Who do you think should play Salander in the hollywood movie?
I'm thinking Ellen Page...
Will there ever be one?
The movie of Tattoo is very good; I look forward to the Swedish versions of the other two books. I also suspect that the Hollywood versions will be false to the originals. Who's going to play Lisbeth? Scarlett Johansson? And would George Clooney play Blomkvist? That would sell but strike a false note. Larsson's work is powerful because it rings so true.
"If" I see any of the movie(s) - I'd rather see the Swedish version(s) - subtitles and all. I just can't see American Hollywood doing justice to these books. The only downside to movies about books like this is the director somehow believes the only way to tell the story is in so much darkness - I can usually barely see what's going on [sigh] So - I'm better off to have read the books anyway.
I understand that the choices have been narrowed down t Anne Hathaway and Natalie Portman. I think Anne is way to cute and perky but Natalie showed some ege in V for Vendetta so maybe she could pull it off. I can't wait for the next 2 swedish movies either. No american will be as good as the actors in Tattoo.
Gosh, maybe Reese Witherspoon as a brunette? They have to been spunky and petite--and I don't think Anne Hathaway fits but maybe Natalie Portman. Or Pink could make her movie debut!
I really liked the first two "The Girl..." books. Is the third just as good?
I thought the third was really the best. I enjoyed all the them. I've read that Carrie Mulligan (An Education) is highly considered for Lisbeth role. I think Clooney would be fine for the Blomkvist. I'm sure the Hollywood version will stay true to the cigarettes and coffee that are used so frequently in the the books.
This was also my favorite of the three, namely because of a better pace. There was always something going on throughout the novel. I'm happy I went for the hardcover, worth not having to wait! :)
Actually the third was my least favorite. The first was BY FAR my favorite of the three. If you read my review I've gone into specifics as to what I feel is wrong with the third one but very quickly:
1: There's almost NO Salander and Blomkvist together, which is important;
2: Blomkvist's ladies' man persona becomes ridiculous with his relationship with Figuerola;
3: It rehashes too much over and over that has already been said in the second book about Lisbeth's past.
If you really liked the first two in the Millenium series, you really have to read the third! All the "loose ends" come together in this book and that's the reason why I don't think it's quite as good as the first two. However, it's gripping and it gives you the resolution that you won't have felt at the end of the second!
This was a brilliant read, couldn't put it down. But I have a question that's been niggling me: how did Salander engineer the relapse with headache and fever giving her Doctor a 'legit' reason to keep her from being discharged to a prison?
I think she really felt bad. No fake/tricks.
He was lying for her. Remember when she talked to Jonassan and said that given a few months she could turn him into an anarchist? She had asked him to lie for her. We just weren't privy to the meat of that conversation. Kind of like Blomkvist's proposition to Ghidi.
Did you guys hear the story bout Larsson?
And he was working on a fourth book!!
I only have one chapter left to read in this book. I've been dragging it out, not wanting to finish because I know they'll be no more "The Girl" books since Larsson is deceased. I loved the first book, loved the second book, & the third book, I think is a continuation of the second book.
I love these books!
His fourth book is on his laptop which his girlfriend is not releasing until the legal issues with his family are cleared. Rumor has it that there are outlines for the 5th and 6th books.
I guess I'm out of step with the rest of you. I Loved the first two (some of the best I have ever read) but this one could have been condensed into 250 pages. The first half, except for a few tid-bits, was totally political intrigue and sounds like Larsson's own view of Swedish politics. I was more interested in the characters. He is obviously Blomkvist, as he was editor -in-chief of Expo magazine and ditto Blomkvist of Millennium. In my opinion, to have to "plow" through the first half of this book to get to the denouement was asking a lot from the reader.
liked this one, didnt love it, loved the second one still a good read
I'm about 100 pages away from finishing this one and while I really like it, one thing I really can't stand about this third book is the relationship between Blomkvist and Figuerola. It's driving me crazy!! Not only is she ridiculously jealous every time he mentions another woman, it's not necessary at all to the plot. I get that Blomkvist is supposed to be a ladies' man and all but ugh. The whole thing is just irritating. Oen thing missing from the second book was scenes between him and Salander, which I thought was the point and they were leading up to a reunion, not necessarily romantic, but a reunion nonetheless because they have great chemistry, in the third book. But nope! Hardly any interaction! Instead he's flitting about with this Figuerola. Ugh!!
Am I alone here?
Nope, you're not. The author's wife actually mentioned in an interview (I think it was the New York Times) that they themselves thought Blomkvist's wily, womanizing ways a little contrived, but in the end they decided to keep it because they were afraid that Lizbeth would just overwhelm Blomkvist as a character. I think the relationship with Figuerola was supposed to develop that "facet" of Blomkvist as a character, and that it was just handled clumsily.
Found it: "In the books, Blomkvist's only flaw, if you can call it that, is a sex life that is the stuff of male fantasy. He is so attractive to women that they are always hopping into bed with him. Eva Gabrielsson says that's merely a fictional device. 'It's just a way of opening up the character,' she told me. 'He had to be interesting in some way. Without that he would have been a shadow next to Lisbeth Salander, which he was anyway.'"
Thanks hairlessorphan. I agree that Larsson made him TOO much of a ladies' man. But the problem with Figuerola, as opposed to the other women his sleeps with, in my opinion is she becomes too obsessive about him and too needy and it's ridiculous. But Figuerola on the whole was turned into an annoying character mostly because of her relationship with Blomkvist.
