megan, can you describe what they changed? I'm thinking of reading the first book (after seeing the movie).

Sorry, I was crazy busy at work today.

Lisah's right in that a lot of the detail they eliminated wasn't crucial to the overarching plot, but a lot of what I liked about the book was the mystery and investigation details, many of which were changed due to the streamlining. For example, in the book, Anita is not dead, they go to London, tap her phone, and that's how they learn about Australia. There's no necklace. Blomqvist wants to hire a researcher and Frode suggests Lisbeth. He only learns once they are working together that she has access to his computer.

Also, a lot of the motivation for the whole investigation is lost. In the book, Vanger promises Blomqvist dirt on Wennerstrom if he accepts the job, and, more importantly, the family does not know that he is there to investigate Harriet, but there is a whole cover story that he is writing a biography of the family, so there's a reason for the killer not to be suspicious right away.

More annoying to me was how Lisbeth comes across. In my mind, she appeared much smaller and so her ability to kick ass is more shocking. She has serious body image issues which gives her more vulnerability than you get from the movie. Also the whole final scene with her just standing by the car didn't happen. While not out of character per se, it just adds to the unsympathetic portrayal. You miss a lot of how awesome at her job she is or her whole Wennerstrom caper.

Related to the set up of the second book, they don't call the police and no one finds the cellar. Martin just dies when he hits the truck and Blomqvist and Lisbeth promise not to tell Harriet's secret.

If you are at all interested in what happens next, I would read the book. I think the second book is far better than the first one and I highly recommend both.

Kubrick could have begun and ended with Dr. Strangelove and be hailed as a genius. It regularly trades places with Yojimbo, Bicycle Thief, and Network as my top movie of all time. But my top ten change places with eachtother based on my mood.

java is me! Dr. Strangelove was the kick off movie for our big Trivia contest so I got to see it last week on the big screen--which was fun. It's the only Kubrick film I've ever truly enjoyed.

I've seen 74 of the 100 films. My biggest gap is foreign films.

I'm going to see Kick-Ass because I need to see how it compares to the comic. I love the comic.

Megan, I thought the change with her just standing at the car and letting him burn actually made her way more interesting.

I hated in the book how it was just an accident when he died. It was such a let down.

Them not calling the police in the book made me NUTS! I actually had forgotten that. It made no sense and only made me dislike the characters.

Also, it was so obvious, I thought, from the beginning of the book that Anita was still alive. I liked how quickly that was resolved in the movie.

That being said, they are highly entertaining books! And I recommend reading them as well.

I generally love Kubrick and think his version of The Shining was app. 1 gazillion times better than Stephen King's book.

I view him as humanistic, but in a very detached, clinical way. Sort of a "Here's something humans do. Isn't that interesting/funny/terrible?" attitude.

That's sorta what I was trying to say with the whole yin and yang comment. I don't know if I'd call Kubrick a humanist (because, unlike Altman, I think he was deserving of being called a misanthrope), but I do think he found human behavior fascinating.

Apparently I'm into macho nihilism.

My last movie was The Friends of Eddie Coyle. Does that make me a macho masochist?

Does that make me a macho masochist?

I think Chris Burden already has that position locked up, Cor.

Going back to your "facile nihilism" critique I'm wondering if you'd respect a deeply earned nihilism. How exactly do we get to the profound nihilism?

Kubrick is icy cold. He thinks humans are fascinating in a clinical way. I don't think he's so far from nihilism that he gets a bye on technique.

Cormac McCarthy also gets far enough into unrelentingly bleak that we're starting to split some fine hairs to accommodate your favorite black-hearted artists.

Facile or profound: "life's a piece of shit/ when you think of it."

Facile or profound: "life's a piece of shit/ when you think of it."

Funny!

Lyric I got to hear Eric Idle sing in person?

Hm, I don't know if I see humanism and misanthropy as incompatible. I consider myself a humanist, and that's a big part of why I find humans in general to be pretty appalling.

I can't speak for Corwood, obviously, but what I recall of Fight Club is that it had petulant 16 year old's attitude. "I just noticed: life is meaningless! Isn't that incredibly profound? So now I'm an anarchist -- ptbtbtb!" Most of Kubrick's movies are about people struggling with moral issues. I agree he presents those struggles in a dispassionate way, but I don't think that's the same as saying, "And boy, were they idiots for bothering, because it's all pointless."

I should go record as saying I liked Fight Club as a very pulpy take on J.G. Ballard's pet themes. Plus the performances were excellent, as was the production. The plot twist was stupid but didn't detract much from my enjoyment. I'm not a plot first guy.

It was pretty. And I'm sure it didn't help that I was tired of the cult/hype by the time I saw it.

I dunno, I think it's a lot like Forrest Gump -- they're both shallow movies pretending to be profound. (See also: The Shawshank Redemption.) I prefer my shallow movies to revel in their shallowness!