Screw Die Hard: Top 10 Christmas Movies You Didn't Know Were Christmas Movies

Sometimes internet culture is like you when you were a little kid. You know, when you said something that the adults unexpectedly found funny so you repeated that same thing over and over again expecting the same hilarious result when in fact you were really making everyone sick of you. Case in point: OH MY GOSH GUYS, DIE HARD IS TOTALLY A CHRISTMAS MOVIE!!!!!!! AMIRITE? LOL FTW YOLO DOUBLE RAINBOW 360 NOSCOPE ROFL COPTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am so sick and tired of people making the joke that Die Hard (1988) – a violent action movie that is not exactly festive in the traditional sense – is a legit Christmas movie simply because it takes place around 25 December, features a couple holiday songs, and has a handful of seasons greetings in it. It's an overdone joke that I've been hearing for at least eight years now and I'm simply tired of it, you know?

(Just for the record, I'm not hating on Die Hard. I thoroughly enjoy it and think it's one of the greatest action movies ever made. This is all just for fun.)

But I guess that if a few nods to Jesus' birthday and the festivities surrounding it is all you need to qualify as a Christmas movie then screw it, I guess Die Hard is a Christmas movie then. But you know what? Two can play at this game! This is my list of top ten other films that qualify as Christmas movies.

10. American Sniper (2014)

What? What are you talking about? American Sniper is totally a Christmas movie! There was that one scene where Chris Kyle is watching war footage of US soldiers getting shot in Iraq as he sits next to a Christmas tree in his living room. It demonstrates Chris' trouble with leaving the war behind and focusing on his family even during a holiday season on which families traditionally get together in peace. Chris sees his comrades in the military as his second family which he wishes to protect and thus he can't get the war out of his mind. And nothing says “Merry Christmas” like combat-induced stress in veterans, right?

9. Stalingrad (1993)

Stalingrad is a German war film about a platoon of Wehrmacht soldiers participating in the epic Battle of Stalingrad (1942-3). It is also unquestionably a Christmas movie. There's one scene set in late December where the situation for the Germans isn't looking good. The Red Army has them encircled, supplies are running low, and a breakout seems less and less likely with each passing day. The main characters have been sentenced to a penal company and are off to take part in a suicide mission. As they ride in the back of a freezing cold truck one of them spontaneously sings “O Tannenbaum” (or “Oh Christmas Tree” as it's known in English). As if that wasn't Christmassy enough, just look at all the snow that envelops three-quarters of this movie. Need I say more?

8. Miracle (2004)

You remember Miracle? It was one of the best hockey movies ever made and it's also a pretty darn good Christmas movie. During a brief holiday break from Olympic training camp the US hockey players take part in a gift exchange. I don't know about you but my holiday season isn't complete until I see Dave Silk being given a pair of silk underpants.

7. Jarhead (2005)

It turns out that it wasn't the waiting, the boredom, the heat, the sand, the thought of his girlfriend at home cheating on him, or his being denied the killing he was meticulously trained to do that drove Lance Corporal Anthony Swofford to have a mental breakdown. It was the fact that he missed out on Christmas 1990 with his family, of course! The closest he got was getting drunk and dancing naked wearing nothing but a Santa hat and even that got ruined by clumsy Fergus falling asleep on the job. Way to go Fergus, you ruined Christmas in Kuwait!

6. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

I honestly don't know why people pick Die Hard as the definitive faux-Xmas flick over OHMSS. This one's got it all: a wintery Swiss setting chock full of winter sports, loads of Christmas decorations, and a gift exchange scene involving beautiful young ladies being hypnotized into committing acts of biological warfare. Does Die Hard have those things? Nuh uh. Does Die Hard have Ernst Stavro Blofeld saying “Merry Christmas, 007”? Didn't think so. Sure, in Die Hard John McLane and Holly get back together at the end but do they get married like Bond and Tracey did in OHMSS? No they don't. I rest my case.

5. The Godfather (1972)

The Godfather is often cited as one of the best movies ever made. It is also one of the best Christmas movies ever made and here's why. There's not one but two scenes showing characters shopping for Xmas presents. Michael and Kay are having a fun time shopping for their friends and Tom Hagen gets kidnapped by Sollozzo the Turk while shopping for his kids. What a nice way to spend the holidays.

4. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

You know I'll talk about this movie any chance I get. That's because TGWTDT is one of my favourite movies ever – and if we're going by Die Hard rules then it counts as my favourite Christmas movie of all time. In fact it's so Christmassy that it has Christmas in it twice! That's right, Xmas appears near the film's beginning – Blomkvist is at a Christmas party and Lisbeth gives a gift to her ward only to find that he's had a stroke – and again at the very end when Lisbeth gets a gift for her crush Blomkvist only to find that he's a man whore. Yeah, late December doesn't seem to work out well for Lisbeth Salander.

3. Batman Returns (1992)

Well, damn. Here I was going to make a big tongue-in-cheek thing about how Batman Returns is totally a Christmas movie – what with tons of decorations, trees, snow, and holiday greetings – but Wikipedia of all people beat me to it. Of course the joke was that Batman Returns is a somewhat dark movie with disturbing visuals and insane characters set against a backdrop of the most peaceful and joyous of holidays. But Wiki-freakin'-pedia already has it in their Christmas movies category. You know you've failed at comedy when an online encyclopedia beats you to the punch. Oh well, speaking of Batman...

2. The Dark Knight (2008)

There's a scene where one of Joker's crazy henchman says all the voices in him were replaced with lights “like Christmas”. 'Nuff said.

1. Jingle All the Way (1996)

You probably didn't know this but Jingle All the Way is actually a Christmas movie. Even though it clearly wasn't meant to be. It couldn't have been. There's no way that's what they were going for with this film. In truth Jingle All the Way was intended as a black comedy, a satire depicting the over-commercialization of North American society and how rampant consumerism has driven us all mad to the point of greed, violence, and theft. The film's “happy ending” is simply some greedy kid being given some plastic toy he covets. Materialism brings everyone together, I guess. But if you look closely you can see some subtle Christmas flavour sprinkled about. For example, in some scenes you can catch a glimpse of some Christmas decorations. And did you know the reason people are buying so much stuff in this movie is because 25 December is approaching? And lastly, if you look closely enough you might just see Santa Claus in there somewhere. The only downside is that in order to spot any of this you have to pay attention to the movie, which I wouldn't recommend.

Movie Review -- The Girl in the Spider's Web

  Remember back in my Sicario: Day of the Soldado review (this past July) I said that there were three movies this year – Sicario 2, Tomb Raider, and Venom – I was going to watch out of pure curiosity in how the studios were going to pull them off? It turns out that I should've made that number four instead because as I found out only a couple months ago another movie was being made of the Millennium series of books, The Girl in the Spider's Web. Anyone who reads Arnold's Benediction knows that 2011's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is one of my favourite movies ever. Can The Girl in the Spider's Web match the high standard the previous film established? Let's take a look.

  TGITSW serves as a soft reboot of TGWTDT, with an all-new cast, with a new director and crew, and taking place at least three years after the original (with a slight retcon of Lisbeth Salander's backstory). Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander have become estranged after he cashed in on his experiences with her to publish some best-selling articles that may or may not have made her famous (the movie doesn't really make it clear). But the two must now work together to stop some bad guys from stealing some computer program that allows its user to hack into the world's missile control systems. That's right, the series has made the jump from mystery-thriller to espionage-action-thriller. Admittedly, I have not read the book this film is based on but this type of action story seems very out of place when compared to Dragon Tattoo. I've seen people unfavourably comparing Spider's Web to 2016's Jason Bourne and while I don't think this film is nearly that dull it is easy to see similarities in tone, the focus mostly on one character (in this film Blomkvist has been reduced to a mere side character in favour of Lisbeth), and in the action scenes. It's a plot that features tons of vibrating phones, people not paying attention to things in plain sight, and momentary lapses of judgment from characters who are supposed to be smart. For example, why did that whiz kid who just saw [SPOILER] die answer a phone call from [SPOILER] even though he knows that dangerous people are trying to find him? In the words of Carl Brutananadilewski, “you're stupid for a genius.”

  As mentioned earlier, Lisbeth is the sole main character this time around and she's played by Claire Foy. While Foy's performance isn't as haunting or nuanced as Rooney Mara's in Dragon Tattoo, it's still very well done. Instead of a private investigator who keeps to herself, Lisbeth is now a hacker-for-hire vigilante who goes out of her way to reap vengeance on men who mistreat women. The new version of Blomkvist, portrayed by Sverrir Gudnason, is way younger and less prominent than in previous movies. Gudnason's performance is OK, I guess. The only other character of note is the main villain who is rather dull and barely makes any facial expressions (possibly due to her hard-to-spot eyebrows).

