And I noticed the film made more money on Tuesday (the day we went to see it) than it did on the first Friday. So yeah, I think this film will cough up enough coin to warrant parts 2 and 3.
I just saw it last night. I think it’s much better than the Swedish version, even though I haven’t seen it. But from clips and stills, Rooney Mara’s Lisbeth seems superior to Repace’s. Rooney is much prettier and her Lisbeth seems more tender and vulnerable than Repace’s. I just wanted to give her a hug several times in the film.
I think you need to see the original before you decide the remake is better.
I just got back from seeing the remake, having re-watched the original a couple of days ago. I think Repace is in a league of her own. Without taking anything away from Mara, who does really fine work, Repace created a characterization which, if she had starred in an American film, would be widely hailed as iconic.
I like both films very much, but I think I prefer the Swedish version a little. Mainly because of Repace. In that version, she keeps Mikael at arm’s length emotionally, even when the relationship turns sexual. In the remake not so much. I really think the Swedish take is more in keeping with Lisbeth as an emotionally damaged creature.
On the other hand, I will admit that Lisbeth letting her guard down emotionally in the remake added a bit of pathos to the character, and made it a little more heartbreaking.
Like I said, I enjoyed both takes, but still I think I prefer the original. And having said all that, I still expect Mara to get an Oscar nomination, and possibly a win. Just a shame that Repace didn’t get that level of recognition.
By the way, the house was pretty packed when I caught the movie tonight. I expect the film will make a solid profit before it’s over.
SWMBO and I saw it and loved it. Very true to the book, and a damn good detective story.
I just watched it, and I’m pretty much with you.
It was a (mostly) entertaining mystery that, despite it’s poorly sketched characters and numerous meanderings, managed to convey a good sense of mood and keep the viewer engaged.
But as a feminist masterpiece? No way. To begin with, why the heck does Lisbeth sleep with the author insertion character (I mean, uh, reporter?). The reporter had next to no actual personal characteristics. Who would even bother to sleep with him? It just doesn’t make any sense. Heck, why is he even there to begin with? If the story was told through Lisbeth’s eyes, it would be much more compelling. But I imagine it would take a much more skilled author to tell that story rather than relying an a Mary Sue and the beautiful, mysterious woman who sleeps with him for no reason.
There was also quite a bit of really gratuitous boobage. I normally wouldn’t complain about that, but if you are trying to market yourself as a feminist story, it doesn’t make sense to go for exposed female skin for titillation. Maybe if that sex was part of a sex-positive healthy relationship, or if the movie was more equal in showing male and female private parts, it’d be better. But using a sexually fucked-up young woman’s compulsive draw to destructive sexual relationships as an excuse to flash her tits all over the screen to be leered at? Not cool. A “feminist” movie would have maybe shown her being able to reclaim her sexuality by eventually having positive, fun, emotionally-equal sexual relationships with an enthusiastic partner rather than the fairly tawdry, emotionally disengaged and unsatisfying sex she has.
That’s one thing that bothered me about the remake. It felt like the sex came out of the blue, without the film having developed any emotional connection between the characters.
It felt more organic in the Swedish version.
My wife read the book. She suggested we go see it. We did last Wednesday.
Very good movie.
Too bad Hollywood can’t make detective/mystery movies like this.
Who said it was a “feminist masterpiece”? I just like the character of Lisbeth.
laugh You’re kidding, right? Are you male or female? The way I see it, even if he weren’t played by Daniel Craig, he’s a good man, one of the few truly good men Lisbeth has ever known (her boss Armansky and her former guardian being the only others), he’s smart and interesting and he wants Lisbeth’s help in helping to catch a killer of women. He needs her and that’s sexy when added to all the other things.
He’s important to the overall story arc, and in the first book/movie he’s our introduction to Lisbeth. In the 2nd book we do get to see the story as told through Lisbeth’s eyes. Patience.
A “Mary Sue”? What does that mean? And “no reason”? She’s horny, she likes him, and she knows he’s safe. What other reasons does she need?
I just saw it as natural, not gratuitous.
What’s not sex-positive about it?
Excuse me, what makes you think that Lisbeth is “sexually fucked-up” and what makes you think she’s compulsively drawn to “destructive sexual relationships”? I suppose it’s not clear in the remake, but she and Miriam Wu, the woman she picks up at the club, have known each other for years and have a very comfortable casual sexual relationship. Even if that were not true, she picks up a woman at a bar and sleeps with her. What’s so destructive about that? Women are far less likely to be creepy and even if you didn’t know their background, obviously Lisbeth felt safe. And what’s destructive about her sleeping with Mikael? Those are the only two sexual relationships she has in the movie. Point out to me what’s destructive about either.
