceably enough into English as well, a tactic most anime viewers will be familiar with. So even before the remake came out, language needn't be a barrier to watching it.
radicaladz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In defence of the original (not that needs defending in my opinion) the DVD and I believe certain screenings also have the option of being dubbed serviceably enough into English as well, a tactic most anime viewers will be familiar with. So even before the remake came out, language needn't be a barrier to watching it.
radicaladz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In defence of the original (not that needs defending in my opinion) the DVD and I believe certain screenings also have the option of being dubbed serviceably enough into English as well, a tactic most anime viewers will be familiar with. So even before the remake came out, language needn't be a barrier to watching it.
radicaladz 1 month ago
In defence of the original (not that needs defending in my opinion) the DVD and I believe certain screenings also have the option of being dubbed serviceably enough into English as well, a tactic most anime viewers will be familiar with. So even before the remake came out, language needn't be a barrier to watching it.
radicaladz 1 month ago
Because another David Fincher film.
Spaceman2921 1 month ago 2
Or learning languages!
Arkanadien 1 month ago
The 18 certificate it has doesn't help it, if it were a 15 it would garner much more of a success (12A is out of the question given the subject matter), but it had to be an 18. I haven't seen the original, I saw Fincher's remake in the cinema around Christmas and thought it was exceptional, I will watch the original soon, but the remake is superb. How did Let The Right One In fair compared with Let Me In, out of curiosity?
RuhBuhJuh1 1 month ago
@RuhBuhJuh1 His opinion was pretty scathing. The video about it is up on youtube. And, having only watched the original, I can sincerely recommend it although I can't judge it against the remake.
bordarboy 1 month ago
@bordarboy Same, I've only watched the fantastic original, I never bothered with the remake after Kermode's review of it, what I meant to ask was how did the American remake fair in the box office (as K talks about the box office about both Dragon Tattoos) compared with the original? Sorry it wasn't more clear!
RuhBuhJuh1 1 month ago
@RuhBuhJuh1 Let me in was apparently just a shot for shot remake in English with Americanised versions of the original's names and is Complete and Utter SHIT where as the original is a Masterpiece. Look for the Kermode Uncut let me in thing.
Basically Let the Right One in is a film about kids that happens to feature vampires, where as the remake is a film about vampires that happens to feature kids.
fatboyslim142 1 month ago
@fatboyslim142 People tell me that the american remake of Let Me In is very good, even as good as the original. Not only am I sceptical about that, but it is just a matter of principle as well. The original is only a few years old, it is very well made and the new one is supposed to indeed be like a shot-for-shot remake. That doesnt make the new one bad per se, just entirely pointless and a waste of resources. The kind of thing that makes me shake my head and mumble about "idiots"
modplugrad 1 month ago
Wow I can’t believe I’m totally agreeing with you! The evidence is clear, numbers never lie!
opulent1 1 month ago
What was the point of this Kermode? Are we judging films based on how they performed at the box office now?
The American version of this film is far better than the Swedish one. It's got nothing to do with subtitles, it's got to do with overall superior quality.
Emilio13805 1 month ago 5
@Emilio13805 tosh, the swedish version was far better. if only from a structural point of view. the only bit the american version got right was not going to australia for harriet.
codenameGIZM0 1 month ago
@Emilio13805 Maybe I misinterpreted what he was saying but I don't think he was passing any judgement on the quality of the films based on their earnings or profit, he was just proving that re-making a film in English doesn't mean it will be successful or a worthy venture. He made his opinions on the 2 versions clear at the beginning of the video before he started talking about box-office figures etc.
HarrisJamesBen 1 month ago
I think they are both fantastic films with their own triumphs and flaws. I thought Rapace acted fantaastically, but seemed to mature to play the character. Mara also gave a fantastic performance, and becasue she was closer to the characters age, seemed to fit Salander better. Both are fantastic and i look forward to the sequel that will come.
samroslyn 1 month ago
Time for America or should I say more specifically Hollywood to get over itself and understand that the world of cinema is a far bigger place, where the english language is not always spoken. You can't claim to love film or be a cinephile until you learn to love foreign film in it's first language with subtitles.
petertyson2 1 month ago
Haven't seen the remake, but can't say I'm surprised it's not been a massive hit - it's not a 12A film, which seems to be the most fiscally rewarding cert.
sunnygirly2k4 1 month ago 2
What I find particularly odd, is that the American version is now showing in the cinemas in Sweden.
Pegasus82nd 1 month ago
I really enjoyed the first film and I see absolutely no reason to see the remake. I'm not even bothered about seeing if Rooney Mara's performance is better, or Fincher's camerawork, visuals and direction is better.
drplbiftin 1 month ago
Say what you want but David Fincher version was superior to the Swedish version period!
Xenda 1 month ago