MovieChat Forums > Flickan som lekte med elden (2010) Discussion > Part One Was Better...

Part One Was Better...

posted 13 years ago by mhelpmann
27 replies | jump to latest

I thought that "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" was much better than "The Girl Who Played with Fire."

"Played with Fire" lacks three important elements that were strengthens in the first movie.

1) What I really enjoyed about the first film was the sexual dynamic between Lisbeth and Blomkvist. The partnership, which led to friendship, then love, in the first film wasn't there in the second film. Their relationship could not be developed, because they never share a glance, a kiss, or a face-to-face conversation in the entire film. While the first film felt more or less like a completed work, the second film felt more like a prequel to the third film.

2) The second element that was lacking in "The Girl Who Played with Fire" film was mystery. There was none in the second film. In the first film the audience is trying to determine 'who,' 'what,' 'when,' 'where,' 'how,' and 'why,' like a Agatha Christie novel. Nevertheless, in the second film the only question that the audience has is 'why.' Everything else is presented to the audience in a somewhat straightforward manner.

3) The third element that was lacking in the film was tension. In the first film, I was on the "edge of my seat." I was scared for Lisbeth and Blomkvist. The rape sequence in the first film, got my attention and held it. I was empathetic and scared for Lisbeth throughout the first film. Nevertheless, in the second film Lisbeth is fearless. It's comforting to know that she's invincible in the second film; however, it does significantly diminish the tension.

Cheers!
Helpmann :)

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Malgorzata64 13 years ago

5) plot is unconvincing, with too many holes and weak spots, for example, why does Lisbeth return to Sweden in the first place or why is Zala in 2009 all of a sudden so desperate to get hold of her 1993 police records?

I've tried to answer you "plot holes" in the thread you opened on the subject. Don't know if you cared to read the answers, but both "holes" you are mentioning here are not much of holes in the movie (in the TV cut anyway).

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bkosloskymd 13 years ago

Indeed, Lisbeth needn't ever to return to Sweden having stolen billions of krona.

And this is the biggest plot hole of them all. She's telling everyone that she's not working but traveling the world. Blomkvist is the only one who knows how she got her money. Why weren't the police the least bit suspicious, or at least her lawyer or Palmgren?

I think you could come to the realization that Larsson's interest was not isolated to the Lisbeth character but to the Swedish bureaucracy. If the first book was originally entitled Men Who Hate Women, the second and third could be thought of as Government Agencies that Hate Women. She had to come back for this plot to play out. Her mother was dead, and I'm sure she could have resettled somewhere else. That's just the way Larsson wanted to continue the story.

[Puss puss, Noomi.]

[–] Malgorzata64 13 years ago

Lisbeth returns to Sweden to stop Bjurman from removing his tattoos.

No, I don't think so. She learns about his plans to remove tattoo when she is already back in Sweden, so that cannot be her reason.

She returned for purely plot reasons. Without her returning there would be no story.

Or there would be a different story. I'm looking at it from her point of view, not from the author's point of view. It's like - why some people want to live in a certain place even if they don't have to? I think quite some people are attached to the country they were born in, even if they could live in a nicer or better place, objectively speaking. Perhaps Lisabeth was such a person?

Again, the same with Zala. I mean that he does give his reasons in the movie - it's explained. Now, you do not accept the explanation given in the book/movie, you would rather have different explanation or plot. That's another thing. But my point was that there is an explanation given.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Malgorzata64 13 years ago

Well, whatever. But to keep to the plot, I don't think she able to foresee that she will be in danger and risk of imprisonment after coming back to Sweden. My impression was that she was a bit surprised when she saw her picture and name in the tabloids. There was never an indication that she read horoscopes, let alone good ones, or had a crystal ball. At least a small hole in your reasoning, I think.

[–] realbullet 13 years ago

I'm going to back up Malgorzata. Not all of these plot points are very well explained, but neither are they holes.

Lisbeth's reasons for coming back to Sweden -- primarily because it is her home. We all get that longing after being away for awhile. You don't need any other reason. Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Zala trying to get ahold of Lisbeth's parole records after 15 years -- this is pretty simple: Bjurman contacts him, not the other way around. Bjurman is trying for away to get out from under Lisbeth's threats & he discovers the connection between Lisbeth & Zala. Until then there was no way for Zala to get information about Lisbeth. It wasn't very well explained in the movie (is in the book), but it is also not a plot hole.

