We saw this on BD last night and were quite impressed. I'm surprised that there is hardly any mention of it on this forum. While the plot was not very original the title character as played by Noomi Rapace was very intense. She may be the most fully realized misanthrope since Travis Bickle. Lots of interesting references to other films both in and out of the crime thriller genre. The film ran a bit long but it never dragged.

I've read that Fincher is going to do a US adaptation. I can't imagine someone doing a better job than Noomi Rapace. The other characters are fairly generic so there may be some room to improve on their roles. Still, a redo of this seems about as unnecessary as The Vanishing.

have you read the books? they are outstanding, and each is better than the last. the 2nd and 3rd films are releasing here in the states this month and next. This one, however, was one of the best book adaptations I've ever seen, never mind simply one of the best mystery/thriller films of the last decade. Rapace is simply perfect as Salander - if you've read the books you will be even more amazed at how well she embodies the character as it was written. The casting of Mikael Blomkvist was pitch perfect as well. It's simply a perfect adaptation.

I have little hope for the American remake. Word has been that George Clooney and Brad Pitt have been fighting over the privilege of playing Blomkvist...which is not who the character is at all. They are also relocating it to Canada or the northern US of course - a la Insomnia. I'm cautiously optimistic that Fincher will do it justice, but you just know they are going to miscast Salander with fucking Megan Fox or some stupid babe of the month. The pre-production and casting has been very hush hush though.


But as to the original topic: The Swedish film is fantastic, and I can't recommend it highly enough. I actually bought the blu ray at B&N last night in the B2G1 sale w/ my membership discount because I didn't want to wait for mail order! It was even better on a second viewing last night. The best film i've seen this year.

Oh, and for some reason, Oplev was fired after this one and Daniel Alfredson directed the 2nd and 3rd films in the trilogy. per IMDB he's simply a Swedish TV guy, so an odd choice. Early word is they are a bit of a step down in intensity...but still quite good. not great though like tGWtDT. Oplev balanced it all amazingly well, taking out just enough to make it doable in 2.5 hours, but not cramming in unnecessary background and lets the story unfold and a pitch perfect pace. Anyone know why he was replaced?

I watched this on BD this past Wednesday and enjoyed it quite a bit even if the last half-hour was obsessed with tying up every possible loose end. My wife is a fan of the books, so we checked out THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE on Friday. I found this second film to be quite inferior to the first in that everything is played in a lighter tone with preposterous action scenes that play like a James Bond film (the two main antagonists is this one are practically Bond villain archetypes).
Rapace is still pretty strong in conveying a disturbed inner life, but there didn't feel like there was much of a story, only a series of tit-for-tat scenes.

I can imagine any American remake of these films would be dreadful.

I caught this in the theater and rather liked it as well. I like murder mysteries and am usually not very hard to please when it comes to them, but I found this one fairly fresh and not entirely predictable, and very entertaining. Also found the characters rather interesting, particularly Lisbeth. Bought the Blu-ray this past week but haven't watched it yet. I'll be checking out the second one when it plays near me, but my expectations are dropping after some of the things I've read.

I'm intrigued by the American version (if only because I think Fincher can do right by it) but I'm sure it will be incredibly toned down.

In terms of an adapted screenplay, it's very clever. There is a great deal of information that is essential to plot development. In the book, these crucial pieces of information are revealed by several different characters. They chose to jettison lots of characters and give the information to just a couple. If they had been "faithful" to the book, the screenplay would have been a mess. This adaptation is very good. I'll be interested to see what Fincher does with it.

I liked it well enough too. It's like a pretty good episode of Murder, She Wrote, but incredibly violent, in Swedish, and without Angela Lansbury. The second film opened here this week, and I'm planning to check it out.

It was actually the role of Henry Higgins in a remake of My Fair Lady that Pitt and Clooney were supposedly battling for. As far as the remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Daniel Craig is now attached to star. I believe Pitt was talked to about it, but turned it down. Every A-list actress has campaigned for the lead, but Fincher supposedly wants a relative unknown, with Rooney Mara currently believed to be the top contender. Steve Zaillian has turned in his final draft of the script, and it's supposed to start shooting in October.

