As Oscars have a thing for impersonations these days, they also have a thing for hot young women. Mostly with just who they choose to be the winner, but it is something that has been going on since the days of Gwenyth Paltrow. Rooney Mara doesn't really fit into that category - she's not what I would call drop dead gorgeous and her attitude during interviews certainly didn't fit the bill of someone trying to get a nomination. But, Oscar also has a thing for remakes - if last year's True Grit wasn't proof enough, this year The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo became the newest remake to allegedly stun the Academy. There's nothing wrong with the film itself, but why watch this one when you can watch a much better one and the original just in the Swedish language?
But, what Rooney Mara? I've already seen Noomi Rapace give this same character the screen treatment and in a very good way, she didn't hold anything back and brought a strong intensity to the character which was needed. Now we have Rooney Mara, an already limited actress, armed with an odd, almost unnecessary accent and the misguided intensity. In some scenes, she even copies the movements of Rapace, an odd move since many think this is not a remake. Playing the character of Lisbeth Salander, a hacker who helps out in a cold case, is a terrific role. But, Rooney Mara just doesn't do it for me. Everything about her is offputting and uninteresting here, and again that could just be the atmosphere around her, and the fact I've already seen someone pull this role off much more thoroughly.
What surprised me is how much she is in the film itself, she doesn't carry it and when she's off-screen, in my opinion, it feels alot better. But, alas, it's true - the Academy likes to make bad decisions and call it brilliant. Not everyone can be nominated, but just like in the Mila Kunis/Hailee Steinfeld case of last year, now we have Rooney Mara/any other actress in contention. Here we have a bordering on terrible performance, an unnecessary film, and a wasted nomination.
8 comments:
Although I liked the film, I did not watch the Swedish version before watching this one so that probably helps, I was never impressed be her either. I always felts she wanted to be intense more than she really was. I really preferred Daniel Craig in the film itself.
OK, I'm gonna shut up for now and keep my opinion for a week or so but I'm just about the complete opposite in her case.
What did you like about her?
I forgot to add in my review, if anyone is really interested, the Swedish version is great! Highly recommend it, if you can stand foreign language films...
You will have to wait a week and see then. ;)
BTW, I forgot it, but can you review Great Glenn next? I'm the most interested in that review.
Yep, she is the most interesting this year.
Rapace was good. I think it helps that since the first Bafta Actress award, only once has an Actress race not had a newcomer - and 1994 probably would've had the Bafta nominee and London/NYFCC winner from The Last Seduction if it weren't ineligible.
Elizabeth Olsen captured the critics' love, but Tattoo had a lot more buzz/box office/guild noms and a Mara Globe nom.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I thought Mara was great and that the movie was too. I thought it was actually quite a bit better than the Swedish version, and I tend to like foreign language films. I felt the directorial decisions were better, the novel adaptation choices were exceedingly better, Daniel Craig was better, the supporting cast was quite a bit better, and Rooney Mara was also quite a bit better than Noomi Rapace. I found Rooney Mara to bring a human aspect to her performance of the eccentric, anti-social Lisbeth that Noomi just didn't. Noomi was just plain creepy and weird, whereas Mara showed you her eccentricities and dark side, but also showed you enough of her human side for you to at least sort of see where she was coming from.
Post a Comment