Back to IndieWire

Five Reasons Why The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Didn’t Kick Ass at the Holiday Box Office

Five Reasons Why The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Didn't Kick Ass at the Holiday Box Office

No question, Sony wasn’t happy with the early holiday returns on David Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” Why did the studio put this violent R-rated counterprogrammer into the holiday window opposite “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol”? It got creamed, grossing only $19 million over four days and $27 over six days in release. Which leads many to ask, if the movie isn’t wowing American audiences, why would Sony green light a sequel? Steve Zaillian has already started writing “The Girl Who Played with Fire,” but the sequel has not yet been announced. Overseas box office will likely tip Sony in the sequel’s favor, even if the domestic is lackluster. UPDATED Christmas box office numbers are here.

While the movie, which earned decent reviews and an A Cinemascore, should score more than the modest $35 million domestic Sony predicted for the Christmas break, just why did “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” disappoint?

1. The holiday release date may be Sony’s biggest mistake. The movie wasn’t ready for an earlier December berth, but the violent R-rated mystery (not a genre thriller–there’s little action), makes unusual holiday fare. It had to face intense competition for the adult audience. And the movie is far less mainstream that you might think given the popularity of its source material. It would have knocked it out of the park on President’s Day weekend in February.

2. It’s not a mainstream genre title. Yes the books sold 30 million copies around the world, but in studio commercial movie terms, “Tattoo” is a brainy, cerebral, character-driven procedural along the lines of an Agatha Christie mystery. It boasts two detectives, not one. Breaking movie conventions, the male hero is white collar passive and reactive, almost feminine, while the heroine is the tattooed outsider vengeful action hero on a motorbike, better on computers, the sexual aggressor, and saves the hero’s ass. Men are not used to this–hey, Lisbeth Salander is on top–and it creates a level of discomfort.

3. It lacks marquee stars. But, you argue, Daniel Craig is James Bond. Well, he makes a great Agent 007, but it’s James Bond that pulls people into theaters, not Craig. Put him in anything else and he’s a great-looking, charismatic actor with action chops and a wide range. But he didn’t pull audiences to see “Cowboys and Aliens.” Neither did Harrison Ford. Marquee movie stars are few these days. It helps if they are in a franchise: Tom Cruise in a “Mission” movie, Matt Damon in “Bourne.” Only Angelina Jolie or Will Smith– in an action vehicle–are box office guarantees.

4. Sony mismarketed the film. This movie should have opened better with such a brand title. Despite the R rating, the studio sold the movie as transgressive, dark genre fare to younger audiences, but it played to adults, many of whom had read the book. I don’t buy the argument that this is another foreign remake that didn’t wash with American audiences. Many of them did not see the Swedish film, which played art houses. This is more of an adaptation of a bestseller that was translated into English. The film’s primary appeal was to women (attendees were 55% female) and adults (49% 35 and over).

5. It’s too expensive and too long. Put David Fincher at the helm of a studio movie and it’s going to cost–and two hours and 38 minutes takes its toll at the box office, with fewer slots a day. But why did this movie need a budget of $100 million? That’s what dictated the prime-time holiday release date inside the Oscar corridor (which should have been irrelevant to this film). Gorgeous as this and “Hugo” are, their inflated budgets make it much harder to come out in the plus column.

This Article is related to: Box Office and tagged ,



Watched in on line and in my opinion that really was the issue I think for the box office low dollars. I am one of millions that had not read the books and was not drawn to the title or the movie given I knew nothing about it The movie was just awesome and I will be going to the theater to see the sequel for sure. Those of you that didn’t like it … wow … really? I have to wonder what you do like as this was just fantastic.


Watched in on line and in my opinion that really was the issue I think for the box office low dollars. I am one of millions that had not read the books and was not drawn to the title or the movie given I knew nothing about it The movie was just awesome and I will be going to the theater to see the sequel for sure. Those of you that didn’t like it … wow … really? I have to wonder what you do like as this was just fantastic.


Watched in on line and in my opinion that really was the issue I think for the box office low dollars. I am one of millions that had not read the books and was not drawn to the title or the movie given I knew nothing about it The movie was just awesome and I will be going to the theater to see the sequel for sure. Those of you that didn’t like it … wow … really? I have to wonder what you do like as this was just fantastic.


Just got to see it. I really liked Rooney Mara, and Daniel Craig, actually, but I found it hard to understand the dialogue and so also found it hard to follow the logic in the story line.


The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was the best movie I have seen in my life and all should feel the firey hell fire of death for not liking it.


