Being Slightly Critical of Profanity in Movies in One Particular Way

   It's time to talk about swearing in movies, motherf-----. No, I'm not talking about PG words like ass, bastard, hell, or damn. I'm talking about the hard R words like f---, s---, and c---. It's pretty common to hear these words in movies these days (except for maybe that last word). I'd be willing to bet that most people (unless they watch kids movies a lot) don't remember the last movie they saw that didn't have swearing in it. Moreover, most people probably don't even take note of when they see a movie that doesn't have curses – I know I don't. It's a trend that's definitely become ubiquitous since the 1960's. I remember when people made a big deal of all the swearing in The Blair Witch Project in 1999, but now there's movies like The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) that use the word f--- on an average of more than thrice per minute. It's a pretty big part of contemporary film, so just for s---s and giggles I'm going to give my two cents on it.

   What the hell is swearing for? To me it seems that there's two uses for cursing in movies. The first is to add a bit of grittiness to a scene. This could take the form of someone muttering a swear word in frustration or shouting a nasty insult as most people do in real life at one point or another (see John McClane in Die Hard). Another way to make a scene gritty with profanity is by using swear words to create an uninviting environment and a tough tone. This s--- can often be seen with child characters who are already adept at the art of profanity (Sarah Altman in Panic Room), something which most people don't learn until maturity. When used in these ways, profanity can make the film's world feel more real and s---. Imagine watching Straight Outta Compton (2015) without hearing any F-bombs. That would be a very f---ed up, surreal experience.

   On the other hand, the other main way of using cursing in movies is in a comedic role. Having swear words used by unexpected people or used in an unusual manner or in an unanticipated context can be hilarious. This technique is one of the cornerstones of raunchy comedies. I once was watching TV and the film Step Brothers (2008) came on, but since it was the TV version all the curse words were edited out and replaced with weird s--- via dubbing. I like Step Brothers, but without the profanity the movie felt toothless and impotent.

   As obscenities have gained more and more prominence, certain filmmakers have gained notoriety in the language's fluency. Directors like Martin Scorcese and Quentin Tarantino and actors like Samuel L. Jackson and Al Pacino are legendary for their ability to weave their quilts of verbal filth. Curses are part of what made Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1980's one-liners so kickass.

   Of course that means there are also ways of misusing swear words. Being able to curse convincingly is a required skill. Not being able to swear with conviction or appearing uncomfortable with saying curse words will make an actor sound like an immature 8 year-old kid who just learned the F-word and is trying it for the first time.

   The second way profanity can be f---ed up is if, just as with all other types of dialogue, it doesn't fit in with the context of the rest of the film. As always, let's look at the 007 series. As the series progressed, curse words have very slowly crept in. But if I might be just a little critical I think 2015's Spectre went a little too far with the profanity. Not that Spectre has a s---load of it; it has about as much swearing as many other action films of today. But what rubs me the wrong way about it is that this is the Bond series: the refined, sophisticated, tasteful series of films evolving from their intelligent British roots since the early 1960's. In the case of Bond films a couple obscenities are OK, but they should be used sparingly.

   Another series that I think is going just a bit too far with obscenities is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I know that as the series has progressed it has dealt with increasingly serious and personal storylines. For example, it's understandable why Tony Stark was so stressed out and agitated in 2016's Captain America: Civil War. But it still feels a little off-putting when the earlier films in the franchise didn't swear so much. Not only that – and I can't believe I'm about to say this – there are motherf---ing kids watching these movies. Like, young kids. With their parents. I don't think curse words in the Marvel films will be driving families away in droves, but Marvel studios should make every effort to make their movies enjoyable to both adult and adolescent viewers. At least, that's what it looks like they're trying to do with this series of movies. Films like Deadpool (2016), which are definitely not for kids, get a free pass.

   And so that's my take on swearing in films. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing. However, just as is the case with all elements of a film, it is something that needs to be written naturally and implemented with care. So don't f--- it up.

