Film Review: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011) (Part 2/2)

As with any remake, comparisons with the original are inevitable. The 2011 remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo finds itself in the unenviable position of being compared to both the 2009 version and the novel. In my review, there were far more things that I mentioned liking than not liking; however, that's mostly because the things I didn't like were a result of unfavorable comparisons with the 2009 version, which I'm saving for this part.

Characters

2009

2011

Noomi Rapace's Lisbeth Salander (2009) vs Rooney Mara's Lisbeth Salander (2011) - this one is a very close call, and it's extremely hard for me to pick a clear winner between the two. That's because while these two fine actresses bring forth markedly different Lisbeths, they're both Lisbeth. Albeit different aspects of Lisbeth that can be inferred from the novel. Noomi Rapace portrays the hard-as-nails Lisbeth Salander who will fuck you up if you cross her. There is no question at all, that should you accost her and fail to kill her, whose ass is going to be thoroughly kicked. It radiates through every pore of the actress. Rooney Mara's Salander, on the other hand, exudes the other side of Salander - the antisocial, awkward and emotionally stunted persona is played up, noticeably more so than the awesome capacity for ass-kicking. It's a testament to the complexity of the character written by the late Stieg Larsson that two different people could conceivably portray her so convincingly.

Who looks more the part? Well, from the neck up, Mara is pale as a ghost and Rapace has this psycho glare going on. Both are thin - Mara more so, Rapace more athletic. So far so good. Mara, however, has significantly larger boobs than Rapace, whose chest really mirrors the description of Lisbeth Salander having a boyish figure. Plus, the unshaven pits which pretty much hammer home the "antisocial monster" vibe. I think Rapace kind of wins here, at least in the body double department. She's uncomfortable to look at.

2009

2011

Michael Nyqvists's Mikael Blomkvist (2009) vs Daniel Craig's Mikael Blomkvist (2011) - there's no contest here. Michael Nyqvist is significantly older, chubbier and hairer than Daniel Craig in the movie. Just look at Craig's glorious naked torso and tell me that belongs to a journalist that has been described to be battling the middle-age bulge. That aside, Craig just isn't right for the role. Not even considering that Nyqvist got there first and did such a spectacular job that filling his shoes would be nigh impossible. Michael Nyqvist's Blomkvist is one that the average sedentary moviegoer can identify with - not the rugged good looks, chiselled torso and superspy coolness of Daniel Craig.

I mean, not once during the entire scene where Martin Vanger tortures and almost kills Mikael Blomkvist, could I believe that this guy was in danger of getting killed. Come on, that's Daniel Craig!

Craig is also a lot more animated with his movements, what with the squinting, head motions and hand gestures. Nyqvist used his face. His eyes.

2009

2011

Peter Andersson's Nils Bjurman (2009) vs Yorick van Wageningen's Nils Bjurman (2011) - Peter Andersson is far older, creepier and predatory than Yorick van Wageningen in this role, who musters a sleazy vibe at best. The 2009 Nils Bjurman's rape of Lisbeth was played with significantly more violence (though both on-screen rapes are just as horrific).

2009

2011

Peter Haber's Martin Vanger (2009) vs Stellan Skarsgård's Martin Vanger (2011) - Peter Haber did a fine job. That said, Stellan Skarsgård beats him hands-down with his portrayal. Skarsgår's Martin Vanger positively screams snake near the end.

2009

2011

Lena Endre's Erika Berger (2009) vs Robin Wright's Erika Berger (2011) - I think both actresses are pretty competent in their own way and could look like an Erika Berger. Unfortunately, they're given so little to do in this movie that Erika's awesomeness in the novel just doesn't translate very well here. A limp stalemate.

2009

2011

Tomas Köhler's Plague (2009) vs Tony Way's Plague (2011) - Tomas Köhler's Plague shared an acerbic camaraderie with Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish version. Tony Way's Plague just comes off as a dick, and lacks the presence that made Tomas Köhler's Plague stand out.

Story

Certain story elements are more in line with the novel's, and some are simply done better - more well-executed, more value in their inclusion.

2009

2011

First off, the techy bits in the 2009 version come across as a little too retro in comparison with the 2011 version. Look at the font, for instance!  The 2011 version doesn't go over the top showcasing Lisbeth's hacking skills, and still shows a reasonable UI. To be fair, I think it's more the sign of the times. The 2009 version wasn't released in an age where Google, Facebook and YouTube had become that mainstream.

