Hugo was 25-35 minutes of editing away from being a really good movie in my opinion. The pacing was a bit off and I found myself looking at my watch a couple times when I saw it in the theater.
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
About to go and see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo tonight. Very curious, but I'm basically watching it for Fincher's craft, not for the story (which didn't exactly blow me away in the Swedish version either).
Hate to disappoint, but I think it's Fincher's worst movie since Panic Room, and possibly worse. It's better shot than that film, but a worse experience. Also, my opinion seems to be among the general consensus: iiiiit stinks!
What was the general opinion here of Scorsese's Hugo? I didn't like a few things about it, but I loved it for the love letter to cinema that it was. And it's the first 3D film where I thought that the form added something to the content beyond just "wow, 3d!"
The last hour saves the first hour. Charming and warm, but two totally separate movies.
There's something about Gladiator that never quite sat well with me. It's so painfully generic that I don't feel a thing for any character in it, not even derision for Joaquin Phoenix. All told though, it isn't a bad film.
Yeah, I have a weakness for films about Rome and historical pieces in general, and liked Gladiator quite a bit, but it is definitely really formulaic and predictable.
My biggest problem with the movie (and with "hollywood's" treatment of historically themed films in general) is that you don't need to make a bunch of shit up to tell a good story; there's all kinds of historical periods that would make great films with little embellishment.
Hugo was 25-35 minutes of editing away from being a really good movie in my opinion. The pacing was a bit off and I found myself looking at my watch a couple times when I saw it in the theater.
YES! I did the same thing, and I rarely do that. The first hour was very slow, almost awkward at times. The young actor who played Hugo seemed to get better as the movie went on, but often times he looked like he could barely compose himself, and started laughing or smiling right as they cut to the next shot. Also, any time he and the girl were talking together, it reminded me of a talking animal movie like Milo and Otis. Their dialogue was just...off. I practically cringed every time they were on screen together. The film "history" parts felt spliced in from a different movie and were almost like a film lecture from Grandpa Marty.
Man, I could not disagree more on Hugo (except for the slow down at times, which is almost a Scorcese staple at this point so I let it slide).
I thought it was a perfect vehicle to highlight the importance of film preservation, taking risks in film making, and remind people of what movies USED to be, as opposed to what they've become. In fact, I'd say Hugo and The Artist are pretty good indictments of the modern film industry (Full Disclosure: haven't seen the Artist, but making a silent movie in 2011 seems like a pretty good fuck you to Hollywood) which seems to abhor innovation and casts aside any sense of history in an effort to make a dollar.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Man, I could not disagree more on Hugo (except for the slow down at times, which is almost a Scorcese staple at this point so I let it slide).
I thought it was a perfect vehicle to highlight the importance of film preservation, taking risks in film making, and remind people of what movies USED to be, as opposed to what they've become. In fact, I'd say Hugo and The Artist are pretty good indictments of the modern film industry (Full Disclosure: haven't seen the Artist, but making a silent movie in 2011 seems like a pretty good fuck you to Hollywood) which seems to abhor innovation and casts aside any sense of history in an effort to make a dollar.
I thought The Artist was almost the anti-Avatar. An almost purely visual story-telling experience, but with characters you cared about. It was funny, charming, engaging, and at times dramatic.
I didn't think the 3D in Hugo was actually that well used -- it largely wasn't misused, but visually I think it would be just as great in 2D. Thematically, however, the fact that it was in 3D added a lot. When the film itself is experimenting with different cinematic tools, it really underscores Méliès's story.
Things happened in Ancient Rome that were so amazing that it's very hard to believe it's not been used as a plot to a major picture. For instance, te end of Nero's reign, from the Pisonian Conspiracy to the Year of the Four Emperors is just insane.
To be fair, Gladiator touches on the end of the reign of the "Four Good Emperors".
It's obviously completely different than what happened, but it does deal with how badly Rome started to fall apart once Marcus Aurelius had his son succeed him, instead of adopting the most promising Senator as heir.
Man, I could not disagree more on Hugo (except for the slow down at times, which is almost a Scorcese staple at this point so I let it slide).
