Why regardless of what anyone says? People can only speak for themselves. I simply won't accept that I can't read body language and the subtitles at the same time - some of us read faster than others. I was used to reading a lot for my English degree so that could be part of it. I quickly read the words and have ample time to still look at the acting.
Good for you!
Yes the words are always there first, the cast wait for viewers to read them, then get on with the acting.
I've only seen the first film (and not even the US remake) and thoroughly enjoyed it (well...some bits aren't exactly enjoyable but you know what I mean).
Why regardless of what anyone says? People can only speak for themselves. I simply won't accept that I can't read body language and the subtitles at the same time - some of us read faster than others. I was used to reading a lot for my English degree so that could be part of it. I quickly read the words and still have ample time to look at the acting. I've not seen any of the Guardian crowd on the various series blogs complain that they can't do both properly either.
The only thing with subtitles is that one glance away from the screen and you miss things lol
I'm bi lingual (welsh and english) so I think that helps with understanding languages a bit more.
Never had a problem with reading the subs in time but I do tend to read quickly:D
I think there were some cuts also between Blomkvist and his editor in bed but I may have just missed those scenes...
Preferred the original version, but can anyone confirm if there was some severe editing in the C4 version last night?
Ta
I put in the other thread that the films are cut down from the original TV mini series versions, which are 2x90 minutes so 180 minutes per book / film. These are available on DVD and BD in the UK but should appear on TV at some point.
They released as films first to maximise revenue before they showed the TV versions in Sweden.
I had to put subtitles on for the remake! so much mumbling you just cant hear what they are saying, then the same goes for a lot of films & series these days.
I taped The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo on Boxing day and will tape the Hornet's nest tonight but I forgot last nights Played with Fire. Does anyone know if the second film wil be repeated on C4 soon?
thanks
Thanks in advance.
I taped The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo on Boxing day and will tape the Hornet's nest tonight but I forgot last nights Played with Fire. Does anyone know if the second film wil be repeated on C4 soon?
thanks
Thanks in advance.
They should appear on Film 4, as at least GWADT has been on there recently. Not sure about the other 2.
Well ... now all three have been on, does anyone else find the second two more like run-of-the-mill american chase thriller and courtroom drama?
The first film feels like a quality standalone whodunnit with inserted shock scenes, and the next two seem to have been written to drag out the characters and finish up with a neat ending.
Meh.
First one was very good, mind.
then it cuts to an ad break with 2 ppl in bed. did c4 know what they where doing ?
way to spoil the film
I noticed that too. I thought I might be the only one who did.
But I thought what are Channel 4 playing at?
It was as though some comedy sketch show was doing a parody on how tactless and tasteless a TV channel could be when switching to the adverts from a dramatic scene.
Surely somebody at Channel 4 must have seen this coming?
A grueling brutal rape scene swiftly followed by the scene in an advert of a couple in bed laughing and smiling?
What on earth were Channel 4 thinking? Or were they thinking at all?
Well ... now all three have been on, does anyone else find the second two more like run-of-the-mill american chase thriller and courtroom drama?
The first film feels like a quality standalone whodunnit with inserted shock scenes, and the next two seem to have been written to drag out the characters and finish up with a neat ending.
Meh.
First one was very good, mind.
I enjoyed all three of them.
No I wouldn't call the second two run of the mill.
Due to them being in the thriller genre there's going to be some tropes that are familiar with the genre. But they did them well enough for them to not be cliched.
For example I dislike courtroom dramas because I suspect like you I find them to all use the same formula. In Hornets Nest I think they did the courtroom scene very differently from how you normally see it done in generic bog standard films.
I think the second two films were also good films in their own right because they did a great job of progressing the story of Lisbeth and we see the story of her character evolve.
I'm still on the first film but lots of reviewers on IMDB seem to share your view - at least about the second one anyway.
The 2nd book like middle story of many trilogies seems to only exist to set up the 3rd one. Does not really have a satisfactory ending as just seems to end.
As I said previously the 2nd and 3rd films were made by the same director back to back and should really be considered one film. In fact they were just episodes 3 to 6 of the original extended miniseries format (which you can get on DVD).
Full marks to Channel 4 for showing the trilogy on successive nights. Great stories, excellent acting and cinematography. Eat your heart out Daniel Craig! Definitely the event of Xmas TV.
I can't believe in this day and age that people still moan about subtitles. :eek:
In my opinion the Swedish film trilogy is far superior to the Daniel Craig film, which seemed to have missed the point about Lisbeth, and made her into a petulant kid, instead of a victim turning into a strong woman.
Brilliant stuff and well worth seeing all three films.
Wulfster, I agree 100%.
I seem to be in a minority, as according to IMDB, the first part was the best followed by the latter two.
To my mind, the major flaw in the first film was the idea that a killer had been sending pressed flowers for 40 years when it would have been damned obvious to everyone else that it was a sign that the girl was still alive.
As such, I found the whole premise of the first film flawed. I still enjoyed it but did wonder why it was seen as such a materpiece.
Luckily, I decided to give the last two films a go and I'm really pleased I did (my Xmas TV mag implied that it went downhill, especially The Girl who Stirred up a Hornet's Nest).
I enjoyed them far more than the first film and I agree that it revolved around Lisbeth. I especially loved the scene when she made her first appearance in court.
I thought that the last two films in the trilogy were far superior to the first one.
I also liked the way they ended it. No Hollywood ending in sight!
To my mind, the major flaw in the first film was the idea that a killer had been sending pressed flowers for 40 years when it would have been damned obvious to everyone else that it was a sign that the girl was still alive.