I suppose I got the impression from Blomkvist's womanizing and Larsson's writing in general is that Swedes live in a dismal grey area of the world and there is nothing else to do but shack up with whomever will have you. I didn't find the relationship with Figuerola particularly annoying though. In fact, I barely remember that part of the book. The writing is quite masculine throughout all three books, and I would understand if the female characters are difficult to relate to. I personally found Salander to be almost ridiculous since she is some sort of an idiot-savant / action hero / talented investigator / counter-culture Generation Y figure who is good with new-fangled computers.
I think that all that has been explained in the comments justifies the relationship between the two. Thanks guys for the research.
Still I too found it to be a bit too much. For some reason I feel that this book was not well edited. In my opinion, there were too many things going on that didn’t need to be included. The relationship (or at least with that many details), the toilet story and all of the descriptions about the history and each new character added. I didn’t need to know why they joined the SAPO just that they did and how they were involved in the main plot.
Good editing can make or break a book just as much as a movie. There are things you need to know to submerge yourself in the plot. There are things that don’t add anything. It’s like noise in the background.
Don’t know, I was a bit bothered by the third book. I was good just a bit over the top.
Then am I the only one who thought Figuerola's relationship with Blomkvist was a good thing?
He had relationship issues. He had trust issues. He says over and over that friendship is based on trust. He seems to feel that trust is based (largely) on intimacy.
Also, things typically work out for Blomkvist. He was in the relationship he wanted, Millennium was what he wanted (before all this started, and it was coming back that way). His investigations worked out... etc.
What he did not know in his life was that wanting something bad enough, working hard enough, was not always good enough. There are things he could not have.
Lizbeth made him re-evaluate what he could consider a trusting relationship. Figuerola's purpose was to bring that around to say, "This is not the kind of relationship you can just take for granted. Normal people do not boink whomever is handy."
He had to make a conscious decision to move on to a healthy romantic partnership and move on. He wanted Lizbeth because he could not have her. Everyone else was convenient, and represented how things were always easy for him. Figuerola was the resolution in his life that showed us that he grew up.
It would have been a shame if he and Lizbeth "hooked up" again. It was the wrong kind of relationship.
llevinso - I was so happy to see this post; I was also really bothered by the Figuerola / Bloomkvist relationship. Probably much more that I should have been for what wasn't even a major part of the story. I didn't expect him to end up with Lisbeth, but I just couldn't bring myself to like Figuerola. I was glad that she wasn't mentioned in the final parts of the book.
Should read this this a good book?
If you haven’t then try out the first one “The girl with the dragon tattoo”, reading this one, makes little sense being that it is the last of the series.
You can read the third without having read the other two but you miss the closure. And out of the three this is the one that is liked the least, I think.
Did not like this as much as the first two in the series. I think because I did not respond to Figuerola.
Not so much. It seems it was not edited enough. He always writes long complicated explanations but this one had unrelated subjects as well, and though interesting, unnecessary. Example the toilet story.
The three books in this series are very good reading. I've seen the Swedish film version of the first book and loved it. I wonder if the American version can be as good.
After I finally got around to seeing the film, I believe that there is room for improvement. I agree with many of the things left out, but not everything. That being said, the American version could go either way. There (I think) had been a push ever since the Lord of the Rings film to keep as much of the spirit of a book intact when translating it to screen play. People are less forgiving of excessive license and these books have a strong reader following.
I'm still reading this, and so far its been dragging too much. Hoping it gets better!
There is that part with the history that does go on a bit, but yes, it really does get better. The thing with this one is, in my opinion, that this one tells us more than it shows us. Not my fave of the three, but well worth it for the ending. It is still great.
Anyone know why they stuck with this title? The first two of the trilogy made sense to me, but this one, not so much.
I thought the Hornets' Nest was a euphemism for SAPO. It was never referred to as that, though.
i guess that makes sense, all the other titles were so obvious that i was waiting for this one to be just as apparent...
I agree with Jeannette B here that it is referring to SAPO - rather, all that secret stuff. This may have been something that came 'round in the translation, but I seem to remember the reference was made near the end of The Girl Who Played With Fire and thinking, "that's an understatement."
I got it to mean SAPO as well ... kicking the nest that released all the secrets that they didn't want to surface. It could've been called "The Girl Who Opened Pandora's Box" or "The Girl Who Opened the Can of Worms." :) jk
Why should I read this book?
I loved all three of these books and could hardly put them down. What a great writer...so sorry he is dead.
I just finished this book the other day and was diappointed with some of the loose ends. Firstly, what was the point of all that math discussion in the 2nd book, and the a^3 + b^3 = c^3, if the solution was never revealed and then Salendar just forgot the answer. Very frustrating.
Also, I really wanted to know where her twin sister was. Larsson introduced and delved deep into the background of all these secondary characters in the 3rd book but her sister never shows up? Didn't like that either.
All in all, definitely my least favorite of the 3 and the endless background and history of SAPO was aggravating. I just wanted to get back to what the main characters were up to!
It was the least of my favorite of the three books. One reason why I read it quickly, was because it was the first book I read on my kindle. There were parts as you said that just dragged on. I think the second book was my favorite.
I think the point of the Fermat was to show that the main character was some kind of math prodigy. The guy who actually cracked it took 10 years and it required knowledge of fields of higher math most people never see, so either she was a super genius, or she only thought she had it. Larsson couldn't have explained it to us in a crime novel.
Just PERFECT. 10 stars from me !