I thought it was a perfect vehicle to highlight the importance of film preservation, taking risks in film making, and remind people of what movies USED to be, as opposed to what they've become. In fact, I'd say Hugo and The Artist are pretty good indictments of the modern film industry (Full Disclosure: haven't seen the Artist, but making a silent movie in 2011 seems like a pretty good fuck you to Hollywood) which seems to abhor innovation and casts aside any sense of history in an effort to make a dollar.
The Artist is less of a "fuck you" to Hollywood and more of a sloppy blowjob. Doing things the way they were done 90 years ago is not exactly innovation.
It's a decent movie, don't get me wrong, but it's basically a pandering gimmick tied to a charming but facile story.
re: Hugo... I have a sneaking suspicion that movie had some serious flaws, but I've been successfully ignoring them because it had me nearly in tears for about half the running time. The professor's announcement at the screening at the end is like "You bow to no one" for cinemaphiles.
I never quite liked Joaquin Phoenix, and in every scene it looked like he was about to go in to a tearful tantrum.
Otherwise I found it was pretty good on a more recent viewing.
Isn't that the point? Commodus is a bratty man-child, after all.
yeah, but it doesn't make for a good villain when he's bursting out in to tears every second he's on screen. There's far better ways to have man-child tyrants.
I enjoyed In Time far more than I expected to. It doesn't reach Gattaca levels of good because the time references get a little tiresome and it doesn't handle its underlying message as subtly as it could, but I found it quite entertaining, and it went in a direction I didn't quite expect.
I never quite liked Joaquin Phoenix, and in every scene it looked like he was about to go in to a tearful tantrum.
Otherwise I found it was pretty good on a more recent viewing.
Isn't that the point? Commodus is a bratty man-child, after all.
yeah, but it doesn't make for a good villain when he's bursting out in to tears every second he's on screen. There's far better ways to have man-child tyrants.
Didn't seem that way to me. Sure he was petty, but I definitely felt he was threatening villain.
Didn't seem that way to me. Sure he was petty, but I definitely felt he was threatening villain.
It is his pettiness that makes him a threatening villain. The Emperor of Rome is not a tyrant to Romans. The city and empire work, and work well. Without his pettiness the Emperor of Rome isn't threatening because he doesn't have a reason to get involved. The people would not listen to any General that said that the son of the Emperor was not Emperor because the last (now dead) Emperor claimed it. They would have had his head, or banished him or worse.
His pettiness is what makes him a villain and its his pettiness that makes him beatable. It is also what makes him a good villain. Rather than being undone because he wasn't strong/smart/tough enough he was undone because he was a villain.
Didn't seem that way to me. Sure he was petty, but I definitely felt he was threatening villain.
It is his pettiness that makes him a threatening villain. The Emperor of Rome is not a tyrant to Romans. The city and empire work, and work well. Without his pettiness the Emperor of Rome isn't threatening because he doesn't have a reason to get involved. The people would not listen to any General that said that the son of the Emperor was not Emperor because the last (now dead) Emperor claimed it. They would have had his head, or banished him or worse.
His pettiness is what makes him a villain and its his pettiness that makes him beatable. It is also what makes him a good villain. Rather than being undone because he wasn't strong/smart/tough enough he was undone because he was a villain.
Just saw Gladiator - wow, was that incredible. Probably the best film I've seen in the past two weeks.
This got missed and I have to ask... are you talking about the Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott Gladiator? If so, how did you go this long without seeing it?
The very same. I just never saw it. I only really got "into" movies a year ago, so in a sense I've got a lot of catching up to do!
On the subject of the film itself, yes it was a bit predictable, but that didn't hamper my enjoyment of the movie. It's predictability wasn't a problem because from nearly the very first scene I was so caught up in the atmosphere and the drama, and the movie held its grip on me until the very end. It was very compelling.
Even if it was just Braveheart with a Roman coat of paint, I loved Braveheart to death too so that's fine with me!
Going to amend it by saying that the last sentence could better be said by "Villain's should not be undone because they aren't competent enough. A villain that loses because of a lack of competency is a story that reads 'don't get caught'."
Going to amend it by saying that the last sentence could better be said by "Villain's should not be undone because they aren't competent enough. A villain that loses because of a lack of competency is a story that reads 'don't get caught'."
