Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Flickan som lekte med elden (The Girl Who Played with Fire) (2009)


The second installment in the increasingly-popular book series from Stieg Larsson, The Girl Who Played with Fire continues the dark, mystery-driven tale of ex-con hacker Lisbeth Salandar (Noomi Rapace) and investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist). Returning to Stockholm from a sunbathed stint at an island resort, Lisbeth quickly discovers she's been framed for murder.

The corpses in question are a couple who'd been researching a Southeast Asian sex-trafficking ring patronized by several influential Swedish men. One of them worked for Blomkvist's Millenium magazine, killed right before he would have published the names of several of the operation's powerful customers. Mikael instantly recognizes that Lisbeth isn't the murderer and searches through the sex ring's known names to find the truth, while she learns some surprising details about her absent family members.


While the first film was both an intriguing character study and intricate mystery- and primarily dealt with these themes separately- the sequel brings a new mystery that's much more personal for the characters and also much more action-packed. Unfortunately, this comes at the expense of further developing and showcasing the strengths of Lisbeth and Mikael. They spend 99% of the film apart, and she spends most of it alone and silent, so much of the narrative is Lisbeth running around trying to steal information from those involved in her frame-up, and Mikael running around trying to find Lisbeth through her sometime-lover Miriam and boxing partner Paolo (an actual real-life boxer). Meanwhile there are various gruff-faced henchmen set on taking them all out to protect the secrecy of their sex-trafficking ring. There really isn't much time for meaningful conversation or attention to character.

That being said, The Girl Who Played With Fire does work quite well as an intriguing mystery/thriller with its fast pace and menacing new villains. Lisbeth has plenty of chances to be badass and in control, which are the main qualities we all like about her, plus she goes undercover a few times with a hideous blonde wig! Exciting. As Mikael tries to track her down as well as find the real killer, he learns some shocking facts about her past and the life-altering incident that was only hinted in the first film. It was great to be given more insight into her history and personality, but I think the film missed an opportunity to have Lisbeth really respond to it. Mikael gains the information himself, and she is later confronted with an aspect of it (trying not to be spoilery, sorry), but it's never actually discussed.

I feel like I'm really bad-mouthing this film, but I thought it was quite good. I loved the action, mystery, and new characters, and was happy as long as Noomi Rapace was given a chance to shine as Lisbeth. It's a more straightforward kind of story than the first, and while enjoyable as a thriller, it misses some opportunities to focus more on its characters (poor Mikael basically becomes an information dump). Had this been a movie by itself without its more complex, nuanced first installment, I probably would have been wholly satisfied, but I couldn't help looking back to The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo while watching its sequel. I assume the book handles things better.

4/5

Original art for this film (available on etsy)

Further Reading:
Dark of the Matinee review
The Flick Chick review

7 comments:

  1. I love that you worry you're bad mouthing the movie even though you gave it a four.

    I was a little disappointed in this one but that's probably because I read the book first and loved it.

    Since you haven't read the books, I have a question for you: did you feel like there was a bit of an information gap between the end of Dragon Tattoo and the beginning of this one? I ask because the film version of Dragon Tattoo has a slightly different ending than the book and to me the film version of Played with Fire seemed more like it was picking up where the book version of Dragon Tattoo left off rather than the film version... I hope that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Norma: I remembered that the first film ended with Lisbeth wearing a blonde wig and going somewhere sunny, so the opening of the second one made some sense. I didn't understand all the stuff with her "Wasp" company and how she had so much money, though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I didn't much like the fist one. I mean, I wasn't really in any mood for it when I went to see it, so I could've been biased, but...

    Nice review, anyway. Lisbeth Salandar is awesome, that will help.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey there. Really like the review and the style in which it's written. Not seen the second movie yet and loved the first one but there was so much left out of the first one, and because the movie completely left out all of the neccessary sexual politics of the characters... I was wondering if they make clear in the second movie as to why the two characters are apart for the whole time from now on until, presumably, an epilogue scene in the third movie. That's not a spoiler if you've seen the second movie.

    In the first book SOMETHING happens to cause Salander to HATE Blomqkvist... she only kind of forgives him at the end of the third. She basically doesn't WANT to be found by him.

    The second book is the "action-packed rollercoaster ride" book of the original trilogy... so I guess they got that right then. Each book has a totally different tone from the others.

    Nice site and nice review lady! :-)

    NUTS4R2

    ReplyDelete
  5. Simon: this is quite different in tone and pacing than the first, so you might actually like the second better if you're up for a more thrilling, action-y movie.

    NUTS4R2: There's no indication in the films that Lisbeth hates Mikael for anything- I thought that she was staying low in the second film just because she wanted to work things out for herself and didn't really know how to reach out for help. She didn't want anyone to find her, not just specifically Mikael. I'll read the books eventually and find out what you're referring to, but I don't know that element would be left out of the movie adaptations!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ooh... yeah. There's loads of stuff missed out and certainly THAT stuff is something which I would have thought really needs to be in there because of the motivation of the various character. BNlomkvist has no idea why Salander's been incommunicado for so long.

    But i recently read somewhere the second and third movies had been cut down from a TV miniseries which was commissioned and then after the success of the first movie they cut it down for cinema? Or something like that. The first movie was great but would perhaps been better served as by being an hour longer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. NUTS4R2: Any adaptation of a book, especially one so long and complex, is going to be missing loads of information so that usually doesn't bother me as long as it's a good film. I think adding another hour to the first film (which was 2.5 hours) wouldn't be in the best interest of keeping it palatable. It would get more detail in from the book, which is great, but it would keep more people from watching/fully enjoying the movie. Then again I'm a person who will just read the book if I want more from a movie version, and I know not everyone else has the same approach!

    I heard the miniseries thing as well, but don't see that mentioned on imdb or wikipedia so I'm not sure.

    ReplyDelete