vietduckboi

^$9.99 wouldn't be shocking for BF. But less than $7.99 would be anytime soon.

dhmac

Have we reached a stage where making $100 million at the BO is a "bomb"?

DVD Polizei

Well, on top of the remake just being utter crap and being the first Fyncher film I've ever thought about vomiting over, and then compare what is being said about it financially--it made a loss. Even though it made sales of $240 million worldwide (the production and advertising are said to be more than this figure). And I guarantee you only a small fraction would see the second installment. The first figures are from those people--like myself--who had faith the remake was going to be good. It sucked camel assholes. I'll probably be selling my copy shortly.

jwstl

It's not a remake; they are 2 films based on the same novel. To be fair, the novels are crap so you can't expect the films to be great. And his name is spelled: Fincher.

Why So Blu?

We have. If the film cost 100 million or more to make then it is a bomb. Don't believe the hype in terms of marketing costs - those are ALWAYS inflated. Hollywood is also known for 'creative bookkeeping,' as well.

vietduckboi

-_- I'm not even sure what to say... 87% on Rotten Tomatoes...Wiki reports budget as $90M with $230M world box office...

Sure maybe you don't always agree with RT, and sure maybe the Wiki numbers are a little fudged. But it's unlikely that the general public shares your opinion in that people thought it "sucked camel assholes". Pretty arrogant to think everyone agrees with you.

Preterite

Internet hyperbole is worse than cancer.

riotinmyskull

i don't trust anyone's opinion that can't spell the director's name properly.

DVD Polizei

To all his fans, I apologize for his improper name spelling. Maybe that will make up for my disappointment with his film. Nope, it didn't.

The novels were just fine, and were rather detailed. Maybe Fincher didn't bother with details. Maybe he thought he could a better job. I thought he could, but he failed. The film was rushed, actors were misplaced in roles you couldn't get past.

Seriously, Robin Wright?

This isn't a remake? There is another film with the same name, you know. And two other films after. These films did very well in conveying the three books.

fumanstan

It's not a remake.

DVD Polizei

So, what is it, then? An "adaption" from a movie/book with the same name?

fumanstan

It's an adaptation of the book. It's not a remake of the Swedish movie. I can see why it might be a hard concept for you to understand.

spartickes

Why would you vomit over it? Do you normally throw up about movies you don't like? Are there other directors whose work prompt you do the technicolor yawn on a consistent basis? Because, you don't seem surprised about the possibility of tossing your groceries about a piece of entertainment, but you do seem surprised that this particular auteur brought you to the precipice of spewing chunks.

Also, you not liking something ≠ bad.

DVD Polizei

So, if you're saying Fincher adapted this movie from book source and not the movie, he even did a worse job than what I thought. Lisbeth's character is way different than Larsson's writings of her. And Robin Wright as the wife is a joke.

So, the ADAPTION sucks even more, and is even more telling of how distanced Fincher was from the actual source. Did he even read the books. He actually combined a few scenes from the second book into the first movie. Nice. Gotta love Hollywood Remakes. Oops, I mean adaptions. Actually, I mean interpretations.

Apparently, few people have read the books. The comments on IMDB point towards the same. Many comments refer to these types of problems, but most haven't read the books or even seen the movies so when a bunch of stars appear, they just say, "Hey, it was great!"

I have a condition which reacts to crappy movies. This in turn, causes me to produce foodage from my belly. Theatricus Emesis, is what I've been diagnosed with.

P.S. Maybe you mean amateur instead of auteur.

vietduckboi

I honestly can't even tell if you are just trolling us or if you seriously think you're being funny. Either way, I'm glad your exposure to the world is limited to these forums.

Solid Snake

I liked the first book fine. The 2nd one had it's issues though. I haven't read the 3rd. So..I'll leave that one alone. Either way...they were very entertaining.

What actors were misplaced? I can't really see an actor being awkward in any role in there. What was wrong w/ Wright?

Also you're talking about conveying the books. Why do the books matter when you're talking about the film? It's fine to reference the source material but seems like you're also criticizing the film for being an adaptation of the source and not being able to separate the two as individual texts.

Just cuz there's another film called the same thing doesn't mean it's a remake. A remake constitutes it's using whatever previous film before as the source material. This film doesn't. It treads along the same lines obviously due to the same origin text but...it's not copying the Swedish film as the source.