I very much liked the original Swedish film based upon Stieg Larsson’s book The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.
Unfortunately, I don’t like David Fincher’s Americanized version. It’s one of the dumbest film projects of 2011, a movie whose very existence constitutes a major waste of good, creative energy.
I don’t see the logic in remaking the Swedish film so soon—especially when the American remake is set in Sweden. It irritates me that Fincher, one of our finest directors, has dedicated a big chunk of his time to a film that feels like a mere re-creation of director Niels Arden Oplev’s 2009 original.
Given that blood still pumps mightily through the veins of actress Noomi Rapace, replacing her with a far-less-remarkable American actress is a major misstep. Rapace has proven with the recent Sherlock Holmes sequel and the upcoming Prometheus that she speaks English well and is capable of fronting a big-budget American picture.
Watching the redone-but-not-really Tattoo, I was reminded of Gus Van Sant’s silly attempt to remake Psycho, in which Vince Vaughn replaced Anthony Perkins, and Van Sant re-created virtually every shot of the original. It, too, was ultimately a useless exercise.
Fincher takes a few detours from the original, including a stranger and messier ending, but overall, the film delivers the same scenes and plot points. This movie was apparently made under the assumption that most Americans don’t watch foreign films, and that Fincher’s version would be many viewers’ first foray into Larsson’s dark territories. Well, a lot of people did watch the original, and I’m thinking that many of those people will be annoyed by this film.
The plot centers on troubled journalist Mikael (Daniel Craig), who, while facing jail time for a story he wrote, moonlights by helping a grieving man (Christopher Plummer) find a woman who has been missing for 40 years. Mikael isn’t getting it done on his own, so he enlists the help of computer-hacker and private-investigator Lisbeth Salander.
In the central role of Salander is Rooney Mara, an actress who has failed to impress in the past. She did OK with her few minutes in Fincher’s The Social Network, but she was awful in another pale remake of a great movie, A Nightmare on Elm Street. In my review of the Freddy Krueger redux, I said this: “Mara seems genuinely uninterested in the craft of acting. The energy gets sucked out of the movie whenever she’s on screen.” Yeah, I wasn’t impressed.
If there’s any good news regarding Mara, it’s that her work has improved. As Salander, Mara certainly looks the part: She has jet-black, oddly placed hair; bone-white skin; lots of (real) piercings; and that infamous tattoo on the shoulder. Like Rapace, she spends a good portion of the film naked, and like Rapace, she does naked well.
Mara is serviceable in the role, but Rapace had a lot more going on behind her eyes. She just seemed more wounded, something that suits this anxious computer-hacker. Allegedly, there was a campaign for Rapace to reprise the role, but she apparently turned down the chance to do it again (so says the Internet Movie DataBase).
So if Rapace was not an option, why did filmmakers do the remake like this? If you are going to Americanize something, why not set it in America, instead of saddling your lead actress with a thick, weird, accent? This is essentially the same movie with performers speaking English rather than Swedish. Set it in, say, San Francisco, and at least the film would have a new setting and approach.
Plummer is solid as the man searching for a long-lost relative. Meanwhile, Stellan Skarsgård occupies a role from the prior film and takes it to new heights. He’s great in this movie. We also get Robin Wright as Craig’s co-editor at the paper.
I suspect that this film might become a flop; it came out of the box office rather slowly on Christmas weekend. Hopefully, Fincher will be forced to do something else and skip the sequels. Even the Swedish versions of the sequels had diminishing returns; the final film in the trilogy, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, had an awful story, and I would hate to see Fincher waste his time on it.
For the uninitiated (meaning those who never saw the Swedish version), The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo might be passably good. It’s shot well; it has a Trent Reznor soundtrack that is only mildly distracting; and it features good-looking naked people in it. For those who did see the original, there’s nothing new for you—other than a far-less-interesting actress in the central role.
This article appears in Dec 29, 2011 – Jan 4, 2012.
Wrong. This is actually better than the Swedish version, it is however, darker and the ‘major’ sex scene is more violent. Mara did an excellent job in the role.
I disagree. I thought this film was excellent, and I’m a fan of the book, first and foremost. I’ve admittedly never seen the Swedish version (I do plan on watching it soon), but from what I understand, Mara and Rapace had different takes on the character of Lisbeth Salander. That, to me, flies in the face of your argument that “this is essentially the same movie with performers speaking English rather than Swedish.” I thought Mara was excellent, portraying a quiet pain and anger. She was very much like the Salander I imagined when reading the novel. Fincher’s direction is also noticeable in creating a moody, dark atmosphere.
I actually wrote a pretty in-depth review of this film. Check it out here:
http://tommydtalksmovies.com/2011/12/30/the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo-review-and-discussion/
The original is better and rapace was a better actress in the role i to read the novels when they first came out and in my interpretation rapace’s character nailed it.
I agree with the review a waste of time you can even watch the original with an english dub if your that put out by the subtitles.
Why on earth did steve zallian get a writers credit for something thats been scripted before and copied almost identical to the original with the exception of a couple of scenes?.
I’ve read the books, watched the swedish version, and have watched this version. There really is no comparison, this version was vastly superior to the swedish version. I watch subtitled movies, Pan’s labyrinth being the best in recent history in my mind. The talent of Fincher, the actors, the look of the story fit so much better than the seeminly made for t.v. production of the swedish version. I for one prefer Mara over rapace as well, I think she fit the character more. Same goes for Craig who I felt was perfect for the role. You are just a snob who always claims ‘the original” is better for the sake of seeming cool. let me ask you this, if you’ve read the book, did you read it in swedish? Did you picture the characters speaking swedish with a subtitle at the bottom? I think not, this is a good movie.
The only thing that “flopped” was your review. Better luck in the future (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo – $80M and counting). Looking forward to the next movie.
I liked them both the original and this remake but thats cos i think of them as different movies. I liked both female leads and whilst i am a fan of Daniel Craig, found him rather distracting playing role of middle aged journo whilst trying not to get sidetracked by his excellent physique and his swagger (which i love) which he just cannot lose tho sure he tried:) Do agree that it would have played better if they had just set the story in America – it wouldn’t have detracted from it and probably would have helped. I would give the remake a 7 out of 10 for its own reasons. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. Surely there is no need to run down someone else’s if its different from yours. Isn’t this what these forums are for.
I Agree.
The “cool” in Lisbeth is too shallow, and that the United States version thinks that as long as she has some cool dragon tattoo and a punk makeup, reveals a point of pale sickly, fragile physique to wear a small a hoodie, coupled with sharp eyes, then people will be very happy to see this movie. This Lisbeth is far away from the one in the book. The U.S. version Completely eliminate the need for Lisbeth’s life experience and arson in that period, perhaps for a sequel considerations. The result is that the audience might feel her behavior is strange, and can not fully understand what a person she is in the end. The end of time, the U.S. version of Lisbeth turned to Blomkvist comments and asked if she could kill Martin, this is unthinkable. Original roll in the face after Lisbeth Martin have some inner struggle, seeing the car going to explode, Martin desperately to help her, she ultimately no action, then Blomkvist to her, she also admitted that she did not kill him when Blomkvist asked, and she said the truth is the she did not save him. The U.S. version did not give Martin the opportunity and Lisbeth did not have the time to consider, almost when she finished and the car exploded. The details of the characterization of human nature weakened the intensity, thus reducing the depth of the film.
In conclusion, the U.S. version has a fancy titles, the music, images, atmosphere is very good, the actors are more beautiful type, as a commercial film to film and entertainment is still very successful. But if you like a true story movie, and also care about the film’s narrative, rhythm, structure, characterization as well, then the original is definitely more suitable for you.
Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion. The “critics” are entitled to theirs and the public is entitled to think certain critics are sometimes snobs, wrong, and self serving.
Noomi Rapace is a far, far better Lisbeth. Edgier, smarter, moodier actor. She makes the movie, making the Swedish version, which has few departures from the book, a lot better.