Posted on 12/29/11 12:35 PM
The Girl and some very "evf-uped" people!
This is the original working title. When reading elements in a book and thinking about translating it, to the screen. There is a problem. All things written in a book, need not be on the screen and better left off the screen.
This is the 'real-casting' problem with the movie made from a book. Who cares if it is "real" to the book. It should have been adapted not tried to be "real." This is the one of the greatest errors of cinema. Being "real" to a fictional novel in the first place.
Good directors, see it and change it where it needs to be changed, to make it their own work. This is not a David Fincher movie but a person lost in a series of scenes he "tried" to stitch together to make some coherent sense.
Why? Because the novel is good? No? Pleasing readers is not what film is about. Who cares if you, David Fincher, wanted to direct a 'James Bond' movie all your life and thought this is the way. David, why did you do a very 'James Bond' credits, after doing a very bad opening shot??
The rape scene is a waste of time not because rape shouldn't be on screen. Go see the Jodie Foster movie on this subject ...well made. But because it shows and relates nothing to the overall arc of the movie? The character is wanting bad things to happen because she is so 'smart' but only when 'terrible men' happen to enter her life?
Go see, La Femme Nikita for a better female role.
Nothing made sense on the screen. It was transparent that something bad was going to happen but not to the "Harriet" person. I never thought she was the focus of the movie?
Why do we see Daniel Craig so much? Did he have a dragon tattoo, also?
I can't believe I am saying this but the 'Broccoli' people who brought James Bond to the screen could have bought the rights to these novels. Yeah...it would have been much better.
"The worst and corrupt people, my family." -Grandpa-Atrocity still 'squeamish' about rape.