2009

2011

How Lisbeth's laptop gets damaged. In the novel, it cracks when a car backs up over it, which is, well, boring. The 2009 version shows us that it got damaged when Lisbeth gets attacked by a bunch of guys in the subway, whom she fights off like an enraged badger, using a broken bottle. The 2011 version shows us that a snatch thief grabs Lisbeth's bag (again, in the subway), and in the ensuing tussle on the escalator (where she naturally kicks his ass), it gets damaged. And Lisbeth just coolly glides down the escalator later. Both are suitable plot points leading to the death of that laptop and showing us Lisbeth's aggression. The 2009 version feels more visceral and Lisbeth takes more lumps in this one. The 2011 is just a little too neatly done. Too slick.

2009

2011

Bjurman coercing our super hacker Lisbeth into blowing him. I have to give the prize to the 2009 version here. It was more drawn out and the overall result was more creepy. The 2011 version just felt... sleazy. Also, this might be a minor point here, but I prefer the 2009 version's take of Lisbeth washing her mouth later. She actually sticks her fingers down her mouth and scrubs!

Rape scenes. Both 2009 and 2011 versions depicted the horrific rape of Lisbeth Salander at the hands of Bjurman quite ably. Though I must say the 2009 version felt way more violent, mainly because Bjurman actually smacked Lisbeth around first.

Bible clues. In the novel, Mikael is stumped by the names and numbers on the list until his daughter Pernilla points out that they were taken from the bible. The 2011 version stays true to this, while the 2009 opts to cut out Pernilla as a character and have Lisbeth deliver the message. Both work well, I guess, though bonus points to the 2011 version for including this detail.

Sex scenes between Mikael and Lisbeth. In the 2009 version, Mikael is dumbfounded when Lisbeth expresses a desire to have sex with him out of nowhere. After doing it, Lisbeth refuses to cuddle. Her coldness is totally in character here. In the 2011 version, Mikael and her do it with vigor, and the scene fades to black with no mention of it later. Later on, Lisbeth sternly tells Mikael to put his hand back under her shirt, and they end up having sex again. This didn't really ring true for me. Also, in the 2009 version, Mikael and Lisbeth's naked bodies aren't exactly conventionally beautiful. The sex feels more real. In the 2011 version, Lisbeth has great skin and nice tits and ass, and Mikael has one hell of a sculpted body. This just forcefully reminded me that I was watching a Hollywood remake.

Reunion of Harriet and Henrik Vanger. The 2009 version's reunion was touching in all its emotional honesty. The 2011 version felt a little... rushed.

Cinematography

The 2011 version boasts very nice camera angles and majestic landscapes. In these areas, it stands out significantly next to its comparatively drab-looking predecessor. The sets, in particular, are markedly different.

2009

2011

Milton Security (2009) vs Milton Security (2011) - There's not much to choose between these iconic scenes where Dirch Frode and Dragan Armansky speak with Lisbeth in the Milton Security conference room. The 2009 version of the office is more warm, while the 2011 version is more sterile. One interesting thing I noted in the 2011 version is that there's hardly a shot of all three of them in frame at one time. Either Lisbeth has her back to us and is out of focus, or Dirch and Dragan are. Wonder why.

2009

2011

The Millennium (2009) vs The Millennium (2011) - The 2009 version of The Millennium's office had a cosy homely feel to it. The 2011 plays this up even more, but somehow it just feels too clean.

2009

2011

Plague's apartment (2009) vs Plague's apartment (2011) - The 2009 version is dark, smoky and dank, like some kind of lair. With a greenish tinge, even! The 2011 is a tad more spacious. Doesn't really carry the vibe.

2009

2011

Martin Vanger's basement (2009) vs Martin Vanger's basement (2011) - both versions are remarkably clean and bright. A great deal of thought seems to have been put into them. We see the cages, the torture instruments, the apparatus used to suspend Mikael, and so on. Both are great, and I can't reasonably choose a winner here.

Conclusion

The American remake is a remarkably polished effort. It's certainly more stylish than its predecessor. And that's all it really has going for it. Story-wise, it offers nothing really new. Rooney Mara's new take on Lisbeth Salander was interesting, and Stellan Skarsgård stood out as Martin Vanger. The rest of the acting was... meh. Still, brave and commendable effort, I suppose. Though "outstanding" might be a bit much.

Personally? I prefer the Swedish version. It did way more for me, raw as it might have felt sometimes. Of course, seeing as I've seen more of the 2009 version, including its sequels, I may be biased here.

The remake doesn't suck! It's a Mara-cle!
T___T