Did you see a different movie than I did? Because the movie I saw was about a guy investigating a missing girl, with Lisbeth being a main character, but not at all who or what the film was about.
So I saw this yesterday, with a friend who hadn’t yet read the books.
The rape scene was very difficult to watch (I had to look away.) However, since I’d read the book, I knew that Lisbeth exacted a satisfying and appropriate revenge so that was comforting. I spent seven years as a rape crisis counselor, so I’m well aware of the violence of rape, and the revenge scene was quite cathartic. Rooney Mara was amazing as Lisbeth, and Daniel Craig was just as sexy playing an “ordinary guy.”
Also I imagine this movie could be confusing for someone who hasn’t read the books, and also doesn’t realise that it’s the first in a trilogy so that some of the plot points won’t become fully realised until Fire or Hornet’s Nest.
That said - we both thoroughly enjoyed it, the music score was wonderful and the opening credits rocked. It reminded me of the opening credits for the 1964 movie Goldfinger, a little.
Sorry, perhaps I was a bit unclear. I meant the book, the Swedish film and the US film, of course.
I’m in a bit of a pickle here and need your advice. I have resisted reading the books up until now, but have some time off coming up around the start of the New Year that I must take. So, should I read the books first THEN see the movie, or see the movie first then read the books? Does the movie stand alone on its own well enough, or will seeing it totally ruin the books for me?
The Swedish films stand up on their own very well. I saw them before I read the books, but I did enjoy the books once I got around to reading them.
We saw the movie yesterday.
We had not read the books, nor seen the Swedish original film(s).
We loved it!
It was nowhere near as complicated to follow for a “newbie” as some have suggested it might be.
Yes, the rape scene is graphic for the squeamish, but it had to be that way for the rest of the story to make sense and be equal to the, uh, karma of the rapist.
So, for anyone who goes to this film clueless, like we did, you will still like this film a lot!! (Again, if you are somewhat squeamish, you might not like a lot of the violence - so be forewarned in this aspect.)
Great story, great cinematography and some Oscar worthy acting going on!
Certainly one of the best films of the year.
My only complaint was some asshole in the audience who, on the way out and trying to impress his girlfriend, loudly gave away some plot points in books 2 and 3. I wanted to dump the rest of my Diet Coke on his head.
I’m so glad to hear you liked it with no knowledge of the other movies or books. That makes me very happy and I’d like to hear more of your thoughts. Did it seem like you came in on the middle of Lisbeth’s story? Did you find her situation with the lawyer confusing?
I’d also like to know, in a spoiler box, what the asshole said and what it meant to you (and if you’d like anything confirmed or denied because he could have been yanking her chain).
I saw the Swedish movie in the theater first, then read the first two books. I had to wait for the 3rd book and the next two movies.
I saw the 2nd movie in the theater on release (after seeing the first a couple more times), then read the 3nd book when it was released (hardback, I rarely buy hardbacks, but I had to buy this one).
Then when the 3rd movie came out, the local AMC theaters did a Millennium Trilogy, playing all 3 movies back to back. That was great!
The only problem with reading the books first is that there’s so much in them that the movies can’t possibly show everything. The biggest being Lisbeth’s hacking skills, because what she does with a computer is fascinating to me and as I’ve said, very hard to convey on film. It’s hard not to lament what’s missing.
Then again, if you watch the movies then read the books then watch the movies again, you’ll have the background. Instead of lamenting what’s missing, which is something I really hate hearing people do when talking about, say, Harry Potter, it’s all there, just not shown. Not everything needs to be shown.
That doesn’t really answer anything. If it’s interesting do it all, read the books, watch the Swedish movies, watch these movies as they’re released. The more Lisbeth the merrier. Well, maybe not merrier. The more interesting anyway.
I’m not DMark but as someone who had read all three books before seeing the movies, I can say that if you only read the first book, you’re coming in to the middle of Lisbeth’s story and the whole thing isn’t revealed until the third book. Fincher (director) seems to be staying fairly faithful to the story arc in the books, based on the first movie.
I think it would be helpful if there was an announcement somewhere that this is the first of three installments, because I imagine some elements of the movie will leave people wondering what the heck was that about. But they’ll make sense in the next two installments. That said, I think the movie stood well on its own.
