Oct. 29, 2010, 8:13 a.m. CST
to my study to continue my riting.
Oct. 29, 2010, 8:25 a.m. CST
Erika Berger is the character, Lena Endre is the actress.
Oct. 29, 2010, 8:42 a.m. CST
Wow Capone. The one thing I never thought about during her fantastic performance, was the idea that Noomi Rapace might be dateable. Kind of a statement to her remarkable performance as Lisbeth, I kinda found myself thinking that if I met her in the street, I'd probably run the other way. So, either kudo's to you for being able to see the woman beyond the character, or you really like your women fucked up and owning a tattoo gun.
Oct. 29, 2010, 8:46 a.m. CST
Hey Capone, in the future let us know before you post a review with spoilers in it. Some of us haven't seen played with fire yet!!!!!!!!
Oct. 29, 2010, 8:48 a.m. CST
I watched them all in order (got them from relative from overseas) and found GWDT very, very good with each of the others less interesting as they went along. <p> I did find the brother the most interesting in the two subsequent films.<p> My wife read the books and found them to be much, much better (I read the first one and agree).
Oct. 29, 2010, 8:52 a.m. CST
Larsson wrote 3/4 of another novel but died. His family got everything, gf got nothing. But, she now has the hard drive with the novel. Maybe someday. we'll see it.
Oct. 29, 2010, 9:19 a.m. CST
by Righteous Brother
to be expected I guess, but I still read a few things I didn't want to know - must try and erase from memory.
Oct. 29, 2010, 9:27 a.m. CST
I'm crossing my finger for him....so hoping he does turn in a LET ME IN
Oct. 29, 2010, 9:38 a.m. CST
It's the same way with the books. Dragon tatoo is really good with the others getting worse IMO. I really struggled to get through Hornets nest. It's 500 pages of boring shit and 200 pages of awesome. I'm interested to see Hornets nest but I can't see how they can fit everything in. There is a lot of unessacary stuff in there so it'll be easy to cut down I gues. Fire seemed to be a bit unfocused to me as well and I can't see that changing with the last movie. Still interesting enough to watch though.
Oct. 29, 2010, 9:55 a.m. CST
by Man in Suit
When I finished "Dragon Tattoo", I couldn't figure out why Mikael and Lisbeth let the Vanger Corporation continue to operate while they tried to put the Wennerstrom Corporation out of business? Vanger was controlled by a second generation serial killer and Wennerstrom was just a regular highly corrupt company. Are we supposed to think that- aside from having sexual predators as CEOs- that Vanger was a wonderful company? Larson really undercut his theme at the end. I can't imagine that the next two books/movies do much to salvage that.
Oct. 29, 2010, 10:07 a.m. CST
by Jack Burton
Some great stuff but it is so bogged down in mundane details. Nowhere near as good as Dragon Tattoo and way too long for as slight as the plot is.
Oct. 29, 2010, 10:08 a.m. CST
I think it's that Martin(the killer) was only one responsible for the murders not the corporation. While martin was CEO it was the old guy who was in charge so everything still came through him. The Vangar corporation must have been clean. Simple as that. Martin kept his secret very well, you wouldn't of guessed it. Just because of one bad apple doesn't mean the whole company would have been corrupt.
Oct. 29, 2010, 10:37 a.m. CST
Wasn't too happy about the ending since it felt a bit open ended. (especially the relation between Lisbeth and Blomkvist.)Anyways, I'm sure this will springboard noomi's career. She's kinda hawt for a skinny chick.
Oct. 29, 2010, 11 a.m. CST
No-talent trust fund baby, she is; let's hope she's nominated for a Razzie for her performance in the Nightmare on Elm Street reboot. Hayden Christensen redux, this will be.
Oct. 29, 2010, 11:01 a.m. CST
Why the bastard fuck are they remaking a perfectly good series of movies almost as soon as they've premiered? <p>Oh wait, I know - because the majority of cinema-going Americans are too fucking lazy/stupid to read a subtitle. <p>Wankers.