As someone who has read the book first and seen the original movie. I don't have any interest in seeing this English adaptation. I think it is because I can only picture Noomi and Michael as Lisbeth and Mikel. Because the book isn't light reading and is purely to do with the character's history, development and relationships, I can only associate each character with one person and can't imagine the new actors. (it may have worked out if the could have done the English version in a couple of years).


One of the reasons the movie cost $100 million was because Fincher lost 8 weeks when he fired DP Fredrik Bäckar and replaced him with Jeff Cronenweth, forcing them to reshoot quite a bit of material. I also think it was very, very expensive to shoot in Sweden compared to other parts of the world in which the story would've still worked.


Daniel Craig is one arrogant mouth and he deserves many lessons.


David Fincher is a liar. He broke his promise. He was going to cast an unknown European actress but he never held auditions in Europe and he tested well-known actresses just in the US. This hypocrite called Rooney Mara at once and told her about the audition and he helped to get a part when giving her advice how to do it. He had to convince studio executives to hire her. Pure nepotism.


Sony wanted to release the movie in the summer 2012 initially but they hurried as they wanted to make blockbuster and saw money flying down from the sky directly to them. Now they see a total s.hit of it. They're getting lessons.


what a shame… Daniel Craig's last movies Flashbacks of a Fool, Quantum of Solace, Defiancé, Dream House, Cowboys&Aliens and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo failed. He calls other people idiots and shi'theads but he should look in the mirror at himself and call himself names like idiot! shit'head! for taking bad movies.


(Cont'd from below)

2. When the Duds made Wennerstrom an archrival of the Vangers, and
had Vanger provide the goods that save Blomkvist in the end, I almost
dropped out of my seat, even though I saw it coming from the start of
the film! Here was the ultimate heroine saving the victim of the
original, completely undermined and for no good reason at all! What,
so Vanger and Blomkvist felt good about each other in the end?? That
wasn't a point of dramatic tension anywhere even in the Duds' version.
After Lisabeth allows Vanger to die in the car crash and
withdraws to a new life, Lisabeth is the only character who can use
her hacking skills to save B. To eliminate this is to take Lisabeth
down another peg. She is no longer the heroine, but just a helper to
the hero, who is saved by others (the Vangers). Nuts! I felt sooo
bad for Lisabeth that she was AGAIN stripped of her power by two more
men, the Duds! Again!! This is too much to bear!

There are so many little moments where this theme was played out, but
Act III was the worst:

3. What was powerful in the 2009 version: When Lisabeth saved
Blomkvist while hanging, she dashed after (her volition and choice)
Vanger to chase him down. When Lisabeth CHOSE to watch Vanger die in
flames in the car crash, instead of saving him, she was in her nature:
unable to show mercy to the woman haters or just not wanting to.
Either way it was HER choice and she made it without apologies. When
Blomkvist is with her in bed and says he couldn't have let Vanger burn
to death, but Blomkvist could understand how Lisabeth could be that
way, it was a complete acknowledgement of the power of Lisabeth's
suffering and bowing to her power, her decisions!

How the Duds sapped the power: The one moment I wanted to stand up in
the theater and shout, "NO! Don't DO this!" was when, after saving
Blomkvist, Lisabeth turns to Blomkvist and ASKS PERMISSION, as in,
"Can I kill him??" and Blomkvist, on the floor, beat up, says, "Yes!"
To take the power of that decision from Lisabeth hurt all women and
the men who love them! For Lisabeth to give her power away and
actually ask Blomkvist if it was ok with him for her to be HERSELF, in
her own nature, was IMPOSSIBLE to fathom!!! This could NEVER happen if
the Duds had one iota of understanding of the power Lisabeth carries
in her soul gathered from the abuse and suffering she endured and
somehow managed to stay SANE! SHAME SHAME on the DUDS!!!!

Then Vanger's car crashes in a public square, where observers could
see Lisabeth's decision making process. And she never has the time to
decide to save Vanger because the car instantly bursts into flames!!
These idiot Duds (sic) took a very private moment, where no other soul
would know whether Lisabeth decides to save Vanger or let him die, and
put it in the middle of the village shops! So this time, if that
decision moment came, which it doesn't, Lisabeth (and the audience)
would have to worry about onlookers. And then the Duds take the
moment away from Lisabeth, where her cumulated pain and anger drive
her decision and nothing can stop that and for all we, the audience
has seen, is not seen as dark or her bad, but, her good! The Duds
completely took this poignant private decision from Lisabeth, and
therefore made it just, oh, well, the bad Vanger got what he deserved,
NOT that Lisabeth was the one who delivered the punishment, as was
essential to the story and her as the saving grace, the avenging

I can only ask myself if the Duds projected their Hollywood
male hero version onto this be-you-to-full women's revenge tale in one
big subconscious moment (as in They Know Not What They Do). And
therefore, they could not help themselves, but the reveal still


This version was doomed to fail! Please at least note some of the actual reasons!