P.S. - Yes. I realize that this is probably the most pointless article I've ever written.

Comparing the Two Versions of Splinter Cell: Double Agent

   Last January I posted an article ranking all the Splinter Cell games. And I was an idiot. At the time I didn't know that there were differences between the 6^th and 7^th generation versions of Double Agent (2006), the game I ranked as the worst of the series. Having played only the Xbox 360 version of the game, I was unimpressed with its gameplay and level design. It wasn't until a few weeks after writing the article that I learned the generation 6 version of the game is very different, with the G6 version designed by Ubisoft Montreal and the G7 version made by Ubisoft Shanghai. I've now finally gotten around to playing that version of the game (on Xbox original) and I've got to say I prefer it over the generation 7 version. However, it's not a complete improvement. So let's take some time to discuss which version of the game does Splinter Cell best.

   Let's begin with a video game's most important aspect: gameplay. The G6 version looks and feels almost exactly the same as the previous game, Chaos Theory. Since Chaos Theory was the best game in the series, this is a welcome trait. Generation 6's version retains CT's user interface, HUD, opsat, weapons, gadgets, and controls. The only differences are that the G6 version has noticeably worse graphics, save states (which are pointless because you can still quicksave whenever you want), and a different hacking minigame (which I suck at). The in-game-engine cutscenes here are laughable, like something from a Nintendo 64 game. The G6 version of the game also has no stealth score/success rating at the end of each mission which decreases the game's replay value and destroys the incentive to play perfectly stealthily.

   The generation 7 version on the other hand does have a stealth score, but it sucks. The score you'll get for any mission in particular will be a total crapshoot; it's unpredictable and unfairly harsh so it almost doesn't matter that the ratings are included. The G7 version of Double Agent seems to share only animations and in-game dialogue with Chaos Theory. The graphics, UI, opsat, and much of the gadgets are brand new. The game does away with the HUD, replacing it with regenerating health and a green-yellow-red system (for light exposure). As for masking your noise, you're on your own. There's no indicator for that! There's also no hacking minigame; hacking is now done automatically with gadgets. Also, Sam Fisher doesn't wear his ops suit very much in the G7 version which is lame. Oh yeah, and the dang thing is fairly buggy too.

   As I mentioned in the rankings article, the levels in the G7 version suck. There's four levels that take place at the JBA headquarters in New York City and they mostly consist of doing mundane tasks (often involving minigames) on a time limit. The only good thing about them is that you get to see the characters more and hear some decent dialogue. Really there's only two missions that are remarkable enough to make you want to replay: the cruise ship at Cozumel and the hotel skyscraper in Shanghai. The levels in the Generation 6 version are retooled and sometimes completely different. In the G6 version, there is no Shanghai level, there's only two JBA HQ missions (and they play more like traditional Splinter Cell levels, no undercover stuff), and the Kinshasa level is much more bearable this time. There's now a level where Sam Fisher robs a money train, and the last level takes place across the NYC cityscape. Also, the JBAs headquarters are now in New Orleans.

   Now on to the plot, and this is where I think things start to even out a bit between the two versions. The plot of each game is basically the same: Sam Fisher poses as a member of a terrorist group in order to stop it from bombing major US cities. Along the way he is forced to make choices that will either end up harming people or risk blowing his cover. These decisions that the player must make were marketed as being a big part of Double Agent, but unfortunately only one version of the game did them right. Each game uses the “trust meter” to illustrate how much your actions impact your standing with the NSA and the JBA. In the 6^th generation version, there is only one trust meter which has both of the two organizations on either side. So basically the trust is a zero-sum game in the G6 version since pleasing one group will automatically displease the other. This makes no sense because half the things you do for the NSA are done in secret! The JBA gets mad at you for no reason! But you know, this pretty much doesn't matter because if your trust meter goes too far in one direction you'll be given a “go here before the time runs out” task which isn't too difficult to accomplish. Not exactly punishing. What's worse is that the decisions the player makes have no real bearing on the plot; the G6 version has the same ending no matter what (assuming you disarmed all the bombs, and why wouldn't you do that?). It just doesn't feel like there's consequences for the choices you make.