Commodus had a unique situation in that he both won and lost in the end. His devious behavior fucked him over by thinking he could beat Maximus in a duel under any circumstance. However, he was smart enough to give Commodus a fatal wound before the match began. Movie villains don't tend to do the latter, they're not that genre savvy. The problem with Commodus is that he wasn't genre savvy enough. That said, he completely outmanuvered Maximus rebellion off-screen which is an impressive feat in itself. Had he just killed Maximum after that he'd have won completely.
Just saw Gladiator - wow, was that incredible. Probably the best film I've seen in the past two weeks.
This got missed and I have to ask... are you talking about the Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott Gladiator? If so, how did you go this long without seeing it?
The very same. I just never saw it. I only really got "into" movies a year ago, so in a sense I've got a lot of catching up to do!
On the subject of the film itself, yes it was a bit predictable, but that didn't hamper my enjoyment of the movie. It's predictability wasn't a problem because from nearly the very first scene I was so caught up in the atmosphere and the drama, and the movie held its grip on me until the very end. It was very compelling.
Even if it was just Braveheart with a Roman coat of paint, I loved Braveheart to death too so that's fine with me!
yeah, Gladiator is definitely still enjoyable despite any faults I find in it, even on re-watches. In fact I'd probably put it in my personal 'top 50 movies' list.
I just like to nitpick it because I'm annoyed about the historical inaccuracies and whatnot.
Speaking of historically themed films, I just picked up Seven Samurai, Downfall, The Last Valley (never heard of it; it's about the Thirty Years War and has Michael Caine in it),and Augustus (another one I'd never heard of; Peter O'Toole as the emperor). Plus the complete Deadwood set.
I will have plenty to watch during spring break while I work on my papers. I'll chime in on this thread if the above movies are any good (I've only ever heard good things about Seven Samurai, so hopefully that lives up to my expectations)
Eupfhoria on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
A word of warning: although excellent, Downfall is tremendously depressing. It's one of the saddest, grimmest movies I've ever seen, and the protagonists are all Nazis. If it had been about, say, kittens, I would have cried myself to death.
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
that's pretty cool
I'm glad my gut instinct of liking Topher Grace these last... jesus christ did that 70s show start over ten years ago? it was about ten years ago. wow.
anyway my gut instinct of liking the guy finally feels confirmed. I even watched Win A Date With Tad Hamilton more than once. on purpose.
Gladiator was amazing. I usually rate my movies not on the details or minutia but the overall entertainment I get out of a movie and Gladiator delivered on that in spades. It has been a while since I've seen it though. People say it was predictable but I did not manage to predict that the Gladiator would end up fighting the Emperor in the arena at the end at all
And stuff like historical inaccuracy doesn't really matter to me in movies like this at all
About to go and see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo tonight. Very curious, but I'm basically watching it for Fincher's craft, not for the story (which didn't exactly blow me away in the Swedish version either).
Hate to disappoint, but I think it's Fincher's worst movie since Panic Room, and possibly worse. It's better shot than that film, but a worse experience. Also, my opinion seems to be among the general consensus: iiiiit stinks!
Having seen it now, I definitely benefited from having adjusted my expectations quite a bit. I'd say I liked it better than Panic Room and The Game - in terms of craft it's definitely superior, but I also think that the script holds up better. I still don't understand what the hullabaloo about Larson's book is about, and the film doesn't magically make the story better, but I found it competent storytelling. I also don't agree with you on Rooney Mara - while I wouldn't say that her performance was amazingbrilliantbreathtaking, to my mind it goes beyond what you've pointed out in the past (if I remember correctly). There are moments when the façade of her hacker bitch persona breaks and you get the impression that there's a lot going on underneath the surface.
I liked this version better than the Swedish one - the script does a better job all round IMO - although I definitely didn't come away from the film thinking it was in any way essential. Take away the craft and it'd be utterly average - but sometimes I enjoy a film for being well made, and this one was.
It is embarrassing, though, how Craig's accent comes and goes. That sort of inconsistency is painfully lazy.
What was the general opinion here of Scorsese's Hugo? I didn't like a few things about it, but I loved it for the love letter to cinema that it was. And it's the first 3D film where I thought that the form added something to the content beyond just "wow, 3d!"