What was increasingly disturbing as the new version wore on, was how
the writer and director (the Duds) completely missed/destroyed/bumbled
the essential relationship between Salander and Blomkvist. As you
point out, the new version stands on its own, sans the power of the
first version. That the new writer and director (The Duds) completely
reversed the POWER relationship between the two was unforgivable
simply because it showed that the US talent (both men) never
understood Lisabeth (the unrightly-abused woman) in the first place!

Salander was always the powerful one, in her power from the first
moment we met her. Blomkvist was the one needing rescuing, the
vulnerable one, also from the first moment we hear the verdict as he
sits there powerless.

Here are a few of the points that speak the blasphemy and drain the
power of the story:

1. The Duds create a daughter for Blomkvist who is Christian, and who
now offhandedly mentions the first critical breakthrough in the
missing Harriet case in the last 40 years. The original story LEAPS
to Life when Salander breaks the case and then goes through tremendous
angst when sending the email informing Blomkvist. When Lisabeth
finally hits the send button, she is choosing to come out of cover,
something she never does, exposing that she has been hacking
Blomkvist's files, was smarter than him, and even leaves a trail for
Blomkvist to find her. This coming out process is so essential
because Lisabeth has to go against her secure position, her own
interests, in order to help Blomkvist. For the first time, we see
Lisabeth vulnerable, and for a grand cause: to save Blomkvist, help
To eliminate this power relationship at the start was unforgivable!
(Lisabeth the hero, Blomkvist the one needing saving). To make it
worse, the Duds send Blomkvist to ask for Lisabeth's help (he
initiates), without the underlying admiration for her brilliance that
the 2009 version brings (that Lisabeth initiates, also showing she
working on the case, too)! The Duds version takes away the power that
Lisabeth is in charge of her life (before deciding to hit the send
button), and consciously decides to do this. Instead the Duds give us
the bland version that Blomkvist initiates the relationship and
Lisabeth gives assent, NOT the other way around, which it absolutely
HAD to be!

(The reason, I'll bet, is one too many screenwriting classes which
dictate over and over that the HERO must drive the story, not any
other character! Which means, if the Duds took Blomkvist to be the
hero, that they missed who the real hero is in the story (again
sapping the power from the tale). As you mention in your review,
taking Craig as Blomkvist is like shouting Blomkvist IS THE HERO! (as
he always is in the Bond series) – a complete and utter screwup.


I read Rooney Mara's interview in Entertainment Weekly and I was appalled at the way she was treated when they filmed the rape scene. Multiple takes (well over 20, she said) by Fincher and rough treatment that left her with bruises and scars. That's not supposed to happen. This is why you have stunt players, camera tricks and special effects–so that no one will be harmed or injured. This was abusive treatment and I'm upset that she's so eager to be a star that she didn't protest this. Where's SAG in all of this? And why does Fincher need so many takes? It's a sign of either an insane perfectionist or, more likely, someone who doesn't know what he's doing or what he wants. Needless to say, I'm not a fan of Fincher. I haven't seen TATTOO yet, but I haven't liked any of his earlier movies.


The thirty million books didnt sell inthe states because most of the people in the USA have never read a book. "Its cerebral" another reason they wouldnt understand it. Go see the original better version with subtitles in english and then tell us which is best. I also take issue with you saying people don't go to see Daniel Craig and that they go to see bond .. ? But, you then go on to say "it helps if they are in a franchise"… I seem to remember that bond was and is one of the largest ever movie franchises.. ??

Anne Poso

Maybe the same person who wrote this article penned the screenplay. Poor grammar and editing. It should be noted that the Swedish version is one of the top 5 live streaming movies on Netflix.


Should say "the evilness of the entire family" above.


The American version is well edited and acted but I thought the screenplay was a problem compared to the Swedish version. You don't get a sense of the evilness of the entire mystery, solving the mystery of the multiple murders is almost a footnote, you barely see Blomquist and Lisbeth developing a rapport, and Fincher doesn't really build any suspense. I don't know if the screenwriter was assuming everyone read the books but the current version lacks the horror of the original material (except for the sensationalized sex scenes).


