The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The whole trilogy is more or less about a girl who makes no compromises. Never and nowhere. And about a journalist who also makes no compromises in his professional life, unlike in his personal life. Never and nowhere. The whole trilogy is a feet-up watch which won’t make you want to put your feet up even a long time after reading it. And it’s adapted in a movie that makes compromises everywhere and in everything and it’s no problem to take a quick nap during it. Although part one is certainly the most difficult to adapt of the entire trilogy, the number of storylines being murderous. Oplev fails in not being able to decide whether to cut back the wealth of material in the book, just leaving the thrilleroid element or not. It would have been a shame, but it’s nigh on impossible to transfer what’s “extra" onto the screen. Where it flounders is that it includes a little of everything, but everything is just touched upon and nothing is investigated in depth, so it all just fizzles out. Which is a shame because those “post-Lingren" characters are crying out for a quality adaptation. But what is almost unbelievable is the casting of Lisbeth; I couldn’t believe it would be possible to cast her so that she both looks the part and can act too. Too bad the same can’t be said of Blomkvist. P.S.: I saw the movie before reading the book and even after doing so the overall impression was basically identical in both cases. (11/16/2009)

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. (07/12/2010)

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.... (01/12/2012)

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. (10/20/2013)

I've read the book as well as seen the film and I'm happy with both. A perfect example of how to make a crime thriller with a grim, dark atmosphere and very little frantic action. The choice of the two leads was atypical, Lisbeth wasn't just unpleasant but unpleasant to look at, Mikael Blomkvist was a middle-aged man with fat rather than muscle, but it worked surprisingly well. This uncontrived look gave the film a much more down-to-earth and realistic vibe. It just goes to show the difference between European and American filmmaking. Instead of melodrama, you’ll get a good dose of chilling atmosphere. I can't go below five stars. (01/03/2017)