The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is a bit of a curious film to me; I saw the original Swedish film during 2010's summer and found it to be a completely engrossing thriller, with a mystery that got more perverted the deeper you looked into it. Audiences, whether they like to admit it or not, are obviously fascinated by anti-heroes, extreme rebels, social outcasts, which can only begin to explain why the late Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy (as it has been dubbed) is such a huge hit over here in the states.

Certainly this tale is tailor made for its director, David Fincher, who revels in tales of social misfits and anti-system messages. His Fight Club is one of the ultimate "stick it to the man" films, ending in the destruction of America's financial sector. And I'm sure he was drawn to the material, if only so he could bring the character of Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to life. She is the ultimate Fincher heroine, with piercings, tattoos, and wacky hairdo, not to mention an independent streak that sets her apart from almost any other heroine in film.

Daniel Craig also stars as the film's other protagonist, Mikael Blomkvist, editor of Millennium magazine (where the trilogy no doubt draws its name), who has fallen under a scandal and lost his life savings because of an unfounded allegation he made against a fellow magazine mogul. Labeled with libel, he is whisked to northern Sweden where, on a remote island populated by a wealthy but estranged family, he is asked to investigate the murder of one of their members some forty years ago.

Lisbeth and Mikael stay separated for over an hour of the film as he begins uncovering a string of possibly related women murders, and she has an unfortunate run-in with a piggish social worker who will release Lisbeth's money to her in exchange for favors. Eventually they collide and the film focuses fully on the murders, though one wonders how much this will connect with Harriet.

The original title of the book and Swedish film is Män som hatar kvinnor which translates to Men who hate women. It's an apt title, considering all the content, though a film with that heading would never get recognition in the states (or a book for that matter) and the retitling is a bit more intriguing (though we never do learn the significance of that dragon tattoo). The film has an incredibly brutal rape scene and sex scenes that would have earned an independent feature an NC-17, but such is the Hollywood system that of course this skated by. Maybe its a sign of maturity on the MPAA's half that we can handle more extreme content, but then I remember Shame has an NC-17 rating.

But here's the thing: the film is almost identical to the 2009 Swedish one. Oh sure, it has a bigger budget, a more assured director, and a fantastic cast, not to mention a dynamite opening credits scene with a cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song that was quite the hit back when the trailer first dropped. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who won Oscars for their unique and haunting score for The Social Network (2010) return as composers, but it feels like more of the same. Their style of music certainly lends itself well to the unease that surrounds this film, but at the same time I couldn't help but think back to The Social Network and its score.

There is also a structural problem with the film. It opens with Mikael's problems at Millennium, then introduces with the missing girl Harriet, then introduces with the string of women murders. Then each one of these threads is resolved from the murders on back, but the film suffers in the resolution between Mikael and his foes at the rival magazine. It's a protracted denouement that drags on and on after Harriet's plot is resolved, when we have little interest in what's going on.

The film just feels pointless. The Swedish version was thrilling and engrossed me, and this version felt like the same thing but in English. It's a sign of how lazy we are that we won't see the foreign language version because we don't like reading our movies (though anyone who got through the book should have no problem with subtitles). I feel even Fincher reflects this notion: he doesn't feel like he's trying here, like he simply watched the Swedish one and said, "Well, they did a good enough job, so I'll just make the same version in English, make millions, and call it day." Which I don't fault him for.

The performances are great, especially Rooney Mara as Lisbeth, but I also feel like they aren't too different from their Swedish counterparts. If I had to pick who was better, Noomi Rapace or Rooney Mara, I would have to go with Rapace because Mara's performance is clearly modeled on hers.

Anyone who doesn't know the material will surely be entertained, but anyone coming back to see if anything new was done will be disappointed. It's as pointless as watching Let Me In, the remake of Let the Right One In. At least when Seven Samurai was remade in America, they changed the story to cowboys so it felt fresh (though American samurais are something that wouldn't work anyway). I don't mind a remake if it does something new with the material, or approaches the subject from a different angle. True Grit was hailed as superior to the John Wayne version, though that also may be because forty years means something new can be done with the material.

