The Girl Who Played with Fire

johnny_ultimate

Saw this today at the IFI preview and must say I was quite underwhelmed by it as an adaptation. The first was perfectly serviceable if unspectacular, but at least it felt like a coherent film within it's own right. The Girl Who Played with Fire faces the problem of a more unwieldy source material, and suffers as a result. (Oh, putting this in main film forum as opposed to reviews so we can discuss it more openly!)

Non-spoilery for those who're only following the film series: similar in style to the first adaptation for the most part. A few considerable concerns: it is arguably over dramatised, especially the overblown music which hints at sinister happenings even in the least dramatic of scenes. If you haven't read the books, you'll probably be left wondering the relevance of characters who are introduced and swiftly discarded with any discernable impact. The first half of the film suffers from information overload, seemingly just exposition after exposition trying to get important bits over and done with. It doesn't feel like a coherent film. Mostly, it lacks urgency, and I just never invested in the characters or situations as much as I did in the books or last films.

Positively, the cast still excel, especially Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth Salander who perfectly suits the role - she gets across the angst of the character without the considerable advantage of her mind being written on a page for the reader. Michael Nyqvist is only so-so as Blomkvist though, not given enough scope to gain the confidence of the viewer like he does in the book. The film, on the other hand, gains some confidence in the latter half, although suffers from the source material (more details spoilered below!). Overall, though, a weaker film than the first, although this isn't necessarily surprising.

For those who've read the books or have seen the film:

The film takes quite a few liberties with the story. The police sections are dramatically reduced, rendering interesting characters in the book - like Bubalanski, Modig and the chauvinistic Faste - as little more than bit players whose sole purpose is to advance the plot when necessary. They are barely cameo appearances, alas, which makes the film play more like a standard thriller, although to a degree this is understandable for an adaptation. Dag and Mia also suffer as characters - their very minor role unable to emphasise the shock of their murders. Even the leads lose depth - Lisbeth's efforts to get the money are never fully explained (they were briefly mentioned at the end of the last film) but a viewer less familiar with the source material is likely to be confused by her vast wealth!

The problem is the second book is pretty unwieldy as a novel, so this definitely carries over. My main problem with the book is the finale which pushes a bit too far into the realms of the ridiculous. Same here, but it's directed with some verve and moments of powerful and shocking violence. Largely, though, it kind of chugs along, a by the numbers adaptation reminiscent of the first two Harry Potter films - a 'greatest hits' of sorts, that loses a lot of the character of the already too busy, too loose book. Not filled with a lot of confidence for the even more unwieldy conclusion to the trilogy!

bnt

I added a review in the Reviews forum. I was there not knowing anything about the back story, and came away unimpressed with the central character of Lisbeth: for someone supposedly so smart, she does some really dumb things in the movie - starting with going back to Sweden in the first place!

johnny_ultimate

Yeah the first act suffers from just jumping from scene to scene, any sense of greater context is lost.

Read on imdb last night that the films have been adapted into a nine hour long miniseries in Sweden, with many excised subplots included. Sounds like a superior idea for an adaptation!

kraggy

I can't really remember what happened in Dragon Tattoo. Like how they discovered....

Is Played with Fire a continuation or would I get away with not watching Dragon Tattoo again before watching Played with Fire?

purple_hatstand

kraggy wrote: »

I can't really remember what happened in Dragon Tattoo. Like how they discovered....

Is Played with Fire a continuation or would I get away with not watching Dragon Tattoo again before watching Played with Fire?

It's a continuation of the characters rather than a straight sequel in terms of narrative.

I haven't read the books but I watched all three films on consecutive nights a few weeks ago. The first film is standalone in terms of the story while two & three are a single narrative.

We get so used to seeing stories like this told through the prism of Hollywood so, for me, it was interesting to see this kind of thriller told in a different tone.

I thought the ending was consistent with the characters in a way that I can't imagine happening in the US remake.

johnny_ultimate

The second and third are much more reliant on each other than the first and second, so you won't be too lost with this I don't think. Many of the subplots in the book that heavily relied on the first book have been excised! It's very much a sequel, and the characters etc... are very consistent, but definitely couldn't jump into ...Who Kicked the Hornet Nest without this!

Nativeland

Any suggestions as to where to see this movie is it on limited release?

Asphyxia

I am dying to see this film after reading the books and this thread is making me want to see it more. I was in HMV and there selling it in therem I am so tempted to pick it up next time i'm in.

JohnMearsheimer

This movie didn't make much of an impression on me, I saw this movie 2 weeks ago and can barely remember what happenend.