Oct. 29, 2010, 11:43 a.m. CST
Yeah fuck us lazy/stupid Americans. None of us have ever watched the original movies and had a nation wide vote to have them remade. <p> I love how it's cool to bash all Americans based on the actions a few individuals but
Oct. 29, 2010, 11:46 a.m. CST
Muslim nations and look out, now you're an asshole. <p> People really have a raging hard one to bash America these days.
Oct. 29, 2010, 11:46 a.m. CST
Oct. 29, 2010, 11:53 a.m. CST
Oct. 29, 2010, 11:53 a.m. CST
Oct. 29, 2010, 12:06 p.m. CST
I think the anti-american sentiment is directed at the Hollywood movie machine, not necessarily, say, Maude Johnson of Iowa. Because of the juggernaught that is the American pop-cultural production system, and how the rest of the world (english and non-english speaking alike) injests its products so rapidly, I think some people take offence that when another country makes a quality film (the Millenium movies, Let the Right One In, Rec) that the general American public will not see the movies until it is filtered and remade through Hollywood. Of course, in my humble opinion, this has less to do with Americans not being willing to view the products, than studios not willing to simply buy the distrabution rights and share the profits. Instead, they buy the remake rights and control all of the money that subsiquently (hopefully for them) comes in. So the originals are never properly promoted, and not viewed by the general american movie going public. So its actually the fault of capitolism - and what could possibly be more American than that?
Oct. 29, 2010, 12:08 p.m. CST
...that was a bit sweeping, wasn't it? It's just with this and 'Let Me In' (for fuck's sake!), Hollywood really isn't doing itself any favours lately.<p>Anyway, my apologies for tarring all you lovely ex-colonials with the same brush. I appreciate that you're not all raging mongtards (though your love of NASCAR and what you laughingly refer to as 'footbal' continues to escape me...)
Oct. 29, 2010, 12:22 p.m. CST
Thanks. I suspected as much which is why I moved on to other reading.<p> Reminds me of the Dexter books. They started out great and have gotten progressively worse as they continue.<p> Almost like the series....almost....
Oct. 29, 2010, 12:36 p.m. CST
My girlfriend is making me read it and I'm about to jump in front of a subway. Borrrrrrrrring
Oct. 29, 2010, 12:52 p.m. CST
But knowing both actors and directors, I know that they are EXACTLY like stage actors and directors in the sense of thinking "wow! I'd love to play that role." "Wow! I'd love to direct that story." Of course, studios love money (who doesn't) and love to play it safe. But actors give their eye-teeth for roles like "Girl." This is why good plays get remade over and over again. You're right to think that money is in the equation, but the good role leads to money down the road anyway...so you can't really disentangle them. Artists are complicated.
Oct. 29, 2010, 1:15 p.m. CST
The second and third movies in the Swedish versions of this trilogy were directed by Daniel Alfredson. His brother is Tomas Alfredson, who directed Let The Right One In.<br> <br> We know how the English remake of that worked out.
Oct. 29, 2010, 1:47 p.m. CST
I myself don't quite understand the appeal of NASCAR other than hoping for a crash. Football(American) I do like but I'm more of a baseball guy. And as a bit of an anglophile I've tried to understand Cricket but just get more confused the more I read or see about it. Aren't there games, I'm sorry, matches, that can go on for days?