Also, why is the cop Jewish? What's that got to do with anything?

Did you really write that? It is called character development.

Every movie board on IMDB has someone complaining about "plot holes" -- there is a difference between a hole & something that could be explained better; reason being is that every movie expects you to mentally fill in some of the gaps -- in some ways this is what makes movies fun. On the other hand, if you try to disparage a movie, you can always find these 'holes'.

I agree this adaptation is the worst of the three, but that doesn't make it a bad movie -- but if you compare it to the first one it is not as strong. There is still little interaction between Lisbeth & Mikael in the book, but many people find this book the best of the three. One of the reasons is the ending (that you hate so much). Instead of wrapping up all of the loose ends, Larsson ends with Mikael finding Lisbeth. It's a different approach, but it is effective. In a way it is annoying, but it is also an appropriate ending to this story.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] realbullet 13 years ago

I know you want to pick it apart, and I think you are not going to settle until everyone sees it your way -- but how did Neidermann know that Bjurman was going to be at the restaurant .... (I agree it isn't strongly developed, but that is not the same as a plot hole.)

Lisbeth had little to motive to return to Sweden.

Why is this even important? It is better to say that Lisbeth had little motive to stay away from Sweden.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] realbullet 13 years ago

Did you watch the same movie I did? None of your facts are correct. She stole money from an individual who is now dead. She was not on parole (nice try -- close, but also way off). She left in the first place to set up her out of country tax shelters and then just kept traveling (basically all around the world)

It is also not an action film. Wrong genre. Maybe that's why you didn't get it.

Yes, there was evil & depravity in the uber rich -- there was also (shock) some good people among the uber rich.

Here you go. Try some gene therapy. It turns out there is a gene to help determine your political disposition: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4396278/a-liberal-gene-/?playlist_id=87264 Of course according to Fox News it's a "liberal gene" (I guess that means there isn't a "conservative gene")

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] realbullet 13 years ago

You need to put that bong down, dumb bro.

whoa -- I'm the dumb bro?? That's funny, I'm the one that understands the plot.

Dumb bro (or is that bo?) that I am, even I know you have to be charged & arrested before you get put on parole. There are no outstanding charges against Lisbeth, she is not a fugitive. At the beginning of this movie there is not a single police official looking for Lisbeth Salander in all of Sweden. There is literally nothing to keep her from going back.

Did you really miss that???

Yes she is a ward of the state -- which is why Bjurman is dutifully filing her monthly paperwork proving that she is behaving well. This is not the same thing (at all) as being on parole.

The rest of your post is gibberish. Yes there is more crime among the poor, but that is not what this movie is about. If you want to watch movies about poor criminals, then go ahead. What does that have to do with this story?

I might be wrong, but I'm guessing there aren't too many American Negro ghetto's in Sweden. So it is unlikely that a Swedish story will encompass the American Negro ghetto experience. More than likely the criminals will be white Swedes. That was my expectation going into the movie -- did you expect American Negro ghetto criminals?

[–] Malgorzata64 13 years ago

There's more evil and violence among the poor than the rich, dumb bo.

That is an interesting point. Why?

There might be many reasons. I for one would cross out the notion that poor people are inherently worse than rich people. Actually, it might just be the other way around if we agree with the saying that power corrupts. But I don't know.

Poor people might be more prone to commit crimes just to survive.

Poor people might feel that the society they are living in isn't really their society. They are the one's who've been left out.

Poor people are easier to catch and convict - the way they commit crime might not be that sophisticated. It's easier to go after them.

Poor people might not have money to buy first class lawyers who will make sure they don't get convicted even if they do commit a crime.

Poor people don't have the same chances to influence the law system. Poor people have no means to hire expert lobbyist. For the rich they can influence those who create laws - they have means. I think many times the greatest thieves are rich and they walk around free. They might have committed a crime or not - if you can change the law so that your doubtful practices get a legal backing.

Don't blast me now for saying all the rich people are criminals - I'm not saying this.

