Purely Joyful Movie!

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Had I known the combination of screen writer Steven Zaillian (Gangs of NY '95) and director David Fincher (Fight Club' 99) were involved with this sour mess I would have stayed away. Many people who paid good money to see this must have come away wishing they had not. The director tells us he is drawn to works that 'scar' the audience, a sure recommendation for like minded masochists. I see several reviewers have said 'it leaves you wanting to cleanse yourself'. I see their point. The most accurate mainstream critical notes on this came from the N.Y.Post where Kyle Smith was brave enough to label it: "rubbish" - commenting that it "demonstrates merely that masses will thrill to an unaffecting, badly written, psychologically shallow and deeply unlikely pulp story so long as you allow them to feel sanctified by the occasional meaningless reference to feminism or Nazis." I have to agree 'Bravo Kyle' as do many other astutely observant user reviewers! As the lead, Daniel Craig largely seems uninvolved or simply embarrassed that the writer presents him as one of the dumbest private detectives on screen. Enter the 'girl' – she also never learns and makes the same mistakes several times (with the same vile character) leaving her a victim to hideous sexual abuse – it becomes obvious both writer and director are living out their lurid sick fantasies with unnecessarily gratuitous details, giving one or both away seriously.The sudden U turn by the 'girl' for no truly convincing reason - going from a man hating lesbian to 'totally-in-love' with the detective, is yet another excuse for the makers to overload their already weak script with multiple sex scenes for the unwashed. Add to this, an overly convoluted script with so many manipulative elements that it at times becomes laughable (except it's all too grotesque). This typifies the commonality of the academy and trendy critics with their out-of- touch stance with many audience attitudes. As others have already said: Please, don't remake the follow up stories - leave well enough alone. For those who don't mind what pollution they put into their heads, this might please, others may care to look elsewhere.

The girl with the dragon tattoo (2011), based off a novel, and a Swedish film, is a very dark interesting film. It's full of disturbing twisted people and the whole plot centers around a family that did horrible things in the past. These bad/disturbing things are rehashed when a journalist (Daniel Craig) is hired by the family patriarch (Christopher Plummer) to solve a murder of a 17 year old female relative that occurred 40 years ago. Daniel Craig enlists the help of a state ward (Rooney Mara) to assist him in researching exactly what happened to this teenage girl. The plot/trailer combined with the stellar reviews is what attracted me to this film, and I'm glad I was attracted to it. First of all, the performances by Mara, Craig, Penn, and Plummer are all incredible and on point. Mara's performance should be especially recognized, gosh did she ever deserve that academy award nomination. Her character is so raw and rough and complicated, and she plays it wonderfully throughout. I 100% recommend this movie to all mature audiences. Notice I say MATURE audiences, the rape scene is graphic and is sure to disturb, keep that in mind if you can't take that stuff, and there are several other graphic sexual scenes with extensive nudity. Just keep in mind that this is meant to be a very rough dark film, due to the subject matter. 8/10 for the girl with the dragon tattoo.

"Millenium - the men who did not love women," for that is, what a strong name, just as the film is also strong, with a seven-faced and a zoadic painted, fincher's investigative suspense hits again. We have here a very well worked script, not only in the construction and immersion of what is being investigated, but in the construction of an environment as a whole, its two protagonists are spectacularly presented and developed, all their nuances and dikes are shown, not always Played in the viewer's face, but for those who are paying attention, he perceives everything that guides our protagonists, just as the Vanger family, all their hatred of inheritance, their feuds and disagreements are extremely immersive, fault of this excellent fincher script that tells the story of Mikael Bomkvist (Daniel Craig) and Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a man who lives within social standards but is professionally discredited and a woman living out of social standards very professionally credited, the two unite to investigate a case in a family, Where there has been a disappearance more than 30 years. The film talks about invasion of privacy, domestic violence and abuse in a rough way, is like a punch in the stomach, the character of Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) is incredible, a Gothic, with a completely opposite look of what is described in Social conventions that fight against itself in a search for something real. Technically, the film is very good, first the photography, we have nothing from another world, but the photography is always sober, gray, with darker tones, very traditional Fincher films, except in moments of flashbacks, there the Lighter tones take over, the film is clear and with a paler color palette, we can observe a care in this matter in every film, and the soundtrack is always sagacious, nothing memorable, but it is there, always. Rooney Mara, accustomed to cute roles is here completely decharacterized, and makes a very sober acting, just like her partner. Finally, "Millenium - Men who did not love women" is a movie that pleases.

Overall, I thought this movie did a good job of representing the major events of the book in a more concise way. I was glad that the director chose not make a 600+ page book that at times was hard to read into a multiple hour movie. Sitting through that would not have been pleasant. That said, given that I have read the book, I felt there were a few parts in the plot that could have been made more clear in this adaptation - namely the bulk of the investigation leading up to the climax of the story...it felt a little bit rushed to me the way they skipped out on what I felt was a more natural chain of events; instead they included a scene with a character that was not in the book to move things along.I did however appreciate the fact that the film toned down some of the more graphic scenes of the book...they were appalling to read, let alone be shown on screen and I appreciated that the point was made without showing too many of the gory details. I have to mention a few other things besides my commentary on the film-book differences: I really enjoyed the casting of this film. I thought it was superbly cast all the way around. Though admittedly some of my favorite characters from the book had smaller parts, I was still pleased with how everyone looked. And I can only chalk it up to the casting that surprisingly Daniel Craig's British accent surrounded by everyone else's Swedish accent still somehow worked. Also it is worth mentioning that the opening credits are absolutely amazing. I thought they captured the tone of the book so incredibly well and were mesmerizing to watch. I would recommend this movie to someone based on the credits alone, though with the caveat that this film, even certain aspects of the credits, is really not for those with a light stomach.