[Film review] The Girl Who Played with Fire

Question

Hi everybody,I am an EFL learner from Italy. As an exercise, I wrote this review about a film I have just seen. I would like to know if there are mistakes in grammar and style.  Can you help me? Mind you, there are some slight spoilers (in the paragraph where it says "Spoiler Alert"), but I do not give away the ending!Thank you in advance!===A Swedish fire that warms but doesn’t burn.“Flickan som lekte med elden" (“The Girl Who Played with Fire”) is the second instalment in the cinematic version of the “Millennium” trilogy, the best-selling triplet of novels by Swedish author Stieg Larsson.  It is an above-average sequel and an entertaining thriller, dominated by its female lead character, the strong yet frail, troubled hacker Lisbeth Salander, played by untypical Swedish actress Noomi Rapace. However, it is not by any means as good as the first chapter of the saga, “Män som hatar kvinnor” (literally “Men Who Hate Women”, but released to English speaking audiences as “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”).The second episode, a must-see if you enjoyed the first one, tells more about Lisbeth’s childhood and unveils her intricate relations with some horrible men who really do hate and abuse women. No wonder she, as an adult, fancies other women, as it is explicitly shown in a girl-on-girl scene. (SLIGHT SPOILER ALERT!)  When Lisbeth is charged by the police with three murders, her friend, journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist), who is investigating on international women trafficking in Sweden, tries to help her follow the track to the real authors of the killings, only to find out that...  Enough said!Unfortunately, “The Girl Who Played with Fire” is not in the same league of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”. The story is not as fresh and intriguing; there are too many odd coincidences, unexplained events, and secondary characters not as deep as they should be. At times, it seems a brilliant “made for television” product rather than a motion picture for the theatres. I was not at all surprised to find out that it actually was made for television, in the form of two episodes of 90 minutes each, later unified to a 129 runtime to hit the big screen rather than the little one. The extended cuts may account for some awkward turns in the plot, which were probably better explained in the uncut version and in the original book.In the end, an enjoyable film which could have been much better.My vote: 6.5 out of 10.

BarbaraPA · Accepted Answer

Largely, very good. Natural phrasing. I wouldn't know that English was not your first language without a more careful reading looking for mistakes.

installment

This sentence needs some help: When Lisbeth is charged by the police with three murders, her friend, journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist), who is investigating on international women trafficking in Sweden, tries to help her follow the track to the real authors of the killings, only to find out that... Enough said!

Your spoiler alert comes a bit late, and I"m not sure why you included that bit -- was it to warn people about the explicit *** scene?

Do you feel the movie is not fresh and intriguing because of the way the book was rendered on screen, or did you feel that way about the book? A movie can be a faithful depiction of a so-so book and be as good as it can be, or it can leave out parts of the book and that omission creates the problem.

You end by saying that it could have been better, but you don't really say how -- would it be through allowing a longer run-time and restoring cut scenes, or a more faithful adaptation of the book, or more careful screen writing to keep the basic truth of the story but making it suitable for a movie?

Anonymous · Answer

Excellent work.

orangeprsrinstalment

Spelling error (two l's)

orangeprsrstrong yet frail

Strong in what way? (clarity problem)

orangeprsras it is explicitly shown

Not "as it is" but either "as explicitly shown" or "which is explicitly shown" or just "explicitly shown."

orangeprsrinvestigating on

Investigating international women (not investigating "on")
No astericks before or after "was."
The last remark is not a sentence, which may or may not be fine. Simple correction: In the end, this is an enjoyable film . . ..

Orangeprsr · Answer

Grammar GeekLargely, very good. Natural phrasing. I wouldn't know that English was not your first language without a more careful reading looking for mistakes.

Thank you! I hope you don't mind if I post some more reviews of mine now and then. I also post them as user reviews to the Internet Movie Database web site. I find watching and reviewing films a nice way to practice my English, as I can mix study with pleasure.

Grammar Geekinstallment

I used "instalment", and "theatres", because I chose to stick with the British spelling.

Grammar GeekThis sentence needs some help: When Lisbeth is charged by the police with three murders, her friend, journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist), who is investigating on international women trafficking in Sweden, tries to help her follow the track to the real authors of the killings, only to find out that... Enough said!

