Watched it today. Thought it was a great film. Some people seem to be a bit disturbed by it though. Anyone else seen it?
Swedish original yes. hollywood remake no. brutal in parts but a good film
Ah yes, it was the original version that I watched.
It's good. Very good. There is a lot missing from the book, but what they have done is very faithful to the novel - not once did I say "that didn't happen in the book!".
I have only seen the original one and I found a touch extreme in places!
A very good film though and I enjoyed it.
just brilliant...
Swedish original yes. hollywood remake no.
Seen both, think I actually preferred the Hollywod one! Seemed to be truer to the book in some important places, like the very funny moment Blomquist and Salander first meet
*hangs head in shame* 😳
tattoos always look chavvy
Are the books worth reading?
I am not much of a book reader as I seem to have a short attention span....
the books are well worth reading.
Having read the 3 books and watched the 3 swedish films I'd say read the books. I know it is boring to say but the films can only touch on a limited amount of the book.
^^^
So, knowing the ending won't spoil the enjoyment of the books? That's good.
As a film I like it. Excellent acting and it looks great but I'd expect nothing less from Fincher.
As a story, it's crap. Trashy nonsense a la The De Vinci code. I'd never read the books so I didn't know what to expect, but I shouldn't have been surprised given its popularity.
The rape scene was brutal though and I was surprised no one walked out.
Not seen either film, just finished the first book and half way through the second.
Enjoyed the first one, bit slow in the middle and could possibly have done with a tighter edit, but kept me guessing 'till the end.
Both seem very voyeueristic.
I'd be interested to know if they appeal equally to both sexes.
Would like to know more about the author (exactly how did he relate to his seemingly autobiographical hero, how much was pure wish fulfillment?)
Guess we'll never know now.
As a story, it's crap. Trashy nonsense a la The De Vinci code. I'd never read the books so I didn't know what to expect, but I shouldn't have been surprised given its popularity.
Hmmm, certain aspects did make me think of Dan Brown, but the anger regarding financial mismanagement and the treatment of women seemed sincere.
How to square those ideals with the graphic abuse scenes are the obvious problem.
I'm still not sure if he succeeded or not.
Oh, and never, ever trust people who see the film without reading the book first.
Say a lot about someone, does that. 😉
Rusty Spanner - Member
Oh, and never, ever trust people who see the film without reading the book first.Say a lot about someone, does that.
Why?
Or should I say in my best east of Scotland dialect, how?
Ho hum - MemberWhy?
Or should I say in my best east of Scotland dialect, how?
Well, books are always better than films, except on vary rare occaisions.
If you see the film without reading the book you miss out on a hell of lot of nuance and detail, thus leading to dissapointment and dissatisfaction.
And if you enjoy the film but can't be bothered reading the book?
Well, would you really want to be involved with someone who can deny themselves such pleasure?
So, if you want to associate with dissapointed, dissastisfacted people, knock around with those who see the film without reading the book. 😀
IMO book (only tried the 1st) was kack - film was pretty good
First book is good but the other two spend too much time setting the story. Couldn't help feeling that the author wanted to be the hero , have people think it was him.
Really enjoyed all three books and found difficulty putting any of them down.
Not seen the Swedish films, but really enjoyed the current film with Daniel Craig (who I was pleasantly suprised about how well he adopted the Blomvqist role). My friend who had also seen the Swedish version said she preferred the Fincher one.
Books seemed excessively detailed IMO
Agree about the detail. Do i really need to know the model of the flash drive? OK so it's giving the idea about her aspergic nature(?). The "filmed scene" in the first book with her guardian has way too much detail.
my mother in law is reading the book she reckons its just like Agatha Christie !
Saw the original swedish one. Very brutal/rape scenes disturbing. I had to look away quite a few times.
I thought the Swedish one (watched with English voiceover) was decent. Not a brilliant film but then my sister who's a big fan of the books maybe overhyped it for me. That said, I understand that the film's quite different from the books.
As to the brutal scenes, I was forewarned and tbh they weren't as bad as I was excpecting.
Must just be me... I thought the film was awful.
read the first book - thought it was rather mediocre. struggling to see what all the fuss is about.
It's very like Dan Brown.
Stieg Larsson's hero is a campaigning journo who is incorruptible but irresistible to women. Have you seen SL's bio?
Dan Brown's hero is a tweedy academic who is irresisible to women.
It's who the author either sees themselves, or wishes they were. In DB's case it's definitely how he thinks he is.
so Jo rowling sees herself as, or wishes she was Harry Potter, or maybe she even thinks she is Harry Potter!
Kev
I liked the books and enjoyed the films, I thought the Hollywood version was the better of the two - closer to the book - except for the ending and that bit I didnt understand why they needed to change the ending.
