Millennium - A Garota na Teia de Aranha

The original book trilogy (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest) were written by Stieg Larsson. There were movie versions of each released in 2009 starring Noomi Rapace. In 2010 there was the Millennium TV mini-series, which was a compilation of the three Swedish films with extended scenes/more stuff added back in. The three movies were re-released on DVD with the extra stuff added back in and these became the 'Extended Versions' of the films. In 2011 came the US remake of the first film. Since then, another author (David Lagercrantz) started writing a new series of books continuing the story on from the third book (as the original author, Stieg Larsson, had passed away). This new movie starring Claire Foy is the first film adaptation of the new series of books. The only 'remake' so far has been the 2011 version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Sadly, not enough people were first introduced to the character of Lisbeth Salander through Noomi Rapace's unparalleled performance, setting the standard by which all other portrayals should be compared. She did all the hard work/heavy lifting, bringing this character to life onscreen for the first time. Quite unfairly, she never scored an Oscar nomination (which I think she *should* have), nor did these original films receive all the praise that the US remake got. Whether it was the fact that the original film trilogy had subtitles, which people simply couldn't be bothered reading, I don't know, but it's a shame that the big flashy US remake got all the glory the original films/actress to play Salander should have. Those who told fans of the original Swedish films to 'Give the US remake a chance!' and dismissed the recasting of the Lisbeth role now know what it feels like. All the people whose first introduction to the characters of Lisbeth, Mikael, etc was the Fincher version clearly couldn't take their own advice, as a large percentage of them seem to be damning this new film, despite the fact that at least it's based on a book that *hasn't* been filmed previously.

I've seen complaints about Claire Foy as Lisbeth not looking vastly different to how she normally looks, and this is a result of Fincher going overboard with Lisbeth's look in his version, where she was downright alienesque in appearance. No, it *isn't* normal for Lisbeth to walk around with panda eyes/bizarre make-up. If you watched the second film in the original trilogy, you'd see she reserved the theatrical makeup for special occasions. That's what we get here in the opening scene, with Foy's Lisbeth sporting a swath of white paint over her eyes as she helps out a wife with an abusive husband. And the mohawk only appears here and briefly towards the end of the film. Fincher decided to go all 'comic book' with Lisbeth's look and created a 'heightened/hyper-reality', whereas this film is a bit more 'restrained'. No elaborate fights on escalators this time. When Lisbeth fights a guy hand-to-hand here, it's in a small enclosed area, brutal (not flashy), and she doesn't magically win.

We're now seeing the reaction from those who dismissed the part Noomi Rapace played in making the character of Lisbeth Salander as widely recognised as she is (or who simply don't wish to accept that the role originated with her), because they fell in love with the remake version, when the shoe is on the other foot. The outcry over 'their' version of Lisbeth being replaced is no different to those who didn't wish to see Noomi replaced. Yet they're acting like the US version is the ONLY version. Sorry to break it to you...she's not. Claire Foy gives us a more 'grounded' performance as Lisbeth, as she conveys the character's weaknesses/vulnerabilities, making her feel like more of a 'real' character as opposed to the comic book-like US version. To those complaining about this film's 'action'...so what if there's action? It's not like the remake was devoid of elaborate action scenes. Plus, here she uses her brains for getting out of sticky situations more often than her fists.

Sverrir Gudnason might not be as recogniseable as Daniel Craig...but that actually works in his favour. Rather than watching a non-action version of James Bond onscreen, we're getting to see a Mikael as he comes across in the books. He's more or less just a regular guy, and I think the actor portrays him believably. We only get short scenes between him and Foy's Salander, but their 'relationship'/friendship feels like it's already established. The remake seemed to put them together in no time and I didn't feel that was 'earned' like in the original. Sylvia Hoeks does a lot with limited screentime also. We don't really meet her Camilla until late into the film (though we're introduced to the sisters as children at the beginning), but she plays the 'coldness' well, showing just hints of vulnerability.

I read the book this movie's based on/adapted from when it was first released and didn't think much of it. The author just wasn't able to capture what made the original three books (which I've read each of multiple times) so great. However, I decided to give the book another try in preparation for seeing this movie. Maybe it's that this movie's such a 'loose' interpretation of the book, with it being quite a bit different, but I found the film version much more interesting. The problem is some people who only know the US remake are ignorant of what came before. They think that version is the ONLY one that exists. This is no doubt what has contributed to the IMDB rating being so (quite unjustly) low. Claire Foy *is* the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo...whether you like it/wish to accept it or not. Hopefully we get to see more of her in the role. Until then, do yourself a favour and watch the original trilogy.

I feel the low rating currently (5.7) is probably because people are disappointed because it can't live up to its predecessor. And it's true, it can't... but in its own right it's still a good movie. Not excellent, but good. The story is okay, the action is solid, and Lisbeth is still badass. If you have the previous movie sitting in a shrine in your house somewhere and you worship it before you go to bed... skip this movie. If you just want an enjoyable if not terribly memorable action thriller, then go ahead and have fun.

