Regie:
David FincherDrehbuch:
Steven ZaillianKamera:
Jeff CronenwethBesetzung:
Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, Steven Berkoff, Robin Wright, Yorick van Wageningen, Joely Richardson (mehr)Streaming (6)
Inhalte(1)
Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) ist ein investigativer Wirtschaftsjournalist, der fest entschlossen ist, seine Ehre wieder herzustellen, nachdem er wegen übler Nachrede verurteilt wurde. Er wird von einem der reichsten Industriellen Schwedens angeheuert, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer). Blomkvist soll herausfinden, was hinter dem Verschwinden von Vangers geliebter Nichte Harriet steckt. Vanger vermutet, dass sie von einem anderen Familienmitglied ermordet wurde. Der Journalist reist zum Familiensitz auf einer unwegsamen Insel an der in Eis getauchten schwedischen Küste, unsicher, was ihn dort erwarten wird. Gleichzeitig wird Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), eine ungewöhnliche aber geniale Detektivin der Sicherheitsfirma 'Milton Security', angeheuert, in Blomkvists Leben herumzuschnüffeln, was letztlich dazu führt, dass sie Blomkvist dabei hilft herauszufinden, wer verantwortlich für den Mord an Harriet Vanger ist. Obwohl Lisbeth ein Schutzschild vor der Welt, die sie immer und immer wieder verraten hat, aufgebaut hat, erweisen sich ihre Fähigkeiten als Hackerin und ihre radikale Entschlossenheit als unbezahlbar. Während Mikael die verschlossenen Vangers direkt ins Visier nimmt, zieht Lisbeth ihre Fäden im Schatten. Gemeinsam stoßen sie auf eine Mordserie, die sich von der Vergangenheit in die Gegenwart zieht. Und schließlich haben sie nur ihre zarten Bande aufkeimenden Vertrauens, um sich vor einem Verbrechen absolut monströsen Ausmaßes zu schützen... (Sony Pictures Home Entertainment)
(mehr)Kritiken (15)
Sofern ich nämlich das prozedurale Ritual Zodiac mit diesem geschlechtslosen Genrepastiche vergleiche, so wird klar, dass Fincher den Studioauftrag vollends ausgeführt hat. Nordische Detektivstories sind nicht cool. Sie sind immer nicht irgendwie seltsam. Diese Version hat es überhaupt nicht geschafft, das abzubilden. Die Untersuchung fährt hier auf dem Nebengleis, und was mich bei Fincher gleich doppelt fuchst - jeglicher pathologische Touch flutscht hier nur so durch. Dass der Mörder gerne Enya hört, ist da nur ein schwaches Trostpflaster. Analverkehr auf jene Art und Weise, wie der Film des anbietet, kann nur allzu orthodoxe Katholiken wirklich empören, wobei es mehrere Stellen gab, an denen ich vergeblich Finchers Beitrag gesucht habe. Ich persönlich habe den größten Teil des Films über gelitten - und irgendetwas flüstert mir da zu, dass, sofern man die Buchvorlage nicht kennen wird, so werden einige Dinge keinen Sinn ergeben (im Fall einer Detektivgeschichte ist ja die Motivation des Mörders sowie jene des Detektivs doch sehr wichtig, und gerade das erscheint in diesem Film eher schwammig).