4. Sony mismarketed the film.

You mean naked pictures of Rooney Mara showing off her plumbed up pierced breasts on the poster and the other half naked advert pics in W magazine didn't get the (mostly female) fans of the books out in droves? Imagine that! I always thought women liked being patronized and having their favorite characters reduced to sexual objects for the male gaze. Love how even this week there is yet another picture of Rooney Mara on the cover of EW magazine and yes sir she looks like she isn't wearing a shirt. #cluelessSonyStudios. Good luck getting your franchsie off the ground guys. LOL.

Cafe Noir

Anal & oral rape, torture.. huuhh? I can get all that at home.


Thought it was boring and empty of any soul. I liked the books and the Swedish version embraced Sweden – like an insiders tour of Stockholm. This one was like an insiders tour of the Sony lot..snooze for me. Noomi was superior – though Rooney held her own in an impatient to be a star way.


it's simple – i wanted to see this film so badly, but i was with my family over the holidays, and not everyone is an adult. i had to see three other films (MI4, we bought a zoo, and sherlock) before i could get some adult friends together to see tattoo. i know others who wanted to see this but are in the same boat. they are not huge film lovers, though, so they missed the window, spent a lot of money on tickets for others flicks, and now will probably wait til video. it was ultimately really stupid counter-programming. would have crushed in february.


7 days after its opening the movie has made 32 million dollars. Isn't it too early to call it a flop? and it's an R rated movie, MI Alvin and Holmes are not. It's also long and that doesn't help. I really really dislike the swedish adapted version of the book and I'm really hoping the numbers will go up and sony will film the sequel. Most of the audience have liked the movie. For me Rooney is lisbeth and it would be tragic if we didn't get the sequel.


I can't disagree more. Tattoo does not disappoint. It was a fabulous movie. I have read the three books and have seen the Swedish films. Comparison? There is none. The Swedish versions are choppy and amateurish. It's like comparing a high school production to Broadway. Mara's portrayal of Lisabeth was exactly what I imagined. It is Noomi Rapace that disappointed. She came across as soft and vulnerable whereas Rooney Mara portrayed the hardened introverted goth that the book describes. I also couldn't help but notice the beauty of Mara's nude form relative to the shall we say disappointing breast-less figure of Rapace. Daniel Craig demonstrated a refreshing versatility. He can pull off a superb James Bond and then give an excellent performance in Tattoo as a quiet reflective antihero. As far as the timing of the release, one has to agree that it is hard to pit this type of film against Mission, Sherlock, etc. Thank you, thank you. It is so refreshing to have a movie choice that involves believable yet complex human drama. One gets so bored with the special effects dependent plotless films of today. Nothing blew up and no superhuman feats were shown. One's biggest fear is that Sony will not follow through with the second and third books. Bring them on! I will go see them at the theater and collect the Tattoo DVDs too!


I agree with Sergio's comment that it was an unnecessary remake. This weekend I saw the remake and then I watched the original again and I believe that Noomi Rapace did a better job than Rooney Mara. Looking in Noomi's eyes you saw a spark. Watching her performance you knew that this character is a survivor. Rooney's eyes were vacant. She seemed almost robotic. More time was spent on creating a look for the character (bleached eyebrows, cute haircut, and a fashionable wardrobe) and not enough time was spent breathing life into the title character.


$100 million? Really for what? The Social Network cost $40 million. They couldn't make Tattoo for the same budget?

Besides which, it's the most unnecessary remake of the year. The Swedish version is far better and Noomi Rapace is much better(and sexier) than Mara in the role. In the Swedish version Salander is an avenging angel righting the wrongs suffered by women while Mara comes off more like a scared rabbit and the final sappy closing scene was totally laughable. Also I still believe that Fincher (Mr-90-takes-a-scene) has to be one of the most overrated directors working today. Everything looks pretty but there's no substance. I still say that his best film was Aliens 3….so there


Everything got hurt by having too many titles in the market, but if you look at where Dragon did gross well its NY, LA, DC, SF, SEA and handful of other large cities (Minneapolis did well)
Compare to War Horse? (Phoenix, Salt lake, Houston, Denver, Dallas, Kansas City)
I think middle America smelled the "Euro" on it and chose to go elsewhere…


I read all three books and saw all three Swedish movie adaptations of the books. The Swedish Lisbeth and Blomkist were exactly like I had in my mind. Look at Rooney in the photo in this article. She looks so soft, so bored. That is not a Lisbeth look at all. Craig isn't how Bomkist was described in the book. The trailers were all flash and lights and no attempt to give me any idea of what the movie was about (despite that I had read the books.)


