Let me just go on the record as saying I loathe David Fincher movies. I absolutely despise Fight Club, and The Social Network. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Zodiac are good but not as good as people make them out to be. I don’t understand why people love this man’s movies. To me they always come across as being directed by some little boy who has serious issues with women and has a certain amount of self-loathing for his own manhood. Now he adds another to this body of work The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
This movie is a chore to sit through, the plot is convoluted at best, but what I can’t get over is just how drab, dreary and ugly this movie looks. It is relentless with soft lighting everywhere, bland, boring, unimaginative camera work and the pacing is painfully slow. I felt almost every minute of the movie’s 2 ½ hour run time. Even saying this, I think it’s the type of film that may work better at home.
The two things that really hold this mess of a film together is, while the story takes forever to unfold, once it does it is intriguing. But every vile revelation is met or told with all the emotion of a someone having afternoon tea with a friend. “Oh, my father and brother raped me over and over again, one lump or two?” I guess this movie is supposed to be about the banality of evil but everything just comes across as exploitation. There are two, unnecessarily, graphic and disgusting anal rape scenes. It seems like Fincher just revels in this level of violence. The rape scene could be justified if it had some sort of material impact on the character, but it didn’t. All it showed was that she gets revenge a few minutes later but other than one minor moment much later in the film it is never mentioned again.
Other than the rape scene no one in the movie seems to really care what is going on or happening to them. Everyone in the cast just walks in and out of scenes reveals some major piece of information and there’s no indication that what the just said even matters. “My father was a Nazi? Eh…What of it?”
Part of the movie’s joke is that when one of Sweden’s richest men, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) interviews disgraced financial reporter Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), he says that he wants him to meet and interview the vilest people in the world “his family,” and that they are.
Mikael is hired to investigate the 40 year old mystery of Vanger’s granddaughter’s disappearance. To help him he brings on an assistant – Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) a social misfit with serious issues with authority figures. We later find out, she has good reason for this. When did Robin Wright get so old? I’ll always remember her from one of my all time favorites The Princess Bride and the TV soapster Santa Barbara. I still love her but it made me feel ancient watching her – especially since this performance is probably her worse, there was no life or spark at all.
As I said earlier, this movie is watchable because the story does get interesting, but also Rooney Mara is both interesting and detached from everything going on around her, but she has a weird quality that somehow held my interest. There’s an anger underneath her that I kept waiting to see explode out. There’s one moment when it happens, but I was expecting more of it later in the film and it never really comes. Rooney plays Lisbeth close to the chest and we never really get below the surface of the detached exterior. I’m assuming we’ll find out more about her in the next few movies and I’ll admit I do want to see what happens with her.
Craig is serviceable but there’s nothing particularly interesting about his character or performance. I would have liked to see more emotion from him like some righteous indignation at the things he finds or outrage at his career being ruined in the beginning. We get none of that, instead it’s “Oh, well, my career is ruined, let’s have a bree!”
The movie’s last act felt like it was tacked on, after a natural ending point the movie goes on for another 15 or 20 minutes for no real reason – to give us resolution on a plot point that didn’t need one. Even though I really didn’t like this movie and this film did feel like a complete story, I do find myself interested in reading Stieg Larsson ‘s novels to see what happens next.
Update
Finally watched part 2 and 3 of the Swedish version and I will admit the Rape Scene is very important for the next two movies – however, my central point that it did not need to be that graphic still holds. I also review a movie based on what is shown not what’s in the future or in the books. A movie has to stand on it’s own and this one fails to do so.
Final Grade D
EM Review by
Michelle Alexandria
Sweet lord woman- how can you write such an… uneducated review? You haven’t read the novels, you haven’t mentioned the original 2009 version, and yet you feel justified in writing off this movie with a D rating? Do you get paid for this?
And really? You love the Princess Bride but you think Fight Club is a waste of time? Who… are you? And ‘this performance is probably her worse’? Her worst maybe? For your sake, I hope this is your worst review.
The rape scene didn’t have a material impact on the character? Really? Really. This makes my head hurt. Stop throwing around $3 phrases you don’t seem to fully understand. How much more of an impact and a retribution could you possibly ask for… in any movie?
I’m just going to stop here. This was a terribly uneducated and poorly written review. I know you’re just an entertainment mag but seriously – make an effort.
Get off your pretentious high horse – I’m feel proud for you, that you were capable of reading a book. Bully, bully. Tell us exactly how the rape impacted her (in the movie?) – other than getting her access to her money?