   This is where the 7^th generation version of Double Agent succeeds. The decisions you make have real consequences on the plot. For example, if the player chooses to prevent the detonation of the bomb aboard the cruise ship, Emile Dufraisne kills Enrica Villablanca, a JBA member that the player has the option to romance. Compare this to the G6 version, in which the same choice will result in a cutscene where Emile just beats Sam and Enrica up and threatens them. Not as powerful a reaction, eh? Not only that, but if you choose to blow up the cruise ship in the G6 version, nothing happens! In the G7 version you are rewarded with a cutscene of the ship blowing up and the JBA dudes congratulating you. There's more the G7 version offers: more decisions, a bonus end level (if you do everything right), and even multiple endings! Sure, the endings aren't exceptionally great, but this is what I want to see in a game that promises to give the player agency regarding the plot. Additionally, the 7^th generation version of this game has two trust meters instead of one. There's one bar for each organization, making it easier to please both; it's not a zero-sum situation like in the G6 version.

   As for the actual story being told in these games, they each have their ups and downs. The G6 version has what's probably the better ending – which fits in better with the beginning of the next game in the series, Conviction – even if it's one you have no control over. (Just for the record though, Sam choosing to shoot Lambert in the G7 version ended up becoming official canon.) Still, it doesn't make any sense how the JBA found out Sam was a government agent. One minute Emile is praising Sam saying that none of this would have been possible without him and then the next minute he's barking orders to kill Sam Fisher on sight. The 7^th generation version's story and characters are generally more interesting (partially because the player can manipulate them more than in the G6 version of the game). Each character is given more screen time and backstory, thus giving them more personality. The G7 versions of Carson Moss and Jamie Washington stand out more since we get to see them at work and during their free time. You'll get to know people better in Double Agent's G7 version.

   I think it's also worth mentioning that the generation 6 version has a strange framing device. Each level begins with a sort-of cutscene (hidden load screen) in which Fisher is being interrogated by some guy named Williams (I think he's supposed to be the assistant director of Third Echelon, but it's never made clear). These scenes – which presumably take place after the game's events – simply recap the previous level's events and set up the next one. But these cutscenes are pure bullcrap. Williams is played as a one-dimensional angry boss character and he's always mad at you regardless of the decisions you made. If you blow up the cruise ship, he's mad at you. If you don't blow up the cruise ship, he's mad at you. At the game's end, Fisher blames Williams for Enrica's death and vows revenge. Williams promises that 3^rd Echelon will find him first. Umm... you guys are aware that you're in the same room, right? Presumably this means that Sam has already been captured, so... This is stupid.

   But the G7 version's biggest success against the G6 version is in its ability to really bring the undercover experience to life. As much as I dislike playing G7's JBA HQ missions, I have to admit that they do add a lot to the feeling of being somewhere you're not supposed to be, of tiptoeing amongst wolves who at any moment could discover that you're not one of them. This is where a lot of the non-player character development comes from as well. While the JBA HQ missions in the 6^th generation are more playable, they reduce the undercover element of the plot to just a handful of choice moments and communiques which don't end up amounting to much. These HQ missions have you doing only 3^rd Echelon stuff (no JBA stuff), so it comes across as just another level that could've been in any other Splinter Cell game.

   Does this mean that the 7^th generation version of the game is comparable to the 6^th generation version? No way! Although it has the slightly inferior story and it fails in the “undercover” department, the G6 version of Double Agent is far more enjoyable to play. When it comes to video games the most important thing is playability, and that's why the G6 version wins. If I were to update my rankings list from a year ago, I'd probably list it as the 4^th (or possibly 3^rd) best Splinter Cell game after Chaos Theory, Black List, and the 2002 original. But when looking back and writing this article, it seems that maybe the G7 version of Double Agent isn't as bad as I once gave it credit for... but it's still quite low on the rankings list. Tough luck, bub.