  Like a lot of reboots, TGITSW cleans house. Without the likes of David Fincher, Jeff Cronenweth, Trent Reznor, and Atticus Ross Spider's Web's cinematography, compositions, and musical scoring have a very different, much less pronounced style. Opening credits aside, director Fede Alvarez does his own thing. Really the only things of note are a couple long tracking shots, plentiful handheld camera shots, and shaky fight scenes with really choppy editing (speaking of Bourne...).

  All in all, The Girl in the Spider's Web reminds me a lot of Sicario 2 in that they're both artistically downgraded, action-packed sequels to critically lauded, stylish films; they don't stack up with the originals but are entertaining enough. But on the other hand Spider's Web – although I did enjoy it – was only half as captivating as Dragon Tattoo and is a debatably unnecessary film. I don't think audiences are necessarily against another Millennium film, they probably just wanted Fincher to direct it and they wanted it six years ago when the books were still popular. That might explain why Spider's Web is doing so badly at the box office; the cinema was about 3/4 empty when I saw it on opening night! Unfortunately it seems like the time for more English-language Millennium films has come and gone and that this series' continuation can officially be written off as a lost cause.

Grade:

Ranking David Fincher's Films -- Part 1

David Fincher is my favourite director. He directs movies with such a high level of technical proficiency, detail, and sharpness that it isn't difficult to recognize his style. After taking the world of music video and television commercial directing by storm he proceeded to assault the Hollywood scene in the early 1990's. In the quarter-century since he's become one of the most innovative and obsessed directors of this generation. Fincher's most recent film, Gone Girl, came out in 2014 and while his next big project has yet to be announced, I eagerly look forward to the day it's brought to life. Now that I've seen all ten of his feature films I'd like to take this moment to rank them all from worst to best in as objective a viewpoint as possible. I'll also list any Academy Award wins/nominations for each film as well.

10. Alien 3 (1992)

No surprise here. The first feature length film helmed by David Fincher, Alien 3 is generally regarded as the only bad movie he's ever made. And even at that it wasn't entirely his fault. The film's notorious production was marred by sickness, an unfinished script, overbearing studio control, and strict deadlines. The director has since disowned the final product, refusing even to endorse the re-edited “assembly cut” that was released 11 years later. One could say that the trouble surrounding the film's production is more interesting than the film itself. Alien fans weren't pleased that the previous film's heroes were killed off-screen in this film's opening scene. But to be fair, it's not all bad. The acting is good, the mood/tone is on point, the visuals look nice, and the Oscar-nominated special effects are impressive for 1992. Still, Alien 3 is a movie most people don't look back on fondly. It doesn't hold a candle to either of the first two movies in the series, and was easily the worst in the series until 1997's Alien: Resurrection gave it a run for its money.

Academy Awards: (1 nomination for Best Visual Effects)

9. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

While Benjamin Button isn't a bad movie, it's definitely the most atypical of Fincher's filmography. From a director who was mostly known for making thrillers came a romantic fantasy. Imagine Forrest Gump, but with a more sombre tone, less comedy, and more impressive visuals. Benjamin Button has what's easily the best use of computer generated effects of any film in this list, not only from the reverse-aging Brad Pitt undergoes but also from the backdrops that show New Orleans's evolution throughout the 20^th century. The sets look great for their respective periods; I was able to tell what year any given scene was in without needing to be told the date. Unfortunately, the thing felt a bit pretentious and somewhat meandering. For instance, the story's whole ending feels like it had no payoff at all. Did the screenwriter just forget to write an ending? Still, I think this movie is worth watching once. Its themes do offer an interesting look into the fragility of the individual's short existence on this Earth. By this point in his career Fincher had reached middle age and perhaps this was his way of being self-reflective without trying to veer too far off of what his work is best known for. The results were mixed; some people like this movie, others don't. If nothing else, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, served as a launch platform to garner its director more critical acclaim (the movie got tons of award nominations) as well as a place to perfect and hone his craft to its tightest and most potent form for his following three movies. Now if only the man could figure out a way to make cars age in reverse...

