It basically comes down to:
*The originals are very true to the books, which are very Swedish in terms of feel. It's not coincidental that there is a crime noir revival occurring in Scandinavian literature. They're require the viewer to think; they hand nothing in terms of denouement to the audience. In places, having been done inexpensively, the downcast acting, production-values and staging wear thin.
*The remake has incredible production values, great acting and set-staging. It's what a multimillion dollar budget and a major American studio gets you. They're well-directed. The effects work is great. The camera work is great. They made changes to the story to appeal more to an American audience...as if we would not "get" thoughtful European drama and need to be spoon-fed, need more action, need the ending simplified.
I can see how some people could think they're equal or the remake is better. I like the cerebral, slow-pace and dark feel of the original. I like Rapace's Salander better than Mara's and I like that they let Mikael remain the bastard he is in the book...it's alright for the good guy to be a sexist womanizing douchebag (irony in the books comes from the fact that he considers himself a feminist yet repeatedly acts in a sexist manner and justifies it as "I'm a feminist."
, audiences will forgive an imperfect protagonist.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read