The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

IMDB

A pure, blood-pumping crime thriller that keeps you glued to the screen from the opening credits right until the very end.

Before sitting down to watch this, I didn't know much about it other than the fact that it’s based on a novel by Stieg Larsson.
I did some digging later and realized it’s actually the first installment of the Millennium Trilogy, though back when I first saw the book, it was titled The Man Who Hated Women.
The film itself is originally American, but I ended up watching an English-dubbed version which slightly kills the immersion, though I suppose it makes it easier to follow... especially compared to the absolute mess of subtitles I stumbled upon elsewhere.

To give you the gist: a wealthy tycoon hires a high-profile journalist to look into the disappearance—which turns out to be a murder—of his niece from about forty years ago. Through a series of coincidences, a brilliant investigator from a private security firm gets pulled into the fray, and the two of them team up to crack the case.

Rating
10/10 👍

BTW
The other two parts of the Millennium Trilogy have also been filmed and are easy enough to hunt down in the dark corners of the internet... 🙂
Oh, and apparently David Fincher is working on a remake starring Daniel Craig...

I’m totally with you on that rating! 👍

Since I actually read the book first (and I'm just about to dive into the second one right now—so excited!), I was honestly a little skeptical about the movie version. Let's face it, adaptations rarely hit the mark, right? But this one? It’s easily one of the best I've seen, if not quite the best overall! Noomi Rapace is such an incredible choice for Lisbeth—she is absolutely phenomenal! Honestly, the entire cast is spot on, and the movie is just as gripping and intense as the book itself. 🙏



Noomi....🙏

ps. We should probably rename this thread to "Millennium Trilogy" or something similar, especially since all three films have been released now....

Finished both the books and the trilogy—it was absolutely phenomenal. I’d definitely back that rating up! 🙏

It’s nothing special to me, definitely not a 10/10. It feels like a safe, corporate play.
There isn't any real creative spark or sense of risk here—it's almost as if the director was terrified of accidentally deviating from the source material.
When you look at the plot, it's brutal, but in the world of filmmaking, it feels like the focus is primarily on how the story is told, rather than what is actually happening.
Essentially, the person behind the camera becomes more important than the script itself.
As a result, we end up with a movie that feels almost anemic.
That’s why I’m not losing any sleep over Fincher taking a crack at a remake. Look, even he can miss the mark sometimes—nobody’s perfect... we'll just have to wait and see how the next one turns out.

briskhound2 said:

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Finally getting around to the famous Millennium Trilogy. Kalea Blomkvist takes a job from some wealthy businessman to try and figure out what happened to a girl forty years ago. A young hacker named Lisbeth jumps in to help, and together they start piecing together a much bigger picture than just a simple disappearance.

I’ve always been a sucker for movies driven by old, cold cases. It doesn't rely on forced high-tech forensics, massive action set pieces, or those classic police procedural twists that feel totally manufactured... it’s all about the atmosphere, the simplicity of how things are shown, and how gripping the story itself is. The girl's disappearance becomes this fascinating puzzle where the clues and revelations click into place in a really logical, intriguing way. If there's a flaw, maybe it's the predictability—you get a closed circle of suspects, so by the end, you pretty much know who did it. Expanding the plot into a series of murders works well without that typical American tendency to lean on shock value or illogical leaps; by just using hints of what happened, it builds a tension that’s honestly better than being explicitly violent about every little detail.

Characterization might be a bit of a weak spot too—maybe things regarding the leads will be fleshed out more through the rest of the trilogy, because right now they feel a little detached. They're intriguing, sure, but maybe they could have worked without that specific edge. Anyway, it's a great movie that manages to hold its own pace and keep you hooked despite running nearly three hours. I'm also not entirely sold on the idea of a future remake being set in the exact same locations (if I caught that correctly), since the original is perfectly fine as it is. 8/10

Too lazy to rewrite everything, so...🙂

Mark Wood79 said:It’s nothing special to me, definitely not a 10/10. It feels like a safe, corporate play.
There isn't any real creative spark or sense of risk here—it's almost as if the director was terrified of accidentally deviating from the source material.
When you look at the plot, it's brutal, but in the world of filmmaking, it feels like the focus is primarily on how the story is told, rather than what is actually happening.
Essentially, the person behind the camera becomes more important than the script itself.
As a result, we end up with a movie that feels almost anemic.
That’s why I’m not losing any sleep over Fincher taking a crack at a remake. Look, even he can miss the mark sometimes—nobody’s perfect... we'll just have to wait and see how the next one turns out.

