User Reviews

The final piece of an imperfect mechanism. The third entry in the 'Millennium' trilogy opens with one of the clumsiest beginnings I can recall in recent cinema. The first scene involving Niedermann (Micke Spreitz) is particularly poor: an artificial, badly executed sequence, riddled with a constant sense of falseness and evident continuity errors that shatter any attempt at immersion. It is an opening that not only leaves a bad first impression, but also feels completely at odds with the tone the trilogy had managed to establish up to that point. 'Millennium 3' is the weakest of the three films (Fincher’s version aside), but it is by no means a bad film. It is clearly aimed at viewers who are patient and comfortable with slow pacing, dense narratives, and long, simmering developments. For me, this is not an issue—I enjoy this kind of cinema and connect with it easily. Still, it is fair to say that this installment is the one that engages me the least on an emotional level for much of its runtime. That said, it never becomes boring. Once again, the film succeeds in terms of fidelity and narrative clarity. It manages to organize and make accessible an extremely dense storyline, packed with overdeveloped subplots and a surplus of secondary characters. However, even at a deliberately slow pace, two and a half hours are still not enough to fully encompass all of the novel’s material. While the film avoids being overly superficial, it does not dive into the deepest layers of the book. The upside is that it preserves the essence of the story, making it a solid and effective option for understanding the narrative without losing sight of what truly matters. Noomi Rapace remains the driving force behind the entire trilogy—its emotional core. Her screen presence never loses its magnetism or charisma, and her ability to convey pain, loneliness, rejection, and violence is remarkable, even when stripped of the visual elements most closely associated with her character. She builds Lisbeth Salander from the inside out, grounding the performance in emotional truth, and that is what ultimately elevates the film as a whole. The supporting cast is equally competent: every significant role carries appropriate weight, with no character left underdeveloped or unfairly sidelined. The cinematography once again takes a back seat, much like in the previous installment. It is not especially striking or stylized, but it does not need to be. Narrative is the priority here. The photography, staging, screenplay, and direction are all competent and consistent with the film’s tone. That said, some scenes feel undeniably strange in their execution—not due to narrative incoherence, but because of technical choices that generate a sense of unease or dissonance. Of its two-and-a-half-hour runtime, the final stretch is undoubtedly the most compelling. The most solid. The most intense. The most decisive. It creates an effect similar to what I experienced with 'Oppenheimer' in its final act. This tension is achieved through strong performances, well-constructed dialogue, and a confident narrative pulse. It is in this final portion that the film finds its strongest version of itself. Ultimately, 'Millennium 3' is something of a roller coaster. It has clear highs and lows: scenes that work perfectly alongside others that would have benefited from being rethought or re-executed differently. It is not the most polished or powerful entry in the trilogy when viewed as a whole rather than in isolated moments. Still, it does not betray the spirit of the saga. It is a conclusion that focuses on what truly matters and effectively distills the essence of Stieg Larsson’s work.

The third film of the Millennium trilogy is a crime thriller that was generally well received and received moderate reviews and has its own charms. The beginning of the movie is exactly from the end of the movie "The Girl Who Plays with Fire" and this idea is attractive and pleasant. When we consider the total of three films together in a trilogy, we can consider it an attractive, different and successful trilogy of Swedish cinema.

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.

The film is boring and lethargic. Spent time in vain. The theme of hackers is implausible, any application is difficult to hack, and a decentralized type of utopia p2p cannot be cracked at all. Not exactly in 5 minutes.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet´s Nest was a good movie, but was a little graceful ending of a very good saga that is the Millennium saga, the performances of Rapace and Nyquist still convincent, but the story, although it has looked good, it seemed with more drama and almost nothing of the action that the saga has shown, although of that its ending was satisfactory.

Gets bogged down in the trial and as such is much less interesting. Rapace and Nyqvist have been good.