The last hour saves the first hour. Charming and warm, but two totally separate movies.[/quote][/quote]
For me it's basically the girl and the Cohen character who risked pulling me out of the film. Hugo himself has a sadness matching that of Méliès, but the girl annoyed me (especially in the first half) and even as a kid I wasn't a fan of the sort of Little Rascals slapstick in many of Cohen's scenes. The overall charm and genuine affection for film made the whole thing work, but I'd imagine that the bits I didn't like all that much the first time would grate if I saw the film again.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
About to go and see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo tonight. Very curious, but I'm basically watching it for Fincher's craft, not for the story (which didn't exactly blow me away in the Swedish version either).
Hate to disappoint, but I think it's Fincher's worst movie since Panic Room, and possibly worse. It's better shot than that film, but a worse experience. Also, my opinion seems to be among the general consensus: iiiiit stinks!
Having seen it now, I definitely benefited from having adjusted my expectations quite a bit. I'd say I liked it better than Panic Room and The Game - in terms of craft it's definitely superior, but I also think that the script holds up better. I still don't understand what the hullabaloo about Larson's book is about, and the film doesn't magically make the story better, but I found it competent storytelling. I also don't agree with you on Rooney Mara - while I wouldn't say that her performance was amazingbrilliantbreathtaking, to my mind it goes beyond what you've pointed out in the past (if I remember correctly). There are moments when the façade of her hacker bitch persona breaks and you get the impression that there's a lot going on underneath the surface.
I liked this version better than the Swedish one - the script does a better job all round IMO - although I definitely didn't come away from the film thinking it was in any way essential. Take away the craft and it'd be utterly average - but sometimes I enjoy a film for being well made, and this one was.
It is embarrassing, though, how Craig's accent comes and goes. That sort of inconsistency is painfully lazy.
My overall issue with Mara's performance is that it's basically just an engaging facade heaped on top of a warm body.
You take away everything that the actress DOESN'T actively bring to the role (the hair, the make-up, the piercings, her tattoos, the dialogue, the plot, her physical dimensions) and what is left? Some nice sneering, and a perfectly adequate collection of line readings.
Add to that, her character is paper-thin as written, and has no discernible motivations whatsoever.
No, I definitely got the impression from her acting (not just in the final scene) of a girl who is yearning for some sort of safe place and affection, but who doesn't believe this to be forthcoming so she puts up this hard, prickly shell. Not original by any means, but to my mind there were those two very different levels in the acting, not just the hair, make-up, piercings etc., and not just her physical presence. In some ways I'd say that for me your points apply more to Noomi Rapace's take on the character - to me, she came across as an almost inhuman force of nature who is static as a character. (She's a bit like Vhailor in Planescape Torment - a shell that's held together by her concept of justice-through-revenge.)
If anything, I mind how the character is written to be a hacker with super-powers, able to get into any system. It's not particularly credible, as her abilities are so over-the-top. In general, she's shown to be fucked up in big ways, but at the same time there are few human, relatable flaws there. Perhaps this changes over the course of the novels, but Salander as unstoppable avenging angel doesn't particularly interest me. It'd be different if the sequels got around to suggesting that her need for revenge against the world of men can also be a weakness of hers.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I liked Rapace's performance quite a bit. Oddly enough, a linguistics blog that I read has a good summary of what I found so enjoyable. I've spoilered it below.
And there's a wonderful piece of less-is-more (compare with the impressive example of absence of language that I described in my post about The Ides of March) when Lisbeth says she is reading Mikael's notes on his computer. "They're encrypted!" says Mikael indignantly. And Lisbeth raises her eyes for a half-second withering look and says, "Please." That syllable transmits a whole paragraph of exposition about her skill in the hacking arts. You can see in the way she says that single word that she is so skilled she thinks standard encryption is for babies and that Mikael is one.
Lisbeth Salander is a fabulous part, and Rooney Mara really lives it. ("I've never done this before, and there will be blood," she tells the tethered rapist, and it's so menacing that the director doesn't need to show the operation or the blood at all.) It takes some real charisma to make Daniel Craig look like a wimpy second string on the screen, and Rooney Mara does that. Stunning performance.
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
It's a terribly hollow role among several terribly hollow roles in a terribly uninteresting film. The great cast (and it is great) still doesn't save the film.
And writing a character as a snide prick isn't exactly a new, or clever, device.
Atomika on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
it's as deep as when the exterminator says "please" to fake-edgar in MIB
you quoted that right? you didn't write that? because I think it's dumb but I don't want to call you dumb.
Gladiator was an amazing movie and I have issues with anyone who says it was bad.
It didn't help that I am a tall guy and saw it in a cramped cinema but I found Gladiator inescapably dull. I just didn't give a shit about Russell Crowe. I felt Joaquin Phoenix's "look at me I'm evil" performance was gratuitously over the top to an almost pantomime level. I didn't think the actions sequences were all that.
Posts
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
Hate to disappoint, but I think it's Fincher's worst movie since Panic Room, and possibly worse. It's better shot than that film, but a worse experience. Also, my opinion seems to be among the general consensus: iiiiit stinks!
The last hour saves the first hour. Charming and warm, but two totally separate movies.
Yeah, I have a weakness for films about Rome and historical pieces in general, and liked Gladiator quite a bit, but it is definitely really formulaic and predictable.
My biggest problem with the movie (and with "hollywood's" treatment of historically themed films in general) is that you don't need to make a bunch of shit up to tell a good story; there's all kinds of historical periods that would make great films with little embellishment.
YES! I did the same thing, and I rarely do that. The first hour was very slow, almost awkward at times. The young actor who played Hugo seemed to get better as the movie went on, but often times he looked like he could barely compose himself, and started laughing or smiling right as they cut to the next shot. Also, any time he and the girl were talking together, it reminded me of a talking animal movie like Milo and Otis. Their dialogue was just...off. I practically cringed every time they were on screen together. The film "history" parts felt spliced in from a different movie and were almost like a film lecture from Grandpa Marty.
I thought it was a perfect vehicle to highlight the importance of film preservation, taking risks in film making, and remind people of what movies USED to be, as opposed to what they've become. In fact, I'd say Hugo and The Artist are pretty good indictments of the modern film industry (Full Disclosure: haven't seen the Artist, but making a silent movie in 2011 seems like a pretty good fuck you to Hollywood) which seems to abhor innovation and casts aside any sense of history in an effort to make a dollar.
I thought The Artist was almost the anti-Avatar. An almost purely visual story-telling experience, but with characters you cared about. It was funny, charming, engaging, and at times dramatic.
I just found the parts where Russel Crowe wasn't killing bitches to feel like they dragged on and on and on.
It's obviously completely different than what happened, but it does deal with how badly Rome started to fall apart once Marcus Aurelius had his son succeed him, instead of adopting the most promising Senator as heir.
Otherwise I found it was pretty good on a more recent viewing.
Isn't that the point? Commodus is a bratty man-child, after all.
The Artist is less of a "fuck you" to Hollywood and more of a sloppy blowjob. Doing things the way they were done 90 years ago is not exactly innovation.
It's a decent movie, don't get me wrong, but it's basically a pandering gimmick tied to a charming but facile story.
re: Hugo... I have a sneaking suspicion that movie had some serious flaws, but I've been successfully ignoring them because it had me nearly in tears for about half the running time. The professor's announcement at the screening at the end is like "You bow to no one" for cinemaphiles.
yeah, but it doesn't make for a good villain when he's bursting out in to tears every second he's on screen. There's far better ways to have man-child tyrants.
Didn't seem that way to me. Sure he was petty, but I definitely felt he was threatening villain.
It is his pettiness that makes him a threatening villain. The Emperor of Rome is not a tyrant to Romans. The city and empire work, and work well. Without his pettiness the Emperor of Rome isn't threatening because he doesn't have a reason to get involved. The people would not listen to any General that said that the son of the Emperor was not Emperor because the last (now dead) Emperor claimed it. They would have had his head, or banished him or worse.
His pettiness is what makes him a villain and its his pettiness that makes him beatable. It is also what makes him a good villain. Rather than being undone because he wasn't strong/smart/tough enough he was undone because he was a villain.
Well said.
The very same. I just never saw it. I only really got "into" movies a year ago, so in a sense I've got a lot of catching up to do!
On the subject of the film itself, yes it was a bit predictable, but that didn't hamper my enjoyment of the movie. It's predictability wasn't a problem because from nearly the very first scene I was so caught up in the atmosphere and the drama, and the movie held its grip on me until the very end. It was very compelling.
Even if it was just Braveheart with a Roman coat of paint, I loved Braveheart to death too so that's fine with me!
