Some people may be offended by a graphic rape scene.Not exactly rocket science, is it?
I'd hope that people booking themselves in for an 18-rated movie might have an idea of what a film might contain to get that rating rather than a lower one. Likewise, I'd imagine a large chunk of the audience will have read the book. Kudos to Fincher (and whichever studio/backers) too for not toning it right down to get a 12, as everyone else seems to these days.
I enjoyed the books - they're not high art but decent entertainment, and I thought the film was pretty good but then I like Fincher's stuff and the Trent Reznor soundtrack too. It did feel rather different to the book though, which was far more of Blomkvist's story with Salander as an outsider to that - she was far more central to the story this time round. Blomkvist is also portrayed as a bit dim in the movie I thought - lots of his examination and progress is cut out and major breakthroughs credited a lot more to Salander. Maybe that's more about Daniel Craig's performance though.
not once did I say "that didn't happen in the book!".
Really? Not even the Anita/Harriet thing? That was baffling as it was so unnecessary.
I'd hope that people booking themselves in for an 18-rated movie might have an idea of what a film might contain to get that rating rather than a lower one.
An ex-girlfriend dumped me for taking her to see From Dusk Till Dawn. She burst into tears at the point the vampires appeared and afterwards she sobbed "I can't believe you made me watch a film like that"
Daft cow.
I found the book boring; too much scene setting and detail and not enough story. Some people like that, some don't. For the same reason I've never been into Tolkien nor HP Lovecraft. Some authors are good at it and others just feel like they're filling the pages for no good reason.
I thought the film (Swedish version) was pretty good but a touch over-hyped. Movies with hype rarely live up to expectation for me.
i should probably watch these films. any recommendations on blu-ray over dvd for the original swedish ones?
An ex-girlfriend dumped me for taking her to see From Dusk Till Dawn
It doesn't sound like she was a keeper, anyway. 😆
The first film I took my wife to see (first or second date) was Sin City. I had no idea what it was about, I just knew she liked her cinema and that it was some stylized film noir. The bit where Frodo was tied up with no arms and legs and then got his head cut off was particulalry disturbing.
I really enjoyed the first film (I find it reasonably easy to detach myself from the disturbing bits - although less so now I'm a father).
But, for me, the first film was far more successful than the second two.
The haunting photo of the missing woman was what gave the film its edge and I enjoyed the two plots side-by-side.
The second two seemed to just be adding info where it wasn't really necessary for me. Very very likeable main characters I thought though.
Molgrips,
I'm sure that I've seen films based on books without reading the book.
And yes, a good film is a work of art in it's own right.
However, I don't think I've ever seen a film which was as emotionally satisfying as the book upon which it was based.
Couple come close:
The Big Sleep & Touching the Void spring to mind, but on the whole I think that literature is a far more complex and emotive medium than film.
As the Blessed Sewell might say;
(Pretentious guff) A good book is a love affair. By comparison even a good film is a quick fumble behind the bike sheds. (Pretentious guff). 😀
However, I don't think I've ever seen a film which was as emotionally satisfying as the book upon which it was based.
As an example, The Godfather film is far better than the book, which contains a long, bizarre sub-plot about a woman with a massive vagina.
Hmmm, I'll give you The Godfather, always an exception that proves the rule 🙂
Perhaps this should be started on another thread, but the stand out film-better-than-book for me was Into The Wild. A great book but as a film every scene was composed with the skill and love of a stills photographer, not a movie maker. Beautiful.
I thought The Road had a good stab at being as haunting as the book too.
I'd hope that people booking themselves in for an 18-rated movie might have an idea of what a film might contain to get that rating rather than a lower one
18 is an age rating, and I am (well) over 18. Some things still disturb me though. I can however deal with plenty of normal sex, violence and swearing.
I think that literature is a far more complex and emotive medium than film
Of course it is, but that doesn't mean that one is 'better' than the other. Films are short, books are long. It's like saying opera is better than rock music. Different things, for different purposes, consumed in different ways. There are many extremely high quality films with bags of merit, and many trite throwaway books.
Apples and oranges isn't it?
As an example, The Godfather film is far better than the book, which contains a long, bizarre sub-plot about a woman with a massive vagina.&
Hmmm, I'll give you The Godfather, always an exception that proves the rule
Really,I thought that The Godfather book was far better than the films.......
I've seen the original Swedish (all three) and the Hollywood one. I've NOT read any of the books....
Really liked the Swedish films, to the point where I wasn't going to see the Hollywood one for fear it would just be crap. I saw a trailer randomly for the Hollywood one, and thought it looked very good, so went to see it... Both me and t'other half thought it was great. other half thought the Hollywood one was closer to the books. She said they were both different, but varied in different ways. I just took them for what they are and thought they were excellent.
(on a weird first date movie thing, our first movie date was to Shortbus (we got there late, just at an interesting point), and our second was to London to Brighton!!!)
I do want to see the films as I really enjoyed the books, but I'm not sure I can stomach the rape scene - reading about it was bad enough. Obviously its a core part of the story, but I'm not sure I could watch it on the big screen.
On the books vs films thing, a book allows the author to take you into the thoughts and mindset of characters; however with a film you mostly have to do that yourself. Good films make this easier to do. Sometimes you need to see a film more than once to appreciate it in a similar way to a book.
Mrs Toast; I'd like to say "it's a film, it's not real" - with this mindset it should be watchable. Unfortunately, some of the topics dealt with in the film are only too real in real life 🙁
I thought the revenge "rape" scene was more graphic and made me squirm more, but people think this is great.
when she puts the boot in I winced.
It's a film. The rape scene wasnt particularly graphic and assuming that it's anal rape probably says more about the person making that assumption that anything else.
Rape happens, gay rape happens, as does murder and all sorts of other horrific crimes. Did people walk out of Pulp Fiction?
The rape scene wasnt particularly graphic and assuming that it's anal rape probably says more about the person making that assumption that anything else.
The book makes it clear that is what happened. So if you read the book you know. Can't say I recall whether it was made explicit in the film.
It wouldn't be nearly as much of a film, or book, if it was "The Girl with the ass antlers".
Sorry, that's my thought about it