()
So ein beunruhigendes Gewitter habe ich schon lange nicht mehr im Kino erlebt. Das Original habe ich bewusst nicht gesehen, aber das Remake hat mich beeindruckt. Ich bin froh, dass Fincher Lisbeth Mikael vorgezogen hat, da ihre Figur viel interessanter ist, obwohl Craig dieses Mal gut und vor allem gewöhnlich gespielt hat. Einige Szenen sind wirklich roh, sie sparen nicht an Rätseln, bedrückender Atmosphäre, Nacktheit und verdammt schwarzen Humor. Das Tempo des Films wird durch die Musik von Atticus Ross (Zusammenarbeit an zwei Alben der Band Korn) und Trent Reznor (Frontmann der wilden Nine Inch Nails) kraftvoll angetrieben. Und die Eröffnungstitel-Sequenz ist zweifellos das beste Intro, das ich in den letzten Jahren gesehen habe. Trotzdem kann ich nicht leugnen, dass Fincher seine eigenen Projekte besser stehen, in denen er sich nicht an strenge Vorgaben halten muss und im Gegenteil seine künstlerischen Dämonen voll ausleben kann. P.S .: Speziell für meine Kollegin Wipschku: Die Bewertung würde ich auf 84,2% setzen :)
()
Ein schönes Mainstream-Märchen. Der Humor und die Geschichte funktionieren auch dann, wenn man den Vorgänger oder die Original-Trilogie nicht kennt. Es ist noch gar nicht so lange her, dass Hollywood es für nötig befand, japanische und andere Horrorfilme zu aktualisieren und umzuschreiben; wenn es derzeit in Mode ist, die Schweden umzuschreiben, habe ich etwas mehr Verständnis dafür. Lisbeth Salander ist ein Mädchen, auf das die zeitgenössische Popkultur nicht verzichten kann, warum also nicht froh sein, dass ihre Serie nicht beißt. Fincher gefällt mir nicht immer, nach Craig suche ich nicht, Rooney Mara hätte ich nach der Facebook-Hure eine solche Persönlichkeit nicht zugetraut, Stellan Skarsgård mag ich in diesem Jahr sehr gerne, Christopher Plummer ist König, aber diejenige, die auf der Leinwand eine wahre Freude ist, ist das ätherische Wesen Joely Richardson. Ich muss Joely öfter treffen, und ich habe große Lust auf einen kleinen Marathon mit der Original-Lisbeth - und das ist genau der Effekt, den der Film haben sollte.
()
Viel besser als der schwedische Film. Man hat sich mehr am Buch orientiert und viel besser die Schauspieler*innen ausgesucht… Das habe ich nicht erwartet. Das größte Plus von Finchers Version (die in gar keinem Fall ein Remake des Films ist, sondern eine neue Version der literarischen Vorlage) ist Rooney Mara, die Darstellerin von Lisbeth Salander. Sie sieht viel seltsamer als Noomi Rapace aus, sie wirkt viel unergründlicher und wirft unwiderstehlich leere Blicke – sie ist einfach toll. Daniel Craig spielt daher die zweite Geige. Er spielt aber wie ein Virtuose, ist ja klar. Auch die Besetzung der anderen Rollen ist ausnahmslos gelungen. Ich habe mich sehr über Robin Wright gefreut. Den Darsteller vom Vormund Bjurman fand ich auch interessant. David Fincher hat gleich am Anfang eine sehr düstere Stimmung geschaffen (der Vorspann hat bestimmt viel gekostet), die bis zum Schluss nicht mehr nachgelassen hat. Der Drehbuchautor hat es geschafft (im Gegensatz zu dem, der den schwedischen Film verpatzt hat), in die zweieinhalb Stunden alle wichtigen Dinge hineinzubekommen. Er hat nichts verdreht und nur die Dinge weggelassen, auf die ich auch im Buch hätte verzichten können. Es wäre dumm, Verblendung nur deshalb weniger Sterne zu geben, weil es sich "bloß“ um einen Genre-Film handelt.