Going to amend it by saying that the last sentence could better be said by "Villain's should not be undone because they aren't competent enough. A villain that loses because of a lack of competency is a story that reads 'don't get caught'."
yeah, Gladiator is definitely still enjoyable despite any faults I find in it, even on re-watches. In fact I'd probably put it in my personal 'top 50 movies' list.
I just like to nitpick it because I'm annoyed about the historical inaccuracies and whatnot.
Speaking of historically themed films, I just picked up Seven Samurai, Downfall, The Last Valley (never heard of it; it's about the Thirty Years War and has Michael Caine in it),and Augustus (another one I'd never heard of; Peter O'Toole as the emperor). Plus the complete Deadwood set.
I will have plenty to watch during spring break while I work on my papers. I'll chime in on this thread if the above movies are any good (I've only ever heard good things about Seven Samurai, so hopefully that lives up to my expectations)
I hope this gets "leaked"
I'm glad my gut instinct of liking Topher Grace these last... jesus christ did that 70s show start over ten years ago? it was about ten years ago. wow.
anyway my gut instinct of liking the guy finally feels confirmed. I even watched Win A Date With Tad Hamilton more than once. on purpose.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156687/instant-watch-film-societys-bogus-journey-week-1-chinatown
This is not a particular productive or insightful comment, or one inviting of discourse.
Gladiator was competently well-made.
And I'm pretty sure The Big Show is in it as a giant-sized gaul.
But there are better gladiator movies, and there are better movies about Rome.
And stuff like historical inaccuracy doesn't really matter to me in movies like this at all
http://outlawvern.com/2000/05/15/gladiator/
I always forget how much I hate the first few months of film slate in a year until I experience it anew each year...
I liked this version better than the Swedish one - the script does a better job all round IMO - although I definitely didn't come away from the film thinking it was in any way essential. Take away the craft and it'd be utterly average - but sometimes I enjoy a film for being well made, and this one was.
It is embarrassing, though, how Craig's accent comes and goes. That sort of inconsistency is painfully lazy.
The last hour saves the first hour. Charming and warm, but two totally separate movies.[/quote][/quote]
For me it's basically the girl and the Cohen character who risked pulling me out of the film. Hugo himself has a sadness matching that of Méliès, but the girl annoyed me (especially in the first half) and even as a kid I wasn't a fan of the sort of Little Rascals slapstick in many of Cohen's scenes. The overall charm and genuine affection for film made the whole thing work, but I'd imagine that the bits I didn't like all that much the first time would grate if I saw the film again.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
My overall issue with Mara's performance is that it's basically just an engaging facade heaped on top of a warm body.
You take away everything that the actress DOESN'T actively bring to the role (the hair, the make-up, the piercings, her tattoos, the dialogue, the plot, her physical dimensions) and what is left? Some nice sneering, and a perfectly adequate collection of line readings.
Add to that, her character is paper-thin as written, and has no discernible motivations whatsoever.
If anything, I mind how the character is written to be a hacker with super-powers, able to get into any system. It's not particularly credible, as her abilities are so over-the-top. In general, she's shown to be fucked up in big ways, but at the same time there are few human, relatable flaws there. Perhaps this changes over the course of the novels, but Salander as unstoppable avenging angel doesn't particularly interest me. It'd be different if the sequels got around to suggesting that her need for revenge against the world of men can also be a weakness of hers.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Lisbeth Salander is a fabulous part, and Rooney Mara really lives it. ("I've never done this before, and there will be blood," she tells the tethered rapist, and it's so menacing that the director doesn't need to show the operation or the blood at all.) It takes some real charisma to make Daniel Craig look like a wimpy second string on the screen, and Rooney Mara does that. Stunning performance.
from here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3757
And writing a character as a snide prick isn't exactly a new, or clever, device.
you quoted that right? you didn't write that? because I think it's dumb but I don't want to call you dumb.
It didn't help that I am a tall guy and saw it in a cramped cinema but I found Gladiator inescapably dull. I just didn't give a shit about Russell Crowe. I felt Joaquin Phoenix's "look at me I'm evil" performance was gratuitously over the top to an almost pantomime level. I didn't think the actions sequences were all that.
But apart from than it was okay.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Exactly. The device is utterly childish, and only an incompetent writer would think it's clever.
Salander is a terribly written character, top to bottom.