Disappointed

Rating: 4/10 (31 January 2012)

As I expected: David Fincher's American version is cleaner than Niels Arden Oplev's Swedish version, and that's the huge difference between them, also that's the huge difference between what is produced in Hollywood from what is produced outside Hollywood.
My review is ONLY about the movie itself and not as an adaptation, so doesn't matter for me right now which one is more faithful to the book or not, but instead, which one of them has a better development since both are using exactly the same source.
Unfortunately this is not an occasion like Capote (2005) and Infamous (2006), I mean, the same story but with open possibilities for several point of views. This is just and only another disposable product like dozen of others Hollywood adaptations of much better foreign movies.
I do admire David Fincher, really. He did amazing works that became references. He gave another dimension to a genre that was stuck, he kinda recreated the serial killer genre formula and the word "suspense" got another depth in movies such as Se7en (1995), Fight Club (1999) and Panic Room (2002), movies that had become responsible for some changes about the way thrillers are produced since then.
Making an American version of Stieg Larsson's novel (or maybe a remake of Niels Oplev's Swedish version) seems a little vain in Fincher's hands. There are no big differences in the story development between both movies, but there are huge technical differences. You can't avoid comparisons because this is not just a low budget Swedish movie versus Hollywood production, this is all about art. In one hand you have a Swedish movie that, despite its low budget, is a part of a successful well written, produced and directed trilogy. And in the other hand you have just an expensive sugar water.
Swedish version was not afraid to be shocking, and as I said before, American version is cleaner, softer and also more didactic, truly a version made for those ones who do not like think too much while watching a complex movie, as another one said "Hollywood dumbs things down, making everything transparent and easily digestible for 10 year-olds". Swedish version is a lot more crafted and demonstrates interest only for the most important facts that were efficiently tied from the beginning to the end in a full circle story that flows without efforts in an amazing script, a very timed edition and a direction that understood perfectly its source and what to do. Also the acting, Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig did a great job. Both are the closest we could get of Lisbeth and Mikael if Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist never existed. Rapace and Nyqvist shows a chemistry that never happens between Craig and Mara.
Fincher's opening is an extremely, incredibly and unnecessary loud thing. He stated that the opening is just an expression of what happens inside Lisbeth mind. That makes sense, it's effective and an amazing music video for Trent Reznor and Karen O's cover of Led Zeppelin's "Imigrant Song", but for me it was just a way to complement and excuse audience for the lack of shocking audacity, roughness and realism of the character that was so well explored in Swedish version. Even her tattoo seems softer, or better saying: forgettable.
Fincher also stated several times that he did not watched Niels Oplev's version. There are scenes so similar between both movies that call them IDENTICAL wouldn't sound entirely an offense. Seems that Fincher did some changes here and there just to say it's different and call it his own. So let's believe that what he stated is true, in that case he should have watched Swedish version before just to figure out how this movie should have been made.
While Oplev's version is suspenseful and holds your attention from the beginning to the end, events and subplots are tied linearly and brilliantly never forgetting the importance of both characters, Fincher's version is boring and his storyline seems disconnected. The way he shows how Lisbeth and Mikael get connected to each other is so superficial and seems so unimportant that if there's something that Fincher succeeds is transforming Lisbeth into a mere supporting character. Also Fincher "manages to reveal all the wrong details at all the wrong moments, effectively destroying any mystery or suspense to the story" as defined by another review.
I'm completely disappointed mainly because Fincher's version is receiving better ratings than Swedish version instead. There are no reasons for the existence of this remake, there is not even a great and relevant particular point of view. A waste of time and money, a shameless and bad made copy of Swedish version, and the most revolting thing is that Fincher's version will become more popular and called original, believe me.
Those ones who are claiming this to be an "amazing adaptation" or the "best movie of the year", clearly haven't watched the Swedish trilogy or even cared for that.
Leaving the theater I realized how Gus Van Sant's version of Psycho (1998) now seems so good.