The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Review and Trailer Comments

• BwZ

  Quick correction on your review here, but this is not based on all three books, only the first.

  Posted 09:41 | Fri 16th Dec 2011

• christopher buckley

  Its brutal violence and adult will undoubtfully put some people off but for everyone else this is greatly paced thriller with snappy writing and great performances from its leads

  Posted 16:59 | Fri 23rd Dec 2011

• Mike Sheridan

  @Butthole Repace was lauded for her work and is now a Hollywood lead - hence that comment. And I didn't need to read the books to know they are long or that the film is a fine adaptation.

  Posted 15:54 | Wed 28th Dec 2011

• FilmBuff76

  From its distinctive Bond-style credit sequence, scratchy music and dark obsession with the twisted side of human nature, there's no mistaking that we're in David Fincher territory here. He's a perfect fit for this sturdy, well-made English-language adaptation of the first book in Stieg Larsson's Millennium Trilogy. While the Swedish versions were decent but not quite cinematic enough, this is a more tightly-focused (though equally long) and accessible version. Thankfully, the Swedish setting is kept and some disturbing scenes have been retained rather than sanitised or left out. Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara are both excellent, with Mara playing Lisbeth somewhere between a child and an adult - independent, fierce, damaged and yet not devoid of emotion. It's a tricky balance, but she pulls it off very well. All in all, a very good film indeed. Highly recommended.

  Posted 22:05 | Tue 27th Dec 2011

• Jonathan Butthole

  Full disclosure: I have never read the books that this American-financed remake is based upon, nor have I seen the hugely successful Swedish productions that followed it. ... Zallian's script truncates the book skilfully, and the pace never falters enough for the audience to notice. ... Following in the footsteps of Noomi Repace was never going to be easy, ...Wtf Mike?

  Posted 13:53 | Mon 26th Dec 2011

• A boo boo Mc C moo

  Im going, Ill be back Mc C Mooooo0

  Posted 14:15 | Wed 28th Dec 2011

• Amazed

  Mike I'm so disappointed in you as a journalist/writer/reviewer to say that you dont need to read a book to know that the film is a fine adaptation. How you can say, with a straight face, that the film is an accurate representation of the book when you have never even read the book is baffling to me. What exactly are you basing your opinion on then !!!

  Posted 11:36 | Wed 4th Jan 2012

• foodie

  Brilliant film!

  Posted 15:30 | Mon 9th Jan 2012

• Mike Sheridan

  My opinion, "Amazed." I was as honest as I could be but used the word "adaptation" instead of "film." Take it as you will

  Posted 12:38 | Wed 4th Jan 2012

• Eve

  I enjoyed this version but I have to say that I preferred Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth in the Swedish Movies. I didn't seem to care much about Lisbeth as much in this version. The title sequence seemed totally out of place to me. Still an enjoyable movie and for people who haven't read the books or seen the swedish movies it is a good stand alone flick.

  Posted 09:42 | Wed 11th Jan 2012

• Other Ciara

  The first Swedish one was good. After that they became dull and drawn out. Although I liked them as a whole I hope the Hollywood versions are made a bit more exciting

  Posted 19:37 | Fri 30th Dec 2011

• Karma-King

  Cant believe youve never seen the sweedish version, such a gem of a movie ! I came here in the hopes youd tell me if it ruined the story by hollywood-ising it far beyond the point of no return; but if you havnt seen it I guess youre no help. Guess I just gotta go see it then...

  Posted 23:04 | Wed 28th Dec 2011

• Rusty

  Mike never said it was an "accurate representation of the book", Amazed, he said it was a fine adaptation - using the noun interchangeably with "film." His review is based on his opinion of whether or not GWTDT works as a film, & the review is really informative & descriptive in that regard. You know there are critics out there who claim to have read the book & seen the original who have not, so kudos to Mike for being upfront & reviewing it on its own merits - many people who go see it won't have seen the original or read the book either & don't want to hear about other incarnations, just if this is worth seeing - & in that regard, you can't fault the review. Really helpful!

  Posted 03:20 | Thu 5th Jan 2012

• A boo boo Mc C moo

  I just got back, I have to say the previous version seemed to cramp the new ons space. If you have not seen it before you will undoubtedly enjoy it. I personally like the first, and Hollywood is trying to give the mona lisa a better smile and make a few bucks. The acting is very good with the Lizbeth character playing it really well(Marra), she is I think a different kind of edgy, and that was pretty cool. All in all good movie

  Posted 21:08 | Wed 28th Dec 2011

• spikeprint

  I agree with Amazed. No reference should be made to the books or the originals if they haven't been seen/read. It lowers the value of the review. To take the film on its own merit would be a fairer analysis. As it stands, with interchangable nouns or not, it is flawed. Especially when that point is layed out in the opening paragraph.

  Posted 19:20 | Fri 13th Jan 2012

• KickedArse

  Eeeer is that not what he has done by pointing that out!? Reading into the reading into of it a bit much there lads.

  Posted 00:55 | Sat 14th Jan 2012

• gerorda

  I thought it(american version) was slick, well paced and throughly entertaining, save the rape scene, which was as gruesome as the swedish version. both salanders are equally memorable. and maybe rooney mara just edges it as she is nearer the age of the character and therefore more vulnerable. i dont think i will get over Martin Jarvis as a nazi! and wasn't it nice to see Julien Sands in a decent role as the younger Hansen. loved both versions but remake for once wins!

  Posted 19:54 | Wed 1st Feb 2012

• jim

  as i have both versions of the first of the 3 films i think i prefer the swedish versions as they are more close to the books.and are more gritty

  Posted 21:11 | Sat 14th Jan 2012

• MadamC

  Mike, how can you say the source material is 'certainly elevated' if you haven't read it? Full disclosure: I didn't bother reading past your first paragraph.

  Posted 13:39 | Fri 20th Jan 2012

Log in to leave a comment