()
Remember the likable girl who dumped Mark Zuckerberg at the beginning of The Social Network? Try to imagine her with a lot of piercings, a mohawk and t-shirt emblazoned with FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING FUCKER on her thin, pale body. Love her or hate her, she doesn’t know how to be any other way. Lisbeth Salander. Though the film respects the book’s dual (in later parts, multiple) narrative perspective, it’s hard not to get the impression that Fincher is more fascinated by the androgynous hacker than by the reporter obsessed with finding out the truth. The filmmaker, who has always gravitated toward anarchy, as is evident in the violation of genre conventions in his films, has previously expressed a weakness for anti-social protagonists who aim to tear down the system. Actually, “weakness” probably isn’t a very appropriate term, as it can be associated with compassion, understanding and emotional kinship – none of which Fincher shows towards his characters. He does not offer them any kind of protection, which, with respect to the genre and the nature of the crimes committed, evokes an intense fear that practically anything can happen to the protagonists. This is true even if you have read the book and/or seen the Swedish version and you know what happens and when. I wouldn’t call the “care about the characters if you want; the information is more important to me” approach heartless; it’s just maximally focused on the issue being observed and reminiscent of Lisbeth’s thinking based on the analysis of consequences. Every piece of information presented will be put to use sooner or later. Every character and every action serves the narrative. I found the most cold-blooded example of the pragmatic understanding of a human being as a bearer of useful information to be Mikael’s meeting with his daughter, which doesn’t serve to inform us about the protagonist’s personal life, but only to further the investigation. The indifference to people’s emotions doesn’t come only from the director’s “mechanical” perfectionism – it is one of the film’s primary themes. None of the presented families is functional (Mikael is divorced, Lisbeth tried to burn her father); in the biggest family, money replaced emotions. Affection is expressed through sex. The crushing of all certainties continues with the discrediting of the system that made Lisbeth a legally insane psychopath and is not effective even in investigating crimes that can be proven only at the cost of committing other crimes. On top of that, utter hopelessness is ensured by the fatiguing outdoor cold, in which, however, it is less probable that some lunatic will inflict serious internal injuries than in the outwardly safe heated homes. Thanks also to the edgy music, spilling over into and out of the noise of the setting and thus always “present”, I had an unpleasant feeling not only during the most brutal scenes, but from start to finish. I consider making a film this disturbing based on a bestselling novel (so it is basically a so-called pre-sold product) and within a system built on feel-good movies to be an act almost as subversive as splicing frames of bare male genitalia into a children's film. 85%
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
David Fincher is one of the best directors alive and it’s not surprising that he’s made an excellent film. The differences between the American and Swedish adaptations are enough to invalidate the argument of a pointless remake, but I’m still unable to convince myself that I should be satisfied with this new version, I’m not, even though the quality is clear. In short, watching a whodunit when you know who the killer is, is as much fun as going to the sea to watch dolphins, even though you know that dolphins don’t live in that sea. You can enjoy the fresh sea breeze, work on a tan, have a cold alcoholic beverage… but you still know that you won’t see any dolphins.
()
My slight disappointment stems paradoxically from my ignorance of the book, which is obviously not very suitable for filming. This is because the quantity of names becomes annoying after a while, although otherwise, Fincher does great work as usual in all other components, so we do get a great soundtrack (but this time it's too "off the charts" for the Oscar race:)), excellent cinematography (which underlines the pedantic narrative), and precise actors. But I'll definitely go see it again. The fact that the gardener is the murderer will soon dawn on even the slower folks, but that's beside the point. How we get there is the first priority this time. Fincher is the best director alive right now, period.
()
An atmospheric illustration of a subordinate storyline from the novel; nothing more, nothing less. On one hand it is terribly little for Fincher (a special aspect of his preceding five adaptations of novels was that he always used his own interpretation and viewpoint, and Larsson offers much in this respect; too bad that he cut it down to this unimportant thrilleroid part), on the other it must be said that there are illustrations by nobodys and illustrations like those by Zdeněk Burian, which enrich the original story and become inseparable. And, in the same way that Craig is Blomkvist and Mara is Lisbeth (although an utterly different Lisbeth than Noomi), this is Burian. And yes, Fincher is still the same formal pedant under whom Reznor is growing into one of the timeless greats. Just Enya, removed of innocence once and for all, disappointed.