As a girl, Lisbeth escaped from her psychotic Russian mob father leaving behind her sister Camilla. In the present, Lisbeth Salander (Claire Foy) is an avenging angel for abused women. She is hired by Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) who is desperate to retrieve his computer program from the American NSA which is capable of controlling the world's nukes. NSA agent Ed Needham (LaKeith Stanfield) tracks the theft to Stockholm but thugs had already attacked Lisbeth and stolen the program from her. Her only clue is a security pic of a man with a spider tattoo. She recruits Mikael Blomkvist (Sverrir Gudnason)'s help who hasn't seen her for three years. The spider's web leads back to Lisbeth's father and her sister Camilla Salander (Sylvia Hoeks).

It's the second movie in the American version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo franchise. The story is new from a different novelist. Everybody is new. Lisbeth is new. Mikael is new. The director is new. That's all the more reason why the central relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael needs to be re-established much earlier. They aren't actually in the same room until over an hour into the movie. There is also a change in Lisbeth's crusade where she is normally a vigilante figure for female victims. In this one, she turns into James Bond with global nuclear war as her crusade. There's the NSA and the Russians. It's a Bond movie. It's not the same as the original. The story is not that confusing but it can be more focused. I like the concept of Camilla but like Mikael, she needs to get into the movie sooner. As for Claire Foy playing Lisbeth, she is fine but needs a bit more darkness and her sexuality. It's really like a Bond movie where darkness and sexuality exist but The Dragon Tattoo franchise is supposed to take it to a grimmer level.

I'm gonna sound biased, but the truth is that I am. David Fincher come back! I miss his take of "Millennium", which was brilliantly engaging. But we gotta accept the fact that the whole trilogy couldn't be adapted because of the first film not being financially successful enough. The fourth book was also the first in the series to not be written by Stieg Larsson, but instead by David Lagercrantz. Must have been a daunting task following in the footsteps of the world-wide bestsellers. I remember that my dad recognised him in a store once. So he went up to Lagercrantz, said hello and then left him in peace. My dad said he didn't wanna say anything else because he was being criticised and under pressure for taking over the series. That's when I first heard about it - and yes, I was sceptic as well. The trailers had me worried. The direction was gonna be faster, more action oriented and appeal to an even wider audience. I get that, sure. But the brilliance of "Dragon Tattoo" is its investigate dark mystery. Look how the story is told and how the audience is always interested in finding the answers to the questions. Was "Spider's Web" any good? Well... Better than I expected.

Fede Alvarez is not a bad director choice. I underestimated him. He knows how to get the stylish imagery. There's a good eye here since many creative ideas are being used for the shots. It gets points for that. He uses some shaky cam in the intense scenes. Thankfully there's a good balance of steady and hand-held camera use. I've seen Claire Foy getting much work recently. My bets where that she would portray Lisbeth Salander being hysterical or explosive. I was wrong because she lands a solid performance. Subtle when she needs to be, and even showing the emotion that's underneath Lisbeth's tough exterior. Surprisingly she's even funny. Sverrir Gudnason shows a warm interpretation of Mikael Blomkvist. He comes across as a friendly person who's presence lightens the mood. Not a bad take either. I would in all honesty have been ecstatic if Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig had returned. Then again Fede Alvarez felt he wouldn't had done 50% of his job if he took Fincher's cast. I don't really agree, but I understand what he means. The first act of the film was pretty alright. The look, the pacing and the introduction of the story worked. You can tell by the beginning that the style direction will be something else: An action-thriller. Salander has become a vigilante. That's something I feel kind of "Eh.." about. Clearly not the original intention. If you look at it as a James Bond type film, you'll enjoy it quite a lot. Don't go in expecting a moody crime mystery. That's not what you'll get. The story is not as isolated but more expanded involving Nato or Swedish Special Forces and people running after computer programs. Seemed more far-fetched than what it needed to be.

The experience of watching "Spider's Web" was enjoyable. You can have fun with the action and your suspenseful scenes. As a typical action movie, it does the job. The villain in the piece stood out to me. Sylvia Hoeks (who we saw in "Blade Runner 2049") delivers an eerie enemy for Salander. I get the feeling she's not gonna get enough credit for this role since her entire character doesn't fit the "supposed" realistic tone. It's a person straight out of a James Bond movie. And there I go again with that comparison, but it's actually got more in common with that now that I think of it. The villain is acted well - The issue is just that she belongs in another film entirely. I went in afraid of what the film would turn out to be, and it wasn't bad. Although it doesn't capture the greatness of "Dragon Tattoo". Stick to the originals for real grittiness. But if you want a fast thrill-ride, then this is decent. Biggest take away: Nice to see Stockholm depicted this nicely in american production again.

I was a bit surprised when the name of the English translator rolled in the credits, as it really seems no one involved in this movie read any of the books. They really only needed and used the name recognition of the characters.

The Acting is quite good. If fact almost everything in this movie is above par compared with most Hollywood shoot-em-ups. But the story, if you can really call it a story, is just so banal. We are told the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad and then we have the plot twist. Yawn.