I started by reading the books, and the first has the same flaw. It also tries to present her disappearances as a locked-room mystery, when I could think of numerous ways she could have got off the island. (Especially if someone helped her - if she were eloping with a boy, for example.)
I'm in even more of a minority in that I think I prefer the American version of the film. The Swedish one may be better on Lisbeth, but gets a lot else wrong.
I know a few people from abroad and they say that watching, for example, Lord of the Rings dubbed into their own language doesn't even compare to the the original English version. And watching something like Borgen (really looking forward to tonight!) dubbed into English would just sound weird and distracting. Dubbing<subtitles for me
Roddy she just hid and nailed his feet to the floor ... totally unrealistic mind,
He feels no pain but nobody implied he was a deaf cretin : which must've been the case for the final scene. Very american, very disappointing.
I had to put subtitles on for the remake! so much mumbling you just cant hear what they are saying, then the same goes for a lot of films & series these days.
I have to have subtitles on for a lot of films, especially American ones, as although I don't wear a hearing aid my hearing is poor when it comes to listening to conversations, so watching the Swedish trilogy with subbies on didn't bother me in the slightest. I am a very fast reader, though.
Loved all three films! Haven't read the books yet, must do that too.
Comments
Good for you!
Yes the words are always there first, the cast wait for viewers to read them, then get on with the acting.
Ta
I've only seen the first film (and not even the US remake) and thoroughly enjoyed it (well...some bits aren't exactly enjoyable but you know what I mean).
To be fair, I didn't think the remake was too bad..it was better than most anyway.
But I agree, the original was by far the superior film.
I've only seen the original version on my DVDs.
Some of that content, particularly the rape scene might have been cut.
The running time of the DVDs, are;
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, 152 mins.
The Girl Who Played With Fire, 124 mins.
The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, 140 mins.
If you check with the running time of the TV programnme minus the adverts, you could get an idea how much if any has been cut out.
The only thing with subtitles is that one glance away from the screen and you miss things lol
I'm bi lingual (welsh and english) so I think that helps with understanding languages a bit more.
Never had a problem with reading the subs in time but I do tend to read quickly:D
I think there were some cuts also between Blomkvist and his editor in bed but I may have just missed those scenes...
I put in the other thread that the films are cut down from the original TV mini series versions, which are 2x90 minutes so 180 minutes per book / film. These are available on DVD and BD in the UK but should appear on TV at some point.
They released as films first to maximise revenue before they showed the TV versions in Sweden.
thanks
Thanks in advance.
Down with this sort of thing!
Seriously, which episode of Father Ted did you escape from?
They should appear on Film 4, as at least GWADT has been on there recently. Not sure about the other 2.
The first film feels like a quality standalone whodunnit with inserted shock scenes, and the next two seem to have been written to drag out the characters and finish up with a neat ending.
Meh.
First one was very good, mind.
K
I noticed that too. I thought I might be the only one who did.
But I thought what are Channel 4 playing at?
It was as though some comedy sketch show was doing a parody on how tactless and tasteless a TV channel could be when switching to the adverts from a dramatic scene.
Surely somebody at Channel 4 must have seen this coming?
A grueling brutal rape scene swiftly followed by the scene in an advert of a couple in bed laughing and smiling?
What on earth were Channel 4 thinking? Or were they thinking at all?
I enjoyed all three of them.
No I wouldn't call the second two run of the mill.
Due to them being in the thriller genre there's going to be some tropes that are familiar with the genre. But they did them well enough for them to not be cliched.
For example I dislike courtroom dramas because I suspect like you I find them to all use the same formula. In Hornets Nest I think they did the courtroom scene very differently from how you normally see it done in generic bog standard films.
I think the second two films were also good films in their own right because they did a great job of progressing the story of Lisbeth and we see the story of her character evolve.
I'm still on the first film but lots of reviewers on IMDB seem to share your view - at least about the second one anyway.
The 2nd book like middle story of many trilogies seems to only exist to set up the 3rd one. Does not really have a satisfactory ending as just seems to end.
As I said previously the 2nd and 3rd films were made by the same director back to back and should really be considered one film. In fact they were just episodes 3 to 6 of the original extended miniseries format (which you can get on DVD).
Wulfster, I agree 100%.
I seem to be in a minority, as according to IMDB, the first part was the best followed by the latter two.
To my mind, the major flaw in the first film was the idea that a killer had been sending pressed flowers for 40 years when it would have been damned obvious to everyone else that it was a sign that the girl was still alive.
As such, I found the whole premise of the first film flawed. I still enjoyed it but did wonder why it was seen as such a materpiece.
Luckily, I decided to give the last two films a go and I'm really pleased I did (my Xmas TV mag implied that it went downhill, especially The Girl who Stirred up a Hornet's Nest).
I enjoyed them far more than the first film and I agree that it revolved around Lisbeth. I especially loved the scene when she made her first appearance in court.
I thought that the last two films in the trilogy were far superior to the first one.
I also liked the way they ended it. No Hollywood ending in sight!
I'm in even more of a minority in that I think I prefer the American version of the film. The Swedish one may be better on Lisbeth, but gets a lot else wrong.
He feels no pain but nobody implied he was a deaf cretin : which must've been the case for the final scene. Very american, very disappointing.
I have to have subtitles on for a lot of films, especially American ones, as although I don't wear a hearing aid my hearing is poor when it comes to listening to conversations, so watching the Swedish trilogy with subbies on didn't bother me in the slightest. I am a very fast reader, though.
Loved all three films! Haven't read the books yet, must do that too.