I recently finished the novel by Steig Larsson, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and wanted to pick up the movie as soon as possible. Unfortunately, watching the movie would require a choice between the Swedish version which released in 2009 or the American version which released in 2011. Now, I hate making decisions, so I opted to simply watch both films and then compare the two.
As far as being a faithful adaptation goes, both movies are pretty true to the source material with only nominally insignificant differences. Ultimately, they follow it pretty accurately. Overall, the Swedish version is somewhat closer to it's source material but regardless, they don't contrast too much. A few things cut out here, a slight change there, typical movie-version stuff. The chapters that were cut out make sense to me, for the most part. They were all either nonessential scenes or they just would've taken up too much time in movies that were already two and a half hours long.
The biggest difference between the films were the actors. The two women who were in the roles of Lisbeth Salander were totally different indeed. The American version had Rooney Mara, who was also in The Social Network and the Nightmare on Elm Street remake as well as a few minor parts. The Swedish version had, to my surprise, Noomi Rapace who you may recognize as the main role in Prometheus, one of two American movies she's been in, the other being Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows. I thought that was pretty cool just because after seeing her in Prometheus, I never would've guessed that English was not her first language. Anyway, as I was saying, it'd be pretty impossible to mix up the two as they play their parts in totally different ways as well as looking totally different.
If you've seen any red-carpet pictures of Rooney, you know she looks pretty normal in real life. Rooney actually did most of her "makeover" herself and all of the piercings are real, including the ones on her nipples which she proudly displays on the back cover of the movie box. As impressive her devotion to the part is, I think it's a little overboard and the whole no eyebrows thing was kind of distracting.
But eyebrow fashion notwithstanding, her actual acting skill is what's important. I've heard that reviewers often said she did great in the role, but I disagree and I think she did pretty poorly. While it's true that the character Salander is supposed to be somewhat emotionless, I'm not sure Rooney changed her facial expression one single time over the course of the entire movie. She looked dead on screen and managed to suck most of the life out of the scenes she was in with her dull delivery of her dialogue, save for a few exceptions.
Noomi on the other hand was much better. Besides being the spitting image of the character I pictured in my imagination when I read the book, she had much more life and intensity in her acting than Rooney did. Salander was still an uncaring punk of a protagonist but it came off as being much more natural and she seemed more like a human being.
The biggest difference between the films were the actors. The two women who were in the roles of Lisbeth Salander were totally different indeed. The American version had Rooney Mara, who was also in The Social Network and the Nightmare on Elm Street remake as well as a few minor parts. The Swedish version had, to my surprise, Noomi Rapace who you may recognize as the main role in Prometheus, one of two American movies she's been in, the other being Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows. I thought that was pretty cool just because after seeing her in Prometheus, I never would've guessed that English was not her first language. Anyway, as I was saying, it'd be pretty impossible to mix up the two as they play their parts in totally different ways as well as looking totally different.
 |
| That's Noomi on the left and Rooney on the right. |
If you've seen any red-carpet pictures of Rooney, you know she looks pretty normal in real life. Rooney actually did most of her "makeover" herself and all of the piercings are real, including the ones on her nipples which she proudly displays on the back cover of the movie box. As impressive her devotion to the part is, I think it's a little overboard and the whole no eyebrows thing was kind of distracting.
But eyebrow fashion notwithstanding, her actual acting skill is what's important. I've heard that reviewers often said she did great in the role, but I disagree and I think she did pretty poorly. While it's true that the character Salander is supposed to be somewhat emotionless, I'm not sure Rooney changed her facial expression one single time over the course of the entire movie. She looked dead on screen and managed to suck most of the life out of the scenes she was in with her dull delivery of her dialogue, save for a few exceptions.
Noomi on the other hand was much better. Besides being the spitting image of the character I pictured in my imagination when I read the book, she had much more life and intensity in her acting than Rooney did. Salander was still an uncaring punk of a protagonist but it came off as being much more natural and she seemed more like a human being.
 |
| Michael Nyqvist on the left and Daniel Craig on the right. |
The two actors who played Mikael Blomkvist were both very good and didn't differ much. Knowing Daniel Craig and having seen his other works, I think he could've done better, but it was still a well-played part. The other guy, Michael Nyqvist, was good but not quite on par with Daniel Craig as he was a little dull in comparison. Still, neither parts distracted from the overall movie, but neither added to it much either.
 |
| Pictured: Noomi Rapace showing some kind of emotion. |
One place where the two films became more distinct from each other is in the climax scene, which I won't spoil. I will however say that I didn't like the way the American version did it at all. I think it was clear they were going for a stylish kind of approach but it didn't work and it failed miserably in heightening the sequence, during which I should've been on the edge of my seat, eyes wide.
The Swedish adaptation left something to be desired, but I think they still did a much better job on that pivotal scene than the American version did.
There are things that the American film did that was more of an improvement over the Swedish one. For instance, the way they explain the complicated background of the murder mystery was much clearer and easier to understand with the American one due to it's stylish usage of flashbacks while the Swedish one tried to explain it purely with dialogue.
After spending five total hours watching these two movies, what I really wish is that the two could be morphed together into one. There are things that one did that was better than the other and vice versa. At first, I was planning on giving the American version a disparaging review because I abhorred the acting among a few other mishaps, but I remembered that the story is the important thing and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a great story. It's a grim and gritty thriller with an ending that's pretty hard to predict. I forgot that because I was fresh off the book and already knew what was supposed to happen.
Overall I would say that the Swedish version is better, mainly because of it's acting and if you're going to watch just one of them, I'd recommend that one. But that aside, they're both good movies and to a person who cares a little more than the average viewer, I would say, watch both. That way you can get the most complete experience as the movies sort of compliment each other in their differences.
No comments:
Post a Comment