The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - American Version

[skizzerflake]

Now I've seen this version, after having watched the Swedish version on Netflix...which one was better? I'm up in the air. Both were so similar, the new one isn't exactly a shot-by-shot remake, but it was very close to that and even used some of the same locations. As I suspected, Daniel Craig made a good Blomqvist, but I can't say that he was better than Micheal Nyqvist. Rooney Mara was also quite good as Lisbeth, somewhat more feral than Noomi Rapace, but I can't really say that she I think she was necessarily better. The story was mainly the same (except for one ending detail that would be a spoiler) and the production level about the same.

I guess then, the question is....why? Why do we need a remake of movies that have already been done, if nothing new comes out of a newer version? Is it because Americans are too ignorant to deal with a foreign film with subtitles? In any event, the new one is quite good, although my choice, by a narrow margin would be the Swedish version, mainly because it is SO Swedish, as is the story. I liked hearing the dialog in one of the "old country" languages I heard as a kid and since the English language version doesn't really add anything, I'd stick with the Swedish one.

Anybody else seen it?

 

[j_garcia]

Kind of what I was expecting to hear. Not unlike Let the Right One In vs Let Me In, also an American remake of a Swedish film. The American version was decent, and was relatively similar to the original but with much higher production values, yet the original was still better. So, again, what is the point of remaking it? I am sure I will get around to this one, but based on what you've said, probably a rental. I liked Noomi as Lisbeth.

 

[Adam]

I guess then, the question is....why? Why do we need a remake of movies that have already been done, if nothing new comes out of a newer version?

I thought that Point of No Return was a weak remake of La Femme Nikita overall, but my 21-year-old self being able to see a 29-year-old Bridget Fonda on the big screen back in 1993 made up for it.

 

[skizzerflake]

Kind of what I was expecting to hear. Not unlike Let the Right One In vs Let Me In, also an American remake of a Swedish film. The American version was decent, and was relatively similar to the original but with much higher production values, yet the original was still better. So, again, what is the point of remaking it? I am sure I will get around to this one, but based on what you've said, probably a rental. I liked Noomi as Lisbeth.

Exactly my impression. I had no problems with the American version (Let Me In), except that it just seemed unnecessary considering how good the Swedish version was, except for the language "problem". As someone who likes foreign films, I don't see the language as a problem, but I do realize that subtitles just don't play well at the Mega-Monster Mall Cineplex. It must have been too much temptation to resist making the massive selling Dragon trilogy into movies when you have a drawing card like Daniel Craig signed on for the ride.

 

[j_garcia]

I thought that Point of No Return was a weak remake of La Femme Nikita overall, but my 21-year-old self being able to see a 29-year-old Bridget Fonda on the big screen back in 1993 made up for it.

Bridget Fonda was practically the only reason to watch that one That one was actually re-done by Luc Besson though, so he basically reshot his own movie. In this case, it is a different director, though I am a fan of Fincher.

 

[darien87]

I haven't seen it yet but Rooney's got some big shoes to fill. Noomi Rapace was pretty much perfect for Lisbeth.

I have seen one American remake of a foreign film that I actually thought was better than the original. The Echo is a remake of a Filipino movie called Sigaw. But I did see The Echo first so maybe that influences my judgement. But Sigaw looked like a low budget movie made 40 years ago. The American version changed the story a little bit that I think improved on the original.

 

[jonnythan]

I felt that the American movie was much closer in plot to the book and the tech/computer scenes much more realistic.

Rooney was a good Lisbeth (she looked the part much better than Noomi), but I feel the characterization was a little more authentic in the Swedish film. Noomi didn't look like an asexual teenage boy the way Lisbeth was supposed to - she looked like a gothed-up hot raver chick. Rooney's androgynous haircut, with low-hanging baggy cargo pants felt much more like Salander than Noomi's fringe, studded collar, and tight jeans.

Conversely, I think that Craig looked less like Blomqvist than Nyquist, but played the part better.

I was surprised at how quickly the American film moved. Fincher didn't spend a whole lot of time explaining details and left it to the audience to keep up, which I liked.

I think it's wrong to think of this as a remake of a Swedish film. It is really a different, better, more accomplished film version of the original book.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... Is it because Americans are too ignorant to deal with a foreign film with subtitles? ...

Why would this be the reason? Not everyone is a speed reader. Is that being ignorant?
By the way, the BD disc has dubbed English which is what I used.

May have to see the new one, after all.

 

[its phillip]

You don't need to be a speed reader to read subtitles.

Anyway, I think the swedish film is better, but the books are better than both

 

[jonnythan]

Is it because Americans are too ignorant to deal with a foreign film with subtitles? In any event, the new one is quite good, although my choice, by a narrow margin would be the Swedish version, mainly because it is SO Swedish, as is the story. I liked hearing the dialog in one of the "old country" languages I heard as a kid and since the English language version doesn't really add anything, I'd stick with the Swedish one.

Anybody else seen it?

No, it's because very few Americans are going to watch a relatively low-budget subtitled foreign trilogy of inconsistent quality.

