FrogGlace
In other words,this film is a surreal ride.
Casey Duggan
It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
Taha Avalos
The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.
nejadb
Strong performance all round is let down by a poor directing.
Skilfully directed movie never feels like a collection of separate takes jumping from one scene to another and this one is exactly that. In addition I found some of the scenes objectionable. For example it seemed to me the rape scene was unnecessarily too long and distressing, as if the director enjoyed filming it. There should be no joy seeing someone suffering like that. If the perpetrator was beheading someone would he been filming it that long?! Same goes with the sex scenes that were definitely didn't need to be over done to that extent.
Pjtaylor-96-138044
Sadly, the planned trilogy will never see the light of day but luckily this, what would have been a first instalment, is a phenomenal piece of film-making capable to stand up to the scrutiny of its remake status and failed franchise label. Its actually all the stronger for not feeling as though it must conform to convention or wrap itself up in a neat little bow - instead leaving some strands dangling, waiting for a sequel that will never come - but still feels entirely intentional and wholly complete. The beautiful compositions juxtapose the picture's underlying darkness, with the two-strand structure dancing delicately around its destructive characters and contemplative detective work, and there's a real sense of an ominous under-layer to even the most innocuous of moments, moments which are never far from ones of pure, unrelenting evil manifested in unexpected but eerily true-to-life ways. Riveting, unconventional work. 7/10
hyoga_saint
As a reader of the original novel, I wondered if I should not watch the Swedish adaptation first, rather than what I figured would be an Americanized, dumbed-down, and sanitized remake, the likes of which we've seen all too often in the past with other foreign movies. I was very pleased to see my concerns were completely unfounded.Rather than a remake, this is more like a new adaptation of the modern thriller classic. A faithful one it is, too, set in the original Swedish locations of the novel and with characters speaking and acting much like their original literary counterparts. Even the controversial decision to speak in pseudo-Nordic accents is one I actually approve of. I liked the results.Particularly great is the talented Rooney Mara, who looks a little like Natalie Portman but, while not having the same fame or level of recognition, may be just as good an actress. Her Lisbeth Salander is probably *the* character that was going to make of break this film and thankfully, it is a resounding success: she is very much the blunt, complex, riveting girl you picture when you read the book.Though Mara's magnetic performance in many ways supports the film just fine on her own, she is helped by a strong cast in which Plummer and Wright, in particular, shine, while Skarsgård, Richardson, and Craig also more than hold their own. The music sets the tone wonderfully, while the pacing and editing are also strong points, with 2,5 hours flying by.As for the story, as I said, it remains faithful to the original while trimming down some of the excess baggage and taking a couple of actually satisfying shortcuts, improving on some of the slightly groan-inducing aspects of the book. However, some of the richness, depth, and mood of the novel inevitably get lost when translated to film, preventing this very good adaptation from becoming a classic.(+) The story is faithfully adapted to the screen. Good pacing, editing, music. Mara nails it as Lisbeth Salander(-) Some of the finer points and subtleties of the novel get lost in the silver screen, especially in regards to the Hedestad part of the story.
mummychic12
Overall, I thought this movie did a good job of representing the major events of the book in a more concise way. I was glad that the director chose not make a 600+ page book that at times was hard to read into a multiple hour movie. Sitting through that would not have been pleasant. That said, given that I have read the book, I felt there were a few parts in the plot that could have been made more clear in this adaptation - namely the bulk of the investigation leading up to the climax of the story...it felt a little bit rushed to me the way they skipped out on what I felt was a more natural chain of events; instead they included a scene with a character that was not in the book to move things along.I did however appreciate the fact that the film toned down some of the more graphic scenes of the book...they were appalling to read, let alone be shown on screen and I appreciated that the point was made without showing too many of the gory details. I have to mention a few other things besides my commentary on the film-book differences: I really enjoyed the casting of this film. I thought it was superbly cast all the way around. Though admittedly some of my favorite characters from the book had smaller parts, I was still pleased with how everyone looked. And I can only chalk it up to the casting that surprisingly Daniel Craig's British accent surrounded by everyone else's Swedish accent still somehow worked. Also it is worth mentioning that the opening credits are absolutely amazing. I thought they captured the tone of the book so incredibly well and were mesmerizing to watch. I would recommend this movie to someone based on the credits alone, though with the caveat that this film, even certain aspects of the credits, is really not for those with a light stomach.
