- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/3/12 at 9:44 am to PANTHER
Did anyone catch the Dr Beardface cameo?
Posted on 1/3/12 at 10:35 am to TreyAnastasio
Finished reading the book on Sunday, watched it on monday. Here is the list of the major things the movie changed, at least that I noticed.
1)Not a major one just a funny one. I thought it was a huge giveaway but apparently if you didn't read the book you didn't notice. Martin revealed to Mikael that he had a girl down room during their meal earlier in the movie. Well during that orginal scene in the movie, you can hear a scream that sort of sounds like wind through a cracked window or something and martin excuses himself to go check on something. When i watched that scene i thought it was painfully obvious it was a scream, neither of the people i went with had read the book and neither noticed the scream.
2) In the book Mikael had a pretty frequent romp in the sack with Cecilia vanger, that was completely left out of the movie which i don't think did any harm.
3) The way Mikael was subdued by Martin was completely different, in the book he knocked on the door to Martin's house, he answered and pulled a gun and took him downstairs and beat the shite out of him.
4) In the book Martin got onto the highway with Lisbeth and eventually committed suicide by running into a truck in oncoming traffic. Also I didn't like that in the movie they added the line where Lisbeth asked if she could kill him
5) The way the found harriet that everyone is talking about, in the book they tap her phones and after she talks to Mikael she call AU and they go over there and find her.
6) The scene where she visits her therapist in the elavator wasn't in the book.
7) Overall the clues were explained with way more depth in the book, but its a 600 page book so thats expected
It was a bit much to watch it after having everything so fresh in my mind, it seemed a little disjointed because of that, I'm looking forward to watching it after ive had a couple months away from the book.
Also the opening credits with the reznor soundtrack was fricking awesome.
Posted on 1/3/12 at 11:17 am to Jwodie
quote:
Once again, totally agree with you. I think this is typically the problem in most book-to-film translations. The problem, as always, is being limited by time. The book goes through great lengths and detail to lead up to both the discovery of Harriet and the revelation that Martin is the serial murderer. The film unfortunately seems to quickly reach these conclusions but sacrifices the "oompf" that you feel when discovering these things in the novel. That, more than anything else, was probably my biggest complaint with the movie.
Yeah, I guess that is the problem with almost any book-to-movie adaptation - time does get in the way. Overall, it was pretty close, but I still can't getover the Harriet/Anita thing - I think that could've translated easily to the screen and would've provided a much more exciting moment, but oh well.
Posted on 1/3/12 at 12:07 pm to NaturalBeam
just saw the film, read the book a while ago, and just found this thread.
i enjoyed the U.S. version, but my favorite part was the opening credits. That sequence was fricking amazing!
i enjoyed the U.S. version, but my favorite part was the opening credits. That sequence was fricking amazing!
Posted on 1/3/12 at 12:22 pm to ISDSTiger
quote:
but my favorite part was the opening credits. That sequence was fricking amazing!
I thought it was awful. Completely un-needed and un-fitting.
Posted on 1/3/12 at 1:31 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:
I thought it was awful. Completely un-needed and un-fitting.
Posted on 1/3/12 at 2:04 pm to JBeam
It was like a cheesy Bond intro. It was really bad.
Posted on 1/3/12 at 2:08 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:ehh didn't remind me of bond at all. but to each his own.
It was like a cheesy Bond intro.
Posted on 1/3/12 at 2:25 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:
It was like a cheesy Bond intro. It was really bad.
at first viewing, i was a bit taken back by it. but after watching it a second time, its a beautiful opening and really sets the tone for the film. one of the best openings in a movie imo
Posted on 1/3/12 at 2:26 pm to JBeam
It reminded me exactly of Bond.
Posted on 1/3/12 at 2:26 pm to JBeam
I don't how it couldn't. It was exactly like the Brosnan Bond intros. Dancing forms set to a music video. I was waiting for Bond to step out and zoom down the barrel of his gun.
Posted on 1/3/12 at 3:52 pm to TreyAnastasio
Saw the movie last weekend. Thought the opening was cool but I like Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor...I have never read the book, so keep that in mind, but the rape scene was too much. Rough is an understatement. All in all though the acting was superb. Rooney Mara deserves an Oscar nod IMO.
Posted on 1/3/12 at 3:54 pm to BallHawk
I guess the book numbs you to the rape scene a bit. All I had heard was how graphic it was, and then when I finally saw it (along with 4 other people who had read it), we all agreed it wasn't a big deal at all. Same theme I'm getting in this thread.
Posted on 1/3/12 at 4:42 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:
I don't how it couldn't. It was exactly like the Brosnan Bond intros. Dancing forms set to a music video. I was waiting for Bond to step out and zoom down the barrel of his gun.
+1 but it didn't bother me
Posted on 1/3/12 at 4:44 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:I can't seem to understand why it bothered you so much. But nevertheless I never got the idea that it was a ripoff from bond.
I don't how it couldn't. It was exactly like the Brosnan Bond intros. Dancing forms set to a music video. I was waiting for Bond to step out and zoom down the barrel of his gun.
Posted on 1/3/12 at 4:52 pm to JBeam
It bothered me because it was a such a departure from the story. It didnt fit at all. And it didnt really bother me, I just thought it was the weakest part of the film, other than the huge plot hole I talked about up thread.
Posted on 1/17/12 at 7:28 am to TreyAnastasio
I have not read the book,but I found the movie pretty enjoyable. Very suspenseful and except for a few parts, I really didnt know where the story was going to lead. Amazing performance by Rooney Mara, lloking at her in the movie and her real life pictures, its amazing to see her transform into Lisbeth. Im gonna try and read the 1st book and then the subsequent titles in the coming months. Heard pretty good reviews about the movie and was not disappointed checking it out last night.
Posted on 1/17/12 at 8:09 am to Celery
quote:I just watched the Swedish version last night. I haven't seen the new one. Honestly, the girl was pretty much perfect, but I wasn't to thrilled with the actor/way that Blomkvist was portrayed. He was kind of a pussy in the movie.
I was told it was too similar to the Swedish version to be mind blowing. But still really good. is that something you can verify?
I'll be seeing the Hollywood version soon though.
Posted on 1/17/12 at 8:27 am to alajones
quote:
I was told it was too similar to the Swedish version to be mind blowing. But still really good.
That's how I felt about it. There was no drama/tension for me because I had already seen the Swedish version, so I wasn't wowed. The new one is superior to Swedish version in almost every way, budget, music, talent, technical...all except for both Lisbeth's, which are both great. Whichever version you see first is probably the one you'll like better.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News