The Girl Who Played with Fire Looks Likely for 2014
SummaryIt still needs a workable script -- and a director. Back to Article
Rotten Tomatoes
-
-
Opening this week
-
87%
-
24%
-
91%
-
Movies
-
-
New on DVD
DVD
-
-
Who's In Theaters This Weekend?
Celebrities
-
-
What's Hot on Rotten Tomatoes
News
-
-
Spotlight
Critics
dude meister
I want Fincher. No one else, Fincher. The first movie was one of my favorite films of 2011, and a lot of that was due to his direction. If he won't return I will be much less excited. And Sony, don't be so stupid with the film this time. It performed extremely well for its subject matter, but it was made for 100 million. Why? I love the film but why? I know Fincher's a big spending but 100 MILLION for a film like this was seriously pushing it. Did you really expect a big return on investment with a budget like that? It could have been made for half of that, I wouldn't have noticed a difference, and it would have been a nice little hit. And don't open it in Christmas on the same weekend as Mission Impossible and Sherlock Holmes next time.
Aug 23 - 04:23 PM
Bradly Martin
But Fincher says he's finishes which kind of implies he has no passion for the project. You want a passionless Fincher over a Passionate some body else!!??
hmmm...reading my post I have to admit. That is a tough call.
Aug 23 - 05:32 PM
King Crunk
The original was made for less than a tenth of what Fincher's American version cost. It really is mind boggling how a drama cost that much to make.
Aug 23 - 08:46 PM
dude meister
I mean, THE HUNGER GAMES cost 20 million less, come on.
Aug 24 - 04:26 AM
King Simba
Regarding the budget the fault lies completely with Fincher. He's a great directing but he always has a knack for making his films cost way more than they should. Zodiac looked like a film that could be made for 40 mil and yet it ended up costing 80 mil. Fight Club cost 60 mil and was released in 1999. To put that into perspective, The Matrix was released in the same year with an identical budget, while the Mummy cost only slightly more.
Also, the christmas release date was actually a pretty important part of it's marketing, as it was sold as the feel-bad-movie of the season, an angle that should have helped it stand out from the competetion. Besides, it's not like it had direct competetion with MI4 and Sherlock 2 given that both of those films were PG-13 action films and The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo was an R-rated drama. And christmas is a time when multiple films can perform really well without one hurting the other. Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Chipmunks 2, for example, both made over 200 mil despite opening in the shadow of Avatar.
And I think Sony WAS expecting it to be bigger. Yeah it had a pretty good gross, but when you consider that it's based on a book whose sales dwarf those of the entire Hunger Games trilogy combined and was critically acclaimed you can't help but wonder why it didn't make more, though I suppose it suffered from the swedish version still being fresh in people's minds, especially considered how big it was for a foreign film.
Aug 24 - 01:17 AM
dude meister
True, a lot of the fault lies with Fincher, but Sony really should have reigned him in a bit, I adore the film but 100 million was just ridiculous. And what's sells in the literary world won't always sell well in cinema. And the Xmas release was a cool marketing gimmick, but it's the time for feel good/sentimental/famiIy or teen oriented blockbusters. All the films you listed fit that category. There really wasn't a market for it at the time. It would have done better in October/November. Barring that, I think it did the best it possibly could really. An almost 3 hour movie that some would argue (not me though) as being borderline NC-17 with graphic rape and murder ain't exactly gonna be a box office smash
Aug 24 - 04:18 AM