The third instalment of the Millenium trilogy, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest dives further back into Lisbeth Salander's past and gives us a slight idea into why she is the way that she is. As interesting as this could be it ultimately ends up being the story's major weakness. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a fantastic movie, mainly down to the mismatched leads, their chemistry and the intriguing demeanour of one of cinema's most fascinating characters, however by picking away Salander's layers we remove that mystery that ultimately made her so great. At the start of the movie she spends a lot of time in a hospital gown and it is only when she gets her 'superhero' moment (you know that one when you finally see Batman for the first time), dressed as the punk goth that we know, that you can breath a sigh of relief. The story is much slower than the previous ones and it does finally ramp in when the court case of Salander's murder accusations finally kicks in. There is still tension and frights but Salander as a character doesn't drive this film like she did before. When Blomkvist and Salander were investigating an outside case the narrative bubbles but when it shifts to closer to home the tone differs and is less appealing. The second and third instalments could be from a different trilogy apart from a couple of vital scenes. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest still has plenty to saviour. The fact it is still made on a shoestring budget despite the first film's success is remarkable and the performances are still on form however it only goes to highlight how much you will yearn to rewatch the first film again. Long-winded, slightly messy and unevenly concluded but worth a watch solely for Salander and Rapace's once again brilliant performance.

"The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest" is the final completion of the Millennium trilogy which main advantage was the original novel by Stieg Larsson. We, the observers of these three movies, know pretty much all about Lisbeth Salander of the first two films. We've got other disgusting characters in the 3d movie of the series and we've got some other brutal homicides. Daniel Alfredson, who directed the pretty good "The Girl Who Played With Fire" was also making this movie and he was kind of successful with it. But just kind of. Props to him for selecting the important scenes out of this really big novel, criticism for him for not making it thrilling. Of course, there are some parts it gets enthralling but the main part of this movie is actually calm. Lisbeth is curing before getting into the lawsuit and as you should've expected it's nothing spectacular. Some scenes are nice, some scenes are too slow after my fancy. See, the film is not bad - if the Millennium trilogy would've been a short TV series, this could be a felicitous last episode - but as a 140 minute film it gets sluggish. I'm not as disappointed as I was with "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" but "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest" isn't a good film either. However, I was entertained relatively all the time and if you've reasonably enjoyed the first two pictures I'd also recommend you to watch this one. In fine, it just lacks a real blast. Even the final scene is non-satisfying; I intensively hoped for another last scene after the credits (which didn't come). That's it, the final movie of the Millennium trilogy is nothing more than an 'okay'.

A nicely wrapped up 3rd installment to Steig Larsson's movie adapted trilogy. The change in director, in the second film, might of been the downfall to what could have been an excellent trilogy. Noomi Rapace still kills it as Lisbeth Salender.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest brings the Millennium trilogy to a pretty satisfying conclusion. It still doesn't quite live up to the stunning first film of the series, but is much more evenly paced and consistent in tone than the second film. Thankfully Michael Nyqvist gets more more to do this time round, and keeps Mikael Blomkvist a well-rounded and engaging protagonist. Noomi Rapace is still a joy to watch, though she does suffer from a similar fate to Nyqvist in the previous film, that is to say, her character becomes relatively passive in terms of the overall story - this is Blomkvist's film, not Lisbeth's (so I guess the imbalance in The Girl Who Played with Fire where he was sidelined so Lisbeth could take centre-stage is redressed). The film is never as narratively tight or quite as well-crafted as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - like the second film, Hornet's Nest's plot is a little convoluted, with narrative strands all over the place, a few of which are barely resolved by the film's finale (which, on a side note, is a little ridiculous). That said, the film is never boring, and the 145 minute run-time flies by. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest gives the series closure, and returning director Daniel Alfredson, who took a little time to find his feet in The Girl Who Played with Fire has given the late Stieg Larsson's characters a good sendoff.

The ending of the movie trilogy. In totality, the three were each better than anything I saw released by the major domestic studios during 2010. And the third part is fulfilling if not as action packed as the other two. It'll be interesting to see if the American remake can beat this Swedish production. Noomi rocks the role of Lisbeth!

