A very quick read gets turned into a rather slow watch.
The problem is not the film's length but its inability to pause for the story's most poignant details (the collapse of Salander's guardian). Meanwhile, too much time is spent on sex scenes (without chemistry) and heavy-handed clues (the conversation about Rebecca's disappearance).
It's difficult to say whether the emotional depth is lost in the writing or direction. It seems like Steven Zaillian made by-and-large sensible decisions about what to cut from the book (Blomkvist's affair with Cecilia Vanger) but in packing Stieg Larsson's mystery into two-and-a-half hours, the characters have been overly stripped back. As a result, you care less about the whole thing.
The script does more justice to the weary journalist, Blomkvist, than it does its title character but is sadly let down by Daniel Craig's delivery, which lacks the laid back warmth that is so compelling in the book.
Until now, I've put off watching the 2009 Swedish adaptation, keen to watch Fincher's film first. It'll be interesting to watch it having seen the Hollywood version.
The Swedish version is a fun watch, but when it comes down to it, both films suffer because the source material really isn't *that* good. Enjoyable, yes, but still ultimately pulp.
Yeh, the source material wasn't so great. To be honest, I got excited about this movie because I thought it would lift the source material (out-do it) so I was disappointed when it didn't. I felt the same way about The Time Traveler's Wife (although in that case both the source material and the film were a lot worse).
I agree with Ben. It's just an ordinary detective story with a cool sidekick character. That's all.
Very true. Some of the flash backs in the film made me think CSI - and the story doesn't really do anything to help that.