Millennium: Lo que no te mata te hace más fuerte

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.

While David Lagercrantz did a decent job of preserving the "Milennium feel" in the book, this movie totally lost that. Only the first Swedish movie managed to give the feel that nothing important was left out from the book, here intentionally most of the book was left out to give room for car chases and fights. The result is a banal action movie where all persons are two-dimensional.

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.

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.

The first Millennium-novel adaptation was a slam-dunk piece of world cinema, featuring plot- and character-driven tension, a very moody atmosphere, stellar performances from the cast, and, equally important, daring subject matter. The dark underbelly of Swedish society (or Western society in general) wasn't ignored but often shown in its full ugliness. The two sequels made for television may have lacked the great plot but still had most of the other ingredients that made this series so deliciously unglamorous and un-Hollywood. Even David Fincher remained very respectful to the material, and re-adapted the first book as Swedish as could be, with equal parts plot and character, great actors and beautiful photography of the cold Swedish landscape. There was rejoice when it was announced that he would also adapt the next two books back-to-back. But then there was silence.... and probably studio interference.

What exactly happened is still unclear, but for some reason, a decision was made to skip book 2 and 3 and go straight to the fourth, written by David Lagercrantz after original author Stieg Larsson had died. Fincher (no stranger to studio indecisiveness since Alien 3) and his cast probably skipped town after that, so the studio decided (or had no other choice than) to do a "soft reboot" with a new cast and crew. And that didn't go flawlessly.

Fede Alvarez, the guy who made it rain blood in the Evil Dead remake, didn't exactly sound like the logical choice as director; then again, neither did Peter Jackson for Lord of the Rings. And Alvarez also made Don't Breathe, where he didn't shy away from an insane and dark twist at the end. Being originally a non-Hollywood director, he could have brought some unique sensibilities to the table. But alas, it wasn't meant to be, because The Girl in the Spider's Web just got the Hollywood treatment, and not in all the good ways.

Gone is the deliberately slow pace that gave ample opportunities for character development and world building. Where the previous movies fully integrated the Swedish environments into the storytelling as a character in itself, they are now mostly relegated to being extras. There is nice photography and some photogenic locations, but they feature mostly in brief establishing shots or as background (with the exception of one nice setpiece involving a vertical-lift bridge). Partially to blame are the film's excessive pacing and action, which leave little time to linger on the locale. Apparently, the makers thought it necessary to beef up the story with fast-edited, Bourne-like action and slick explosions. Now admittedly, it looks good on screen, but this is not necessarily the film for it, because the plot and characterizations noticeably suffer from this need to keep things constantly in motion.

The story feels kind of familiar: Lisbeth Salander agrees to help a client, but powerful criminals interfere and set her up for murder, making her intent on getting the perpetrators and staying out of the hands of the authorities. If you thought this sounds like The Girl Who Played With Fire (book 2), then the appearance of an unstoppable muscular blond guy will not be too surprising either. The problem, however, is that the thin plot comprises little more than everyone chasing a technological McGuffin. If it isn't easy enough to shoot holes in such a premise, the implausibilities and coincidences pile up throughout the story, like people with selective memories, and police cars that can conveniently track and control a random car by GPS. Towards the end, the movie starts to rely more and more on high-tech gadgets that belong in a James Bond or Mission Impossible movie. Granted, it makes for some pleasing action scenes, but it removes much of the vulnerability and humanity that the previous films were famous for.

The most unfortunate consequence of all that plot-driven storytelling and blockbuster treatment is that the characters remain so underdeveloped. Claire Foy is adequate as Lisbeth Salander, although her performance doesn't feel as lived-in as Rooney Mara's and definitely not as Noomi Rapace's (who got way too little credit for it). We are well aware of Lisbeth's capability to stand her ground, and seeing her take on a bunch of henchmen incidentally is always a joy. But re-inventing her as an action hero was a mistake, because it takes away from what makes her most interesting: a woman with a brilliant intellect and survival skills, trapped inside an antisocial mindset.

A bigger victim is Sverrir Gudnason as Michael Blomkvist: a seasoned veteran and determined, complex man in the previous films, he has been reimagined as an insecure rookie, hardly getting anything more meaningful to do than advance the plot when the script calls for it; everything that could have rounded his character more (like the situation at his work, his relation with Lisbeth or his affaire with a colleague) is immediately cut short.

But the shortest end of the stick goes to my fellow Dutchie Sylvia Hoeks, who was an adequate bad girl in Blade Runner 2049. Here, her character gets a minimum of motivation and some Freudian flashbacks to justify a ridiculous scheme that hardly makes any sense. So much more could have been done with her character other than filling the role of one-dimensional Bond villain.

In all fairness, director Alvarez and his fellow screenwriters incidentally find the right tone. The first scene between Lisbeth and Michael is both appropriately awkward and visually appealing; there is a nice and suspenseful scene on a bridge, and an airport scene where the fast editing and Lisbeth's inventiveness are used to great effect. Lakeith Stanfield of Get Out fame has one of the more grateful roles as an American NSA agent who will either be a burden or a an asset, something that plays out quite satisfactorily. And despite overrelying on technology, the climax is well executed, and at least better than the almost laughable final confrontation.

To summarize, this reboot has its moments, but unfortunately turns out as an overproduced and too well-polished action-thriller, where a slow-paced, raw drama-thriller would have been more effective. Especially with such strong characters that we have come to love over the years. Let's hope that the reverse will happen here, and the Swedes re-adapt the book on their own terms in the future.