Flickan som lekte med elden is the sequel to the hit movie Män som hatar kvinnor, both based on the novels written by Stieg Larsson. And unfortunately, like many sequels, it fails to live up to the hype of the original. Still it is a good thriller. But it doesn't have a story as deep and complex as the first one, this time Salander gets accused of three murders. Someone from her past is trying hard to get rid of her. And her only defender is Mikael Blomkvist at the paper Millennium. Without the depth of the story it doesn't create the suspense, not quite the edge that Män som hatar kvinnor did. It works, but its not great. Also, in the first movie the character Lisbeth Salander was fresh sensation, this time she doesn't evolve as a character very much, and she doesn't feel as new anymore. However I liked Paolo Roberto and his character as himself. 6/10

I lasted just over a half hour with this "movie" featuring a talent-less actress sporting silver rings (plural) in her nose. That was a major distraction, but the film overall was dreadful and I decided not to waste more of my life on it. Those who have rated it so highly must have a penchant for asinine Swedish "movies", or perhaps are masochists. Whatever. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.

The first one was bad. This one is also bad. Of course there are always things that has to be cut in a movie version of a book. Much of the psychology has to go, but instead the film-maker can put his own language into it. In such rare cases, the movie can be an independent piece of art, on the same level or even better, than the original. It's definitely not like that here. But you could at least demand, that you should be able to see the movie and understand it, without having read the book first. In this case, that's quite difficult, even if Noomi Rapace certainly put some life, also in the psychological sense, to her character.

Even though I do not particularly like graphic movies, and think it really takes away from the rewatchability this is a good film. It's good despite the graphic scenes because it shows what abuse is like for many women. It also explains the possible true nature behind being a Lesbian and it's conflicts (still wanting men), and why a women might fall for an older man. It just makes a lot of sense how it's written, it almost has too much past, present, and future continuity. Also this has a great story line, it's more on the mystery side than action, but there is decent action in many different forms and much well though depth. I am anticipating the next film.

The second movie does not start as the second book of Steig Larsson's trilogy does, and we are the poorer for it. Book II begins with a stunning insight into Lisbeth's developing character: At the end of a year of settling into the new wealth she's appropriated by computer magic from the doomed bank accounts of a bad guy, and restlessly looking for purpose, she collaborates with a walloping Caribbean hurricane to relieve a woman of her abusing husband and deliver a native boy into safety. Thus established as a champion of the helpless, she heads back to Stockholm and the tangled web of her life, and to Nyquist. It's at this point that the movie starts - with only nod toward the Caribbean prelude. I wish the director had found a way to be true to Larsson's introduction.

This movie was horrible, the book is excellent. 4 for the movie 8 for the book. They skipped the entire beginning of the book which I thought was quite good. She's in the tropics, spying on her neigbours arguing, she finds a boyfriend. Hurricane Maltilba comes, she saves her boyfriend who was in a shack on the beach then saves a women and kills her husband who was trying to kill her. In a brilliant flash of lightning she sees the Finger of God, a huge tornado just off the coast in the middle of a hurricane. So they begin the film with her signing papers with a lawyer, then seeing her plane land in Sweden. This movie is a waste of time, so was the first one. I'm going to change the score from a 4 to a 2. Why is it scored 6.8 btw? probably because every person in Sweden voted it a masterpiece:rolleyes:...talk about grasping at straws.

The second of Stieg Larsons three books was the best to read of the three, and a total page turner. As a movie it is really poor. I didn't fall asleep watching the film, though, because I was too upset because of the missed opportunity for a great film this thing represents. The casting has some flaws that whacks the credibility. Especially Erika Berger and the blond giant are not true to the book. The screenplay is not flowing,but jumping about. Having read the book, I was still lost on occasion. There is something drab about the camera-work and lighting. You definitely have a feeling of cheap TV rather than big screen cinema watching this. The dialog and the acting in general is more so so than yeah. The one thing that the instructor, scriptwriter and producer have not messed up is the character of Libeth Salander played by Noomi Rapace. She is casted spot on, and gives credibility to the character of Lisbeth Salander. If you liked the book, read it again, don't watch this.

As I mentioned in my review of 'The girl with the dragon tattoo', this second installment was in my opinion, much better. The storyline runs smoother, it is better defined, more understandable and more in line with the novel. The first movie also tried to be truthful to the book but failed, maybe because the first book is far to introspective for a successful transposing to the big screen. In any case, all of the above is most probably also due to the change of the movie's Director. This second installment (as well as the third) is directed by Daniel Alfredson, who is primarily responsible for the above mentioned changes to the positive. All in all, this turned out to be a well made, nail-biting suspense thriller, very close to what the book was like. Well done!

To the extent that it matters this is a very close adaptation of the novel. The highlight as with the first movie is noomi rapace's performance. My favorite aspect of her interpretation of the character is how she doesn't merely walk, and she doesn't just merely occupy her space on the screen: she strides with purpose and confidence, and there is an almost male, teenage posture to all of her movements and moments of repose; all of which is very much in keeping with the way the character is described in the novels. Absolutely spot-on, fantastic acting. The only issue I have with the movie is the gratuitous, literally pornographic sex. Although it does happen from time to time, it is exceedingly rare for this sort of stuff to be important to character development or story, and the explicit sex in this movie, just as in the last one in the series, is needless and boring.

This movie lacked the it factor its predecessor had. In "The Girl Who Played With Fire" Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Grace) was set up for a triple homicide. Some of the same players of the "Dragon Tattoo" have returned which is another reason this movie doesn't have the same cashay. I don't particularly like sequels that are an extension of the first movie that was supposed to have been wrapped up. In this one Lisbeth and her knight in shining armor, Mikael Blomqvist (Michael Nyqvist), run around Sweden solving the crime of the real killer(s) in the triple murder to prove Lisbeth's innocence. The super-smart, tougher than nails, irresistible to men and women, slightly invincible Lisbeth does her thing again.