Fair representation of a long book in a limited time frame

Rating: 8/10 (20 January 2017)

Overall, I thought this movie did a good job of representing the major events of the book in a more concise way. I was glad that the director chose not make a 600+ page book that at times was hard to read into a multiple hour movie. Sitting through that would not have been pleasant. That said, given that I have read the book, I felt there were a few parts in the plot that could have been made more clear in this adaptation - namely the bulk of the investigation leading up to the climax of the story...it felt a little bit rushed to me the way they skipped out on what I felt was a more natural chain of events; instead they included a scene with a character that was not in the book to move things along.
I did however appreciate the fact that the film toned down some of the more graphic scenes of the book...they were appalling to read, let alone be shown on screen and I appreciated that the point was made without showing too many of the gory details.
I have to mention a few other things besides my commentary on the film-book differences: I really enjoyed the casting of this film. I thought it was superbly cast all the way around. Though admittedly some of my favorite characters from the book had smaller parts, I was still pleased with how everyone looked. And I can only chalk it up to the casting that surprisingly Daniel Craig's British accent surrounded by everyone else's Swedish accent still somehow worked. Also it is worth mentioning that the opening credits are absolutely amazing. I thought they captured the tone of the book so incredibly well and were mesmerizing to watch. I would recommend this movie to someone based on the credits alone, though with the caveat that this film, even certain aspects of the credits, is really not for those with a light stomach.