For the record, I did read this book and
saw the the Swedish version. I reviewed this movie on it’s own merits
and it fails in almost every way possible. The rape scene was done more
tastefully in the Swedish version.
Are you really telling a commenter on your review to get off their pretentious high horse after your introduction sentence is complete looking-down view of Fincher and his fans, and it sounds like you went into this movie expecting the same old same old? Seems hypocritical. He had no right to call you uneducated, though.
Fight Club was a pretty good embodiment of what Chuck Palahniuk was trying to get across, and The Social Network took a pretty boring idea to begin with and turned into into a watchable movie. Did you happen to forget about Fincher’s Se7en? That’s classic. But in order to make your point you just “happened” to leave that out.
I commend you for acknowledging your feelings about Fincher in the beginning, but after admitting that . . are you writing the review out of spite?
You acknowledge wanting to see the future movies in order to see what happens to Lisbeth; did it not occur to you the rape scene could factor into later events?
I agree with Chris, your comment telling the original poster to get off his or her “pretentious high horse” is absolutely absurd. You are so critical of a movie without base, yet you can’t accept criticism of your condescending/incredibly biased review?
Seriously, the sweetish versions look like PBS productions and are terribly boring.
If you’ve read the books and seen the Sweedish versions and you don’t understand the purpose of the rape scenes, you are either dim witted or too sensitive to watch a movie made for adults (aka stick with the princess bride).
Because anal rape should always be done tastefully!
I believe that your comment here is not accurate. In your review, it is clear that you have not read the books. Perhaps you read them after you wrote this review?
If you still need it spelled out for you why the rapes were included in the story, I will explain it to you. She does not like authority figures and therefore could not involve the authorities. With the exception of Armansky, she didn’t have anyone that she could turn to that she could trust. So she hatched this plan. Unfortunately, she misjudged her trustee.
Salander was orally raped originally and had created a plan to dispose of her guardian. She had originally planned on killing him, but then he may have been replaced by an equally reprehensible character. She thought that the 2nd rape would also be oral too, so she had devised a plan to blackmail him instead while allowing him to commit the rape. She underestimated his vileness and did not know that he was a masochist. After he anally raped her, she did rape him back as retribution, but also so he will never underestimate her. If he did not concede to her wishes, she would have no choice but to kill him.
I understand your point of view. However, if you read the trilogy (maybe you have??), the rape scenes will make more sense. That plot line becomes more relevant in book two. This is a story told in three parts, you really need all three to get the complete picture. I didn’t really like the first book as much until I had read all three. Maybe because of that, this story does not translate to the big screen well???
I’m wondering if you read the book or watched the original, you say you do, but did you really… Past this 5th grade hipster’s English paper submitted as a review I was searching for an actual review instead of a. “I liked this by him liked this by her and him he’s bland, but I liked this by him and her too!”
The proof that becoming a critic is a dying craft is all right here.
As for your response to Kelly the rape scene impacts the sequel, which you’ve obviously yet to see. Everything from the fist movie start to finish will be seen throughout the next 2 installments.
But if you want to know why the rape scene was relevant, some or I would say that it had it’s place by showing that a troubled girl was fed up with authority or a figure of authority in this case manipulating her for her belongings… I guess it would have been more interesting showing her just giving blowjobs every-time she needed financial assistance huh?
“The rape scene could be justified if it had some sort of material impact on the character, but it didn’t.”
I was afraid it wouldnt be justified when I saw it, but it works in the end because it is the reason why she helps Mikael. It could have been less graphic, sure, but Fincher made the choice to make us feel as uncomfortable as possible maybe to connect with her more. To really make us feel like were in the room with her, but can’t help much like the author who in real life didnt help the woman he witnessed being gang raped. Why else would Lisbeth help with Harriet’s case? Simply because she was a victim too. But she doesnt stay the victim. In the end, she’s the hero, not Mikael.
The movie is almost three hours long because Fincher is taking his time in the beginning to give these characters a real reason to be part of this case. Mikael needs to get away from the mess caused at Millennium and this case gives him the distraction he needs and takes the focus away from him for the better of the magazine.
“I guess this movie is supposed to be about the banality of evil ”
Huh? The abuse of women is a big part of this story, but I’d say its about the relationship between Salander and Mikael. I havent read the books, but Im guessing thats why people keep going back for more and the final scene in Fincher’s film makes it clear that he realizes this film’s strongest elements are those two.
I’m sorry, but you criticize an actress for aging? You have all rights to your opinion about a movie, but to criticize an actress for aging? How terrible that a woman you saw in a movie twenty-plus years ago didn’t remain the same age forever! She’s still beautiful and if Robin Wright’s age is the only thing to make you realize you’re youth has faded, you’ve been living in some fantasy world up until this movie. Ignorant statements like those in this review only fuel the problems for aging actresses who have more difficulty finding well written parts for them. If you don’t want to see aging women, lock yourself in an small room & avoid mirrors at all costs.
This movie was fantastic. Your review is very off base to the point that it’s difficult figuring out where to start.
1) Fincher did a fantastic job, particularly w pacing.
2) Daniel Craig was excellent. What you called apathetic to his situation, I call someone who is reserved torment fate after getting railroaded by higher powers.
3) You pan excellent films like social network and fight club then cite princess bride??
4) The rape scenes don’t have a purpose?? How about motivation to stop a killer of women for one thing. Not to mention the importance to the other two parts….
5) How has a self respecting critic not at least have seen the sweedish versions….
This review sounds like a miserable woman just trying to find something wrong with…anything. She sounds like an idiot that knows how to use a keyboard.
Your film review is only so useful in that you address the film’s lack of appeal to the squeamish; the anal rape scene is certainly gruesome, but you do not analyze their affect on plot, character, or theme. You state that Salander doesn’t seem affected. I’ve worked with rape victims. Many of them suppress their emotions, while internally they are tormented. Salander is not the sort to make her internal vulnerabilities known, which is very common with victims of rape. You therefore display little knowledge of the subject; you also accuse Fincher of revelling in the violence. That is unfair. Artists who examine the darker regions of humanity do not enjoy the traumas they explore. Your comment about Fincher is mean-spirited and exhibits poor judgement. As for the film’s artistic merit, your review lacks any grasp of narrative, character development, and theme. As a journalist, you are required to conduct research into the artists; their influences, methods, and styles. Judging from your review, you did none of these things. If you want anyone to take you seriously as a film reviewer, I encourage you to study film, deeply. Otherwise, your reviews will continue to be superficial, displaying nothing more than your own uneducated biases.
As a critic, I think the worst way to start a review is telling about your expectations before seeing the film. Surely you tell your point of view, but it seems like you left your personal opinion about the director affect too much. “I hate David Fincher films. David Fincher made a new film. I hate it.” You’re not really judging the film by it’s own merits, are you?
Also I find it odd that you blame Fincher for making the film so full of graphic violence. Surely you know that it’s based on the book by Stieg Larsson? If you’ve really read the book, then I find this really odd.
“Everyone in the cast just walks in and out of scenes reveals some major piece of information and there’s no indication that what the just said even matters. ‘My father was a Nazi? Eh…What of it?’ ” Just like the violence, people’s reactions here make complete sense in the film’s context. Yes, he is a nazi, so what? It’s a story about family full of secrets, so there should be no bigger reaction for this. If the revelation was made in a film about London during WWII, then I’d get your point.
Have you noticed ,most of these comments are from MEN ! perverts you could have just saved your money and downloaded some free torture porn….dumb asses…..
You obviously know nothing of the storyline you comment about. You should do some research of Steig Larsson’s theme before siding with this critic. The title of the book was originally supposed to be ‘Men Who Hate Women’. Who cares if it is mostly men commenting, they are obviously literate with the text and know the purpose of every scene.
Have you noticed ,most of these comments are from MEN ! perverts you could have just saved your money and downloaded some free torture porn….dumb asses!
Jeez Michelle, I’m sure you will just chalk this up to more misogyny on my part, but this review just makes you sound dumb as a post at best, and completely unqualified to critique films at worst. I get that this type of film is not your cup of tea including your opening admission of disliking David Fincher as a filmmaker. This would be fine if I had asked one of my Mom’s girlfriends from work her thoughts on the film, but I gather you consider yourself a film critic which makes your comments seem far more ignorant. You might want to find a job more suited to your delicate temperament, perhaps reviewing needlepoint kits? As for wondering aloud when the fine actress Robin Wright “got so old”? I’m guessing it was sometime during the intervening QUARTER OF A CENTURY that has passed since she starred as “The Princess Bride” the only film you seem to remember Ms. Wright from (besides the even older NBC soap “Santa Barbara”) This catty observation reinforces the horrible stereotype that a woman aging is a sad affair and is as genuine a display of misogyny as anything in “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo”. I’m one of those icky men and I thought she looked gorgeous and sexy as hell. I look forward to your glowingly positive review of the next anal rape scene free Jennifer Anniston mind numbing Rom Com.
Most of Fincher’s movies are dreary, cold and detached. Lots of stylized violence, voyeuristic imagery, cryptic characters and dialogue, but not much substance. Fincher should consider directing a movie adaption of action mangas.
Zodiac was a waste of time. Seven and the game were interesting. Why Fight Club has such a cult following is beyond me.
I’m suspicious of reader comments that display an unusual amount of zeal in attacking the reviewer, because that’s a sure sign of fanboyism. It’s either that or moviegoers are too easily impressed with some “weird for the sake of weird” postmodern / avant garde films. Example – Inception. Stop it, stop it, stop it, it was a good sci fi film, but its not the greatest thing created since sliced bread.
I wish I did not waste my time reading this completely clueless review! On the other hand, it did take two minutes of my life and it left me upset enough to not be able to walk by without reacting to it. I did not understand where all that nonsense came from until I got to the final paragraph which admitted that you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about! Please, next time, before writing a review, inform yourself first!
I have a few issues with the movie, but none of the ones you mention. My biggest issue was that this version is too close in time and too similar to the original to really bring something fresh to the table. The Swedish version, made for TV and for a more scandinavian audience, (not as sleek and glitzy, but more life-like and earthy) does as good a job, if not a better one, with the material and character development. Craig in particular seemed a bit Bond-ish to me in this one, meaning too self-assured, not scared, warm or vulnerable enough in general to play the Blomkvist role.
On the other hand, I loved Lisbeth just as much as in the first version. In both the Swedish and this version, she incarnates the book heroine quite well. I don’t understand the remark of the movie looking ‘drab, dreary and ugly’, to me it is very atmospheric and cinematic and having lived in Sweden and Norway for a while, it felt quite beautifully Scandinavian, from the first snow-swept scene at the beginning to the bone-chilling but beautiful wintry air of the village, to the architecture of Henrik and Martin’s house and everywhere in between. And Stockholm looks as charming as ever.
Finally, the movie – like the books – is a about something a bit more specific than the banality of evil. It is about the sexual violence towards women in a society that so often fails to protect them. Larsson is exorcising his own demons in this trilogy, his heroine is not named Lisbeth by chance. But perhaps you will care enough to discover more about that before reviewing the next installment?
Here’s hoping you will have a better understanding of this movie after reading the books and watching the first movie version, as well as – dare I say it – understanding the writer and Scandinavia a bit better. Although, after your remarks about Robin Wright getting old, I am afraid you will not find the Swedish actors to your liking. They are all real people, not perfect teenage – looking plastic dolls.
Or, you could stick with reviews of the ‘Twilight’ saga…
How do you know this is Robin Wright’s worst performance if you’ve only seen Princess Bride and a cheesy soap opera from 1984?
I assume that becuase if you had saw Pippa Lee, The Conspirator and a lot of movie Robin Wright has done between 2000-2011 you would know that now she looks older than in 80’S
Your review is pathetic and I’m sure Robin Wright looks a lot better than you…, even when she deglams herself as in The Conspirator
This will be my final response to this. Frankly, I don’t care what most of you say, by some of your comments you all prove my point. I was waiting for the usual sexist assholes to start commenting. Again, sue me because I don’t get off on seeing graphic, glorification of Anal Rape as being worthwhile and I don’t give a damn if it is in the book.
It doesn’t detract from the fact that this is a vile sexist movie that’s borderline torture porn disguised as a “drama.” I’m reviewing a MOVIE not the book. Don’t read anymore of my reviews if you expect me to read every book before I see the movie it’s based on. Do you think any other critic reads EVERY single book that’s based on a movie? Somehow whenever I review something it becomes this silly benchmark.
I’m amazed that a lot of you even read books since a lot of you seem to lack basic comprehension skills and are incapable of understanding that a review is my personal opinion – nothing more, nothing less. Yes, I hate Fincher movies, that’s my bias and I thought it’d be fair to state that up front. I always try and state my bias in every review I write. If the movie was good, I would have said so. I loved to have liked it, it’s 2 1/2 hours of my life and $20 that I won’t get back.
I guess I’m not surprised by this immature reaction from a bunch of people who apparently like watching a movie that features Anal Rape, torture porn, people talking about incest and violence against women like it’s no big deal. However, it’s not just the story or it’s themes that I loathe, it’s also the poor CRAFTSMANSHIP that went into making this.
Anymore personal attacks (which is why I won’t make anymore comments) and I will lock this thread. Unlike other sites, I don’t revel in putting up with assholes emailing me or commenting on my site. You can criticize all you but ADD to the conversation beyond “Did you read the books, or it was in the book” and be respectful. Here’s a novel idea, how about telling everyone why you like it so much. Try and convince people my opinion is wrong.
Ho, ho, ho, everyone!
In context with the rest of the trilogy, the rape of Lisbeth is probably one of the most important events to take place. Leaving it out would mean re-writing the other two movies should they be made and essentially making an entirely different story. There was obvious foreshadowing with the fact that Lisbeth recorded the rape and it’s not too difficult to realize that it will play a much bigger part in the rest of the story.
As for the craftsmanship, I don’t understand how on Earth anyone could think that Fincher’s version looks worse than the Swedish film. The Swedish version is amateur at best and it feels as rushed as it actually was (the entire Swedish trilogy was released within a year of each other). Fincher’s film has beautiful cinematography throughout that is haunting and awe-inspiring at the same time. The pairing of it with Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’s score though makes it so much more effective.
I’m going to step up and defend the reviewer on a few points, because to me it seems that 80% of the hate that is going towards this reviewer is simply because she disliked a movie that other people liked. I am a fan of David Fincher movies, and I can honestly say this was my least favorite of his. I went into this movie knowing nothing about it, and left feeling bleak and a little depressed. Yes, the movie was well made. Yes, the movie was well acted. However, just because there is a rape in the book doesn’t mean we need to SEE it in the movie. Has our society dropped so low that we must see rape scenes in our movies in order for the movie to be good? I can understand it was important to the plot for the future movies (though in this movie it did seem pointless) but couldn’t a fade to black have driven the point across sufficiently? I genuinely felt disgusted watching that. Even if it is somewhat detrimental to the story, that doesn’t mean the movie needed to show as much as it did, not to mention that this movie will not be remembered for the great story or acting, but “for the part where the girl gets anally raped.”
Is this really what are movies have become? And no one should be called a “miserable woman” for stating an opinion. Apparently one must love this movie or else they are “dumb.”
Comments (below) from the reviewer: “Anymore personal attacks and I will lock this thread. Unlike other sites, I don’t revel in putting up with jerks emailing me or commenting on my site.”
If you can’t handle criticism, you have no business being a critic. They’re your thoughts and you published them. If you’re not prepared to defend your criticisms, keep them to yourself.
FINally someone with the guts to unapologeticcaly criticize this movie, not just in terms of how it compares to the original book/Swedish movie, but, rather, based primarly on the directorial choices. Brava. It is absolutely style over substance, par for the course for Mr. Fincher. And that is fine (I like me some Fight Club, too), but that doesn’t make it great art nor something to be revered and so emotionally defended, nor, in particular, above criticism. In particular, regarding the rape scene(s), the point I believe Ms. Alexandria was making was NOT that the whole occurence of the rape should be left out but that there was no dramatic purpose in its graphic, lurid depiction. A rape does not have to be explicitly shown in order for the audience
to know it happened, be affected by it, understand the impact on the
character/plot and empathize with the victim’s need for revenge. Any intelligent critic is then left to ask — what IS the purpose of this scene? Well, the only one left is the immediate, visceral impact on the audience (oh, yes, and indulgence of the director), which is a) discomfort and/or b) frankly, getting off on it in some way. I, personally, can take a good quotient of film/literary violence if it either serves a purpose in story-telling or, perhaps, is between people that I couldn’t care less about or is utterly meaningless (pick your favorite action flick). The decision as to how to portray violence becomes an issue when it is extremely realistic and specifically, when it is something like rape. Doesn’t matter that the victim “gets her revenge” and turns out to be the strongest one of them all. If anything, these aspects only serve to further justify/rationalize the decision to show the brutal act in such loving detail, and would just as easily have been part of the cohesive and fine plot had the rape been left primarily as implied.
Wow! You summed up exactly what I’ve been saying so perfectly. Can I steal this and slap my name on it? 🙂
Wow you’re a genius! I say that with a massive amount of sarcasm because your entire argument is one giant hole. The fact that it was graphic enough for you to take issue with it, rather than a toned-down version that you suggest would be better, proves that the way it is now has a more powerful impact on the viewer. If after watching a scene wherein a character is RAPED you don’t feel the slightest amount of emotional sympathy or influence from the film then you must have made up your mind about hating it before even waiting for the end of the movie. That or you’re just a heartless jerk spouting critical crap because you feel you’re so much smarter than everyone else who enjoyed the movie.
The varying intensities of events in movies are what give those events more or less emotional weight. Had the violence or rape been only implied, the viewer doesn’t experience the level of severity meant by the director. The movie did a terrific job of accomplishing its goal, if you didn’t understand or enjoy what it accomplished, then this isn’t the movie for you, but that doesn’t make it a bad movie.
By beginning your article with a sentence about loathing David Fincher films, setting us all up for a biased-review, it shouldn’t surprise you that a lot of people are leaving comments like this. Did you REALLY have to review this with such a sarcastic undertone? I would have much preffered to have heard your opinion in an objective manner, and if you had done so, many of your points would probably have been taken into careful consideration by these commenters. But frankly, as a reader, I feel less inclined to listen to what you have to say after just reading the introduction.
Many of your points are valid though. The story does drag slightly in the third act, but any problems with the plot should be put down to Stieg Larsson’s novel, and not Fincher’s directing. And the rape scenes were graphic – too graphic, in my opinion. And I’m not sure I agree with the way they changed the ending (with regards to the explanation of Harriet’s whereabouts).
However, personally, I really enjoyed the film. Rooney Mara was fantastic to watch, and the film was dark, brooding and cold, just like the book. I am sincerely hoping – after the low number of people who have been to see the film since its release – that they still decide to go ahead with the sequels. I’d love to see Rooney Mara playing the on-the-run Lisbeth in the The Girl Who Played With Fire.
This review has inspired me to start writing movie reviews of my own. Not because it’s good, but because it disgusts me that somebody like this could have a job reviewing film. I’ve looked as some of her others and all have a vaguely ignorant and sarcastic undertone with unintelligent and ignorant points. She actively contradicts herself several times and the review itself is written very poorly. Get a thesaurus, you can only use the word “interesting” so many times in a row before people start to notice. I don’t have a problem with the fact that she didn’t like the movie, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but hers isn’t backed up properly, you can’t just throw out a bunch of blanket statements and criticisms without being able to back them up. “Bland” camerawork? Does she know a thing about Cinematography?
I’m only a 17 year old kid and I know I could write a better review than this, and I’m confident I know much more about film in general.
Review Grade: D
That’s a great idea! Get someone who “hates” David Fincher movies to review a David Fincher movie.
What’s next? Getting someone who loathes heavy metal to review a Machine Head album? But then that’s not your fault, Michelle. That’s really Eclipse Magazine’s fault.And regarding the final line of this “review”, perhaps if you had actually bothered to read those novels, you would know that the “tacked on” ending is required in order to set the scene for the second book.
Michelle, are you really a professional journalist? Do you really get paid to write reviews like this?
If so, then shame on you.
You are an embarrassment to your profession and clearly an uninformed idiot.
Do some research next time girl.
Michelle is someone who can’t understand adult books and seems like she expects everything to be like Harry Potter or Twilight. Sorry you don’t get it, and I have no idea how you have a job as a film critic.
I never read the book so I didn’t even realize that it was anal rape. Deep down though (no pun intended) I think she enjoyed it – both the character and the actress. Overall I enjoyed the movie but I think they certainly could have shortened it by 30 minutes or so.
Thank you. I haven’t seen the film but have read the book. Your critique matches my opinions of the semi-pornographic novel that was written by Mr. Larsson. He has created a fantasy world of self dilution wherein the completely transparent avatar for the artist, Blomkvist is the sexually passive crusader for justice in a world of misogynistic high industry closet Nazis. Basically the most descriptive scenes are the ones involving anal rape and the plot is about as thin as a serial TV program watched in the afternoon. Along the way the hero falls into bed with all the gals and is saved by the mysterious girl with the dragon tattoo (what a twist!). It’s a hero fantasy disguised as a thriller masquerading as a mystery novel. But the king has no clothes on. And he’s anally raped. Scene.
My sentiments echo yours completely.
The first 1.5 hours of the movie didn’t need to be there.
Michelle, I didn’t agree with most your review, but I loved reading it. “…one lump or two?” LOL. Great voice.
Thanks for this review! I saw the Swedish version of the film and had to leave half way through because of the violence. For days after I couldn’t stop thinking about what I had seen and how terrible it was. I understand that it’s a part of the story, but images like that really stay with me. I’m sure I am a sensitive viewer! I don’t think I’ll be seeing the new version. It’s unfortunate there are so many rude comments about this article. I appreciate your point of view, and have enjoyed reading several of your movie reviews. Happy New Year everyone!