I guess what I meant to ask was, did it matter? And did it make him want to know more about Lisbeth? Some people seem frustrated by it (coming in on the middle of her story) while others seem intrigued and they want to know more.
For those who want to know more, The Girl Who Played With Fire* will slay the hell out of you! It’s ALL about Lisbeth. I can’t wait for Fincher’s take. And Mara as Lisbeth. Oh. My. God. I’m buzzing with anticipation at the thought of my favorite scene in the whole series (no spoiler here).
- edit to add, the book and most likely, hopefully, the Fincher movie. The Swedish movie was edited down far too much.
Is it a sure thing that there is going to be a second movie? From my understanding it depends on the box office. Right now, from what little I’ve read, the gross is a bit underwhelming (granted it’s early still).
Apologies ahead of time for not wading through every post … but aruvqan, in spoiler, addressed my biggest peeve about the movie:
I didn’t even get what the hell was going on at the initial reveal. I kept waiting for them to mention Harriet off in Australia and by the time I figured out that Anita was Harriet I think I actually uttered a “wtf” aloud. That almost ruined the movie for me. Of all the things they could pare down for time or context, I think that was dumbest one to cut up.
Other than that, I enjoyed the movie. I think I would have enjoyed it more had I not been saturated with the material; I’ve read the book, seen the Swedish version, and seen this version all within the last few months. I’m getting kind of sick of Sweden at this point.
As predicted I was tempted to walk away from the rape scene. I was also tempted to walk away from the revenge. I don’t see how that is satisfying. He was an animal towards her. She was am animal towards him. Thus the cycle continues. Was very disappointed in the end. What should have been the theft of the century was reduced to an extended montage. Not that I wanted movie to be longer but still.
I was, but not in a good way. It seemed pretty misplaced to me. I just saw it as this crazy industrial-punk video that somehow got spliced into the credits. I mean the visuals were cool, but how did it fit - thematically, stylistically, in pacing - at all with the rest of the film. Yes, Lisbeth was a punker, but that whole endless weird video just to drive the point home? No sir, I didn’t like it. The film called for a more understated credit sequence, if you ask me.
That’s actually my one complaint about Fincher. All his films have some groovy opening like that. It’s like when he puts out a movie he’s really putting a movie and and opening sequence; it often seems as though he considers both projects of equal importance.
I was flabbergasted at how they chose to modify the book. I understand that you can’t keep everything in, but I do think you really shouldn’t pull changes like that.
I don’t think she was anywhere near as much of an animal as he was.
She didn’t spend 5 or 6 hours raping him. She buttplugged him, kicked him around a few times, made him watch her being raped for 2 hours, then tattooed him. If I had him under control like that, he would be dead after a hell of a lot more unpleasantness. She didn’t even kill him, she just kept him blackmailed for a year and a few months. Her half brother did the killing.
I thought it was OK, but I have a hard time figuring how you’d make sense of it if you haven’t read the books. It really seemed like “great scenes from” rather than a coherent story on its own. I really didn’t like the way they tweaked the ending. The opening credits were awesome and the score was great, but other than that it was pretty average.
Yeah, the box office has been disapointing, unfortunately. ‘Girl With the Dragon Tattoo’s’ low box-office take leaves future of sequels a mystery
However, I suspect Rooney Mara’s performance will probably get some Oscar attention, and that may fuel greater box office success in the new year.
I just saw it the other night. Fantastic movie. I was concerned about Daniel Craig not being able to play a regular, everyday kind of guy, but I was wrong. I thought Daniel Craig played Mikael quite well- Fincher toned down the sexual nature of the character and presented him as just an average, decent hero. (Not that being sexually active means you can’t be decent, but those who have read the books know what I mean about Mikael.) While his name is first in the credits, he never played the role like he was the star. Kudos to him for making me forget he is a Big Name Star.
What everyone wanted to know, of course, is how Rooney Mara would do in the very key role of Lisbeth Salander. While I still love Noomi Rapace’s version more, RM’s take wasn’t bad, just different. And I was glad to see that- she didn’t try to be a NR copy; she really tried (and I think succeeded) in making the role her own. Loved the chemistry between her and Craig, and as in the book, they made the most unusual duo.