()
I put this film off for a long time, but now it is clear that it was in vain. Thanks to its perversity, sexual titillation and solid complexity, it quickly won me over. David Fincher clearly puts his directorial experience on display here as well, and despite his usual apparently favourite long running time, but he doesn't get boring and manages to shock and titillate in between. I would have shortened the finale by 20 minutes, then it would have been a 5*, but still unexpectedly very satisfied. 80%
()
To make an accurate comparison of both the European and North American versions would mean watching both films at once or shortly after each other. I saw the initial adaptation almost two years ago, so I dare not make a categorical conclusion. Nevertheless, the comparison of both versions and their quality is the most interesting aspect of the whole matter. There is a significant difference between European and American blockbuster films. With the overseas version, it is evident that we are operating in a completely different budget category, so the opening credits nail you to your seats with an audiovisual onslaught when you see the impressive transformations of the main characters' bodies in a sea of liquid latex. You appreciate the top-notch camera work and excellent music accompaniment. Whether it was in exteriors or interiors, no expense was spared. The main male role was, presumably, taken on by one of the highest-paid actors of today, who filled the gap between shooting Bond movies. The whole film was overseen by one of the most acclaimed directors of the past two decades. Instead of unknown European actors, you see internationally known faces of Hollywood stars. A film has been created that will likely have an impact on the Oscars and will successfully be distributed worldwide. There are no significant differences in the plot between the American and European versions; both films try to faithfully bring the book version to the screen within the possibilities of their respective runtimes. The American version is perhaps somewhat more commercial; it aims for a universal appeal to audiences from different cultures and countries, so it doesn't allow the viewer to dwell too much on the unspoken - it is more literal. In some places, that is to the detriment of the story. I would certainly not reduce the relationship between Blomkvist and Lisbeth to a purely sexual level, quite the opposite. Even with the generous runtime, it is surprising how little the film delves into the psychology of individual actors, showing their motivation, the demons that lead to a series of crimes, and the moves of the individual adversaries. As I mentioned before, the American version is more ambitious, and likely better made, as there is a difference between Fincher and Oplev, but when I think about it, Oplev's version is more likable to me after all. Let's not beat around the bush, the "Millennium Trilogy" became a hit not because of the character of the investigative journalist - there are dozens of those in books - but because of the edgy punk girl with somewhat sociopathic behavior and exceptional hacking skills. And here, in my eyes, Noomi Rapace clearly leads the way. She has a peculiar charisma, she is unfamiliar, so one can easily identify with her as Lisbeth and root for her. Rooney Mara is a capable actress, but the chemistry between her and me as a viewer simply did not work as it should have. She even seemed a bit unsympathetic to me, which made it hard to root for her. I can think of a few other names that I would have preferred to see in that role. In any case, this film is definitely worth a trip to the movie theater, if only for its excellent soundtrack and professional execution. Only a few blockbusters maintain a level that doesn't offend film connoisseurs, but I have to say that, emotionally, the American version somehow missed the mark for me. I don't need to see this film again. Overall impression: 75%.
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
It’s not the Fincher masterpiece that we are used to, but book adaptations are never easy to (this time I didn’t have time to read it beforehand). The middle part with the investigation itself runs very smoothly, but both the introduction and the conclusion, despite being excellent, are a little cumbersome. The atmosphere of the frozen Swedish planes is nicely illustrated, precise direction as always and the hypnotic music of Trent Reznor. The cast is A-grade. Both Craig and Mara are perfect. A well-thought out, tense story. But don’t expect it to be the event of the winter.
()
David Fincher's directorial style is beautifully easy to recognize, he imparts it to every one of his films. Brilliantly crafted dialogues, musical score, uncompromising atmosphere. This film could have been made in a number different ways. Essentially, it is a considerably clichéd and well-known story about a serial killer, but in the hands of a master, it becomes a unique cinematic delicacy, where ordinary things are presented in a completely extraordinary and distinctive manner. In the end, it is a seemingly well-behaved and coherent film that is brutally eccentric and demonically precisely shot. I wouldn't expect anything less from Fincher.
