cptgaio

Ps. Anyway, if you base your reviews on what people say in forums, you should start to abstain. Knowing your opinion, and nothing more (if you ever have one), would be a small step forward.

Puni, you are ignorant (in whatever sense you want to understand the term) regardless of whether you know something, I strongly doubt it. As for your objections, I don’t need, like you (who have a life only online), to browse websites or forums, because I know many people, in flesh and bone (and many who know Cinema professionally) who can tell me directly what they think, and as mentioned, the discussion is neither infamous nor praiseworthy, but the point is another, and it’s not the film but your review that fails because it’s based on weak assumptions and moreover on things you obviously cannot discuss because you are "not aware of the facts". As for the rest, if your world is solely online (therefore your only source), I advise you not to limit yourself to Italian sites but to broaden your horizons so you might occasionally get some correct information (and refer to it). Then I would feel inclined to tell you that you should start reviewing things you have seen, listened to, or read (or, in this case, to limit yourself in talking about things like the book with blank pages that you reviewed some time ago) seriously, but I’ve already done that elsewhere. Now come and sully my comment :-D

You use somewhat flimsy arguments to tear it apart: which, after all, didn’t excite me either, perhaps due to a slight form of claustrophobia, but all in all I appreciated many technical aspects (the story of the various coffins built to allow for filming is nice: maybe if you had informed yourself, you would have saved yourself the hassle of the 50,000 euros, just as if you were able to assess whether a budget is adequate or not...) and also the screenplay (so I preemptively respond to the upcoming meme that will point out that a film isn't judged solely by its technique). Then if someone wants "credibility," they wouldn’t go watch a film that aims to evoke a sense of discomfort and thus resorts to certain imaginative tricks (which, if this were a consistently valid parameter, you know there are thrillers, even from great masters, that we would have to tear apart) but they’d go watch a BBC documentary (on any subject). Maybe you should direct your attention there (to documentaries, I mean), but I'm too afraid that you might come up with some of your "gems."
P.S. Then if someone really informs themselves, they find out that this film cost about 2 million dollars and made around twenty million at the box office, receiving favorable reviews from both the public and critics (winning several awards, including a Goya, you know what that is?, for the screenplay): now, this doesn’t mean it’s a masterpiece, but it does suggest that a budget should often be judged retrospectively, and here it seems to me that money was definitely well spent, if nothing else for the "measurable" results.

Have you listened to it?

@Lisbeth: no, I hadn’t forgotten: the sentence was "better outlining characters who until then had only been kept as luxury supporting characters (Erika, for example)." So I brought one as an example without excluding the others :-D
@Geo: I don’t know, that’s how it seemed to me. Anyway, don’t mind me: I’m a pain in the neck by nature.

The first book of the trilogy (which was supposed to be 10) I liked a lot, and upon re-reading it, I found that it grew even more because I noticed things that had escaped me during the first reading: I’ll leave out the reasons because I feel like I've talked about them enough in the "suitable" review. The second and third books, however, disappointed me quite a bit because I found them rather "predictable" (it becomes clear how it will end after the second page). That said, it should be noted that, probably, the "fatalism" present in these two books as intended by Larsson stemmed from the fact that, as mentioned, the story wasn't meant to end there: in fact, while the first introduces Blomqvist and the characters revolving around Millennium, the second and third were supposed to not only depict Salander's story but also set the stage for the other books by better outlining characters that had only been held as luxury supporting roles until then (like Erika, for example). Unfortunately, we will never have the certainty of this (due to the fragility of life, which I remember is defined as an incurable illness), so what remains are a great book and two "mediocre" ones. As for the rest, I see a bit too much severity in the average judgment of Larsson's work, but maybe it's just another case of debaserite ;-).

Too bad. 5 the same

If the nickname stands for a basketball team I know, I could even rate the review 5, but for now, I'll just limit myself to rating the movie.

Even more convoluted than "White Chalk."

Disappointing film (especially when compared to the book) partially saved by the former "graduate," while Giamatti, who usually I like, is strangely "composed."