Another Disappointing American Remake

Rating: 4/10 (31 December 2011)

I checked the spoiler box, but I find it hard to believe that anyone interested in this movie has not read the book, or seen the Swedish version. And, frankly I can't understand the glowing reviews from critics and praise for Rooney Mara's performance. Did they read the book, or see the Swedish version? First the good. I did like the ending better than the Swedish version. It was closer to the book, and necessary to set up Lisbeth's antagonism toward Bloomkvist in the second book. But I wonder if they were even thinking about a possible second film, because they dragged at least 2 key scenes from the second book into this film, one being Lisbeth's confrontation of Bjurman about the possible tattoo removal.
Now for the bad. As created by Larsson in the book, and as portrayed by Noomi Rapace in the Swedish version, Lisbeth was an angry, fearless outsider, determined to live life on her terms. As portrayed by Mara, Lisbeth is a waif, unable to cope with life, making her outbursts of violence both puzzling and unexpected. In the book, it is clear that Lisbeth was the stronger character, but that's not the way Mara portrays her. That is the crux of the problem with this movie, and probably the reason for the glowing reviews. A waif-like Lisbeth is much less threatening to the male reviewers, than a strong fearless one.In the book, Lisbeth took charge in tough situations, she certainly didn't need to ask permission from Bloomkvist. The portrayal of Lisbeth, as directed by Fincher, and as portrayed by Mara, is a huge disappointment, and not true to the character in the book at all.
There were other missteps in this version as well. Daniel Craig seemed removed and dis-interested. He seemed to be walking through the performance giving little emotion. Maybe Craig just can't play a role that makes him subordinate to a woman, or maybe Fincher can't conceive of a film like that. In the Swedish version, Bjurman was a frightening character who exuded an aura of threat. In contrast, the character of Bjurman in Fincher's movie seemed more of an overgrown adolescent, who relished his position of authority.
Both versions played freely with the time-line of the book, and by dropping or including different subplots. But, the dropping of the "Kalle Bloomkvist" nickname that was so prominent in the books is curious. Again, Lisbeth used it as an ironic nickname to express her disdain for Bloomkvist, something that the waif Lisbeth couldn't do. Granted it didn't play as big of a role in the first book, but if you were thinking of a trilogy it was needed to set up the later films. I also didn't understand the inclusion of a daughter for Bloomkvist. It served no purpose, and was not in the book.
Overall, if you are a fan of the book, and liked the way Lisbeth was imagined by Larsson, you will be disappointed by the movie. If you feel threatened by a strong independent woman, then you will appreciate the way Fincher has castrated his version of Lisbeth. This was not as good as the Swedish version, which presented a film much closer in tone to the book.