• soli@infosec.pubEnglish
    9·
    5 months ago

    I remember it feeling pretty pointless.

    It’s an extremely similar movie to the Swedish version, which only came out two years prior, down to using some of the same locations to shoot. I preferred the Swedish cast and found Craig a particularly poor fit in the American version. No question that Fincher’s is more impressive stylistically, but it also made it feel a lot more artificial in a way that I don’t think was a benefit to the plot.

    Bear in mind I saw both when they came out so my memory is fuzzy. Also the screen was fuzzy, because I was watching the Swedish version on a laptop with one of the janky, standard definition rips we used to trade in school due to the fact all of our internet connections were slow and heavily metered.

    • Jo MiranOPEnglish
      2·
      5 months ago

      I rewatched it last night and made it a point to judge it on its own merits rather than compare it to the Swedish films (which I did the first time) and found a new appreciation for it. It is a bit of a puzzle why the studio decided to remake a series of excellent movies so soon after their original run, but I don’t think that should take away from the job Fincher and the cast did.

      I do agree that Craig was miscast, but he wasn’t bad. Unfortunately for Craig, everyone else outshines him.

    • Jo MiranOPEnglish
      2·
      5 months ago

      Oh yes. They are very good and probably why the big budget Hollywood version flopped.