"...investigating on women trafficking...", as noticed by Anonymous.

Besides, I guess that sentence is too long. Let me split it into two shorter sentences (I'll put the added words in italics).

"The story gets going when Lisbeth is charged by the police with three gruesome murders. Her friend, journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist), who is investigating on international women trafficking in Sweden, tries to help her follow the track to the real authors of the killings, only to find out that... Enough said!"

Grammar GeekYour spoiler alert comes a bit late, and I"m not sure why you included that bit -- was it to warn people about the explicit *** scene?

Actually the "slight spoiler alert" is about the murders and Lisbeth being charged. I don't even know if it is a proper "spoiler", as that's just the start of the story.

Grammar GeekDo you feel the movie is not fresh and intriguing because of the way the book was rendered on screen, or did you feel that way about the book? A movie can be a faithful depiction of a so-so book and be as good as it can be, or it can leave out parts of the book and that omission creates the problem.

I meant (and perhaps I should make that clearer) compared to the first film, not compared to the book.

Grammar GeekYou end by saying that it could have been better, but you don't really say how -- would it be through allowing a longer run-time and restoring cut scenes, or a more faithful adaptation of the book, or more careful screen writing to keep the basic truth of the story but making it suitable for a movie?

Let me try and rephrase my conclusion.

"In the end, an enjoyable movie which could have been better, probably, if it had been intended as a feature film from the beginning, thus not having to take out about one hour of the original footage."

BarbaraPA · Answer

I am a avid user of imdb.com. I will look forward to seeing your posts!

Orangeprsr · Answer

AnonymousExcellent work.

Thank you!

Anonymous
orangeprsrinstalment
Spelling error (two l's)

I gather that "instalment" is British spelling.

Anonymous
orangeprsrstrong yet frail
Strong in what way? (clarity problem)

A tiny, troubled young woman, yet skilled and resolute...

Anonymous
orangeprsras it is explicitly shown
Not "as it is" but either "as explicitly shown" or "which is explicitly shown" or just "explicitly shown."
orangeprsrinvestigating on
Investigating international women (not investigating "on")
No astericks before or after "was."
The last remark is not a sentence, which may or may not be fine. Simple correction: In the end, this is an enjoyable film . .

Here is the revised text.

A Swedish fire that warms but doesn’t burn.

“Flickan som lekte med elden" (“The Girl Who Played with Fire”) is the second instalment in the cinematic version of the “Millennium” trilogy, the best-selling triplet of novels by Swedish author Stieg Larsson. It is an above-average sequel and an entertaining thriller, dominated by its female lead character, the tiny and troubled, yet skilled and resolute, hacker Lisbeth Salander, played by untypical Swedish actress Noomi Rapace. However, it is not as good as the first chapter of the saga, “Män som hatar kvinnor” (literally “Men Who Hate Women”, but released to English speaking audiences as “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”).
The second episode, a must-see if you enjoyed the first one, tells more about Lisbeth’s childhood and unveils her intricate relations with some horrible men who really do hate and abuse women. No wonder she, as an adult, fancies other women, as explicitly shown in a girl-on-girl scene. The story gets going when Lisbeth is charged by the police with three gruesome murders. Her friend, journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist), who is investigating international women trafficking in Sweden, tries to help her follow the track to the real authors of the killings, only to find out that... Enough said!
Unfortunately, “The Girl Who Played with Fire” is not in the same league of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”. The story in the sequel is not as fresh and intriguing; there are too many odd coincidences, unexplained events, and secondary characters not as deep as they should be. At times, it seems a brilliant “made for television” product rather than a motion picture for the theatres. I was not at all surprised to find out that indeed it was made for television, in the form of two episodes of 90 minutes each, later unified to a 129 runtime to hit the big screen rather than the little one. The extended cuts may account for some awkward turns in the plot, which were probably better explained in the uncut version and in the book.
In the end, an enjoyable movie which could have been better, probably, had it been intended as a feature film from the beginning, thus not needing about an hour of the original footage to be taken out.
My vote: 6.5 out of 10.

[Film review] The Girl Who Played with Fire

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions