I don't know if there was a translation problem, but with all the elements of a thriller, I thought it could have been more thrilling.
However I thought the 2nd and 3rd books got better and I finished them. I've watched the two original Swedish (subtitled) movies, which were ok. I'm wondering how the Daniel Craig movie will compare?
Agree that the first book was a bit slow initially, and took a while to warm up, but then it got a lot better. When I first read them, I was (quite literally) up half the night reading; I simply could not put them down - over a number of nights - and spent the next days at work smothering yawns. Part of the attraction was the fact there were so many strong female characters; quite often, thrillers are good on plot, but lousy on characterisation, especially female characterisation, as many women in such works are trite clichés.
I have rarely liked movie adaptations of books I have loved, as movies inevitably cut out a lot of nuance and sometimes miss the point of the book; the adaptation of The Name of The Rose was a rare exception. Although I have not seen the Swedish versions, I've been told they are pretty good, and quite faithful to the books, so I'll keep an eye out for them.
Not sure about Hollywood, the undoubted talents of Daniel Craig notwithstanding. In general, the classic Hollywood treatment of books leaves a lot to be desired.
Cheers