Good Twist on Film Noir, but View the Scandinavian Original.

Rating: 7/10 (14 June 2002)

As one of the few viewers who's seen the the original Scandinavian film, I'd like to offer a comparative perspective. I won't summarize the story because that's been done countless times on this forum already. Instead I'd like to convince other viewers to compare it with the Scandinavian original.
First the good: The production in this newer version is a significant improvement over the original. Since the original had a lower budget, it didn't feature many dramatic technical devices. Consequently, even though the story is excellent, the deliberate pace and relatively stark production make it sometimes feel dry and placid. The dramatic elements (eerie music, camera effects, etc.) of the remake make the story more compelling.
In terms of the story itself, the remake takes compromises that make it less believable than the original. I'll discuss the details later, but it's interesting to compare a few of the details with the original. The compromises made in the re-make were probably done to make it more palatable to American audiences.
Overall, both films are very good and worth seeing, but I'd like encourage people to view the Scandinavian original. Comparing both films, it's also interesting to see how these cinematic differences might also relate to cultural differences. I'll discuss the details below, so if you haven't seen either film, I advise you to stop reading now.
Warning: SPOILERS below.
There are two specific scenes that are distinctly different when comparing the original with the remake. Firstly, the scene where the detective (Skarrsgaard in the original, Paccino in the remake) shoots the dog as part of a plot to conceal his mistake. In the original, the detective finds a live stray dog, then shoots it. In the remake, the detective shoots a dead animal he just happened to find earlier in the story. The Scandinavian film is more realistic because it's much more likely he would need to seek an animal to shoot rather than just happen upon a dead one. While this scene might be more palatable in the remake, it compromises believability for sentiment (as is often the case in American cinema).
Secondly, in the original conclusion, the detective (Skaarsgaard) survives, while in the remake he is killed. In terms of emotional substance, the original is superior because the character is forced to "live-with" what he did. In the remake, the character more or less redeems himself and dies tragically. While this makes for a more dramatic conclusion, it's also more artificial. Again, believability is compromised for a more satisfying, but artificial conclusion.
I encourage viewers to see both films and compare. Overall, I think both films are more or less equally good, but in different ways. The fact that the the original is less sentimental and more realistic might be indicative of some of the differences between Scandinavian and American cultures.