A Scandinavian 'Blowup' that keeps your interest despite significant contrivances

Rating: 6/10 (10 June 2012)

On the surface, the American version of 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' directed by David Fincher, has a lot going for it. Despite the slow exposition, the story picks up when Daniel Craig as journalist-investigative reporter, Mikael Blomkvist, is hired by Swedish magnate, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to solve the mystery of the disappearance of Vanger's beloved niece, Harriet, who vanished from the family compound forty years earlier in 1966.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the film is how Blomkvist, with the assistance of Goth-like computer hacker, Lisbeth Salander, partially solves the mystery, mainly by discovering clues buried in old photos taken at the time of Harriet's disappearance. One is reminded of Antonioni's 1966 film 'Blowup', which was released in the same year the murder mystery in 'Tattoo' is supposed to take place.
There are other well done scenes in 'Tattoo', particularly the harrowing rape scenes where Lisbeth is violated by her court appointed guardian and later when she turns the tables on him, an example of vigilante justice. Equally as gripping is when Blomkvist is imprisoned by Vanger's serial-killer nephew, Martin, who tortures the journalist but is saved by Salander, who arrives in the nick of time.
The acting is mostly excellent, including Rooney Mara, who plays the glum, rebellious 'damaged goods' ward of the state, with aplomb as well as the always solid Christopher Plummer. The bad guys are equally as menacing--only Daniel Craig, seems out of place, as he doesn't seem like he's from Scandinavia. To be fair to Craig, the script saddles him with a rather deadpan part, with Blomkvist the least interesting of the principal players. One unfortunate shortcoming in the Hollywood version is that there's mention of a number of characters with a 'Nazi' past, but the nature of that connection is never explored in any detail whatsoever.
Despite a thriller that keeps one's interest to the end, nagging questions remain which tend to lessen the film's overall impact. For starters, we find out little about the nature of the lawsuit, which Blomkvist loses at the beginning of the film. Why is the crooked businessmen, Wennerström, so evil? Vanger seems to think so, and promises to give Blomkvist the evidence once he completes his assignment. But Blomkvist tells Vanger at film's end that the 'evidence' is meaningless and we never find out what it's about. I realize that in a film such as this, which is already quite long, the scenarists don't really have a lot of time to explain all the, but still, the reason why the whole story is put in motion is principally due to the main character losing this lawsuit. And when Lisbeth hacks into Wennerström's computers and steals all his millions, do we really care? And do we really care when he's murdered? In reality, Wennerström is really a cypher of a character.
I also wonder why Vanger hires Blomkvist in the first place. Wouldn't he have done better to have hired a private investigator or someone involved closer to law enforcement? I realize Blomkvist is an investigative reporter but he's also the co-owner of a hip magazine--hardly the type of person to take on such an assignment. Yes, of course, he's just lost his life savings and he's desperate but the entire arrangements seems a bit odd. There's also the issue of Blomkvist's competency--he's just lost that lawsuit and even though Vanger likes the idea that he opposed Wennerström (who's a long term rival), the fact that he made accusations without proof, wouldn't have impressed a real life Vanger, who would have probably gone for someone whose past, in contrast, was squeaky clean.
Even if one is willing to suspend one's disbelief regarding Blomkvist taking on Vanger's proposal, the whole idea that the brilliant Lisbeth would allow herself to fall into her evil guardian's clutches more than once, seems pretty incredible. Just like Blomkvist, who stupidly "miscalculated" about the lawsuit, Lisbeth admits to misjudging just how sick (as she puts it) Guardian Bjurman really is. And what about Lisbeth running out of money? Wasn't she paid a fair amount by Vanger to investigate Blomkvist before he hires him? You would have thought she would have had some money left over to the buy that new computer. And since she's so clever, why couldn't she just go out and get another freelance assignment to pay the bills, instead of relying on her pervert guardian? If she's smart enough to steal three billion dollars from a mega-rich businessmen, couldn't she have hacked into a lesser fry criminal early on, put a few bucks into her account, and avoided being dependent on Bjurman?
Regarding Lisbeth, there were a couple of other things that seemed a little 'too easy'--for example, Martin forgetting to lock the doors behind him when he went downstairs to torture Blomkvist. Lisbeth just walks right into the house (no alarm is triggered to warn hi-tech guru, Martin) and she then all too easily slips into Martin's torture chamber and saves Blomkvist from a horrible death. And wasn't it sort of a little too easy for Lisbeth, to hack into Wennerström's accounts? But this is Hollywood, so anything can happen, no?
Finally, I was curious about Vanger's assumption that Harriet had been murdered. He states that Harriet couldn't have gotten off the island since none of the boats had been used and the police had prevented everyone from leaving. But the next day, the police relented...SUPER SPOILERS AHEAD...and that's exactly how Harriet escaped--in the trunk of her cousin Anita's car, who had helped her. Why didn't this scenario occur to Vanger? Had he followed through on such an assumption, of course there would have been no movie!
If you're not too picky about Tattoo's contrivances, you may find yourself enjoying this tale of suspense. For more critical and/or discerning viewers, you may end up with the conclusion that this is by no means a masterpiece.