MovieChat Forums > The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) Discussion > Sounds like the original Swedish film wa...

Sounds like the original Swedish film was better.

posted 11 years ago by btm1
84 replies | jump to latest

I actually haven't yet seen the English-language remake of the 2009 Swedish film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132620/combined that has been shown on cable TV with the same title. The original Swedish title of the book was "Män som hatar kvinnor" – literally, "Men who hate women" (according to Wikipedia). But I read the full plot description of the American film on this site, and notice several changes that would leave out some of the more intriguing aspects of the mystery. Of course, I am basing my comments on the English subtitles that were added to the Swedish film, so perhaps some of the differences I'm noting are due to inadequate subtitles (but I don't think so.)

Mikael Blomkvist is a disgraced journalist who is asked by a wealthy industrialist to use the months before he is scheduled to begin a prison sentence to find out what happened to his niece, under a personal contract, not as an employee or contractor of his family's huge industrial group (Vanger) he heads.

In the Swedish film version, unlike the original book, Lisbeth (splendidly played by Noomi Rapace) is not hired by Blomkvist based on a recommendation of Vanger's. She hacks into his computer and sends Blomkvist information that eventually leads to the realization about serial killings. Lisbeth's own life is a separate mystery involving a depraved guardian, murder and rape.

Lisbeth is the one with the tattoos. She turns out to be someone not to mess with.

The Swedish film seems to have been made in parts. The version I saw ran both parts as a single film with just a title break separating them.

[–] tobyrclark 11 years ago

The Oplev movie is not better than the Fincher one.

The Angels Have the Phone Box

[–] mlauzon 11 years ago

You're right, it's not 'better than the Fincher one', it's superior to the Fincher one!

--

[–] tobyrclark 11 years ago

...what. What's the distinction between better and superior?

The Angels Have the Phone Box

[–] tag1981 11 years ago

How about you just watch the 2011 film and then form your own opinion.

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 10 years ago

Oh no. That makes too much sense. Why do that when you can bash a film and not oblige yourself to watch it.

In other words, I agree with you.

Watta ya lookn here for?

[–] MisguidedMiscreants 11 years ago

Well if you want the opinions of others, many people on this board will tell you that the Fincher version is better, and in my humble opinion a far superior film.

You should just check it out yourself.

"Edd, fetch me a block." - Jon Snow

[–] Agnieszka_102 11 years ago

Fincher's movie (NOT A REMAKE, but an independent adaptation of Larsson's novel) is far superior in terms of how it reflects the plot of the book, in terms of CAST and (you may be surprised) in terms of "climate".

Besides, it's always a good idea to actually WATCH a movie BEFORE formulating an opinion about it.....

My rating:
Fincher - 10/10
Oplev - 6/10

[–] UberNoodle 10 years ago

No, sorry to burst your remake apologist bubble, but it Fincher did indeed film a remake of the film. This whole "not a remake; it's a readaptation" is merely PR waffle. Fincher's film made all the same story shortcuts and abbreviations as the original Swedish film did, because the US remake used that script as a basis. If were truly a readaptation, it wouldn't have made the same changes to the novel. Whoops! Hollywood exposed yet again! Is your heart broken?

[–] tobyrclark 10 years ago

The only change that the two films have in common is the real Anita Vanger being dead, and Steve Zaillian has said that he wrote the script without watching the Oplev movie first.

The Angels Have the Phone Box

[–] UberNoodle 10 years ago

Many remakes are done by film makers who do not view or read the original material. It happens all the time. You hear writers and directors say it all the time. The film being green-lighted itself was not on the strength of the script, nor really on any interest in the novels. It was because Yellow Bird had made a mint from these books and Hollywood wanted a go on the swings. Yellow Bird was paid handsomely too. Thus, remake.

[–] tobyrclark 10 years ago

Many remakes are done by film makers who do not view or read the original material. It happens all the time.

Keeping in mind that "the original material" is Stieg Larsson's novel, name one.

The Angels Have the Phone Box

[–] Stirchley 10 years ago

Fincher's movie (NOT A REMAKE, but an independent adaptation of Larsson's novel) is far superior in terms of how it reflects the plot of the book, in terms of CAST and (you may be surprised) in terms of "climate".

