Ohjaus:
Niels Arden OplevKuvaus:
Eric KressSävellys:
Jacob GrothNäyttelijät:
Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace, Lena Endre, Sven-Bertil Taube, Peter Haber, Peter Andersson, Marika Lagercrantz, Ingvar Hirdwall, Björn Granath (lisää)Suoratoistopalvelut (3)
Juonikuvaukset(1)
Mikael "Kalle" Blomkvist, taloudesta kirjoittavan Millennium-aikakauslehden vastaava toimittaja, on pulassa. Hänet tuomitaan kunnianloukkauksesta vankilaan. Mahtava paljastusjuttu teollisuuspohatta Wennerströmin hämäräbisneksistä kaatui riittämättömiin todisteisiin, ja Wennerström aikoo asianajajineen ajaa niin Blomkvistin kuin koko lehdenkin puille paljaille.
Kaiken keskellä Blomkvist saa uransa erikoisimman tarjouksen, kun sukufirman entinen johtaja Henrik Vanger lähestyy häntä. Vanger haluaa Blomkvistin selvittävän mitä tapahtui hänen veljentyttärelleen Harrietille, joka katosi elokuisena iltapäivänä vuonna 1966. Tätä suljetun tilan mysteeriä ei kukaan ole koskaan onnistunut ratkaisemaan. Vangerin lupaama palkinto on houkutteleva ja Blomkvist voi vain suostua ehdotukseen. Hän hankkii avukseen nuoren, tunnehäiriöisen mutta nerokkaan Lisbeth Salanderin, joka on erikoistunut ihmisten yksityiselämän tonkimiseen. Tapaus vie heidät yhä syvemmälle kohti Vangerin perheen ja samalla kansankodin sisällä vellovaa mustaa menneisyyttä: rasismia, vihaa ja veritekoja.
(Nordisk Film Fin.)
Videot (2)
Arvostelut (10)
A traditional thriller framework of Hollywood genre movies refreshed with new faces of high-quality European actors and taken apart by a superb multi-layered, detailed script that deals with a lot more than what is sufficient for a good thriller – and handles it with admirable complexity. Two and a half hours bursting with tension while the audience gets to know interesting characters and uncovers the well-concealed secret of a dark world. I am looking forward to two more films from Stieg Larsson’s trilogy of novels on which this movie’s screenplay is based, and I’m curious about the American remake. David Fincher is a sensible choice. He may be the only one who is able not to screw it up.
()
I didn’t read the novels and haven’t watched the other two parts of the trilogy yet, so I don’t know whether some of the apparently pointless things in this film will have any meaning in the future, but the fact is that they feel very redundant within the scope of one feature detective movie. That said, I believe in the principle that I call “pointless things happen” (not all the events that simultaneously take place in real life are important for the main event taking place, therefore, they too should be included in scripts – i.e. they don’t have to be directly causal), and as such, that relatively redundant affair with Lisbeth’s caretaker didn’t bother me at all. If the film had finished half hour earlier, I would give it five stars, but that pointless epilogue brought the rating down a point.
()
I've started reading the book, the film was first... despite the fact that in its complexity it cannot and does not want to match Larsson's juggernaut, it belongs in the top league given its atmosphere and processing. Oplev is an excellent stylist who films in a simplified form, but with a sense of logic and pace. I really, really like how the script cleverly shifted Mikael from a confident seducer to a closed weirdo – the Rapace/Nyqvist duet is absolutely excellent for the film's purposes. By the way, Noomi is extraordinarily charismatic and played Lisbeth perfectly. The film has very high quality equivalent for everything that it lacks from the book. The result is a contagious and catchy detective story... although it lacks the socially critical dimension of the original, it moves in its genre quite sovereignly. It's a very difficult challenge for Fincher...
()
From the very beginning, each scene grows darker and more depressing with each passing moment, and yet neither the final reveals or the catharsis were at all moving for me. Maybe it's because there are so many emotional walls built around Lisbeth that I ended up watching her from a distance the entire time, and I was much more fascinated by Mikael. Or maybe it was that the adaptation merely skipped a few scenes that would have greatly helped me; it's hard to say. All I know for certain is that this wave of depression passed right by me, however engaged I was in the mystery itself.
()
The whole trilogy is more or less about a girl who makes no compromises. Never and nowhere. And about a journalist who also makes no compromises in his professional life, unlike in his personal life. Never and nowhere. The whole trilogy is a feet-up watch which won’t make you want to put your feet up even a long time after reading it. And it’s adapted in a movie that makes compromises everywhere and in everything and it’s no problem to take a quick nap during it. Although part one is certainly the most difficult to adapt of the entire trilogy, the number of storylines being murderous. Oplev fails in not being able to decide whether to cut back the wealth of material in the book, just leaving the thrilleroid element or not. It would have been a shame, but it’s nigh on impossible to transfer what’s “extra" onto the screen. Where it flounders is that it includes a little of everything, but everything is just touched upon and nothing is investigated in depth, so it all just fizzles out. Which is a shame because those “post-Lingren" characters are crying out for a quality adaptation. But what is almost unbelievable is the casting of Lisbeth; I couldn’t believe it would be possible to cast her so that she both looks the part and can act too. Too bad the same can’t be said of Blomkvist. P.S.: I saw the movie before reading the book and even after doing so the overall impression was basically identical in both cases.
()
Mainos