Not really better than the original

Rating: 8/10 (20 December 2011)

Why do an English language version of a stunning foreign film? There are all sorts of reasons to do so and good ones. Perhaps the foreign culture got in the way of Americans appreciating the story fully, or perhaps the film was not well distributed in English-language countries. The North American market is huge and there are plenty of dollars for a film that probably played mostly in art houses (e.g. Pour Elle became The Next Three Days--practically duplicates). Tattoo, however, had a robust DVD viewing, so it's not like it lacked exposure. And sometimes a director has a particular point of view that he or she thinks will enhance or illuminate the story -- perfectly reasonable.
But I really cannot say why David Fincher took on a redo of this film. He brought nothing new to it. It's a copy tweaked here and there and not near as gritty as the original. And I'm not all that enthusiastic about some of the changes he made in Lisbeth's or Blomquist's character or in the story wrap up.
The first hour is quite slow--I even nodded off for a few minutes. It picks up when Lisbeth and Blomquist finally begin working together, although this Lisbeth is somewhat more into Blomquist. Despite Lisbeth's severe goth look, it's not as hard and realistic as Rapace's. Rooney Mara is Hollywood Lisbeth. Rapace has more street cred,she wasn't pretty & looked somewhat boyish.
I love David Fincher, think he's one of the best storytellers in film today. But I can't see compelling reasons for his efforts in this film. In any case, you'll enjoy the movie...again. But you won't leave the theatre in shock and awe.