I'm just tired of these pointless remakes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Which reminds me of Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. He was asked to remake it, so he did. There was very little wrong with that film, and it never felt dated, so Van Sant figured it would be the easiest thing to do. He had the right idea.

The Social Network (2010)

When David Fincher's latest film (and quite possibly his best) ends, you may wonder what was it about this film that you loved? I find it almost indescribable to tell you what was so wonderful about the film, but let me try and explain.

The movie concerns the invention of the social networking site, Facebook. It is about Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), his friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), and the various other members who take part in this revolutionary invention. When it was announced two years ago that they were making a Facebook movie, many of us (including myself) scoffed at the notion. How could they make a movie about Facebook? Then when Fincher was signed to direct and Aaron Sorkin, creator and writer of the West Wing, signed to pen the script, many of us breathed a collective sigh.

And they have delivered. I think the film benefits more from Sorkin then from Fincher; his memorable dialogue is what drives every scene, and I would be surprised if this didn't win for Best Adapted Screenplay at this year's Oscars. Of course, Sorkin's dialogue would be nothing if he didn't have a fine cast to embody those words and make their own. And I am not diminishing Fincher's role in all of this; it was his sure hand that guided them through it all to the very finish.

Besides telling the story of how Saverin, Zuckerberg's only real friend, came to sue him for $600 million, the movie meditates on how Facebook has infiltrated our very lives. What made it appealing and different from MySpace or Friendster? Exclusivity. The site was founded solely for Harvard students, then expanded to Cambridge, Yale, and Stanford, and eventually across two continents and farther. When I first joined Facebook four years back, I had to be invited to join (I was only in High School), and it felt like I was being admitted into an exclusive club (I believe it had only recently be opened up to email invitation). Now to sign up is as simple as couple clicks, but then, it was something special.

The movie also does an excellent job of balancing between the invention and meteoric rise of Facebook, and the two depositions, one for Saverin, the other for three Harvard men who had an idea for a site called The Harvard Connection, which Zuckerberg essentially took and made better. These three men, two of the brothers, have a legitimate case, as does Saverin. In fact, from the very first scene, Zuckerberg isn't entirely likable. And I think that's what is amazing about this movie.

We've had unlikable protagonists before, but I think Zuckerberg's portrayal is so poignant because it proves that success and glamour don't go hand in hand, as people would like to believe. Before he invents Facebook, Zuckerberg is nobody, just a computer hacker and programmer (and an excellent one). But after, he gets groupies, and he suddenly becomes the person everyone wants to be friends with. If they spent time getting to know him, they might not like the person they see. The film opens with Zuckerberg on a date with Erica Albright (Rooney Mara, who will play Lisbeth in Fincher's remake of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), and she says, "You are going to be a successful programmer, and you are going to spend your whole thinking girls won't date you because you are a nerd. And I tell you, from the bottom of my heart, that that is not true. It's because you're an asshole."

The movie cites this incident as Zuckerberg's initial creation of Facebook. If you search Erica Albright Real on Google, you'll return articles contemplating whether this character actually exists or not. In fact, Zuckerberg said the movie plays out a lot like fiction, some of it weighed in fact, of course, but certain events dramatized or invented for the filmmakers benefit.

And I say good for them. My favorite biopic (which this essentially is) ever made is Amadeus (1984), but that movie makes a rivalry between Salieri and Mozart that didn't actually exist in real life. But do I care? No, because the movie plays out with terrific drama and is one of the best movies I have ever seen. If you want straight fact, go find a biography (which I'm sure we'll see one soon about the ACTUAL Zuckerberg story).

Fincher and Sorkin and everyone involved have crafted one of the year's best pictures, and one I eagerly await seeing again. It's a film about our times, about lives. It is also the story of how to skillfully screw your friend out of a business. Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), the founder of Napster, exclaims to Zuckerberg "This is our time!" Indeed it is.