Dragon Tattoo will probably have good legs. Too soon to write it off as a disappointment.


I don't think the running time is an issue. After all, the running time of "Avatar" is 2 hrs. 40 min.


Another consideration, as I've said elsewhere: Too Soon. Most people, as noted below, saw the film within the past year at home. Had Sony waited say, two years, the original would have begun to fade from memory and people would be ready to revisit it. This really is no different from LET ME IN or even DEATH AT A FUNERAL–you just don't remake a film a year or two after the original, regardless of the reason.


No doubt the very adult content of the film meant that families couldn't go together on a holiday weekend….can't take the kids to it, grandma might not be interested or find it off-putting, etc…it might have better long term prospects once the holidays are over…January is a good month to catch up on existing releases because the new releases are usually terrible.


EDIT: When I wrote "Sony has no clue how to market to North American audiences", I forgot to clarify: "unless it's a brainless action movie or teen comedy." That dumbed down marketing blueprint is all they know; anything outside that demographic is ruined by the Sony marketing flacks.


You forget one. The hero is a woman and not a conventional
beautiful sexy one. She is a damaged child. That's too scary
for American audiences.


It's the fault of Sony Marketing & Publicity, plain and simple. While they think they're always so clever and innovative, it's really just lazy and arrogant hubris. Yet again, Sony has screwed up what could've been a potentially lucrative franchise. Fire the whole lot of them, I say. They really have no clue how to market to North American audiences.




Hey! I have ADD and I like slower, well-paced movies :) I have been looking forward to this movie, wasn't sure if I should read the books first, but from the comments here on the script I'm thinking that may not be necessarily the better plan. The holidays are an incredibly busy time for me and when I do get to go out for a movie I'd like something a bit more light or fantastical at this time of year. So I saw Hugo instead and it was wonderful. Have to say that Sony's timing on the release for Dragon Tattoo was definitely a bad idea, but I wish the studios would find a more sophisticated way of measuring a film's success. Was it Gone with the Wind that has the highest sales ever? But back then, movies played more than a few weeks… and the only way you could see movies was at the theatre. Time to catch up with the new millenia!


It's mostly simple economics. As someone said here, most that are interested in it read the book and saw the original. And with the entertainment dollar squeezed, I'll go see something else and wait for this on DVD.

4 people at movies in L.A. = $100. Why on Earth would I spend that on a remake two years later when I saw the original and read the book? It's not like it's the only movie out there that is "good".

Jean Robie

Whenever a movie doesn't succeed, Hollywood's first impulse is to blame marketing. Its second is to blame the genre. But what if the movie just isn't that great? "The Social Network" came as an illumination because no one associated Fincher with that kind of material. But everyone associates him with the kind of material "Girl with a Dragon Tattoo" represents and what he delivered was what one would expect–and nothing more. I'm not saying he phoned it in, but the movie doesn't push outside the envelope which is exactly what everyone was hoping for.


Fincher and Zaillian have treated the material with respect and care. I am more shocked at how this film is being written off as a cheap dumber down version of this story. One of Zaillian's major changes is aligning the stories of Blomkvist parade picture reveal with Salander's revenge scene. Is it heresy to say that this improvement over the book and Swedish film? The change it gives the characters, who are now at the same time taking control of their situations, a dramatic sweep and connection that had previously been missing. At times the US version script is more loyal to the book beyond just the original language. The characters are given space to breath and inhabit a real world.

Some people have been defending the Swedish version to the death like some indie band. But the fact of the matter is some popular bands like Radiohead are good. Fincher has never been better. In Bjurman's office, one of the cutaways is a closeup behind Salender's ear with Bjurman's blurry, threatening hand the background. The frame focused on the her own self-inflicted piercing of her own flesh. If given time, the images like these are as haunting as any put Fincher has ever put on screen and rewarding for any lover of this story. .


Craig's Bond films are not cheesy like other Bond films. It's good they don't have those stupid little gadgets anymore. Craig as BOND is perfect. Looking forward to SKYFALL. And, those who cannot stand him as Bond, news flash! – he is going to be Bond for a while now. He is staying as Bond. Ah!


