Not Sure it Was Better Than the Swedish Flick

Rating: 8/10 (27 December 2011)

I read Stieg Larsson's entire Millennium Trilogy, and I recommend that people read the books before setting foot in a theater.
Of course, movies never live up to books, and the way the reader imagines characters, scenes, plot development, storytelling tension, etc.
As a standalone film, this film is OK, but I feel sorry for anyone who is not familiar with the trilogy and all of its story lines and intricacies. I don't know how anyone who has not read the books could possibly follow the plot line, or see the complexities of each character and their relationships to each other.
I saw all of the Swedish films based on the books, and I'm still not convinced that the first Hollywood installment is any better than the Swedish version. The Hollywood version might be a bit slicker and bigger budget, and its screenplay might be a tad tighter, and more well written.
All in all, though, I was not as blown away by the Hollywood version as I had hoped. The "corny" factor that was evident in the Swedish films seems to have been taken care of in the Hollywood version. But then you have the "weirdness" of accents used to convey "otherness" and "foreignness" to U.S. audiences.
U.S. audiences may enjoy the newer version because we are biased toward movies filmed in English, and biased toward more well-known actors and actresses, i.e. Daniel Craig over Michael Nyqvist. It goes without saying that the Swedish films were more authentic.
I will say this, though, Rooney Mara kicks ass as Lisbeth Salander, and I might even like her performance more than Noomi Rapace's. I didn't think anyone could top Rapace, but Mara may have just done that.
Minor footnote: I really wish the producers had ended the film with another hard- charging Led Zep song.