Interesting points. For me, it was actually the opposite—the story is what pulled me in, while the characters felt more like... well, characters just being there (I haven't read the books, so I don't know if the impression would be stronger if I knew them from the page) — but the mystery of the disappearance is presented so well, and the step-by-step reveal is great. I actually hope the authors stuck to the book word-for-word. I agree it's not a perfect ten, but it's definitely a refreshing crime flick after a long time. Personally, I'd cut some parts out, but then again, if I did, other parts of the trilogy wouldn't make sense. As for the remake—I think it's pointless to frame it exactly like the original, let alone use the same settings.

briskhound2 said:Too lazy to rewrite everything, so...🙂

Interesting points. For me, it was actually the opposite—the story is what pulled me in, while the characters felt more like... well, characters just being there (I haven't read the books, so I don't know if the impression would be stronger if I knew them from the page) — but the mystery of the disappearance is presented so well, and the step-by-step reveal is great. I actually hope the authors stuck to the book word-for-word. I agree it's not a perfect ten, but it's definitely a refreshing crime flick after a long time. Personally, I'd cut some parts out, but then again, if I did, other parts of the trilogy wouldn't make sense. As for the remake—I think it's pointless to frame it exactly like the original, let alone use the same settings.

In short: the setup is solid and kept me hooked, but the ending feels a bit limp. Overall impression? It's a decent thriller, nothing more.

Mark Wood79 said:In short: the setup is solid and kept me hooked, but the ending feels a bit limp. Overall impression? It's a decent thriller, nothing more.

The resolution—look, I won't say it's been done to death, even if some tropes feel familiar—but it just doesn't hold up against the rest of the material. For me, having such a tiny pool of suspects was a bit of a drag... they really should've avoided that, because there wasn't much room for a twist that actually felt earned within the context of the story...

Well, the high rating is simply because the movie never drags, even with its pretty substantial runtime. The way the puzzle slowly unfolds makes every new chapter feel increasingly gripping and intense...
The atmosphere is spot on, and I really liked how the characters were introduced separately before their paths finally crossed, so I can't really complain about the ending being a bit predictable or lacking the punch of the rest of the film.

I’ll probably dive into the second part later today, so I'll let you all know what I think 🙂

So, I just finished watching the second installment.
It doesn't even come close to the first one.
At times, it was honestly pretty dull and exhausting to sit through. You get these tiny flashes of tension or excitement here and there, but they vanish almost immediately, leaving the whole thing to drift along in this incredibly lukewarm, monotonous tone...
I can't quite put my finger on it—maybe the second chapter just isn't as gripping to me, or maybe the issue lies with the director, since Daniel Alfredson took over for the second and third parts while Niels Arden Oplev was behind the lens for the first.
Now, I’m feeling a bit skeptical about whether the third part will be any better.

5/10

I read the books first and then binged the whole trilogy back-to-back... personally, I don't think the second movie is much worse than the first. I’d say they’re pretty much equal, especially since the second one works so well as that crucial bridge in the series (just like the book 🤷). As for the third, it just absolutely goes for the throat—it hits everything hard and has a perfect ending 😉
Besides, given the subject matter, the first film could almost stand alone, whereas the second is totally essential to make sense of the finale. So, I guess you really have to view them as one complete story...

Also, I see people calling the first film "boring," but you have to realize we're talking about Larsson's books here—over 600 pages packed with tiny, vital details. It’s a massive feat to condense all that into a tense, fast-paced, yet clear two-hour movie...