()
It's obvious that his film is a completely unnecessary contribution considering the two years older original, but that in itself doesn't detract from the fact that it's excellently made and once again highlights Fincher's mastery as a director. After Se7en and The Game, it would seem that he can't surprise with anything, but he makes another great two and a half hour detective story based mainly on interviews and collecting clues, and not only keeps the viewer's attention, but also perfectly imbues them with his dark style and pulls them right into the middle of that merry-go-round. He had already worked with similar material in Zodiac, but here he goes one step further, with not only excellent actors, music and settings, but above all a subtle and clearly defined theme with which he can work miracles. I’m not saying that he’s made a perfect or groundbreaking film, and I understand the lukewarm reception from the supporters of the Swedish original, but for me as a big Fincher fan, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was a great experience that I will remember for a long time. 90%
()
I wondered from the start why Fincher was throwing away the unoriginal but grandiose and clumsy Larsson source material. He clearly wasn’t that interested in it. He doesn't waste much directorial input on the investigation itself, and his typical subtle subversiveness is identifiable here perhaps only during the scene in which he suggests that Enya is arguably the world's whitest musical performer (I'll save my search for a connection to Dylan Moran's claim that if a vagina could talk, it would sound exactly like Enya, for another day). Fincher is only interested in one thing here – Lisbeth Salander. This builds on his study of the emerging new generation of young people who, through information technology and reckless pragmatism, are breaking down the centuries-old emeritus structures of elites, which he began in The Social Network (where, for example, recall the illustrative scene where, while the rich and the noble in funny hats, champagne in hand, get drunk watching the boys duel it out with their oars, Zuckerberg is silently extending Facebook's influence into Europe from his bedroom). Fincher's thesis in this study was that transhumanity, the merging of machine and human consciousness, occurs with the body becoming the carrier of data but still remaining a body (see the frequent and intense sex scenes), i.e. a voluntary transformation into an android that nonetheless does not encounter problems associated with its artificial "soul" because it basically knows from the beginning who is "king of its castle". I can imagine his disappointment when he eventually had to realize that transhumanity, on the contrary, occurs through the voluntary projection of his consciousness onto commercial network platforms, whose holders are, in the end, those same old, untouchable elites.
()
Absolutely badass intro with a fantastic, thematically perfectly matched soundtrack. What follows the opening credits is a display of totally professional worksmanship, which is really without formal flaws. Fincher can be confidently placed in the very top tier of directors, regardless of genre, continent, target audience, or similar benchmarks. I will preface this by saying that I have read the entire Millennium trilogy and seen the full Swedish film rendering. This is useful in comparing some aspects, by which I also want to show why Fincher is better in some ways and why he falls short in others (but only in very few). The Larsson source material is unparalleled, and that is not merely by far because it served as the template for the Swedish and now the American adaptation. The first book in the trilogy is extremely rich, readable, gripping, and far from being a mere whodunit – it asks a lot of philosophical questions and forces you to take a stand (perhaps a moral one). Although a more thorough probe into Lisbeth's soul and life doesn't actually occur until the second volume, the first book already outlines the brief foundations of her personality, which naturally develops in content over the next two volumes. This is what I found lacking in both the Swedish version and Fincher's take: a larger and more elaborate psychology of the two main characters. Of course, the resulting films should be judged as something created by the necessary trimming of the source material, so that viewers unfamiliar with Larsson's books wouldn't stare at their watches every half hour (absorbing even 90% of what happens in the book would make the film a minimum of 4 hours), but then you also have to take into account the fact that the final film's message is completely different from Larsson's original idea. I could go on comparing, but it's actually pretty clear that the main character's profile won't be fully developed until the next two installments – and I'm extremely curious to see how Fincher handles that. As for the film itself, I can say that it has great pacing (again, thanks to the snappy dialogue and very dynamic editing), definitely better casting than the Swedish version, a brilliantly icy soundtrack, and charmingly composed flashbacks. Had Fincher delved more into the main character and made Rooney Mara act more emotionally in some passages (at least after the rape scene), his adaptation could have taken on a completely different edge. Not to mention the basement finale, which, although it has the uncontestably superbly nasty Skarsgård, is somehow bland and flavorless and actually almost gives the impression that Fincher was in a hurry to get somewhere, just to be done with it. Still, a work like this has to be judged separately from the usual Hollywood productions (even the very good ones), because the way it's shot and the way Fincher presents himself as a director is exceptional. Still, we can mention this as a weak moment in his work, which I hope he will remedy very soon – the final installment in the trilogy in particular could become an unbelievable hit under his direction.
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
Werbung