I haven't read the books, but in terms of movie-making I loved all 3 of the Swedish adaptations. I sat down yesterday to watch the English version of Tattoo, somewhat dreading it actually, but I totally loved it. In sum, I enjoyed both versions.

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 10 years ago

How refreshing. Someone who can admire and enjoy two different takes on the same story. Too bad more people who post here are not as evolved as you. Bravo.

Watta ya lookn here for?

[–] diaphanous19 11 years ago

without a doubt. the hollywood version is just crap!!!! after watching the swedish version you'll know!

[–] Agnieszka_102 11 years ago

Nonsense..... Fincher's film is light years better than the Swedish, very mediocre adaptation.

[–] EurasianEyes 11 years ago

In your dreams baby. You have to look a little bit further and not only have eyes for Craig :)

[–] skywalkr2 11 years ago

The hell? The Swedish version ruined the best part of the book... the romantic tension between the two main characters was COMPLETELY lost. This is why the two Swedish sequels were as bad as TV movies.

[–] GBDaddy 10 years ago

Romantic tension lost? I found it to be clear as a bell. Unlike typical, modern American films, the Swedish version didn't spell everything out for the viewers. You had to use your brain a lot more with the original.

[–] elpequenelson 9 years ago

Exactly! I like both films, but I prefer the swedish version exactly for THIS.

Example (SPOILER): In the swedish version, Lisbeth is a mystery. One has to know her through the whole movie. In the US version, there is a scene at the beginning where some one ask to another about her, and there is the exposition of how she is and why. Everything at once.

Beside that, I watched the Oplev's film before than Fincher's film and for me there's only one Lisbeth Salander: Noomi Rapace. Rooney Mara makes a very good character, but I am very used to the Rapace's Lisbeth.

[–] AarOnHisBox 10 years ago

Sorry Eurasian biased bi...person. You are in like a 20-to-1 minority. But as long as you are cool with that, it's all good. But to be so cocky to talk about people only "having eyes for Craig." Explain what that even means, firstly, if you even know (I'd imagine you would have to understand "having eyes for Craig" to even use it as a reference)?

[–] EurasianEyes 10 years ago

No hard feelings here :). I meant that even if your opinion is that Craig is a great and good looking actor, don´t automatically means that everything he is involved in turns to gold. But that is only my opinion of course. In this case though, Craig was the big positive surprise. That didn´t save the movie.

[–] symon-sust 9 years ago

Right, I like fincher, I've enjoyed gone girl,the game,fight club very much. but this one is very bad, below per fincher's level

[–] TheBloodyNine 11 years ago

Fincher's is better in pretty much every way.

[–] oderis99 11 years ago

In 36 hours I just saw all 4 movies. Swedish version for me was a way much better!

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 11 years ago

I know it's cool to be a fan of the foreign version, but this one is better. Fleshes out the characters better and stays truer to the book.

“There are no ordinary moments. There is always something going on.” – Peaceful Warrior

[–] loigsan 11 years ago

Yes, the original Swedish one was better. The mandatory US remake is unnecessary and loses some of the intensity, plus Our Daniel is woefully miscast.
On the plus side though, Rooney Mara brings another dimension to the character: basically her "Lisbeth" is borderline autistic.
I expected the US version to have been relocated to the US -like with "The Wicker Ma" to name but one. But no it still takes place in glorious Sverige so what's the point?
Even visually, the original movie is more beautiful to look at than the American copy -and we all know how much Fincher loves colouring his tableaux! Once again his special effects are a bit obvious too.
The original movie also offered more pointers to "Lisbeth"'s back-story via flashbacks. This is lost on the new one that only belatedly reveals her arson-based past just in time to "subtly" link it to the denouement.

This is not to say that the US copy is entirely bad. It's always a pleasure to see Joely Richardson for example, and the Reznor is as you would expect: excellent.

[–] Agnieszka_102 11 years ago

In my opinion "Our Daniel" knocks spots off terribly bland and underwhelming Nyqvist.