Movie Review - John Wick: Chapter 2

   Can we just take a moment to admire this movie's poster? I love it. I mean, there's countless film posters out there that show nothing but the main character's face and – just like one-word movie titles – tell you nothing of what the movie is about. But the poster for John Wick: Chapter 2 does it right. In addition to providing insight into the film's blend of humour and over-the-top action, the poster tells us everything we need to know about this movie: it has people in suits, it has lots of shooting, and everyone wants John Wick dead. And never have I been more thrilled to see a film deliver what it promises!

   John Wick: Chapter 2 follows John Wick, a former hitman who's brought back for one last job but soon finds himself getting more than he bargained for. I have to admit I have not seen the first John Wick (2014), though it is on my to-watch list. To be honest, I wish I had seen it earlier since this movie makes references to things and follows a culture/set of rules already established in the previous film. In fact, it took me a while to figure out what the title character was supposed to be (A spy? A supersoldier? A hitman?). While these thoughts were at the back of my mind the whole time, this didn't impede my ability to enjoy the film.

   Instead I was busy picking up my jaw from the mind-blowing hyper-active action scenes. Balls to the wall doesn't even begin to describe it! The action in John Wick 2 is so good. It's very fast paced, compressing its intensity almost to the breaking point, yet it still remains watchable. It goes for a slightly preposterous, over-the-top feel, which works well with the world this film plays in. The action scenes are brilliantly choreographed, which I think makes the hand-to-hand combat more fun to watch than the shootout parts. One minor complaint I have is that John Wick seems kind of invincible during the shootout parts, which robs those scenes of tension (mind you, he still has difficulty in taking out bad guys). They're still fun, though.

   John Wick 2 is a movie that oozes with style. Fancy-looking shots, bright lights, an electric soundtrack, and a trippy final action scene go a long way to really give this movie some soul. There's also a dog. Neat, huh?

   Speaking of characters, Keanu Reeves does a fantastic job of playing the title character, a man of few words who can still get the job done despite his reluctance to do so. The determination and intensity he brings to the role defies his 52 years. The side characters are also pretty interesting, especially the hobo/genius crime lord played by Lawrence Fishburne, the obsessed bodyguard played by Common, and the mute assassin/bodyguard chick played by Ruby Rose.

   And that's it, I guess. I wish I could have come up with more to say about John Wick: Chapter 2, but there really isn't much to say other than “go watch it”. This is one of the best, most energetic, and skillfully directed action movies I've seen in a long time. It helps if you've seen the first movie, but it isn't required for having a good time with this one. For fans of shoot-em-up movies it doesn't get much better than this.

Grade:

Book Vs. Movie - The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Part 2

   And we're back. Be sure to check out last week's article in which we covered TGWtDT's plot.

   Now on to the characters. The movie keeps their personalities more-or-less the same but their presentations are modified. Many of their detailed backstories – those of Mikael, Lisbeth, Dragan Armanski (Lisbeth's employer), and Holger Palmgren (Lisbeth's former legal guardian) – are wholly jettisoned. Similarly, Cecilia Vanger's role is greatly diminished and there seems to be less Vanger family members to keep track of. This comes as no surprise since (1) movies are much shorter than books, (2) movies are more effective at showing stories rather than telling them, and (3) Sony Pictures Entertainment originally intended to adapt the three books into a trilogy of films, so it's likely that Lisbeth's and Mikael's backstories were being saved for later.