Oct. 29, 2010, 5:07 p.m. CST
...and I can handle the slowest of slow moving movies and books as long as there is something compelling about it, yet I've tried reading The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and the first couple hundred pages consist of back-stories. There were about 20 or so pages of present day happenings, and those were the only pages that interested me. The rest reminded me of an old person telling you all about the old days, without giving you a clear point where the story is going. If you spend 20 pages describing one slice of someone's life in great, great detail, the reader should feel like it is all going somewhere. Early in my reading of the book I chose to re-read pages of the book when I realized I was struggling remembering the many, many, many details given about people in the past, and then I eventually realized almost none of it mattered. Although the author is a very consistent style and tone throughout, which is impressive from a writing standpoint, yet 90% of a book should not be fine details that aren't creating plot, characterization, atmosphere, or mood. I eventually gave up on the book, and a friend told me that "everything happens in the last 50 or so pages of the book," which seemed bizarre considering the book has 480 pages. This person also told me that, although she still had a love for the series, she was struggling with getting through the third book. Apparently it repeats information and things from the previous books, as if it were written for people who didn't read the previous entries. Now a talkbacker might refute that point, yet I can say based on my own experience of reading the first 200-and-so pages of the first book that I got about 30 pages of plot out of it. I realize there are classic works of literature that included tons and tons of details and descriptions, yet these elements served a purpose. I'm glad many people have enjoyed reading the series. However, I am absolutely puzzled at the mainstream success of the series. These books are everywhere...airports, Target, etc. From what I read and know of the series, the author's style seems like it's for a very, very small audience. Still, people are eating this series up like it's The Da Vinci Code, and this series is definitely not a popcorn-entertainment type series.
Oct. 29, 2010, 5:34 p.m. CST
You wrote, "90% of a book should not be fine details that aren't creating plot, characterization, atmosphere, or mood." Isn't that funny, I say the exact same thing about JRR Tolkien's work - and we all know how popular his novels are. I haven't read the Millenium books, but if what you are saying is accurate, that doesn't bode well for my enjoyment. Oh well. I liked the first movie.
Oct. 29, 2010, 7:42 p.m. CST
Fads like the Twilight series are not only written for teens, they exist in the adult fiction section as well. And people fall for it. Yeah I've read them. Let me know know when you've read Peter Straub's The Throat and then we can talk about a well crafted, deep, muti-layered mystery.
Oct. 29, 2010, 10:33 p.m. CST
Oct. 29, 2010, 11:24 p.m. CST
I'll just say that I found them to be quite entertaining, I even found myself calling out a few dorky 'right on's near the end of the girl who kicked the hornet's nest. I enjoyed every detail Larsson provided about everything and everyone. I certainly do not recall being bored as each element Larsson covered, he did so from an intriguing perspective. <p> I figured out pretty early on based on the protagonist personal attributes and philosophies, that Stieg Larsson could give fuck all about adhering to standard conventions. His stories move in an unhurried pace, revealing elements he finds relevant or interesting. I love the dismal statistics he prefaced some of the chapters with, showing that his interest in such crimes extended beyond the world of fantasy, which isn't surprising given that he was apparently a journalist. From what I've heard, he wrote these books in his spare time after work for his own enjoyment and was in no particular hurry to get them published, i.e. (cash in/seek fame). If the world was a better place that is how all works of art would be created. <p> One day I'll probably read up the authors background, I've already gathered a great deal by osmosis, but I'm always fearful there will be something I learn about the person that will spoil the work they've done and perception I've developed of them. In the case of the Millennium books, the impression I had developed about Stieg Larsson was that he was a genuinely good guy, a guy I wouldn't mind having a beer with. <p> Maybe that's why the books are doing so well.
Oct. 29, 2010, 11:29 p.m. CST
Kind of more enjoying to learn about the plot when watching the movie, ya know?
Oct. 30, 2010, 1:39 a.m. CST
I have to say we would've been embarrassed to hang out with this character and her trying too hard spooky kid get up.
Oct. 30, 2010, 8:52 a.m. CST
by Bodenland Unbound
But it was released in theatres as three shorter movies. Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/3a4t6gy
Oct. 30, 2010, 8:59 a.m. CST
is that while the first one was good, the second and third were so-so and poor. If Fincher does all three I'm sure that will be 'fixed'. Looking forward to the remakes.
Oct. 31, 2010, 11:02 a.m. CST
...Let the Right One In. <p> If the material is based on a book it is not a remake, it is an adaptation. <p> If a new Dracula movie came out you wouldn't say "I can't believe they're remaking that movie!" Books are open to multiple adaptations. Someone mentioned The War of the Worlds earlier. If a new movie was being made, set in Victorian times, you would not say "What! They're remaking that Tom Cruise or the guy from Bat Masterson movie?" You would say, "It's about time we got a faithful adaptation." <p> In conclusion, all movies based on books are not remakes; they're adaptations.