NikkoFranco If you read the books, this film version will not disappoint you nor fail you. First I was very sad that Michael Nyqvist passed on so early. Noomi Rapace fell into Hollywood's radar because of this trilogy when she played the barbarically abused Liesbeth Salander and avenged herself and the very few souls she cared for and when she could she did with pouncing brutality. This is the crowning glory of many Skandikrimi wherein the viewer is not only taken to the cold and isolated region of Sweden where only God knows what one truly does when no one is watching, no matter how rich or reputable a family is. This film is beyond-the-grave brutal and complex. The English version was only limited to Part One ( Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara) mind you that the story is not limited to that one and does not end there. To grind your teeth and self-induce a breakdown the viewer must watch until the end of the third, only then can one piece what happened and who did what in the criminal web. It is also saddening that the author, Stieg Larsson died before completing the fourth manuscript, there's surely still a lot to come from that brilliant mind of his. Any cinematista ( my own word invention) should possess a DVD -book collection of this monstrous masterpiece of a trilogy.

atomicgirl-34996 I have seen bad films, but I don't think I've ever seen a bad film that started out as a solid 10 star and kept losing a star at every plot point. The Girl with the Dragon Star is literally that type of film where in the beginning you're like, "Wow...this is amazing" to, "Um...what?" and finally, "GTFO here with this *bleep.*"Some people nailed it by saying it was like a bad Agatha Christie novel but for me, personally, it reminded me a lot of Marathon Man, and not just because it also had a conspiracy involving Nazis. Marathon Man, like this movie, was one of those films that had everyone thinking it was a brilliantly crafted, intelligent thriller because of its taut direction and byzantine plot. The movie may indeed have had some amazing scenes filled with suspense and drama but the "conspiracy" itself was the stupidest, most ridiculous and far-fetched thing ever put on screen. But everyone thought it was brilliant because of the direction and complexity of the plot.In the case of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, it's the same thing. The plot may be "byzantine," but there is absolutely nothing plausible about it. It's strictly comic book/1940s serial/Sherlock Holmes versus the Nazis type stuff. I won't spoil it for you, but you'll understand what I mean when you hear the conspiracy unfold. You will be rolling your eyes so much that they'll be stuck in an upward position permanently if you're not careful. Another problem with this film is the way the protagonists, Mikael and Lisbeth, unfold the mystery. There is a lot of "cheating" to make them seem much smarter and more resourceful than they are and the people around them much dumber and less resourceful than they are. For example, there are lot of scenes of digital tomfoolery (searching Google, scanning print photos, hacking, finding articles online) in this movie. The point is so we get an impression that the reason why the protagonists are able to discover a major conspiracy today that the authorities couldn't 40 years before is that they have a technological advantage. They have the computers and the internet and Photoshop, and Lisbeth can hack. But all of those endless scenes of the two characters on their laptops scanning this, that and the other thing are red herrings because as it turns out, all of their leads in the investigation were from old documents and photos that anyone could've accessed even in 1966.The reason why the movie used the whole "tech savvy" angle as a red herring was as a cover for how easy it was for anyone to uncover the mystery behind the disappearance of Harriett Vanger and the conspiracy that was involved. In fact, the conspiracy was so easy to figure out that the victim, Harriett Vanger, had also discovered a major part of the conspiracy when she was just a 16 year old girl! If she could figure it all out, how could the police have not figured anything out? They could have, too. So could anyone with an IQ over 60. But, like I said, to make the protagonists seem much smarter than they are and to give their "investigation" an added boost, the movie throws in all of this digital tomfoolery to make you think that these two particular people could've been the only ones to crack a 40 year old cold case because of how tech savvy they were. No!!!These issues are the least of the movie's problems. Let's talk about the movie's characterization. I didn't read the book on which the movie was based but it was obvious to me that Lisbeth is supposed to be this very unusual person from a completely different world of Mikael's and that there's supposed to be this deep aura of mystery around her. But there's no depth at all to Lisbeth in this film. She isn't brooding or moody or secretive, doesn't act in a way that's odd or quirky. She just walks around with a ring in her nose, smokes nervously and wears the same deadpan expression the entire time. That's it. It's almost as if Swedes have this naive idea about people who are "alternative"; they think that just by virtue of someone wearing all black and having greasy hair, this instantly makes them deep and mysterious. But no, of course it doesn't. Goths can be shallow and uninteresting people, too but apparently, in this film, all it took for Lisbeth to be as enigmatic as the Mona Lisa was to make her smoke a lot, dress weird and not talk much.One last major issue with Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was the shocking level of violence, particularly sexual. I was actually more uncomfortable during the rape scene in this movie than Irreversible because in Irreversible, the violence actually plays a central part to the movie and has a point. In Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, there's absolutely no point to it. The graphic scenes of dead, mutilated female corpses seemed like a shallow attempt to match and maybe even surpass the edginess of Silence of the Lambs, but without the artistry or sincere attempt at horror. It's kind of strange that I'm leaving this movie with such a low rating considering that I did enjoy parts of it and thought it was well directed and acted. But the conspiracy is so just so stupid and amateurish for words that not even the beautiful cinematography, direction and acting saves it. So 1/10 for me.

Khemaluck Deeprawat I regret watching this film. Not because it is of low quality but because its message is nothing but "you should return evil with evil" and there are some scenes in the film that were so violent that I could hardly watch.OK. I must say that the film is well-directed, well-paced, thrilling, it is a high quality suspense film if you are talking about it in terms of movie making. People can be glued to the screen because of the film made them feel excited.Well, but if you are a person who believes in love and hope and the power of love and forgiveness, you shouldn't watch this film. Because there is little of that. The whole thing, beside investigation and mystery, is about revenge and how you should return violence with violence. It depicts evil and the fruits of evil and no real or true message about how you should deal with evil in this world beside violence. The film implicitly tell us that it's OK to kill, it's OK to beat and torture someone, if that person is already evil. It's OK to kill your father if your father abuses you. It is OK to stand and watch someone die although you can help, because that person is evil. These kinds of things are understandable but they are wrong messages to be sent into this world already full with too much evil and violence.The main character of the film is presented as a woman hero, someone who is very strong, very smart, with a dark and hurtful past. I don't know what's the big deal about the tattoo dragon on her back either. It looks scary to me.

buiger Contrary to most, I have to say that I expected much more from this movie. Having read the book(s), which I believe all to be masterpieces of their genre (especially this one, the first one of the series) I was really looking forward to seeing this film. Alas, I was somewhat disappointed... Not that this was a bad, poorly made film, because it isn't. It is however, nowhere near in bringing to the viewer the plot, the atmosphere and the emotions of the book (which is often the case with the filming of great books). Having said that, I must also say that the filmmakers eventually 'found their way' when making the second and third installments of the series, which where much, much better than this first movie in the trilogy.Now I am looking forward to seeing the Hollywood version of this book, hoping for the best...