The reviewer might want to read the trilogy before he renders judgement on certain actions in the first film that resonate throughout the rest of the books/films. Larsson was a strong voice against the very high number of sexual assaults against women in his country (nearly half of all women in Sweden) and the governments inaction against it.

He also speaks out against the latent white supremacy movement that has taken root in his country and has permeated high levels of corporate and govenrnment leadership.  Lisbeth is his foil for these antagonistic tendencies represented by actual monsters (her legal guardian, the overall incompetancy of the people who work in the welfare programs, corrupt police and governemnt officials) in his series.  I am not a proponent of American remakes/retreads of foreign novels or movies as they are “dumbed” down for the masses who prefer Micheal Bay type overly simplistic plots, ample explosions and breasts, and crude/ bad humor. [The Dinner Guest--Dinner for Schmucks, The Tourist--Anthony Zimmer, Tortilla Soup--Eat Drink Man Woman, etc]. 

It is Lisbeth who challenges and conques Micheal in the books.  He wants her long after she leaves him.  She feels an attraction to him, but is unwilling to compromise her feelings for him since men represent base abusive creatures who only use and exploit women.  She disdains women who are passive about being treated this way as well.  The book is subtle, the films are not, though the plot pacing in the Swedish version, Noomi Rapace’s acting and portrayal of Lisbeth is far better than the American version.

If you cut out what happens to Lisbeth with her guardian in the beginning, then the second and third films, if they get made, won’t make any sense. 

It seems that you have drawn some errant conclusions.  First, it is interesting that you “suspect that Larsson’s book just isn’t very good;” no real, or at least logically laid out, explanation was provided for this statement. 

In defense of Fincher, many of the directing and editing choices were done well, at least stylistically so, to the best of abilities considering the content of the book from which this film was adapted.  The introductory scenes for each of the characters were fast paced, choppy, and “disjointed,” and unless the viewer consciously treats these scenes with the attention that such a complex film deserves, it is easy to get confused.  However, it is likely that such chaotic stylistic choices were made intentionally to infuse the viewer into the quick, intellectual world that sets the stage for the events that are to take place.  

Much of the above analysis of Michael Blomkvist is fairly spot on, though I would actually find many of his qualities and characteristics, particularly his motivations, to be much less believable than those of Lisbeth.

Lisbeth is an enigma, and Fincher intentionally portrays a character that is distorted.  But that is because that is who Lisbeth is.  As played quite spectacularly by Mara, Lisbeth (in the movie, not to be confused with the character in the book) is a woman who has had to deal with the psychological effects that have resulted from her disenfranchisement and marginalization by society.  The abuses to which the guardian system are put, as made hauntingly obvious by the disturbed, intentionally and eerily quiet initial rape scene that built up to the much more intense rape scene at her guardian’s flat have been displayed with purpose.  Others have commented that this purpose is because the sequels in this trilogy would not make sense without these scenes.  In addition to this, much of Lisbeth’s motivations in helping Blomkvist can be explained by these experiences that she has had – by the unfair treatment that society has given to a girl that is so obviously abnormal as to be “other.”  From what I gather from having read your above analysis, it seems that you are viewing Lisbeth as more of a sexual being (which she undoubtedly is) than her other characteristics (i.e. her vast intelligence, her photographic memory, her determination).  You view her sexuality without paying attention to the motivations or context within which her sexual choices might be made.  Consensual sex, to Lisbeth, is about obtaining and giving pleasure, and many would argue that rather than a bi-sexual, she could be considered as more of a pansexual.  Lisbeth is attracted to whomever she is attracted to based upon her own emotions and interactions with that person (without regard to their gender necessarily).  

As to where Lisbeth fits in the plot of the murder mystery—this was made fairly obvious with the line by Blomkvist when he solicits Lisbeth’s help: “I want you to help me catch a killer of women.”  Lisbeth has been raped, abused, and disenfranchised in her own life, and her participation in the 40-year-old case with Blomkvist is thus motivated from these facts.  She has been raped and abused, and parallels such as these can be drawn relevantly to Blomkvist’s tasks.  As the diminutive human being that she is, as well as her close identification of herself as a female (Yes, being female is a large part of her identity despite her androgynous appearance), Lisbeth is driven by a desire to defend women, or at the very least bring their killer to justice—whether that justice be in death or in a court of law (though her distrust in courts and authorities from her personal experiences might tip the scales toward death).  Lisbeth is the type of person who would kill someone if she thought (or knew) that they had to be killed and have no regrets, she would choose to act without hesitation or effect on her moral compass.  This can be evidenced in the film by both the quick pace that many of the scenes dealing with Lisbeth take on.  The majority of the scenes including Lisbeth do move at a relatively quick pace (rightfully so, the movie is 2 1/2 hours long…in a good way) the scenes shown with her in the aftermath of the rape at her guardian’s apartment slow the tempo and show Lisbeth in stasis as she deals with the trauma.  A viewer knows she is going to act…and yet is still shocked to see the manner in which she exacts her revenge (unless they have read the books, of course).

As to the eroticism pointed out in terms of Lisbeth’s punk-ish appearance in addition to the black leather, yes, this is erotic.  However, try to think of this as less of an indicator of Lisbeth’s sexuality—Lisbeth doesn’t really think of herself as straight, gay, bisexual, or any other defined term.  She thinks of herself in context of what she must do to survive the world.  And in this, the stylistic choices made in outfitting Lisbeth (following Larsson’s descriptions very well) could also be considered a comment on the way that she feels that she is “other.”  Lisbeth knows that she is different from other women and doesn’t have a socialized role in society that the courts would like her to have.  Yet she doesn’t need to be one way or another in order to survive the day.  So she chooses pale skin, an odd and intriguing haircut, and a blackened palate to accompany her (hidden) emotions and the way that she deals with the world—things are either good or bad, polar opposites (there is no gradient). 

If some of these arguments have not been elucidated clearly enough, I suggest that one read the books.  I don’t know how to put it in any plainer terms without that context.

Critically some are forgetting that a film must stand up on its own merits. Its key themes shouldn’t be ambiguous or non-existent if they are vitally important to the plot of the novel. (But then again, a filmmaker can do what they want with the material. Kubrick’s masterpiece The Shining pretty much ripped up Stephen King’s novel and started from scratch.) If indeed story elements don’t exhibit themselves sufficiently in the film I don’t think that is an argument to go search out the book to make the film more appealing. The film therefore has problems and these can only be addressed as presented by the source – in this case the film, not the book. 

I haven’t seen Fincher’s remake – I have no intention to. I read the original novel – which was average at best, while the Swedish film was poor. 

Tom – this is a well-written and thoughtful review (as is usually the case with your work). You make some very interesting points – especially about Lisbeth’s character, that instead of detracting me from seeing the film, inspire some interest in how Fincher has handled these themes when compared to the Swedish original.