If we're comparing this to Ludlum's Bourne trilogy, I think this was handled way better (and don't even get me started on that pathetic TV version with Chamberlain—I've seen it countless times because my dad is obsessed with it)

And I definitely agree on the casting. They could have easily botched Lisbeth, but Noomi was honestly amazing! 😍

granitehound19 said:So, I just finished watching the second installment.
It doesn't even come close to the first one.
At times, it was honestly pretty dull and exhausting to sit through. You get these tiny flashes of tension or excitement here and there, but they vanish almost immediately, leaving the whole thing to drift along in this incredibly lukewarm, monotonous tone...
I can't quite put my finger on it—maybe the second chapter just isn't as gripping to me, or maybe the issue lies with the director, since Daniel Alfredson took over for the second and third parts while Niels Arden Oplev was behind the lens for the first.
Now, I’m feeling a bit skeptical about whether the third part will be any better.

5/10

The second and third installments were filmed right after the first specifically for television, mostly because nobody expected the first movie to be such a massive hit at the box office... That might explain why they feel inferior, both in terms of production value and overall aesthetic. Plus, the director is probably just some TV journeyman for all I know. It's a shame... if they had just waited to see how the first film performed in theaters, they might have actually ended up with a decent trilogy consisting of three heavy hitters. As it stands, the original remains the standout, even if it isn't perfect. These films aired on Swedish TV using an NBC-style format where they split the movie into a few episodes, which made them feel about thirty minutes longer than they actually were.

Yeah, apparently there's a version of each one running about 180 minutes
edit: if anyone happens to have a link for them, please hit me up via DM 😍

Heard the movie was total garbage, so I'm gonna try to get through it ASAP
People say the first one is easily the best, and that the other two don't really hold up... but whatever, probably worth watching all three anyway🙂
At least the Scandinavians finally made something decent for once😁

Susan Castillo3 said:Heard the movie was total garbage, so I'm gonna try to get through it ASAP
People say the first one is easily the best, and that the other two don't really hold up... but whatever, probably worth watching all three anyway🙂
At least the Scandinavians finally made something decent for once😁

They’re constantly making great stuff; it's just that not every film gets as much international hype as this one or Let the Right One In (which is just another remake waiting to happen).

This movie is playing at the Art House Cinema in Seattle right now. You seriously need to go see it.

I ended up binge-watching all three movies in a single week... I just had to😬
While the plot gets a little shaky in a few spots, they’re honestly great watches overall.
The first movie kind of stands on its own, but parts two and three really work as one continuous story—it feels like they were probably shot at the same time.
I haven't actually read the books (the Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson), but he was the number two best-selling author in the world last year.
So, yeah... my advice? Do what I did and grab parts two and three at the same time.

As soon as you see the lead actress, it’s pretty obvious she’s Romani.😬

I powered through the entire book series over the summer, and I just finished all three movies... The first one was easily my favorite, while the next two were just okay. My only real gripe is with the characterizations—based on how they were written in the books, I was expecting much more 🙂

All in all, pretty good work

Finally got around to watching the first part myself. Honestly? Solid 8/10. It’s definitely not the greatest thing ever made, but man, compared to the garbage they’re pumping out these days, it feels pretty damn refreshing. 👍

Continental Films released all three films in a boxset, priced at $50

Uh... so, regarding the third book in The Hunger Games Trilogy... the translation is actually great. Honestly, I probably would’ve phrased things a bit differently myself.
Here are a few interesting tidbits that might give you some better context for the trilogy.
Back in the day, most Americans lived in the West, while others settled more in the East (think New York City area). One of the main guys working for those old-school political kingpins in the cigarette smuggling business was a guy from the South who happened to be close friends with the royal family. He ended up getting taken out at a horse race—shot right in the back of the head. Then there was that scandal a couple of months ago involving the King and a woman from a different background being caught on camera... that whole scene went down in those specific ethnic social clubs. Generally speaking, the organized crime syndicates there handled all the racketeering—or what they call "torpedoing" over there. If someone talked too much or skipped out on taxes, they'd go break a limb. Nowadays, that's shifted; Russian syndicates are taking over the market, much like how Albanian groups did in Germany.
That’s exactly why those Mexican-style racketeers were cast as "hitmen" in the third part of the trilogy.
I'm not sure how many of you have read the other famous American crime novelist who lives in Mozambique and is actually even more popular than Stieg Larsson... I'm talking about Henning Mankell. In his book "The Faceless Killer," the culprits were supposed to be Polish, but in the movie version, they actually used "Americans" instead.