MovieChat Forums > The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) Discussion > no 3-act stucture

no 3-act stucture

posted 7 years ago by Caseyspook
8 replies | jump to latest

this movie was way too off the normal 3-act structure than I would have liked. Movies need to stay to formula or else they become weird and too confusing.

1. we introduce our characters and their situations.
2. the mystery unfolds on two different story lines
3. the two leads finally meet up and team up.
4. the main guy is captured in a usual "ending" sort of climax.... but
5. there is an extra act that deals with bringing down the dude from the begining.

I hate to be that guy but rules are rules for a reason.

[–] Finroon 7 years ago

Wow. I'm happy that not all movies go with the 3-act structure, wouldn't that be boring?

[–] misterlint 7 years ago

Damn movie rules and those that break them. Good thing you still have those Transformers movies.

[–] ltholmes95-248-531085 7 years ago

Most great movies break the "traditional movie rules", because ultimately those were constructed to make marketable movies, not great movies.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

Don’t be too harsh with the OP. Him found something to bitch about, which is the Holy Grail of internet message board posting. The movie fucked with him itty, bitty brain, and him sad and mad. So sad. So mad. It hurt him! It hurt him really, really bad, so him entitled to him feckless bitty rage. What wrong with you nasty people? Creeps are people too!!!

Except for when we reject their bullshit, and then they are not people.

[–] kwestmo (4114) 2 years ago

You didn't describe the three act structure:
Person climbs a tree
Person gets rocks thrown at him
Person climbs down tree

You describe the buddy/action flick structure which this film was not. It did follow the three act structure.

[–] MavKilledGoose (778) 2 years ago

I more or less agree. There's nothing wrong with violating principles/"rules" if what's unfolding is consistently fascinating.

The problem with the ending is that it's anti-climactic. You had life-or-death stakes -- a serial killer going after the protagonist. Harriet WAS the main storyline, and it resolves in an interesting way, so OK. But then things are brought down with mogul who brought a libel suit, for which there's an extended travel sequence, and the guy is murdered off-screen. They tried to have emotional progress, what with Lisbeth advancing her pawn (could've ended it there), but no, they have to set up the next movie (which is not going to be made because this one wasn't successful) where she tries to gift a jacket but is jealous because of an apparent lie, and storms off -- thereby undermining the pawn advance.

[–] [deleted] 10 months ago

Maybe that's part of the reason I became confused. The narrative in this is all over the place.

[–] brux (14666) 10 months ago

A criticism based solely on the structure of the movie, nothing to do with the other real actually significant parts of the movie?