The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Venturing into Scandinavian cinema occasionally is definitely worthwhile. I’ve been focusing on the acclaimed film trilogy based on Stieg Larsson's work. I love their style and the lengthy shots of the desolate snowy landscape. Plus, these nations don’t shy away from gritty realism in their detective stories; everything is presented in a raw, unembellished manner. Of course, not everyone might appreciate that, but it works for me. The main acting duo is convincing, with Noomi Rapace delivering an excellent portrayal of her hacker character. I enjoyed the story’s gradual unfolding of a horrifying secret, with the increasingly intense atmosphere giving me chills at times. Michael Nyqvist also performed well. My compliments go to the screenwriters, as the film avoids any nonsensical elements that would make my head spin. The plot is cohesive, and the audience can follow it easily. I’m looking forward to the sequel, as the first film impressed me, and I expect more quality. I give it 81%. (18/06/2018)

A traditional thriller framework of Hollywood genre movies refreshed with new faces of high-quality European actors and taken apart by a superb multi-layered, detailed script that deals with a lot more than what is sufficient for a good thriller – and handles it with admirable complexity. Two and a half hours bursting with tension while the audience gets to know interesting characters and uncovers the well-concealed secret of a dark world. I am looking forward to two more films from Stieg Larsson’s trilogy of novels on which this movie’s screenplay is based, and I’m curious about the American remake. David Fincher is a sensible choice. He may be the only one who is able not to screw it up. (12/07/2010)

It was clear to me that the movie could never fit in everything from the book, but the book still took a beating more than I would have expected. Perhaps the only change for the better was that Blomkvist looked for Harriet because he remembered her from his childhood. Otherwise, I was and still am quite at a loss. Everything seemed too rushed to me, even the oft-mentioned rape (and revenge), the script just had pieces of lot of things just to have them appear in the film and then move away from them immediately... It barely had any atmosphere, dammit! The book stands and falls with Lisbeth Salander's character, and I was initially happy to see Noomi Rapace play her. In the end, though, it didn't seem very appropriate - she simply wasn’t weird enough. In this respect I'm pretty much betting on Rooney Mara from the American remake, who looks much more unusual from the photos. I'm giving it two and a half stars, mainly because after an hour I was thinking "Well, if I fell asleep now, nothing would actually happen". And that's not a good sign. (20/10/2013)

From the very beginning, each scene grows darker and more depressing with each passing moment, and yet neither the final reveals or the catharsis were at all moving for me. Maybe it's because there are so many emotional walls built around Lisbeth that I ended up watching her from a distance the entire time, and I was much more fascinated by Mikael. Or maybe it was that the adaptation merely skipped a few scenes that would have greatly helped me; it's hard to say. All I know for certain is that this wave of depression passed right by me, however engaged I was in the mystery itself. (17/12/2011)

I can't resist comparing it to Fincher's version. The world of Millennium in Oplev's version is less flashy, but surprisingly enough, it's so inventive that many times the American version had no choice but to literally copy certain scenes along with the type casting (whether intentional or not). In this version, the intertwining of Blomkvist with the Harriet case is somewhat more logical, and the Vanger family tree is presented more clearly. Yet Blomkvist is less charismatic and his relationship with his wife seems to be non-existent. Lisbeth Salander is much more grown up and more mature overall. This form of Lisbeth is more in line with her new custodian, who is in many ways more disgusting and dangerous. Blomkvist's storyline lacks the cute relationship with the cat in the cabin on Hedestad Island, and Lisbeth doesn't give us much of her one-night lesbian romance. The Swedes are simply not as ethereal as the Americans, which is most evident in the character of Martin (Stellan is Swedish). One of the major changes is the guide to biblical references. The way in which the rapprochement between Lisbeth and Blomkvist comes about is different only in the delicate details, which is nice. However, the meeting with the Vanger family in the hospital, which is smooth in Fincher’s version, has been replaced here by dry Machiavellian babble. The Swedish film is also much less tolerant of Nazism, lacking the figure of the archivist, but the key catharsis associated with Lisbeth's past is considerably more raw and realistic. Contrastingly, the Australian chapter feels otherworldly, just as Lisbeth's loading of the property at the end fits somewhat less into the big picture. So what about the point? In the Swedish film, the last shot is of a man in love (!), while in the American one, the new-age heroine is struggling with a broken heart. Hmm.... (12/01/2012)