Review of The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest (2009) by Filipeneto — 24 Oct 2020

I came to know this Swedish film trilogy through its famous American "twin brother", and I believe I was not the only one. Despite international credits, it is unusual for Swedish cinema to be widely publicized. Neither is literature! So I also didn't read the book to judge how the adaptation did it justice, but I do believe those who say it was a relatively faithful adaptation to the original material. This film was directed by Daniel Alfredson.

This film is a sequel and follows the logical sequence of events after the first two films: after the fight with Zalachenko and Niederman, Lisbeth Salander is captured by the authorities, but is seriously injured. Now in a hospital together with Zalachenko, she will have to answer to the court. But to be cleared she will depend on frank collaboration with the justice, and she is not willing to collaborate.

The film has a good plot and a story full of mystery. However, I felt that the script is too imaginative in some ideas and, therefore, loses some credibility. I also felt disappointed about the ending, so cold, impersonal and anticlimactic. The action continue to be part of the film, as happened with the two predecessors. Alfredson's direction tries to redeem itself from the excessive coldness and impersonality of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and has some success in that effort, but it still isn't as good a direction as Niels Arden Oplev's in the first film of the trilogy.

The cast is overwhelmingly the same as always. Noomi Rapace is impeccable and returns, in part, to the interpretive level demonstrated in the first film; Michael Nyqvist, also leaves us a good job but it is not as interesting as it was in the two previous films. Lena Endre keeps her job good but does not go beyond what was expected. Micke Spreitz does what he can with a virtually dumb but extremely brutal character. Georgi Staykov is very good as a villain and did an excellent job. Annika Hallin and Anders Ahlbom Rosendahl also showed signs of talent.

Technically, the film is the weakest and most uninteresting in the trilogy because it is overly televised. It looks like a movie made for the TV and not for the big screen. It recovers part of the mysterious and tense atmosphere of the first film, but visually it is uninteresting and does not capture our eye. A bland cinematography, as well as visual effects worthy of a weekend TV series, largely contributed to this. The sets, as well as the choice of landscapes and filming locations, are as expected and the costumes are not very interesting, with the exception of those reserved for Salander. The soundtrack does its job well.