   The film's version of Mikael Blomkvist seems to be a bit more sensitive and less patient than his book counterpart. This may be a result of the decision to cast Daniel Craig in the role. In the film, Blomkvist doesn't appreciate Lisbeth's unauthorized forays into his personal computer. He also appears agitated/insulted whenever someone mentions his recent libel suit, something the book didn't suggest. However I did notice that the movie left out the details of Mikael's job, his personal relationships, and the office politics of Millennium Magazine. It seems that the movie showed us less of Mikael's world in order to show us more of Lisbeth's world, as if in acknowledgement that she's the character that more people will find interesting. Fair enough.

   Although no mention of her non-hacker friends is ever made, Lisbeth Salander's role is fleshed out a bit more and she's made to look like more of a badass. In the film we see her have a one night stand with a woman named Miriam, return to torment Bjurman even after her revenge scene, endure getting a painful tattoo, and beat up the thief who tried to take her laptop (a scene that pretty much sums up her entire character but wasn't in the book). Whereas the novel was ambiguous as to whether or not Lisbeth had it in her to kill Martin, the movie makes the matter very clear. Just before giving chase, she asks Mikael permission to kill Martin (in the book she simply said, “I'm going to take him”). And as she walks towards the car wreck she looks very prepared to do it, but the explosion is all that stops her from becoming a murderer. It's possible that Salander's personal insecurities are a bit different too. In the book she runs off alone when Mikael learns that she has a photographic memory, leading her to admit that she's a “freak”. This is sort-of-but-not-really mirrored in the film during her revenge scene with Bjurman. In this version, Salander believes the reason that she is so non-sociable is because she is “insane”.

   Other characters have minor changes. For example, the book had a subplot about Cecilia having an affair with Mikael that didn't end well (as affairs normally do) and for a while she became a minor suspect. In the film she's merely a cold and unpleasant woman who has just a couple scenes. One change I do like is how the movie made Martin into a likeable guy (you know, before we find out what he's done). Once he reveals his true nature to Blomkvist he becomes a whole different person, thanks to Stellan Skarsgard's pitch-perfect, villainous portrayal. He goes through a whole Bond-villain speech before getting down to business, whereas in the book Mikael kept the talk going in order to buy time. The book's narrative didn't cast much regard towards Martin Vanger; he was just sort of there. In contrast, his film counterpart is much more compelling.

   Let's take a moment to talk about the setting. While both stories are set in Sweden, the audiences' perceptions of the themes and connotations are something to take into consideration since the American movie is (obviously) made primarily for an American audience. The theme of the abuse of women is still very much present, recognizable even to viewers who know nothing about Swedish culture. Conversely the movie seems to place less emphasis on Swedish Nazism and antisemitism, and more on general xenophobia (anti-immigration), perhaps because it's a theme more easily identifiable to a general Western audience. The two main themes are swiftly introduced during the opening title sequence in which a woman, Karen O, sings Led Zeppelin's “Immigrant Song”, a song about Swedish vikings searching for new lands.

   It should come as no surprise that the movie uses English as its spoken language. Unfortunately, this causes the viewer to miss out on a few plot points from the book. For example, the book version of Blomkvist is shown to know English and Lisbeth to know both German and English. In the film, every line of dialogue is in English, so it's only implied that the two know those languages. The movie's rules for language are pretty fluid, with signs and storefronts retaining the use of Swedish while news headlines, websites, and written reports go back and forth between English and Swedish.

One curious moment is when Mikael rips pages out of books to build a fire. One of the books is in English (“The Year of Magical Thinking”) – again implying that Blomkvist knows English – and the other is a Swedish translation of “The Man Without a Country”. Perhaps the latter is a reference to the fact that Daniel Craig doesn't use a Swedish accent for this role. Or perhaps Blomkvist himself once emigrated to the UK? Who knows?

And now for the obligatory random section where I list all the other notable differences.