I’m going to assume you’re not referring to her being forced to give a blowjob to and then being raped and tortured by her new guardian as Lisbeth being drawn to a destructive sexual relationship because that would be, well, pretty sick.
So Lisbeth’s sex with Miram and Mikael are automatically tawdry, emotionally disengaged and unsatisfying…why? And even if it was, which it’s not, so what? Is all casual sex automatically tawdry? Is all emotionally disengaged sex automatically tawdry? Women can’t get horny and want to have sex just to have sex? And the partners she picks, a woman and a man she knows better than most of his friends, are pretty good picks, even if you don’t know any other background.
I’m not getting all the “ninja” gripes. Maybe I have been watching the wrong martial arts films, but since when do ninjas take down their opponents with tasers?
Have not read the books, enjoyed the movie - followed the plot just fine. Nearly full theatre at 2pm on New Year’s eve.
Oh, that makes me happy!
Whoah there. I haven’t read the book, so all I have to go on is what I see on the screen. And what I see is a woman who seems to compulsively shed her clothing from people she just met and engage in what seems to be fairly joyless, distant, unfun sex- which just happens to be a pretty well-known pattern in people who have been emotionally damaged by childhood sexual abuse. That is what I saw on the screen- which may be realistic but isn’t really a great narrative of someone gaining control of the sexuality after abuse.
I’m all for casual sex, but done healthily it should at least make you smile a bit, you know?
But in the movie you only saw a tiny bit of the sex between Lisbeth and Mikael and if I remember, none of the sex between Lisbeth and Miriam. Do you smile 100% of the time when you’re having sex? And it seems you’re thinking that two casual sexual encounters are enough to peg someone as sexually fucked up and drawn to destructive sexual relationships, and now you’re adding childhood sexual abuse to the narrative, all based on 2 sexual encounters over the course of the film.
Joyless, distant, unfun sex? Did you watch the same movie? 
While I did see a storyline going from point A…a sexual impingement to point B. Retaking control with a woman, less scary than a man to point C. Taking control with a man…a man she doesn’t DIStrust, which is a rarity in her world…I sure didn’t see any pointless, joyless sex going on. 
Saw the movie last night, and liked it a great deal. The only part that I wished they could have gone more into was the already-commented-upon montage of Lizbet’s taking Wennerstrom’s money. Otherwise, there was much in the book…‘words words words…’ that I felt didn’t add much to the storyline or engagement of the reader, that I am happy to have done without in the film.
Looking forward to two and three 
It refers to an author introducing a stand-in for themselves into the story, particularly in a gratuitous fashion loaded with adolescent wish fulfillment. The epitome of this would be a Star Trek fan fiction story where a character named Ellis just happens to save the day with implausible heroics, including a scene where I (I mean he) saves a cowering Captain Picard and then ends the day with a steamy three-way with Troi and Crusher.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with even sven – who is female, btw – I must concede her point that Blomqvist is the most blatant Mary Sue I’ve ever read in published fiction. The fact that every woman he encounters is eager to drop her clothes for him is a running joke in discussions of the books.
Sorry , I just noticed this reply now. If your talking about the swedish adaptation, then yes we have seen the same movie. I think part of the problem had to do with the title of both the film and the book in the english speaking world,
I was coming in from reading the whole series, and then watching the movies, and I still stand by what I wrote. The people who made the movie had to condense that novel into 90 minutes or so. Lisbeth was the primary character, Mikael was secondary.
His arc introduces her, and then essentially peters out as the cold case becomes hot and then her story arc starts to ascend with him as the secondary, along the way you start to pick out the cameo story arcs.
But I guess Men who hate women is a bit bland for a title, but the whole movie is teeming with violence on women, by guys.
Declan
Thanks Ellis, I get it now, and yes, I’ve certainly joked myself many times about what a horndog Mikael is in the books. The movies wisely toned that waaay down. They kinda had to keep the fact that Mikael sleeps with 2 women in the first movie.
You might just think Mikael is a man who seems to compulsively shed his clothing for women he just met and engage in what seems to be fairly joyless, distant, unfun sex- which, wow, just happens to be a pretty well-known pattern in people who have been emotionally damaged by childhood sexual abuse.
[slight nitpick]
Her name is Rapace.
[/slight nitpick]
Hell, in the first Swedish movie, he seems reluctant to sleep with anybody. The two women just insist, seemingly.
The film is close to 3 hours, not 90 minutes.