[–] EurasianEyes 11 years ago

Well of course he does, sexy Daniel knocks everybody, haha ;)

[–] Agnieszka_102 11 years ago

Will you keep following me everywhere now, jerk? Just say you don't like Craig, not that I care, but don't feel like squabbling with someone like you.
And YES, Daniel IS sexy. But he's also a great actor, which can't be said of Nyqvist who ruined the movie for me.

[–] EurasianEyes 11 years ago

Okey, sorry for teasing you ;). The only good thing with this movie is that Daniel surprised me with his performance (no joke), he was good. It was nice to see that he could be something more than a stiff and dull Bond.

I do understand that a guy like Nyqvist ruined the movie for a girl.

[–] Agnieszka_102 11 years ago

Daniel is a GREAT Bond. BTW, this board is not about Bond. And in TGWTDT he was just like Blomkvist from the book, unlike Nyqvist, sorry. And so was Mara, that's how I imagined Lisbeth. Besides, I have already expressed my opinion several times here, so don't want to repeat it again.

[–] EurasianEyes 11 years ago

And was Yorick van Wageningen just like Nils Bjurman from the book too? I hope not. Doesen't matter if Nyqkist or Noomi wasn't exactly as in the book. People always compare movies with books. Noomi does a lot stronger performance, book a like or not.

But Yorick van Wageningen! What did they smoke to decide to take the guy on?

[–] tag1981 11 years ago

Why wouldn't they?

He was better than the Bjurman from the Swedish version. That guy had me LOL with his crazy performance. I liked it, but it ruined any tension in the scenes he was in.

[–] EurasianEyes 11 years ago

Yorick van Wageningen role interpretation fits perfectly for a bed time story for kids, and they wouldn't be affraid at all. As a matter a fact they wouldn't let him go. "Please mister, your are so kind...can you read one more story?"

[–] Agnieszka_102 11 years ago

And that's what was just brilliant about casting Yorick van Wageningen. He's a great Bjurman, so inconspicuous, plain-looking, chubby and good-natured looking outside, but in fact rotten, mean and evil inside. Just a plain, inostensible social worker whom nobody suspects of any wrongdoing. What you've written above is a very good justification of casting Yorick van Wageningen as Bjurman. He was not supposed to LOOK evil, he was supposed to BE evil inside while looking completely innocent.

[–] EurasianEyes 11 years ago

Never thought about it that way. Even if he didn't worked for me it's nice to hear the character worked for many others.

[–] schuyler_harmon 11 years ago

Thought both versions were good but the Swedish version is better. Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist are terrific. I also think Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig are good, I just prefer the original. The US version was a little too pretty IMO, which made the violence seem a bit gratuitous at times.

[–] Agnieszka_102 11 years ago

Nyqvist was very poor compared to Craig. Mara also portrayed Lisbeth better and her portrayal was much more faithful to the character from the novel.

I just prefer the original.

The "original" is THE BOOK.

There was nothing "pretty" about about Fincher's movie, in fact it was much gloomier, grittier and dark. Plus editing, music, cinematography were far better.
IMO Fincher's movie is better hands down.

[–] EurasianEyes 11 years ago

I agree with schuyler_harmon. If the US version is close to the book, the book is not very good. The swedish movie beat them both.

[–] Agnieszka_102 11 years ago

The swedish movie beat them both.

Only in your dreams.

[–] skywalkr2 11 years ago

You shouldn't be here commenting if you think either movie was better than the book. That's ridiculous.

[–] EurasianEyes 11 years ago

If i like the swedish version more, what is wrong with that? The US version was watchable but nothing special. People are saying that the US version is closer to the book. So what exactly is hard for you to understand?
I'm not the type of a guy who compares books with movies, but with this one people seems to do that. "The Us version is better, much closer to the book"

And this is IMDb, we talk about movies. And you go on that i shouldn't be here commenting. Now...that's ridiculous

[–] diaphanous19 11 years ago

I'm with you 100%.

Swedish version is about a billion times better than the US version.

[–] Ssertorivs 11 years ago

Rooney Mara

Was she actually awake in this movie?

Pretty AND conscious.... this I gotta see!