Some are complaining about the length (2hrs 40min), but 1. The Swedish version was the same length, and 2. I didn’t mind the length as there is a LOT going on in the book, and in order to stay fairly close to the book, it needed to be long. The best compliment I can give the film is that it really did feel like a book- there were parts that I wanted to “skim” through, but I knew if I just stuck with it, there would be a great pay-off. And if that doesn’t describe the first book to a “T” (100 pages before anything happens!!), I don’t know what does.
I have also seen complaints about the graphic nature of the rape of Lisbeth and her subsequent revenge, and I wonder if these people have read the books. These events are so crucial to the development of Lisbeth and how the audience accepts her and her actions. And, of course, it becomes a key point in the later books/films. The theme is violence against women, whether it is the women the villain killed (not sure how much should be in spoilers), or the treatment of Harriet as a child, or the treatment of Lisbeth through her entire life. Hell, the original title of the book is, “Men Who Hate Women”! This is ultimately what makes the relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael so important; she has so few men in her life that she can trust (her first state guardian, her boss), and I think Mikael is the only man she has had a physical relationship with on her own terms.
Didn’t mind the accents or the fact that they spoke English when everything else around them was in Swedish; we see English-made movies set in other countries that do that all the time. The only point that made me laugh every time was when I saw all of Mikael’s notes in English… but all the magazine/newspaper headlines were in Swedish.
Not a very satisfying ending for those who wanted something really self-contained, but it is in line with how the first book ended, and really, did Lisbeth think things would be happily-ever-after?
I’m not sure profits will dictate whether or not parts 2 & 3 will be filmed. I think critical acclaim and Fincher’s reputation will have more to do with whether or not they will be made. The length of this movie will prevent it from topping the box office (they can only squeeze in one showing a night, where Mission Impossible can squeeze in two showings), but I think it should be seen by as many people as possible. Highly recommended.
Did I come in on the middle of Lisbeth’s story? No - they introduced her, you saw she had a “father” of sorts who provided her an income that was now lost and the slimy lawyer had taken over. Her computer skills were obvious as she was doing some heavy-duty, more-than-Google work. She has a complicated background that was hinted at, but not fully disclosed yet. Scary woman, but you grew to like her a lot and that final scene was heartbreaking. Someone you would most certainly want as a friend and most certainly NOT as an enemy. So, I guess I got what was needed to learn about her in the first film.
Yes, there is some worry about this film making money, but they hope the next few weeks will bump up the tally. Lots of adults (demographic) didn’t have time at Christmas, and now there is more time to go to movies. Plus, at the Tuesday early screening in Las Vegas, the theater was about half full - this is very rare for so many to show up for an early screening here! (We usually go then because nobody goes to movies that early), so my guess is this film will have the proverbial “legs” and run longer than many thought/predicted.
Regarding what that asshole said on the way out of the theater to his girlfriend:
Mikael is not really in the story anymore after this first book, and Lisbeth is buried alive later…
Why someone would feel the need to blurt this out, loudly, to an audience exiting the movie theater is a mystery to me. Jerk.
Yeah, I agree that there’s no way they won’t make the other two movies. I’d bet they’re in unannounced pre-production now.
In the US, in 7 days it’s already made 3 times what the Swedish film made here during its entire run, has only opened in one other country so far (Finland, according to Box Office Mojo), has awards attention still to come, and is a film for adults, who don’t usually run out and see something the first weekend, especially not on a holiday weekend. Sure, the budget is much higher than the Swedish film but the other two should be cheaper to make.
Besides, no matter what this makes at the box office, it’ll be very popular on DVD/streaming. Oh yeah, they’ll make them.
Thanks for the reply DMark.
Ah, ok, don’t worry about it then. The guy’s full of shit about the first, and the other is so simplified as to be useless information. It’s like saying The Bride goes through the same thing in Kill Bill Vol. 2. How much does that tell you about the surrounding plot points and action? Not much. He’s a jerk, yes, but he didn’t do too much damage. I thought it would be much worse.