• Blomkvist's libel case ends with him being serving three months in jail in the book. In the film he instead loses his life savings.
• In the book, the Blomkvists were previously involved with Vanger Industries and Harriet briefly babysat the young Mikael. The movie rightfully leaves out this plot line as it goes absolutely nowhere.
• The movie makes it clear early on that Lisbeth is a hacker whereas the book saves it as a surprise.
• The film's Palmgren, Salander's former guardian who suffers a stroke, takes the place of her mother, who is absent from the film. In the book, Lisbeth emotionally distances herself from her former guardian to avoid pain while her mother, whom she visits, is stricken with dementia and later dies. In the film, it's implied that her mom is already dead. (See her tattoos.)
• The book explains how Lisbeth left the archives building without the nightwatchman noticing. The movie doesn't.
• In the book Lisbeth has a direct hand in Wennerstrom's murder; she reveals his location to a mafioso. In the movie, he's just found dead with no implied connection to Lisbeth.

   Overall, this is a curious case of a noticeably different adaptation that still manages to tell the original story effectively. Probably the biggest change overall is in both making Lisbeth Salander the main character over Mikael Blomkvist and making the story leaner and easier to digest. I believe that these changes were made for the better. The film's producers knew that the relationship between Salander and Blomkvist was what captured attention and so they constructed their film accordingly. And since the novel is pretty long, they had to cut out some parts which isn't that big a deal because the novel feels just a little too sprawling to work as the “locked room” mystery it was intended for. In any case, the film does a great job of reproducing the book's uninviting, cold, and intense tone. To conclude, I'd say that if you're a highly detail-oriented person who needs the full picture to appreciate a good story then you might prefer Stieg Larssen's original novel. For everyone else, David Fincher's film is the superior way to experience The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

Book Vs. Movie - The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Part 1

It's been almost seven months since my last Book vs. Movie article (on V for Vendetta). This time I thought it'd be fun to take on The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011, the American version directed by David Fincher). I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but TGWtDT is one of my favourite movies and you'll likely see it brought up on this blog a few more times in the future. I only recently got around to reading the book – the 2008 English language Penguin Books version – and despite its 841-page length it was a pretty breezy read for me. It was so addictive, I couldn't have read it fast enough. So was this fine piece of mystery literature translated effectively to the big screen? Let's find out! And also, spoiler alert.

   Let's begin by a plot recap. Since the movie's plot stays fairly close to the book's, consider this a recap of both. Millennium Magazine's editor and investigative reporter Mikael Blomkvist has just lost a libel case against wealthy financier Hans-Erik Wennerstrom. The brilliant yet troubled young hacker/investigator Lisbeth Salander writes a report on Blomkvist for the aging industrialist Henrik Vanger, who has a special job for the disgraced journalist. In exchange for evidence of Wennerstrom's wrongdoings, Vanger wants Blomkvist to investigate the 1966 disappearance/murder of his grandniece Harriet. Blomkvist agrees and moves north to the Vanger family compound to conduct his investigation.

   Meanwhile Lisbeth, a ward of the state, is assigned a new legal guardian, Nils Bjurman, who extorts sexual favours from her, even going so far as to violently rape her. Unbeknownst to Bjurman, Lisbeth caught the incident on a hidden camera. Lisbeth later returns to Bjurman's apartment, tortures him, and then uses the rape footage to blackmail him into granting her more control over her life and her finances.

   Blomkvist realizes that he needs a research assistant, and is referred to Salander. Intrigued, Lisbeth agrees to help and moves in with him at the compound. The two become lovers. As the case progresses the two learn that Harriet's fate may be linked to a string of unsolved murders throughout Sweden from the 1940's to 1960's. Eventually, each of them identify Martin Vanger (Harriet's brother, current CEO of Vanger Industries) as a suspect. Mikael takes to snooping around Martin's house for clues, but Martin arrives home in time to catch him, tie him up, torture him, and brag to him about the murders he committed, first with his father (who drowned in 1965) and then on his own up to the present day. Lisbeth arrives just in time to knock down Martin and save Mikael. Martin tries to escape as Lisbeth pursues him on her motorbike. Martin dies in a traffic “accident” (more on that later). But since Martin denied killing Harriet, the mystery still hasn't been solved. The duo surmise that if Harriet is still alive (i.e. she ran away from the compound with the help of a family member), then news of Martin's death might lead to her whereabouts. Through Harriet's cousin Anita, they find out that Harriet is indeed alive decades after fleeing from her brother and father (whom it turns out she murdered in self defence) who had been sexually abusing her for years. She is reunited with her loving uncle Henrik.