I think that the original plan was to do the first film theatrically and the two follow ups would debut on Swedish Television. They were only given theatrical releases due to the success of the first film. Daniel Alfredson is the older brother of Let The Right One In director Tomas Alfredson.

Pitt and Clooney were most definitely campaigning for Fire...as was Johnny Depp in addition to Daniel Craig. The actresses rumored to be lobbying for Salander were Kristen Stewart and Ellen Page. Either would be a disaster. Natalie Portman was another name tossed around, and the strongest possibility seems to be Carey Mulligan - which makes absolutely zero sense to me. But I also read that Fincher wanted an unknown....I hope he gets his wish. He already wrested it from Tarantino (who initially vied for the rights)....thank god! I think Craig is both charismatic enough while also a bit rough around the edges enough to effectively portray Blomkvist...though I'd like to see him soften up a bit from his Bond physique. The guy is a journalist, not a super spy.


I wondered if there was a relation to Daniel Alfredson. Strange choice to invest so much in the first and then back off on the next two though. Very strange. Responses I've heard so far are pretty lukewarm for precisely the reasons you mention. One of the reason Oplev's worked so well is that he kept the action very low key and stayed true to the dark heart of the story. And the screenwriting was indeed masterful in how they conveyed so much important information without cluttering the story with extraneous tangents such as


It is not easy to summarize and keep moving with so much going on....but Oplev balanced it beautifully. My wife had not read the book but enjoyed it immensely. She did feel like there was a bit she might have been missing, but you certainly need not have read the book to enjoy the film - though I think it would certainly help. I did have one critique of their efforts in this respect though....I'm not clear at all as to why they chose to reveal “when 'All The Evil' happened" - a fact that remains hidden until well into the 2nd book, and for which the 2nd book is named! It significantly dulls the mystery to come as the story's focus shifts away from Vanger to Salander's past.

Im guessing the reason Niels Arden Oplev didn't make more from the trilogy was that he went way over budget on the first. But still it was a huge success, so it made its money back. Remember reading a interview with him, where he said he got the extra money for the first movie, by threathening to insert sign with texts, that would read what scene was supposed to be there, but couldnt be there because there wasnt the money for it. He could do that because he had final cut. Obviously he wasn't interested in making a tv-movie.

So it is kind of like the Wallander series?

I thought the same thing when I first saw it, but the more I sat with it, the more I have come to think that revealing what "All the Evil" is doesn't dull the mystery much because it is far more important to discover why it happened and who it happened to (and, if I recall correctly, that remains a mystery, no?).

I thought it was fairly obvious who the man in the car was given the brief scene in the nursing home with the mother. This was information I didn't feel the viewer needed in the first film. Perhaps putting too fine a point on it, the second film replays the entire flashback car sequence (twice!).

I realize I keep putting down THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE, but should add that it is entertaining enough. DRAGON TATTOO has a dark visceral energy that is quite unnerving and had me in its grip even when the plot became a little far-fetched. FIRE has little of that energy so it didn't hold up as well in comparison to the first film for me.

I'm a little surprised that Fincher would choose to remake DRAGON TATTOO. The original is already an homage to his style, so not only would he likely be replicating the best moments from Oplev's film, but he would be repeating himself as well.

... unless he does it differently. Why assume that he's going to follow Oplev's lead?

Given how popular the book is, I would think that Fincher (and the studio employing him) would not wish to deviate too far from the setpieces found in the novel and already covered in the Swedish film. I'm not certain Fincher could take the material into darker territory than Oplev did; if he approached it with a lighter tone, he could potentially be undermining the story's power. One interesting avenue might be to do the remake as an ultra-black comedy (a FIGHT CLUB-version of SEVEN?); that would be quite a challenge! I'm sure Fincher will do a competent job; he might even make a better film overall. But, more than likely, the American version will be a close relation to the Swedish one...and, therefore, I'm a little surprised that Fincher would sign up for this kind of remake.

