Not perfect, but quite close

Rating: 9/10 (25 April 2012)

Firstly before i go into detail i just wanted to say, there are negative reviews on here, but they almost always contain negative comparison to the Swedish versions as their only criteria, not many people seem to want to judge the film on it's own merit, which is a shame.
I personally feel that this film was not only wonderful on it's own way (I went with two friends, one who had seen the Swedish versions but not read the books, the other had no previous exposure, and they both loved it), but that it was better than the Swedish in some ways that i shall highlight:
Lisbeth Salander - I remember seeing the Sweedish version, and although i thought Noomi Rapace was outstanding, I couldn't help but feel she didn't quite fit. When they announced Fincher's adaptation I couldn't see who they could get to fit the role, until I saw Rooney Mara in costume, something just clicked for me. Once I saw her on the screen I felt that Rooney Mara embodied a Salander that was closer to that of the book. Mara in my opinion better captured the dual nature of the character. To the rest of the world Salander appears as a short, waifish girl with obvious emotional difficulties, and is treated as such, dismissed or seen as a target and abused. It is only when individuals earn her wrath that they witness first hand the true strength of her character. Rapace's character seemed to focus more on the rage within, coming across as tough and angry, but to me that was the most accentuated aspect, for example the use of c*** in film just doesn't fit the character, with her views on women. She seemed to me to have a bigger screen presence than Mara's Salander but also seemed to make her less delicate as well as being older, taller and a bigger build than the character in the book.
Mikael Blomkvist - When i originally heard that they were casting Daniel Craig, I was in despair, Blomkvist is imagined as a slightly overweight journalist, and you get James Bond to play him! I couldn't have been more wrong in my opinion, and was most impressed by his performance. Now perhaps i don't understand or have missed particular nuances or inflections within the Sweedish language, and if that affects my perspective here I apologise, but I felt Michael Nyqvist, while good, came across as quite a stern, dour interpretation of Blomkvist, against my understanding of him in the book. The character in the book comes across as an affable, charming man with a gentle humour (for example as he chides Salander for hacking his computer instead of reprimanding her), and I felt Craig captured these aspects fairly well, not perfectly, but more so than Nyqvist.
Christopher Plummer - When i originally read the book the first person Henrik Vanger brought to mind mentally was Max Von Sydow, so i was slightly disappointed when i heard it would be Christopher Plummer, Plummer had always struck me as generally portraying more sinister people. My fears were again unfounded and i found him to be quite likable.
That said the film was not without flaws that i would also like to highlight:
Dirch Frode - whilst I had no issue with Steven Berkoff, I did with the way the character was played. In the book he seemed very much a close friend of Vanger, whereas in the film he seemed to be less genial, more detached, and more obstructive.
Martin Vanger - Again, whilst i think Stellen Skarsgard played the character, the reverse seemed to be true, the character being more helpful than he was in the book, but perhaps this was done to accentuate the psychopathy when you realise his true nature.
Plot and pacing - I was relieved to see how close this film stuck to it's source material (changes to how they find Harriet notwithstanding though they were not detrimental to the film) I was disappointed with some aspects. The scene where she is almost mugged occurs in both films but not the book, i can understand it is there to show she can defend herself, but i think it is also unnecessary. The extra scenes with Palmgren were also not needed, she does not even know he is alive in the books until the second, and that always felt important. I also felt that they could have included more about her personality, for example her photographic memory and how she sees it as abnormal and Blomkvist does not. I also felt they could have played the scene of them first meeting closer to the book, in that Blomkvist is less serious, almost playfully chiding, which is counter to everything she is expecting of him, and sets up her gradual opening up to him
However the two biggest offenders were her telling Blomkvist about her father, and asking to kill Martin Vanger. She does not tell Blomkvist about her father in the books at any point, he finds these things out as events unfold and this was an important piece of the plot, the contrast between the person he knows and information being placed before him. Also, in the book after Salander she tells him "I'm taking him." She does not ask permission, and her character would not. It is a point of her character that she has her own set morals and acts on them without guidance and according to how interprets them, which sometimes lead to her outlandish and aggressive tendencies as other characters see them.
Overall however i believe this film was a superb adaptation of the book, I would recommend it to anyone, both as an individual film, or to those who are fans of the books, I only hope that they make the other two films