Academy Awards: Best Art Direction, Best Makeup, Best Visual Effects, (nominated for 10 others)

8. The Game (1997)

The Game is a bit of a forgotten gem today, but it is in fact a fine movie well worth the watch. It evokes a Hitchcockian spirit of classic puzzle-paranoia, yet it is also very much a product of its time. This film fulfills a bunch of ticks on the David Fincher checklist: a steely colour palette, a rich attention to detail, a run-down urban setting, an obsessed main character, rich white people problems, etc. But it all comes together to make for an engaging experience that'll keep you guessing as to what's really going on. Michael Douglas is the perfect actor for the lead role of Nicholas Van Orton, a rich jerk who's cut himself off from everyone as a result of a traumatic childhood experience. Watching him go through his personal change is a bit like watching Ebenezer Scrooge's in A Christmas Carol, but within the plot of Total Recall. However one thing that bugged me a bit was the plot holes the actual game presents; CRS would have to be omniscient to plan out the game exactly as they did. For example, how did CRS know that Nicholas wouldn't check to see if his gun was loaded with blanks? How did they know he would've been able to escape the sinking car? How did they know the exact spot from which he was going to jump off the building? And how did they know the exact spot the commando dudes with blanks would be shooting at? Was Christine's house completely covered in squibs just waiting to be detonated? It's a shame that a film that wants to make you think doesn't have airtight logic. Nevertheless, I enjoyed The Game very much and I would watch it again any time. (PS – I would love to have a T-shirt that says “I was drugged and left for dead in Mexico – and all I got was this stupid t-shirt”.)

Academy Awards: (no nominations)

7. Panic Room (2002)

When I was deciding on the order of this list, I agonized over which order to put Panic Room and The Game. Both are very good movies with gripping plots that pull you in and good acting. And while I think I personally prefer The Game, I must acknowledge that Panic Room, from an objective viewpoint, is the superior film. It seems as if the two films were made to be directly compared; two somewhat-minor thriller films with an interesting basic concept with a passive main character who goes through personal change. And yet, Panic Room is more tense and energetic mostly because 99% of the film takes place at a single location. The film was shot on a big multistory set with many of the shots pre-visualized via 3D computer models, giving David Fincher total control over filming. There's tons of sweeping shots, crane shots, and those soaring, CG-enhanced shots flying past/through nearby objects no matter how small. We saw shots like this in 1999's Fight Club, but their ubiquity here has a twofold effect: sometimes it enhances the film's claustrophobic mood, other times it just comes off as a bit gimmicky. But one thing Panic Room does very well is the characters. There aren't many of them, but you'll enjoy watching them and you'll remember every one of them. This is in big part thanks to the superb acting. Jodie Foster does a commendable job despite being brought on board at the last minute. After the sprawling opus of his last film, Fight Club, Fincher clearly wanted to relax a bit with a less taxing project and it shows. Panic Room is a lean, easily digestible, straightforward thriller with no significant subtext that is easy to like.

Academy Awards: (no nominations)

6. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

What else can I say about The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo that I haven't said before? I love this movie, but objectively I can't rank it any higher on this list since as a cohesive project it doesn't do many things conspicuously better than Fincher's other films. Like his earlier movies, this one is a murder mystery-thriller based on a book with obsessed characters. It's standard Fincher stuff, but it's a very good standard. Highlights of Dragon Tattoo include robotic, calculated camera movements, a bleak and uninviting tone, an ominous, cold, pitch-perfect soundtrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, subtle yet effective use of CG effects, and masterful acting. This of course includes Rooney Mara as the title character Lisbeth Salander. Her total role commitment to the young, defiant, misanthropic, cyber punk is undeniably magnetic and is a major asset to the film. The story of two people who are brought together by their shared obsession – and subsequently split apart once that obsession concludes – is fully realized by a fine screenplay written at a patient, methodical pace to mirror/draw the viewer into the characters' own infatuation. Despite Fincher's natural style and impeccable story-telling, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a minor box office disappointment and didn't get all the respect it deserved. Sadly, by this point it seems unlikely that we'll ever see the next two films that were originally planned... at least not in the way we wanted to see them.

Academy Awards: Best Editing, (nominated for 4 others)

Check back next week for part 2!

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!