Rape scene wasn't graphic so ok, it was the mutilation of the cat that got me worked up, that was upsetting.
maybe I care more for animals.
Watched the Hollywood version last night. Enjoyed it. I squirmed through the rape scene but had to restrain my wife from jumping up and cheering through the retribution scene 😯
So, if you want to associate with dissapointed, dissastisfacted people, knock around with those who see the film without reading the book.
I enjoy reading books. I like to think they improve my spelling... 8)
ok, i'll confess up to saying that both the Rape scene's were the most uncomfortable i have ever felt in a cinema in my entire life and I nearly walked out. took me half an hour to adjust. 😯 overall, i enjoyed the rest
Thought the hollywood film was very good. Enjoyed it. A couple walked out during the rape scene.
why would you walk out of the cinema, because of the rape scene?
Saw the first Swedish film first, then read all three books. Watched the Hollywood film last week. Not seen the last swedish film yet but intend to.
Loved all of them and think that the Hollywood film was very well done - though Salander came across as more vulnerable in it which is more in keeping with my interpretation of the books. I though the Swedish Salander was a little too Lara Croft at times!
why would you walk out of the cinema, because of the rape scene?
Some people may be offended by a graphic rape scene.
Not exactly rocket science, is it?
psling,
Gud point!
I blame Joseph Holts Diamond lager.
Four pints of that stuff and your p's and s's would get mixed up as well.
In mitigation;
A. I fell into the pub.
B. Diamond has actually won awards.
Not sure what for, but I bet the acceptance speech was a cracker.
but it's a film, and integral to the story.
if people are offended by rape do they turn off the tv when they do a rape story.
If the scene were not shocking would they have stayed?
if people are offended by rape do they turn off the tv when they do a rape story.
Probably.
I wasn't offended, but I can understand why someone may be offended by a scene where a girl is knocked out, wakes up tied to a bed face down and is then anally raped.
but what they have done is very faithful to the novel - not once did I say "that didn't happen in the book!".
There's a fairly significant difference between the Swedish film (not seen the hollywood one) and the book in who appears responsible for the end. I enjoyed the books a lot and think they are a cut or three above Dan Brown both in terms of plot development and quality of writing.
I understand why people may be offended, or maybe, uncomfortable with what men are capable of, and the scene is quite realistic, however that scene is nothing compared to the recent rape and murder of a teenage pregnant girl, who was then set on fire.
however, walking out, i dont understand why, it's a film after all.
If you see the film without reading the book you miss out on a hell of lot of nuance and detail, thus leading to dissapointment and dissatisfaction
As a reader and a film goer, I disagree. Many films are works in their own right, and do not need to be considered substitutes for the book. I am sure that you have seen many films that were from books without knowing it.
Shawshank Redemption
Stand By Me
Total Recall
O Brother Where Art Thou
etc.. there are loads.
if people are offended by rape do they turn off the tv when they do a rape story.
Well there's having rape in the story, and showing it in detail.. there's a difference.
however, walking out, i dont understand why, it's a film after all.
Dozens of people walked out of Irreversible during the rape scene when I saw it at the cinema
Some people may be offended by a graphic rape scene.Not exactly rocket science, is it?
I'd hope that people booking themselves in for an 18-rated movie might have an idea of what a film might contain to get that rating rather than a lower one. Likewise, I'd imagine a large chunk of the audience will have read the book. Kudos to Fincher (and whichever studio/backers) too for not toning it right down to get a 12, as everyone else seems to these days.
I enjoyed the books - they're not high art but decent entertainment, and I thought the film was pretty good but then I like Fincher's stuff and the Trent Reznor soundtrack too. It did feel rather different to the book though, which was far more of Blomkvist's story with Salander as an outsider to that - she was far more central to the story this time round. Blomkvist is also portrayed as a bit dim in the movie I thought - lots of his examination and progress is cut out and major breakthroughs credited a lot more to Salander. Maybe that's more about Daniel Craig's performance though.
not once did I say "that didn't happen in the book!".
Really? Not even the Anita/Harriet thing? That was baffling as it was so unnecessary.
I'd hope that people booking themselves in for an 18-rated movie might have an idea of what a film might contain to get that rating rather than a lower one.
An ex-girlfriend dumped me for taking her to see From Dusk Till Dawn. She burst into tears at the point the vampires appeared and afterwards she sobbed "I can't believe you made me watch a film like that"
Daft cow.
I found the book boring; too much scene setting and detail and not enough story. Some people like that, some don't. For the same reason I've never been into Tolkien nor HP Lovecraft. Some authors are good at it and others just feel like they're filling the pages for no good reason.
I thought the film (Swedish version) was pretty good but a touch over-hyped. Movies with hype rarely live up to expectation for me.
i should probably watch these films. any recommendations on blu-ray over dvd for the original swedish ones?
An ex-girlfriend dumped me for taking her to see From Dusk Till Dawn
It doesn't sound like she was a keeper, anyway. 😆
The first film I took my wife to see (first or second date) was Sin City. I had no idea what it was about, I just knew she liked her cinema and that it was some stylized film noir. The bit where Frodo was tied up with no arms and legs and then got his head cut off was particulalry disturbing.
I really enjoyed the first film (I find it reasonably easy to detach myself from the disturbing bits - although less so now I'm a father).
But, for me, the first film was far more successful than the second two.
The haunting photo of the missing woman was what gave the film its edge and I enjoyed the two plots side-by-side.
The second two seemed to just be adding info where it wasn't really necessary for me. Very very likeable main characters I thought though.
Molgrips,
I'm sure that I've seen films based on books without reading the book.
And yes, a good film is a work of art in it's own right.
However, I don't think I've ever seen a film which was as emotionally satisfying as the book upon which it was based.
Couple come close:
The Big Sleep & Touching the Void spring to mind, but on the whole I think that literature is a far more complex and emotive medium than film.
As the Blessed Sewell might say;
(Pretentious guff) A good book is a love affair. By comparison even a good film is a quick fumble behind the bike sheds. (Pretentious guff). 😀
However, I don't think I've ever seen a film which was as emotionally satisfying as the book upon which it was based.
As an example, The Godfather film is far better than the book, which contains a long, bizarre sub-plot about a woman with a massive vagina.
Hmmm, I'll give you The Godfather, always an exception that proves the rule 🙂
Perhaps this should be started on another thread, but the stand out film-better-than-book for me was Into The Wild. A great book but as a film every scene was composed with the skill and love of a stills photographer, not a movie maker. Beautiful.
I thought The Road had a good stab at being as haunting as the book too.
I'd hope that people booking themselves in for an 18-rated movie might have an idea of what a film might contain to get that rating rather than a lower one
18 is an age rating, and I am (well) over 18. Some things still disturb me though. I can however deal with plenty of normal sex, violence and swearing.
I think that literature is a far more complex and emotive medium than film
Of course it is, but that doesn't mean that one is 'better' than the other. Films are short, books are long. It's like saying opera is better than rock music. Different things, for different purposes, consumed in different ways. There are many extremely high quality films with bags of merit, and many trite throwaway books.
Apples and oranges isn't it?
As an example, The Godfather film is far better than the book, which contains a long, bizarre sub-plot about a woman with a massive vagina.&
Hmmm, I'll give you The Godfather, always an exception that proves the rule
Really,I thought that The Godfather book was far better than the films.......
I've seen the original Swedish (all three) and the Hollywood one. I've NOT read any of the books....
Really liked the Swedish films, to the point where I wasn't going to see the Hollywood one for fear it would just be crap. I saw a trailer randomly for the Hollywood one, and thought it looked very good, so went to see it... Both me and t'other half thought it was great. other half thought the Hollywood one was closer to the books. She said they were both different, but varied in different ways. I just took them for what they are and thought they were excellent.
(on a weird first date movie thing, our first movie date was to Shortbus (we got there late, just at an interesting point), and our second was to London to Brighton!!!)
I do want to see the films as I really enjoyed the books, but I'm not sure I can stomach the rape scene - reading about it was bad enough. Obviously its a core part of the story, but I'm not sure I could watch it on the big screen.
On the books vs films thing, a book allows the author to take you into the thoughts and mindset of characters; however with a film you mostly have to do that yourself. Good films make this easier to do. Sometimes you need to see a film more than once to appreciate it in a similar way to a book.
Mrs Toast; I'd like to say "it's a film, it's not real" - with this mindset it should be watchable. Unfortunately, some of the topics dealt with in the film are only too real in real life 🙁
I thought the revenge "rape" scene was more graphic and made me squirm more, but people think this is great.
when she puts the boot in I winced.
It's a film. The rape scene wasnt particularly graphic and assuming that it's anal rape probably says more about the person making that assumption that anything else.
Rape happens, gay rape happens, as does murder and all sorts of other horrific crimes. Did people walk out of Pulp Fiction?
The rape scene wasnt particularly graphic and assuming that it's anal rape probably says more about the person making that assumption that anything else.
The book makes it clear that is what happened. So if you read the book you know. Can't say I recall whether it was made explicit in the film.
It wouldn't be nearly as much of a film, or book, if it was "The Girl with the ass antlers".
Sorry, that's my thought about it