   Unfortunately, the dirt Henrik delivers on Wennerstrom is effectively useless, much to Mikael's disappointment. Lisbeth offers to hack into Wennerstrom's computers. Mikael uses the resulting information to write an exposé in Millennium that ruins Wennerstrom, who flees the country. Lisbeth dons a disguise and travels Europe hacking into Wennerstrom's bank accounts and emptying them into various other accounts. Wennerstrom is soon found murdered by gangsters. By now Lisbeth finds herself falling for Mikael, but on her way to give him a Christmas present she sees him with his co-editor and occasional lover Erika Berger. Heartbroken, Lisbeth throws the gift in a dumpster and rides off into the night.

   Like I said, the basic plot of the movie mostly adheres to that of the book, but there are some moderate changes here and there. Probably the biggest changes are how Martin is defeated and how Harriet is found. In the book, Martin strips Mikael naked, ties him up, beats and kicks him a bit, and then begins hanging him before Lisbeth arrives. As he tries fleeing the scene he decides to kill himself by driving straight into an oncoming big rig. In the movie Martin ties up Blomkvist (clothed), puts a plastic bag over his head, and is about to castrate him before Lisbeth shows up. This time Martin's SUV spins out on some black ice at the end of the bridge and crashes. An explosion engulfs the car, depriving Lisbeth of the chance to shoot its driver. No big deal, I guess.

   As for Harriet, the duo from the book discover her probable whereabouts by tracing phone calls from Anita's house (in London) after Anita is informed of Martin's death. Following the trail, Blomkvist travels to Australia to find Harriet living as a rancher under her new married name. Salander and Blomkvist try this same method in the film, but this time it leads nowhere. Seeing no other possibilities, Blomkvist correctly surmises that Anita is Harriet. It turns out that Anita died shortly after Harriet's escape, allowing the latter to adopt her identity and live in London ever since. This twist has some problems. First, is that Australia is a much better place to go to if you want to disappear. London isn't all that far from Uppsala, which brings us to the second problem: we're supposed to buy that in 40 years no relatives tried to visit or contact “Anita” even though she kept her real last name? Seems kind of flimsy if you ask me. One thing I do have to give the movie's twist credit for is that it doesn't come out of nowhere. There's a scene earlier in the movie where Mikael goes to London to question “Anita” about Harriet's disappearance, unaware of who he's really talking to. Movie twists work best when they call back to something the audience already knows about, and making Harriet someone we've seen before feels more satisfying than introducing her as a new character. So really, this change isn't all that bad.

   The last notable difference between the book's and the film's plots is how the whole Martin-Vanger-is-a-serial-killer/rapist thing is covered up. In the book, Dirch Frode, Henrik's lawyer and close confidant, is certain that this news will destroy Vanger Industries. Salander agrees to keep it a secret in exchange for the company making large annual donations towards charities for distressed women. Mikael very reluctantly agrees even though it violates his journalistic integrity. (He does it mainly for Harriet, who would be humiliated and wanted for murder if the story ever went public.) The movie on the other hand completely glosses over the cover up. Similarly, the movie leaves out the part detailing what the future of Vanger Industries with Harriet will look like. Everything just works out... somehow. In short, I'd say that if you're the type of person who places great value on details and you want everything as fully fleshed out as possible then you'll likely prefer the book's plot over the film's.

That about does it for the plot. Stay tuned next week for part 2!