I've read statistics about crimes committed by migrant in Sweden. They are overrepresented between the convicts. But to really say something about who commits how many crimes - what to speak about why - one has to also analyze each step from reporting crime, through police investigation, to conviction, and examine attitudes of people involved at every stage. It just might come out that the immigrants are more likely to be reported, investigated, convicted for crimes they commit - or don't commit - than the "real Swedes". The system or its representatives simply treats immigrants in a different way than natives. Or poor in a different way than rich. It's called double standards.

[–] frankey200 9 years ago

She didn't just want to return to Sweden, for no specific reason, as you argued. She returned for purely plot reasons. Without her returning there would be no story

Actually, she returned because her mother had died. And then she found out Bjurman was trying to remove his tatoos.... and he wasn't reporting on her properly, as she had instructed him.

[–] gmansi 12 years ago

You're review is great

The first movie was great I dont know if the second book is bad or if they just a bad movie from a good book

[–] crouss 13 years ago

Agreed that part one was better. But that film was so amazing, one of my favorites of the past 5 years, that it would be near impossible to sustain that pace.

"Fire" was certainly watchable, but it lacked the high tension and beautiful production values of the first. This one felt a little "cheaper" if you will.

I'm no prude, but that lesbian sex scene seemed totally out of place. I mean hey, it was hot, but it felt more like Basic Instinct for a minute and didn't seem to have a point within the film's context.

It became better as it went along, but nothing like the first.

SPOILER:

And the uh, "Lazarus" aftermath was really stretching suspension of disbelief.

[–] politicon2003 12 years ago

I beg to differ. Part two was every bit as good as part 1 and part three was even better. On has to watch al three parts in order from beginning to end-I did over three consecutive evenings at home- to appreciate what a great suspense thriller this movie is.

[–] Tomthespacetraveler 12 years ago

I just loved the first one so when I saw the second one on sale for five dollars I practically ran to the register to buy it, thinking it would be as good as the first. Unfortunately I was literally half-asleep for most of the movie. Pretty much nothing of interest happens after the first 20 minutes.

[–] gmansi 12 years ago

Fantastic review, I really enjoyed the first one but this is really bad

[–] Roger_the_Dodger 12 years ago

I think most people visiting this thread would aggree about part 1 being good/very good. However, part 2 was really bad.

5 silly things in first 5 mins:

1. Lizbeth returning to Sweden. There's been arguments already as to why she did, but from what I understand from looking at the films:
She returned because she discovers Bjurman's checking about tattoo removal. Would it not be a lot easier to threathen him by phone? And btw, she was being sought by the authorities, otherwise why wear a blond wig on arriving on her paradise hideout at end part 1?
2. She decides to go to Bjurman's apartment, and put a listening device in the letterbox, presumably to listen until he goes to bed and falls asleep, which would mean she'd be crouched outside his door for, what,an hour maybe? This was an apartment landing, with other doors clearly visible. Might seem a bit odd if one of the other tenants hapened to come out/go in, and her crouched on the floor with a device in his letterbox?
3. The next scene she's in his bedroom. How did she get in? This is an exterior door to an apart, with I presume, secure locks, she just happened to spirit herself through.
4. She sits at his desk, and starts rifling through his files, not quietly mind, while he conviently stays asleep in the next room, then just happens to discover a loaded revolver in his drawer.
5. After threatening him, she then puts the loaded gun down on the dresser, and walks out. It didn't occur to her that it might just occur to him to pick up said gun and blast her brains out, and claim she was an intruder?
I know she had the video hanging over him, supposadely should she die, but considering what she'd put him through in part 1, she's still taking a hell of a gamble. Would you leave a loaded gun beside someone you've tortured and threatened?

When I watched the 1st film, I thought it was very good, and on second viewing, thought the same.
When i saw the 2nd film initially, I thought it was very poor. As you can sometimes be in the wrong frame of mind for a certain movie at a certain time, I decided to give it another go. But after seeing the five silly things I've mentioned above on the second viewing, I turned it off after five minutes.
I was right first time!

[–] gmansi 12 years ago

Good review too!

[–] Monkey_Stew 12 years ago

The OP is dead on for why this isn't as good as the first one, imo. Still a good flick, but the first one was awesome.

youtube.com/grapejuicepictures

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sillyspaghetti 11 years ago

I slightly prefer the first one but I do still like this.

[–] chrono1217 10 years ago

I agree. I love the first one and hate the second one.