There was (is) a ton of money to be made by adapting these novels in English for an American audience by a big-budget Hollywood studio with lots of star power and marketing money. That's why they're being made - because they're going to make an *** ton of cash.

That said, the movies are good. So why are you complaining?

 

[skizzerflake]

Why would this be the reason? Not everyone is a speed reader. Is that being ignorant?
By the way, the BD disc has dubbed English which is what I used.

May have to see the new one, after all.

Americans are notoriously bad, by all measures, in language skills, choosing to think that everybody from the ancient Greeks to the present spoke some form of English. Wherever they go in the world, they expect people there to speak English. In the case of movies, they miss a lot by being so insular. Subtitles are not hard and have a distinct advantage over dubbings, which lose the cadence, expression and vocal nuance of the original language.

 

[jonnythan]

No one watches dubbed movies. Maybe cartoons, but not movies. People who watch foreign films watch them with subtitles.

 

[skizzerflake]

No, it's because very few Americans are going to watch a relatively low-budget subtitled foreign trilogy of inconsistent quality.

There was (is) a ton of money to be made by adapting these novels in English for an American audience by a big-budget Hollywood studio with lots of star power and marketing money. That's why they're being made - because they're going to make an *** ton of cash.

That said, the movies are good. So why are you complaining?

I don't think the American version is bad business, I just prefer seeing an original to an obvious imitation (even used some of the same location shots). I don't think the Fincher version was bad, so much as just not better. I didn't think it had anything not in the Swedish version. As for lots of cash, we will see. So far it isn't a huge hit, just doing OK, but definitely way behind Sherlock Homes, Mission Impossible and also the freakin' Chipmunks...enough to make one cynical, but then when you're looking at the movie business you need to be cynical and mercenary or you just don't get it.

 

[jonnythan]

I don't think the American version is bad business, I just prefer seeing an original to an obvious imitation (even used some of the same location shots). I don't think the Fincher version was bad, so much as just not better. I didn't think it had anything not in the Swedish version. As for lots of cash, we will see. So far it isn't a huge hit, just doing OK, but definitely way behind Sherlock Homes, Mission Impossible and also the freakin' Chipmunks...enough to make one cynical, but then when you're looking at the movie business you need to be cynical and mercenary or you just don't get it.

The Swedish version isn't any more original than the American one.

The American version isn't a remake of the movie. They're both adaptations of a book.

 

[skizzerflake]

The Swedish version isn't any more original than the American one.

The American version isn't a remake of the movie. They're both adaptations of a book.

True, of course, but I still preferred the Swedish one. I don't have any negatives about the American version at all, but I like stories in the native language and hearing it in Swedish just worked a little better for me. Remake is a relative term, but it's hard to think that D Fincher didn't look at the Swedish versions. Considering that some of the site locations are the same in both movies makes it seem a little closer to a remake than an independent adaptation.

 

[Alex2507]

You almost need to see the original to be able to keep up with the pace of the remake and I'm glad I saw them both. I appreciated the differences and liked the remake better as a film but liked certain parts of the original better.

The opening scene alone was worth the rental, very cool.

 

[adk highlander]

I watched the American version Sat. night. I must admit that the 5 hours of drinking before may have influenced me but I liked the Swedish version much better. My addled mind found it confusing in the way it seemed to jump from one conclusion to the next without any clarification as to how they came to said conclusions. I do think the acting was very well done in the American version (almost equal to the Swedish) but feel the Swedish version was still a better story. Maybe after I watch it with a clear head my feelings will change.

 

[Alex2507]

I must admit that the 5 hours of drinking before may have influenced me ...

Unless you had to 'one eye' the movie you were probably fine ...

 

[indulger]

Unless you had to 'one eye' the movie you were probably fine ...

Freakin Hilarious!! I thought I was the only one who did that

 

[skizzerflake]

No, it's because very few Americans are going to watch a relatively low-budget subtitled foreign trilogy of inconsistent quality.

There was (is) a ton of money to be made by adapting these novels in English for an American audience by a big-budget Hollywood studio with lots of star power and marketing money. That's why they're being made - because they're going to make an *** ton of cash.

That said, the movies are good. So why are you complaining?

If you noticed, I was not complaining, just expressing a preference since I didn't dislike the Craig version. There really wasn't much of a difference in the production level between the American and Swedish versions, not in any way that counted (IMO). American studios like to throw money at a movie just because they can, but it didn't necessarily make a better movie (thinking about John Carter, am I?). I know the realities of movie financing, but aside from Daniel Craig as a known quantity, there really wasn't much a difference in the productions. In fact, both versions used several of the same actual sets in Sweden and were nearly shot-by-shot in some sequences. There's a lot to be said for a bankable face among the cast, so it's not hard to predict that a version with Craig will win the box office in the US. The cynical might predict that the only foreign hit movie in the US in recent history had to be silent (The Artist) because Americans can't deal with language without getting hostile. US audiences are really seriously jingoistic and that's their loss.