MovieChat Forums > Luftslottet som sprängdes (2010) Discussion > Worst movie of the three....

Worst movie of the three....

posted 13 years ago by raketex
63 replies | jump to latest

Just finished watching this one.

The first movie was the best with the odd characters, the edgy uncomfortable backhistory, and the unsettling mysterious conspiracy you just didn't know where it was going to end up. No, I hadn't read the books.

The first movie could stand on its own, easily.

The second movie expanded things a bit, but couldn't be quite as shocking or new because you already knew the main characters. Still a good story and movie; just not as good as the first.

Now this third movie - with all the hype purporting to tie everything up neatly, etc. Other than a few scenes, it just seemed uneven - dull in parts, jerking along, always waiting for the drama/action to start (which it rarely did), and oh yes, I suppose it did tie up the main threads but it was rather a dullish conclusion.

Not a "bad" movie as really bad movies go, just the weak sister in this trilogy.

[–] gthafis 13 years ago

I guess you are an american?

[–] kannita 13 years ago

As an American, loved all three! I never considered any of them as being action movies and do not believe they were as such. So happy to see that justice was FINALLY done! As far as the American version, I'll wait for the DVD.

[–] ozzieink 13 years ago

Yeah, #3 didn't live up to #1, but it tied up a lot of loose ends. Not much tension (we knew the DVD would be shown eventually and exonerate her) and the action scenes didn't quite work either: the shoot up at the restaurant and Lizsbeth being chanced by her brother. And then when the giant gets taken down, we don't even get to see it. But I read all three books and wanted to see all three movies too.

[–] Chops-4 13 years ago

Attn: gthafis

I agree somewhat with raketex in that I loved the first two but was a little less enthused with the third film despite its resolution of the issues and the satisfaction of revenge.
I too am American, but so what? How does being American figure into this opinion about these films?

[–] AlexCXII 12 years ago

You're so clever! Assuming that he's a stereotypical American "I wanted more guns and action!" cinema-goer! I've never seen a more witty response on IMDb!
Going on the style and content of the first two I was constantly waiting for something a little more dramatic to happen in this one too. Even when a life or death situation presented itself (Blomkvist's would be assassins, the 'what should have seemed more climactic' confrontation between Lisbeth and Ronald scene) it nowhere near lived up to a similar scene in its predecessors (for example Martin's attempted hanging of Mikael).
And he might be an American, but I'm a Brit, and you're a c|unt.

[–] raketex 12 years ago

I haven't revisited this discussion board since I originally wrote the lead comment, but:

1) Yes, I'm an American
2) But I enjoy and appreciate good movies of all types and eras
3) No, I don't have a particular prejudice against foreign, subtitled films, and
4) I gave full disclosure (I haven't read the books) and I based my opinion on what the movie-viewing experience was for me. This third movie just wasn't up to the pace and story-telling standards of the first movie nor of the second movie. YMMV

[–] andmafernandez 12 years ago

Well.. I loved this movies as a trilogy, also, not being from USA nor Europe I can be 'neutral'.. just kidding.. I concur with almost everyony saying the 3rd movie was the worst, but watching at it it's obvious everyone involved seem to habe rushed the whole production/script writing, etc....

Nevertheless, the 1st movie is excellent, both Swedish and American versions... so perhaps, being optimistic, and knowing what went bad with the 2nd and 3rd movies, perhaps, only perhaps, he'll know how to make a story we already know look more 'climatic' or epic in the end.....

Fintchner should really get the 2nd & 3rd book and do a 'remix', like the Lord of the Rings... where the last 2 novels were re-arranged to have a 'cinematic' pace and have the slow paced moments mixed with the action sequences....

[–] bmc239 11 years ago

what does the OP being American have to do with anything?

[–] skay_baltimore 11 years ago

I guess you are an american?

I guess you're an idiot/racist. This movie was clearly the worst, most boring of the three. And I enjoy slow paced, character study French, Italian, and Spanish films more than Hollywood "action" movies by a long shot. Get over yourself. You think that by spewing racist garbage it makes you some sort of film critic? Moron.

"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)

[–] seekingallthetime 8 years ago

I agree with skay_baltimore.
That guy gthafis is an idiot
The OP explained and compared the three films, and of course he is right. But to replay that with "I guess you are an american?" is totally idiotic, and it reveals the gthafis has nothing to reply in reasons and logics.
In my opinion, this film (the third) is a sleeping pill, nothing more.

[–] waldenpond88 8 years ago

I'm American and think that all 3 Swedish movies and the books are excellent, each in his own way.
I also enjoyed the Daniel Craig remake that so many people disliked.
The Millennium trilogy is so different from any thriller I've watched/read before.
Too bad that this extraordinarily talented author died, before he could write all 10 Salander novels...

[–] jloehrlein 13 years ago

The reason the series goes down hill is because the story moves to centering on Lisbeth. She's a wonderful supporting character the same way that Han Solo is a great supporting character in Star Wars, but as soon as the story is about her her charm falls apart.

Her role is to be the wild card or joker if you will. An unpredictable force stirring a cold and difficult situation. She can do this as long as the situation isn't about her. After the first book/movie Mikael and Lisbeth essentially switch roles where she becomes the protagonist and he becomes the wild card. This simply doesn't work as well because Mikael is the more approachable character and Lisbeth is more mysterious.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dac287 13 years ago

I thought it was a huge improvement over the second film. While the second book was better, the film TGWPWF had more of a TV movie feel for the first half in how it introduced the characters in such a perfunctory manner. The plot seemed paper thin and the animosity between Lisbeth and Mikael was never really explained. On top of that, it tried to be an action film, but the action sequences were really amateurish.