While I appreciate the darkness of Larsson's vision, and the way Oplev faithfully transplanted it to the screen, I feel the film is a mixed success at best mainly because the character moments and the violent set pieces are far more effective than the otherwise dull procedural exposition. It seemed like more than half the film is taken up with either Blomkvist or Rapace staring at computer screens, newspaper articles, and/or library materials, and then jumping to rather tenuous conclusions in order to move the plot forward. I think that's certainly one place that Fincher might be able to improve upon the Swedish version, although I'm less confident he (and the studio) will be willing to retain the complexity and moral ambiguity of the lead characters.

Just saw the second one and was beyond disappointed, even though I lowered my expectations after reading comments. Maybe I was expecting something similar to the first, more of a murder/mystery, but it felt more like a mediocre spy thriller and I thought everything about it was incredibly weak: the story, the characters (even Lisbeth seemed less interesting despite all the reveals about her past) the direction, and its style. Plus, yes, the villains were Bond archetypes, and they were lousy overall.

What are the opinions on the book? I think changing directors was probably part of the problem (this one was far lighter,) but I also felt the story was a key problem. It was incredilbly bland and fairly predictable, whereas the first one's was completely enthralling and kept me guessing.

Saw the second one today and agree with the general sentiment that it just doesn't compare with the first. It just lacks in every department that the first excelled - it's lukewarm in every way...the tension, dread, suspense....everything is just kind of paint by numbers. It tells the story of the book well enough - and I think part of the problem is that it was the weakest of the 3 books - but that's all it really does. It's like they had the book, decided what they could get rid of and still tell the story in 2 hours, and then just went forward page by page.

As for what they left out:


definitely worth seeing...but nowhere near the must see that the first was. I'll of course see the 3rd next month too - I have to say i'm really glad they are releasing them so close together rather than stretching it out over a year.

Man that guy is busy what with being the Captain of the Ottawa Senators and all.

Loved the first one. The second one was fine but comparatively disappointing. Unfortunately the third one is boring--basically just hospital and courtroom scenes.

Niels is not happy with the upcoming remake. I can't blame him, but I'm more bemused than upset about it. For one thing, the original movie plays a bit like an American genre film to begin with. Second, and probably more importantly, the original movie has done fairly well on it's own. It's not some obscure European low-budget affair which got a limited release here.

My mom recently watched this with some friends of hers from church, and apparently they watched it with the subtitles off, as the other women thought it was too hard to read and watch the movie at the same time. But how they managed to keep up with the story is beyond me.

Late to the conversation, but I agree with a lot of what has been said here. Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a fantastic film, one of my favorites of the year. I'll admit, as a fan of the book, my gut reaction at first was a bit of anger over the many changes made from novel to screen. But I allowed myself time to consider the movie, and talk with my girlfriend (who had not read the book) about it, and in the end I definitely feel it is as perfect an adaptation possible.

Girl Who Played With Fire, which to me was the better book (I haven't read the third yet), was definitely an inferior film. Lots of little things left out from the book for no good reason, many of which not covered in other ways and thus leaving big gaps in logic during the plot. It is a good movie, but it isn't anywhere near as intense or interesting as the first.

I know the third film is playing now here in NYC, but I haven't read the book, so I'm probably not going to catch the movie in theaters. I'll invest in the eventual blu-ray release after I've read the novel.

Fincher chose Rooney Mara (the ex gf from Social Network) for the Salander role, and I just don't see it. Oplev is right that Rapace took that role and made it come alive in a way I didn't think was possible. It will be impossible to do any better, which makes the film rather unnecessary in the first place.

After hearing about Mara's casting the other day I was wondering about how a girl like that ends up with a break like this. Then I saw a brief bio that noted Art Rooney - founder of the Pittsburgh Steelers - and Tim Mara - founder of the NY Giants - are both among her Great Grandfathers. So I guess it helps to have billionaire NFL dynasties on both sides of your family tree to become successful in life. go figure.

You had me until the NFL conspiracy.

don't believe I said anything about a conspiracy - just noting she comes from money. a lot of money. which probably helped open a door or ten for her. that's all.

I know, just being snarky.