And now that I've seen the third movie in the trilogy, I will say that as a free standing movie it is probably confusing. Since I already knew the characters and the general story outline, I was not lost. But someone, say Ms. Anderson, unfamiliar with the story thread would undoubtedly be put off by the multiple small story arcs and the many people. In that sense the film is probably not worth seeing without first seeing the other two.But, if you know the first two, I think it brings the entire trilogy to a more-than satisfying conclusion. The bad guys get their just desserts and Salander stays true to he own moral values. Watching Teleborian disintegrate is worth the price of admission alone.So, NewTimes editors, please don't assign reviewers to sequel movies as you did here unless they are familiar with what has gone before. I'm sure Ms. Anderson can do a good job when she hasn't been denied the backstory as she was here. These films and novels are a single story, even though its parts are disconnected both by the author's design and the fact that the publishers/producers chose to trifucate them. Eventually, both the movies and the novel(s) hang together very well as a whole, though it is easier to jump in with the novels, as Larsson made some effort to allow the books to have natural break points. Yet it is unfair to judge the movie as a separate piece as Ms. Anderson did here. The sum of all three is definitely greater than the individual parts.