On the other hand, Alfredson really grew a lot more confidant with TGWKTHN and the movie had a steady hand that moved the action along nicely. While the plot is a lot less exciting than the first two, it is has a sense of impending doom. And the movie keeps that claustrophobic feel and actually improves on the book in many ways by removing lame subplots (Blomkvist sleeping with the cop, Berger pointlessly leaving Millennium only to return, etc.) and puts the drama of hacking the psychologist's computer near the end of the film. And when Alfredson got to shoot an action scene again at the end when Lisbeth faces her mutant brother...it was suspenseful. As was the restaurant shoot out.

While this movie focuses on Lisbeth and Mikael's relationship (more than the book), it doesn't sacrifice everything else in the process like the second movie did. While the first film is still the best because it is based on the best book and Oplev is a far better director than Alfredson, TGWTHN is a better movie than TGWPWF which was kind of underwhelming, in my opinion.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dac287 13 years ago

The second film/book is much flashier than the third one. And in the case of the books, the third novel drags on (it meanders a lot more than the movie) so I do concede the second book is better. But the story is very over the top and at times feels like Larsson was emulating Ian Fleming. In fact I guarantee it with references to "From Russia With Love" (the name of the dead journalist's book), a giant mutant brother who just so happens to have the 1 in 10 million disease that makes him imperevis to pain, while he is genetically also gifted as a 7-ft giant, and a father who has his face burned off and is a Machiavellian drug/prostitute dealing gangster. And in the book let's not forget that Lisbeth kills a wife beater in a hurricane as well at the start (not in the movie).

The third one is much more restrained. And the film improves on it by cutting out the fat of plodding subplots (Erika is harassed by a stalker...but one who works at another newspaper she moved to, causing her to move back to Millennium by novel's end; Mikael starts an affair with the lady cop) and focusing on the trial. They also create tension because Plague doesn't crack the evil shrink's computer until right before the third day of the trial.

It is a court drama, but has all the suspense and claustrophobia of a furious Lisbeth being trapped. Her coming out in a mohawk and ridiculously over-the-top/theatrical punk-goth rock regalia is her last act of defiance. And then she and Mikael out of nowhere flip the tables on the conspirators on bring them down. And you still have some taut, suspenseful sequences like when they try to assassinate Mikael or when Lisbeth finally runs into her brother again.

The second movie just began arbitrarily and did a bad job explaining why the characters are doing what they're doing for the first half hour or for that matter why Lisbeth isn't talking to Mikael (he broke her heart in the book, but it's not in the movie). And then they cut out the police side of the investigation as well as everyone at Millennium and it just is Lisbeth kicking ass, having sex, kicking more ass and then Blomkvist shows up at the end when she's hurt. And the said ass-kicking is awkwardly directed.

The second film is the only one that I think could use a remake of the three Swedish films already made.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rckland 13 years ago

I agree with the original poster to a T. The first film blew me away; the second a little less so; this one almost put me to sleep. Very little action, the scenery was dull, mostly indoors, & the grand finale with Lisbeth & her brother was VERY anticlimactic! Then the movie just ended with very little denouement. I understand that the author died, planning 7 books, so it's understandable that this is meant to be part of a larger whole, but still...very disappointing!!

[–] tschelmetic 13 years ago

The movie suffered from trying to cram too much into too small a time slot. The book was superb (I thought it was the best of the three) and had a wonderful build up and ultimately satisfying knock-down of all the well-placed dominoes. Even at two and a half hours of run time, they were only able to address about 55 percent of the book, which made it confusing for whose who haven't read the books, and left those of us who have read them feeling a little short-changed. They might have considered turning it into a Part One and Part Two, as is being done with the final books of both the Twilight and Harry Potter franchises. Aside from that, and as with the first two films, the performances were superb.

[–] ljriffel 13 years ago

Agree with the OP. My Danish wife and I both thought the first two films were fast(er) paced and left us quite satisfied. Except we both agreed that being shot multiple times and buried SHOULD mean you are dead. Third one should be the big finish but left us both saying whaaaaa??? as the credits roled. Still better then most films we rented recently. Cheers.

[–] LuckyMatt93 13 years ago

Yeeeah, not really.

"You don't know what death is" - Samuel Loomis (Halloween II)

[–] tstraton 13 years ago

The third movie had very good suspense all of the way through and built very effectively to a very satisfying conclusion. I was entertained and enjoyed it as much as the previous two movies. I don't understand the comments of it being slow or dull....far from it! It's an excellent finale to a wonderful trilogy.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Naldoman 13 years ago

I agree with you Blues -- this film was like a 2 hour denouement. Everything is wrapped up and there are lots of answers to questions I never felt the need to ask.

The first film is great. The second is OK and puts Lisbeth in control of her destiny to deliver payback - OK. The resolution is murky, but I'm okay with it. Once you take an axe to someone, I think catharsis has been achieved.

The third film is well-produced, but without a real point other than wrapping up a few loose ends and showing the "bad guys" go to jail. Huh? So.

Just so unnecessary, like making a two-hour film about Indy Jones soaking in a tub and grading homework after recovering the ark. Yeah, so....???

[–] adamseven7 13 years ago

Have to agree with this, just watched the third, and am of the same mind
they rank in their chronolgical order IMHO, dragon was best, fire was very good, not too far behind dragon, and hornets a deserving last, more of a gap between 2 & 3 than 1 and 2

_________
H is pronounced Aitch NOT Haitch !