The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

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)

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)

I've started reading the book, the film was first... despite the fact that in its complexity it cannot and does not want to match Larsson's juggernaut, it belongs in the top league given its atmosphere and processing. Oplev is an excellent stylist who films in a simplified form, but with a sense of logic and pace. I really, really like how the script cleverly shifted Mikael from a confident seducer to a closed weirdo – the Rapace/Nyqvist duet is absolutely excellent for the film's purposes. By the way, Noomi is extraordinarily charismatic and played Lisbeth perfectly. The film has very high quality equivalent for everything that it lacks from the book. The result is a contagious and catchy detective story... although it lacks the socially critical dimension of the original, it moves in its genre quite sovereignly. It's a very difficult challenge for Fincher... (07/20/2010)

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)

I didn’t read the novels and haven’t watched the other two parts of the trilogy yet, so I don’t know whether some of the apparently pointless things in this film will have any meaning in the future, but the fact is that they feel very redundant within the scope of one feature detective movie. That said, I believe in the principle that I call “pointless things happen” (not all the events that simultaneously take place in real life are important for the main event taking place, therefore, they too should be included in scripts – i.e. they don’t have to be directly causal), and as such, that relatively redundant affair with Lisbeth’s caretaker didn’t bother me at all. If the film had finished half hour earlier, I would give it five stars, but that pointless epilogue brought the rating down a point. (08/23/2010)