I know a pretty decent amount of people who read the books and saw the Swedish movies on video. Money's tight to begin with, and we just finished a period of the year when many have had to spend a lot of money on gifts, travel, etc. I think there's probably a significant chunk of the book's audience (the built in audience the studio assumed would come see it) who are saying right now, "Yeah, I guess I'd like to see it but I did read the book, saw the Swedish movie, and I'm a little tapped out right now, so I think I can wait for this on video as well." They might be thinking that if they're going to spend any of the money they have left right now they might spend it on something completely new.


American audiences always have had ADD when it comes to movies. I thought this movie was really well done and is a must see. Rooney Mara played the part perfectly as was described in the book.


I saw this film a few days ago. It was horrible. It's too long, it's boring, and the story was hard to follow. The sexual violence was hard to watch. And why do people keep saying Daniel is "good looking?" He is very underwhelming. Rooney Mara was good, and I'd like to see her in a decent film.

The Great Congo

I was reluctant to see it because I thought Rooney Mara came off as a complete A-hole in all her interviews. Team Rapace :)


I saw it in Seattle the day after Christmas and the entire theater was sold out. I have seen the Swedish versions, but enjoyed this re-telling of the story. I imagine it would be more fun had I not been familiar with the plot. I thought the film worth seeing just on the basis of Mara's performance. I hope they make the sequel, but certainly spending 100 million on this film seems over-the-top. I imagine it could be made for 15 million and not lose any of its cinematic value.


You, and others, are seriously underestimating the exposure of the Swedish version. Yes, it made only $10 million in American theaters, but many many people I know in their 20s/30s who hadn't even read the book and ordinarily don't watch foreign language movies bought/rented the DVD or Blu-ray or watched the original on Netflix streaming. This is the audience that is not showing up for the Fincher film.

And side note, but the Swedish film is better. Not to judge, but most of the people who seem to be trashing it by default (including many I've talked to) are the kind of American viewers who can't relate to any foreign film regardless of its quality.


The R rating has nada to do with low b.o. It's n o t an interesting or "fun" movie.
Is this difficult to grasp??? Corny-old hat plot embroidered x sexual abuse & torture.
So, it flops. Is this difficult to grasp?


The original and sequels have been on Netflix instant watch for at least a year. That's how I saw it and I'm sure others have too. The trailer for the new one showed scenes that were so similar to the original I figured there was no point in seeing it. And unless the new ending changes who done it…I already know who done it. I'm more likely to watch the original sequels on Netflix than see the English language versions in theatres.


Damn shame this isn't performing as well is it might have. It's a great film and far superior to the Swedish version. Oh well, American's get the movies they deserve. If they'd rather go and sit through a FOURTH Mission Impossible, then they'll get number 5. You went to go see the terrible Sherlock Holmes 2 did ya? Good, cause here comes number 3! But The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo? Directed by David Fincher, written by Steve Zaillian featuring a solid performance from Craig and a brilliant one by Mara? Fuck that! BORING! Bring on the popcorn trash!!!! Well, give the people want they want….. here it comes!


Sorry Anne I have to say this is an absolute disappointment of a remake, given the fine pedigree behind the film. Yes, Fincher's version is arguably a better film in general but suffers the very same problems as the Swedish version/the book. The payoff was so little that the remake is hardly justified. The only reason for the remake is so that the mainstream American audience wouldn't have to read the Swedish subtitles.


Agree completely about the release date. I've seen it, enjoyed it, thought it was well done. I also always see a movie on Christmas Day, but saw something else, chose not to see Dragon Tattoo until a few days later, just not a Christmas movie.


WRONG Danny is a terrible Bond he and the producers and writers have made Bond into a dull
Bourne clone. 007 used to be fun now its a labor sitting though one


Sorry, Ms.THOMPSON. I get tired of the consideration that is a stereotype these days. Did you quote this from the board on IMDb?

Mark Rabinowitz

@Connor: Americans do read. The book was fantastically popular, here. Why can't you watch and appreciate both versions? This is not a remake of the Swedish film, it's an English-language (though still very Swedish-feeling) version of the book.

Mark Rabinowitz

I agree, but do you think it will have legs? It's still 4th in the weekly B.O. with a respectable $8,200+ average. Not spectacular, but among films with over 2,000 engagements. it's 3rd in average and the only films above it are MI:GP, Sherlock Holmes and the Chipmunks.

What do you reckon it will end up at?

Toby Leonard

How about plain-old burnout?


Love these points. I haven't seen it and not likely to mainly because We already have the Swedish version, so why can't Hollywood and Americans make the effort to read for once ?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *