|
Post by jilly2000 on Jul 14, 2010 14:42:35 GMT -5
The girl with the dragon tattoo {possible Spoilers} Long slow boring and sensational piece of... filled with sickos rapes counter-rapes unprovoked physical assault in the underground station and that just in the 1st 30 minutes! The girl in question is a young woman in her mid 20s(?) with her whitish make-up black lipstick tattoo and piercings is passable. Also she's shown in bed with a woman and later in the movie she climbs in Blomkvist's bed much to his surprise. The supposed male lead is investigating an old disappearance and she sort of helps him with her computer hacking skills. That's it. There are plenty of graphic crime photos shown. The girl who played with fire. This time the girl(Lisbeth Salander) is out for revenge and the journalist(Michael Blomkvist) is out investigating sex trafficking in Europe. This movie is more of a suspense thriller and I found it better. Also I also liked Lisbeth Salander in this one. An impressive actor. BTW haven't read the books.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Jul 14, 2010 19:07:50 GMT -5
To the surprise of no one, they're apparently going to do American remakes of these films. No actors have been confirmed as of yet, though Daniel Craig seems to be the front runner for the male lead (Michael Blomkvist). Ellen Page might have the edge for the female lead. I like both.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Oct 31, 2010 10:37:00 GMT -5
Daniel Craig IS confirmed, and Rooney Mara will be Lisbeth Salander. Haven't seen her in anything, so I've no idea whether that's a good choice or a bad one. Noomie Rapace will be hard to beat, I think.
Have seen the first two films now (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Girl Who Played with Fire), and just saw a review for The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, so I'll be on the lookout for that on DVD. Loved the chemistry between Mikael Nyqvist and Noomi Rapace; they made the odd friendship between Blomkvist and Salander so enjoyable and believable, despite the fact that they don't even have a scene together in the 2nd movie until the very end!
The books were a verrrrrrrrrry long and winding road, and I don't envy the editors/director of the movies. Trying to find a way to pare down a story that I think needed editorial cuts as novels must have been tricky, but I think they did the best they could with the material and the time. (And each movie is at least 2.5 hours!) As with the books, I think you must see the first movie in order to really understand why Blomkvist cares so much about what happens to Salander in the 2nd movie (especially at the end), and you'll definitely need to see the 2nd in order to understand the 3rd.
Anyone else see these movies?
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Oct 31, 2010 21:56:08 GMT -5
I LOVED these books and you MUST read them to appreciate the movies. I've seen the first two and will see the third probably next weekend. It's not enough to just see the movies however. The books are compelling and beautifully written. Lisbeth Salander is the most original character I've seen in a very long time. Noomi Rapace is extremely good in the role. I don't really like Mikael Nyqvist as much as Blomkvist but he's the only cast member who didn't match my mind's eye picture. Actually Daniel Craig is more along the lines of the character I imagined while reading the books although I DO NOT think the movies should be remade. The Swedish versions are nearly perfect AND they are in SWEDISH which adds a lot. Truly the world lost a great writing talent in Stieg Larsson. The books, particularly the first, are like a sumptuous banquet and the films, although severely edited are good representations of the story. Please do read the books because they are excellent.
|
|
|
Post by romanmachine on Nov 1, 2010 12:52:53 GMT -5
I LOVED these books and you MUST read them to appreciate the movies. justafan, you're certainly correct there. I've now seen Parts 1 & 2 and, while I did like them, I could tell by coolbyrne's comments that there was a lot of nuance I missed. I also agree wih you about the remakes. The movies are perfectly fine as they are and I enjoy watching actors that I don't immediately recognize. It keeps me in the story, you know. Now, having said that, I'll still see the remakes because I'm curious how they'll hold up. And, because it's Daniel Craig, of course.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Nov 1, 2010 18:24:10 GMT -5
I started reading the first book not knowing either actor in the role, and went into the second one not yet having seen Mikael Nyqvist, but knowing Daniel Craig was cast. So, I certainly had him in mind for the second and third book. I thought he was perfectly cast. That being said, Mikael Nyqvist grew on me, I have to say. At first, I thought he was just a bit too casual as Blomkvist- didn't have the slow burning intensity that I thought Blomkvist needed as an investigative reporter. But the way he reacted to the rape DVD was an amazing moment of subtlety and he kind of grew on me as an actor. I think now that his strength is his casualness; Blomkvist seems like a real person to me, rather than an actor playing a person. Daniel Craig won't be able to bring that to the role because, well, he's Daniel Craig. As much as I like him, I think he's got a natural edge to him that would be hard to conceal. So each actor has strengths and weaknesses in the role that the other will have opposite. Can't wait to see the 3rd movie, and to be honest, the remake. Though I wouldn't be saying that if it was anyone other than Daniel Craig.
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Nov 1, 2010 19:35:42 GMT -5
I enjoy watching non familiar actors. Most films with mega stars are not that interesting because it's just a famous actor in another role, whereas with actors you don't know they become the character. It's not that I hated Nyqvist in the role...he just seemed a bit "rough" and not as polished as I pictured Blomqvist. I'm looking forward to seeing the third film because the book had such a satisfying ending.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Nov 2, 2010 6:19:01 GMT -5
I've read they've changed the ending in the film a little bit, but that it's actually a good thing. Can't wait to see it!
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Nov 2, 2010 17:41:01 GMT -5
RM and I said the same thing! I think had this movie been cast right after Hard Candy, she would have been a shoe-in. But I wonder now if she's a bit too well known? That, and David Fincher seems to like to work with the same people from film to film, and he just finished working with Rooney Mara in "The Social Network". I think that's how she got a foot in the door for this movie.
|
|
|
Post by jilly2000 on Nov 13, 2010 23:43:00 GMT -5
I've read they've changed the ending in the film a little bit, but that it's actually a good thing. Can't wait to see it! I saw the hornet's nest early last month. All I can say is don't expect any action. It slugs along for 150 mins basically tying up all the loose ends from part one and two. Scenes start from hospital where Salander is recuperating which is almost half the movie then followed by prison and court scenes where the tables are turned very dramatically against guess who?
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Nov 14, 2010 14:23:17 GMT -5
I've read they've changed the ending in the film a little bit, but that it's actually a good thing. Can't wait to see it! I saw the hornet's nest early last month. All I can say is don't expect any action. It slugs along for 150 mins basically tying up all the loose ends from part one and two. Scenes start from hospital where Salander is recuperating which is almost half the movie then followed by prison and court scenes where the tables are turned very dramatically against guess who? I just saw it last night. Not sure what I thought of it, though I think that's my general assessment of the books as well. These books are reeeeeeeeally popular right now- I took RomanMachine to the airport yesterday and we counted at least four people having one of the books. The woman sitting beside me on the bus on the way back from the airport had Hornet's Nest on an e-reader!! But I don't know if popular=good. Don't get me wrong, I was entertained by them (and maybe that's all I should ask for), but take away the character of Lisbeth Salander and they were a bit forgettable, if I'm honest. Well, no, let me go out on a limb here and say, beyond the first book, they weren't very good. Now, it's my understanding that Stieg Larsson had the first two written before ever getting a publisher. And he died before the first book was published, which might have put pressure on the publishers regarding the 2nd and 3rd book. By that I mean, perhaps they felt with his death, they shouldn't mess with the two books that followed, if only out of respect. But really, those books are in serious need of a good, ruthless editor. There is stuff going on that have absolutely no bearing on anything, or in the very least, could be culled from the novels without weakening the foundation. Not only that, but there are certain aspects of the books that just make me roll my eyes. For instance, I'm not sure any other first-time authors could have gotten away with a character like Niedermann, let alone the plotline that brings him into the story. Anyway, in reference to the movies, you could see how the script writer tried to trim the books- gone is Lisbeth's looooooooong trip to Grenada from "The Girl Who Played with Fire", most of the Erika/Mikael relationship, basically ALL of Mikael's sexual relationships (he slept with 5 different women in 3 books, I think!), Erika changing newspaper jobs, etc. Even then, there was no hiding a lot of the convoluted aspects of the plot. And the things they did add themselves, I thought, "Why???" Mostly, of course, is the ending to Hornet's Nest. The ending of the book was as perfect as I could have hoped for (okay, there was a tiny part of me that was hoping for a bit more ), but they changed it to something that was kind of anti-climatic, to be honest. It was still as hopeful, to be sure, but it wasn't nearly as satisfying. I wanted more; felt I was a bit cheated, and I'm not sure that's a good feeling to have at the end of the last movie in a trilogy. As with the books, I think so many of the weaknesses of the movies were forgiven because of the wonder of Lisbeth Salander, and the quiet honour of Mikael Blomkqvist, and how these two very different people became this remarkable duo. They "saved" both the books and the movies for me.
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Nov 26, 2010 0:28:57 GMT -5
I disagree with you completely coolbyrne. The books, particularly the first two, were beautifully written and I wouldn't have wanted them edited. I don't think "Hornet's Nest" was quite as good but the end was very satisfying especially since there won't be another - unless that 400 page manuscript is published. It was necessary to edit the books to make a movie but I enjoyed every page and sub plot. I saw Hornet's Nest a few weeks ago and, although a bit slow by necessity (hospital and trial scenes) it was also a very good adaptation. I also liked Mikael Nyqvist a bit better in this movie.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Sept 18, 2011 0:40:12 GMT -5
They've finished filming the first English remake of the trilogy, set to be released Dec. 21st. Will be tough to do as good a job as Noomi Rapace, I think, but Daniel Craig will more than make up for it. The poster: Edited to add: The trailer
|
|
|
Post by trillian on Oct 22, 2011 22:24:24 GMT -5
I was pleased to learn Noomi Rapace is in the next Sherlock Holmes film, A Game of Shadows. It is supposed to be in theaters in December.
I don't know how larger her role is in the film but after her amazing performance in the Steig Larsson films I hope we will see more of her in English speaking roles.
Here is a link to an interview Noomi did on Charlie Rose, a US interviewer and journalist. She is a very thoughtful person, reminds me of Mandana's interviews. I would like to see an interview like this with Mandana; maybe some day.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Oct 24, 2011 20:53:07 GMT -5
She's also rumoured to be in an Alien prequel, directed by Ridley Scott. I've got my fingers crossed! ;D
|
|