The challenge of "Hornet's Nest" -- the novel -- was to keep the plot moving and and the reader engrossed while our beloved Lisbeth is mostly laid up in a hospital and out of commission. Somehow, the book succeeds at this better than the movie does. Don't get me wrong: It brings things to a satisfying end if you've read all the books and seen the other two films. But this movie would be the least interesting for people approaching it on its own merits.

The last of of the trilogy is not as powerful as the first two as it is slower in pace and restricted too much inside (hospitals, courts,etc..) and the revelations have a lower surprise factor. the trilogy is being remade by Hollywood, but I fail to see if they can do more justice to Larsson's books.

The third and the last installment of the Millenium triology left us definitely wanting for more, of the book, not so much the films. It does not pack any action and mostly focuses on a courtroom, Salander's love life, and Blomkvist running errands. Though it wasn't action packed, Noomi Rapace still kept her performance solid as rock. From her expressionless face to her crooked smile, Lisbeth Salander had become an icon for women everywhere.

These Swedish films are based on author Stieg Larsson's very popular "Millennium" trilogy of books. The "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" is the first, and "The Girl Who Played With Fire" is the second, while "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest" is the last in the series. All three should be viewed in sequence. Be sure to get the Swedish originals instead of the Hollywood remakes. Each of the three is stylistically different, but each is qualitatively in the top 10 percent of movies ever made - a 10 rating. Tattoo is essentially a murder mystery and is nicely developed at a relaxed pace. The main point in this is the introduction of the girl, who is a fascinating personality that constitutes a underlying mystery within the mystery explored in the film itself. This mystery of the Girl is revealed in the next two films in the series. Fire is a mystery-action movie, and unlike the relaxed pace of Tattoo (to emphasis the mystery), Fire has a fast pace that emphasizes the action. The mystery of the Girl is completely revealed in Nest, the final movie. Simultaneous plots are shown in shifts back and forth, which is potentially confusing for some viewers. However, this is skillfully accomplished as the plots of the investigation, the trial, and the experiences of the girl through all of this are depicted. This is an outstanding set of three movies. People that don't speak Swedish and who do not like sub-titles may not like this aspect of the movies, but there is also a fine version of Tattoo (the first movie) that is English dubbed. English dubbed versions of the second and third of the set may be forthcoming.

I'd given "Played with Fire" a 7, but I feel that was a bit too generous. This film is clearly a 7. It wraps up the 3 stories well, but it's nowhere near the classic that "Dragon Tattoo" is. I hear that it's quite different than the book, so check this one out even if you were mildly disappointed by the 2nd one.

This was a good film. What's interesting is that translations and titles are so important with the general perception of the film. I saw Millennium 3 with Spanish subtitles where I had seen the first two films with English subtitles. I found that even the title; "Millennium" vs. "The Girl who" created a different emphasis on the viewer. Watching Millennium the viewer feels like a reporter for the magazine, and as the mystery unfolds you find yourself asking the same questions the characters do. Should we publish this story? Can this be real? I agree this film was better than the second one. Overall the first film is the best of the bunch and is really the only one that you can view as a stand alone film. Having seen all three films within a two month period I found this was a good conclusion to the trilogy. I just would not recommend it unless you've seen Millennium 1 and 2.

I enjoyed this final film in the trilogy. That said, I found it a rather methodical film where the high points really did not deliver the viewer satisfaction we expect. Take the final minutes of "Michael Clayton" for example. That was intense and a huge payoff. Here the emotion seemed lacking. Still, I enjoyed the entire trilogy.

This is definitely head & shoulders above the second installment, though still not as good as the first. There's none of the awkwardness of the second movie. It's definitely faster paced, and a bit more action oriented, but overall well done. For people who enjoyed the first movie, and who have a bad taste in their mouths from the second film, this should wash away that nasty aftertaste.

Slightly more satisfying and structured than the second part of the trilogy but nowhere near as good as the first. The fans of the novels will probably be happy to see the conclusion of the events, but regular viewers might wonder what the fuss is all about. I'm usually adamantly against the US remakes of world cinema hits (be they European or Asian), but I strongly suspect that at least parts 2 and 3 of the Millennium Trilogy will be much better remade.