... speaking English. That way this film could have picked up where "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest" ended, and there would be some continuity.
Instead, we get a third recasting and a reboot film based on the fourth novel in the series.
It's not a "reboot film." It simply (loosely) adapts the fourth novel, which *is* in fact a story that picks up where "Hornet's Nest" ended. Not sure what your confusion is, here.
Claire Foy did a fine job. So did Noomi. So did Rooney. All a matter of taste, really. None of the three is *exactly* like Lisbeth in the novels. . .that's for sure.
It's a soft-reboot: different actors and director, and essentially a different Lisbeth Salander, since it's a quasi-sequel to David Fincher's "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" that skips all of her character development in the two subsequent books.
Not sure how you don't understand that... derppppppp.
You continue to have trouble w/simple concepts. This is an adaptation of the next book in the series, NOT a Fincher sequel, or "reboot," soft or otherwise. No more so than the fourth book was. See how that works? Of course not, Derrrrrrrrp. (I love the fact that such an obvious muppet comes complete w/sound effects. . .beautiful).
You can continue to babble the same mistakes, or make a mighty effort to understand these basic facts. Join us; it's really nice over here in reality.
The Guardian, LA Times, Forbes, etc are also calling "The Girl in the Spider's Web" a reboot...
https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2018/oct/24/the-girl-in-the-spiders-web-review-claire-foy
Perhaps you should email the editors of those publications and tell them how wrong these professional film critics are? LOL
Make sure you sign off with "sincerely, derrrrrp".
And?
Because some critics call it a reboot, that makes it so?
You really do have a problem w/simple logic. There's this series of books, see. This movie. . ."The Girl in the Spider's Web". . .is an adaptation of the fourth book in the series, which is titled. . .wait for it. . ."The Girl in the Spider's Web."
It's hilarious that you think you've proven something simply because you've found other people who are confused too.
Just quit it. Critical thinking ain't your thing.
Just quit it. Critical thinking ain't your thing.
From someone who can think. . ."LOL". Point to as many critics as you like. Then point to the facts. Then admit *You're* wrong. We'll wait.
LOLz
They’re not critics. They’re reviewers. They deal in opinions—mainly their own—and not in facts. These are the morons who call a series of three sequential films “a trilogy.” They wouldn’t recognize formal cinema criticism if it bit them in the ass.
It’s not a laughing matter, but you don’t understand that.
I lost all respect for film critics when I noticed years ago that some of them would lift verbatim lines from other reviewers in different cities. That was prior to the days of the internet where I suspect it was not expected to ever be noticed since most people didn't read out of state papers, but I did and it became pretty clear that a lot of the reviewers were just making crap up and probably never even saw the movie they reviewed.
shareTo repeat: they are not critics. They are reviewers. A critic is a logician, adhering to a strict system of logic, about which I am not going to elaborate in this playpen. A reviewer states his/her personal taste, unfettered by awareness of objective criteria that define what is good and what is not. Criticism (which is as often praise as it is condemnation) is hard. It requires study, knowledge, discipline, taste and passion. Reviewing is the intellectual equivalent of Onanism. All it requires is a personal opinion, and we all know to what a personal opinion has been compared.
share