The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Why Fincher's version is better

[@getarasciuc3612]

I've watched both versions a few years back, and surely Fincher has made a beautiful film, but then the swedish version felt more authentic to me.

[@lynntomaino2925]

Geta Rasciuc i agree with you. I felt nearer to the characters and story without all of the extra drama

[@cherryblossom7944]

Thank you I agree

[@jimevert7099]

Absolutely true.

[@thebovineavenger]

THANK YOU> The nuance is more real in the Swedish version. In America you have to SPELL everything out. Where as in the Swedish version. You MUST observe.

[@cherryblossom7944]

@@thebovineavenger Exactly!

[@zamurai_the_producer]

I watched the American version first not knowing a swedish version existed...I have since watched both and I feel the original does feel more authentic, it's cold, stoic and scarily believable. The American one is beautifully shot as you have shown but feels like it takes place in another world.

[@mrconroy4672]

Speaking of the Swedish version, did you actually see the sequels to the 2009 original?

[@zamurai_the_producer]

@@mrconroy4672 I have not, at the time I tried to watch them they where only available on a streaming service that I did not have...i will need to fix that now though

[@justsomegirlwithoutamustache]

I much prefer the American version, but I can see the believability in the Swedish one. It does spoon-feed you a lot of information in such a short time which I find offputting. I also think the Swedish version being authentic to the book doesn't automatically make it better. Fincher is a master storyteller which is far better than doing it verbatim. He translated a great piece of fiction in a different but way better. Also a bonus for the soundtrack

[@musashimiyamoto586]

@@justsomegirlwithoutamustache Believability? Is that even a word? If it is, that is what Fincher's version lacked to me. Talking about believable, anybody who read the book (and has seen the original film) will know that Daniel Craig as the proverbial Bond and action star is NOT the right man for the role. And finding a weird character/actress for Lisbet's part doesn't make the end result any better. With Noomi Rapace the role was cast perfectly, anybody else was sure to lose out. Also, you don't have to make a cinematographic masterpiece out of a good story in order to entertain. It seems to me you are not too familiar with what is called Nordic Noir and what fantastic movies and series it has come up with. And those desperate attempts to convert them (e.g. Forbrydelsen in The Killing and Broen into The Bridge) into successful copies in the US.

[@justsomegirlwithoutamustache]

@@musashimiyamoto586 yes believability is a word. Also you sound mad

[@MultiBum123]

David fincher is one of my favorite directors: seven, gone girl, fight club, girl with the dragon tattoo, zodiac, social network and his show mindhunter all of them to me are just masterful storytelling

[@pabloop9891]

House of cards is also a really good series by him

[@jamesbombss5777]

I like all his work except for Mank and Alien

[@Pau182pau]

I agree! He is the best!!! also i like lord's of Dogtown

[@bmxriderforlife1234]

Honestly I agree except gwtdt. It's his only flop. And partially because the actor for bloomkvist is over rated by a huge margin. And wasn't the right pick for the role. Everything else is fire though.

[@mrconroy4672]

@@bmxriderforlife1234 I can’t really say the same for the original Swedish sequels. The original movie was fine, the follow ups lost their luster.

[@amandaspence8167]

What I like in European films is that the actors aren’t Barbie and Ken. They have wrinkles and scars and actually look their ages. So much more true to life. I did prefer the Swedish version, but the opening sequence in the American version was amazing.

[@seanceknowles2911]

I liked Rooney’s Lisbeth and she matches in my head what she looks like in the books. Very young, and really petite and pale. Some who Looks like they can’t hurt a fly but she is strong and explosive. In my head Mikeal was very handsome even for his age. None of the ascots is what I expected but they grew on me.

[@sitcomchristian6886]

I liked the 2011 Lisbeth's look the best, she didn't look attractive. Which, with her history, makes sense that she would want to make herself and asexual as possible. The others still seemed beautiful. I'm sure someone disagrees, but that's my opinion :)

[@seansmith5468]

The character development for the protagonist in Finches version is more dynamic regardless of form.

[@dcotai2902]

....interesting examples reverse engineer..movie script then book... Where then..?

[@sharknado623]

Because we actually focus on acting, not about looking good. A lot of American actors wouldn't have a career in Europe.

[@heliojeff]

The Swedish film was much less polished and brought an authenticity to the story that connected more. IMO

[@plisskenetic]

Connected more, aha

[@777SNYM]

@@plisskenetic why are you laughing

[@tinkersailorhead4360]

Right. It has this dry and straight forward quality of north european film making which is kind of unique.

[@alighieroalighieri404]

@@plisskenetic Are you an idiot? No need to answer, it is pretty clear that you are.

[@mrconroy4672]

I see, what would be your take on the sequels done as a follow up on the 2009 original.

[@Yohodaify]

As a Swede, I must say that Fincher's version is better in some regards but the original version feels more realistic to me. I believe this is beacuse the new version is for an international audience while the original was made for a Swedish audience in mind. For example, the scene where Blomquist gets off the train and travels to the estate feels much more natural to me in the Swedish version. Fincher's dramatic scenes however feels weird and unrealistic. Of course, if you haven't been to real places in Sweden like these you might be more easliy convinced tha's how they really are.

[@lenoresmith8062]

Agree with you 100 percent the swedish version,to me, is for fans of the books

[@largol33t1]

I do not understand why so many criticize Noomi Rapace's performance. She was great as Lisbeth. I feel Rooney Mara was too mild-mannered. Having read one of the books, Noomi's version is exactly how I envision Lisbeth's personality. One funny fact: in the remake, Stellan Skarsgard said being in the remake was easy because, for the first time in his acting career, he could drive home from the set and sleep in his own bed!

[@gardeningandlife137]

yeah I'm American and I cant believe they let Fincher butcher it, naomi s performance cant be copied

[@NostalgiNorden]

As a swede i must say that you are dead wrong. the swedish version is utter crap.

[@NostalgiNorden]

@@largol33t1 Noomi Rapace ws 10 years to old and her perfomance was crap. It wasn't untill i saw the Fincher version that i understood what Lisbeth was all about.

[@scordero12]

So sad he didn’t get the budget for the whole trilogy

[@elizabethsedai854]

Santiago that's NOT why they didn't make the full trilogy, actually. Mostly what I've heard is that Daniel Craig had scheduling issues and conflicts with whatever James Bond film he was going to (maybe) work on and couldn't synch up with Rooni Mara and Fincher's schedules. But that's just info I heard floating around the web:/ now they're doing The Girl in the Spider's Web or whatever and no one from the Fincher version is involved at all. It's a real shame that they couldn't get it together because between the cast, director, Screenwriter, and Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross on the soundtrack, they would've been fantastic! :/ I suppose these things happen.... xo

[@shadow.banned]

Lady Elizabeth Giving people what they want. Except the exact opposite. "People won't notice." Wrong.

[@lukryboria]

The problem is that the cast couldn’t fit together and now a super low budget stranger production with super unknown “actors” had the horrifying (and in my opinion very unfair) idea to take the right to “finish” the 4th book that Stieg Larsson couldn’t end before dying by inventing what I bet is gonna be an awful story so they can do a “movie” that will officially be recognised as the 2nd of the serie that Fincher started. The atrocious thing is that the story of practically 3 books will be missing because of this (I already see as) unsuccessful guys that will ruin everything and I simply can’t accept it is going to officially be THE sh*tty sequel of this Masterpiece. Rooney loved so much this role that she never mentally got out. She said she put everything in Lisbeth, she seriously put a hole in her face, didn’t eat, smoked, learn to ride the bike... She basically squeezed herself like a poor lemon to portrait this amazing being that I’d like to underline suffers from Asperger Syndrome and no one else captured it so well and seriously. The next actress really doesn’t have the face, nor the body... As soon as you look at her you instantly know she’ll never do this. Not a thing. Plus the “actor” chosen for Blomkvist is ridiculously younger than her if I’m not wrong.

[@antigen4]

so sad the swedish director didnt' get close to the AMERICAN version budget ahaha

[@SchulzEricT]

+Tom Marvolo Riddle Actually, a Swedish author was chosen to continue Larsson's Millenium triology; he wrote Girl in the Spider's Web and a 5th book as well. I forget the title. But both were quite good. The two new ones really fit quite well within the series; I'd've likely not even realized that the new two were by a different author if I only had the books to go by. The two new ones addressed Lisbeth's backstory more than the original trilogy, which is different... but they're different books. I can't say for sure whether or not Larsson wanted to leave her history a mystery or if he would've filled it in similar to the new author. Perhaps the new author actually got her history from Larsson's notes; the history really fit very well with what we already know about her.

[@hb8986]

Sorry but its not Average vs expert. They´re r just aimed at diffrent audiences. The swedish one is aimed at an swedish audience that are used to crime dramas being played out way. It is played out as something that could happen in real life and you´re following a real detective solving a murder. Finchers version is somewhat what we would call americanised version. More dramatic and seemed to take place in another more darker universe to make the audience more intrigued. To me its like watching a crime drama vs dark thriller. I like them both but perfer the swedish one. Great analysis though! Hope to see more from u!

[@niklashansen5432]

Fantastic analysis, HB!

[@TheRyanMackfall]

Agreed! This is probably one of the better reasonings for the Swedish version I've seen anyone write! I'm not Swedish so I'd never consider this. It's always nice to see someone with facts rather than just saying 'they like the Swedish one' without any real reason.

[@Davimre]

This is totally on point. Fincher ramps up the mood and atmosphere, but in the process loses the pulpy, shoe leather quality that made both the book and the Swedish version more enjoyable.

[@DrakulitaVampirenish]

You expressed my thoughts exactly. I enjoyed the Swedish version much more because it had a more natural flow to me. The already complex story did not need more drama that the american version added. Also, I am not a big fan of the american choice of actors and their overly thatrical styling.

[@MrKrtek00]

Very much agree. That was my first reaction when I saw the trailer for Fincher first (after reading the book and seen the original version): a nice, expensive cinema that looks like Hollywood, smells like Hollywood and telling me a magical story about a far, far land where fairies and some strange Europeans live. The original version was more real, brutal, and wanted to feel so.

[@Konosuketube]

I wished Fincher finished the rest of the adaptations. Absolutely loved Rooney Mara here.

[@johnaustin209]

Watch the originals. Way better than that Hollywood crap.

[@meg2231]

I'll never forget seeing Fincher's version in the theater, when sail away starts playing there was a laugh from the audience... probably the only one in the entire movie but it worked so well. Fincher is a master director.

[@rpenn79]

I understand that Fincher's pretty good at what he does, but don't you think he has the added benefit of seeing the faults of the previous film and fixing what he thought was wrong? BTW, I enjoyed your comparison and look forward to many more.

[@SceneCraft]

rpenn79 Steve Zalian, the screenwriter of the American version, said he avoided watching the Swedish version.

[@rpenn79]

SceneCraft wow, thank you, that's a very interesting piece of information

[@peculiarlyana6497]

rpenn79 couldnt say fixig what is wrong it iust he done better without the first the sec wouldnt come

[@peculiarlyana6497]

SceneCraft thats a bluff. Everything bare the resemblance

[@jaypee4188]

Peculiar Lyana No, they are incredibly different. Same basic ingredients, totally different recipe. One is feeding you a hot dog, the other, Filet Mignon.

[@radhageorge]

Saw the entire Swedish trilogy in the theatre before Fincher's version was even announced and I loved it but still I went into the remake with an open mind, wanting to like it just as much. Unfortunately I think the only improvement beyond some (as you said, better funded) cinematography, was the opening credits. Otherwise in almost all other regards I prefer the crime/puzzle framework of the original and thought Fincher spent too much time focused on making things look cool. I cared more about the characters in the original and was more invested in their journey. I appreciated Rooney Mara's performance, but I felt far more connected to Noomi Rapace's. Sort of related to that, there was a scene that was changed drastically from the original that I also never understood: in the Swedish version Lisbeth is mugged in the subway station and when she tries to resist she's brutally beaten and fails- whereas the American version has Lisbeth succeed in getting her bag back and even gets to slide down the escalator, looking like a badass. In both cases she's forced to buy a new laptop but the original conveys Lisbeth's struggle to physically match her mental determination. She's been a victim for most of her life and continues to be until she finally makes the turn within the plot of the film and is finally able to exact revenge and seek justice. The remake just had a cool, empty action sequence that conveyed nothing. And lastly I disagree that the original film wasn't asking questions. It was just asking *different* ones. For instance with the scene where Vanger reveals the flowers- in the sequel they're talking about something of importance and you dont immediately know what it is. But in the original you're *shown* the thing (shot in a dynamic pullback that I thought was more interesting) and the immediate question is *why* are these important. I appreciated your analysis, but I do think it would serve you to have a more balanced approach next time. You started the video by saying Fincher's remake was by and far superior to the film it nearly mimicked scene for scene, and you just whistled that tune all the way through.

[@SchulzEricT]

He wasn't making it up as he went along, he knew Fincher's was better because he'd already watched them both and analyzed them. He wasn't saying it was better merely to challenge himself to justify it as he went along. He analyzed the movies and came to a conclusion, then gave us the thesis statement, then gave us evidence to support it. As far as Lisbeth being beaten in the Swedish version: I don't know how you can defend that as more in character. She *is* a badass, and having her get beaten up really doesn't do justice to her character. She can take care of herself, in every way. She was that from the start, she was resourceful and tough even as a child. It's incredibly rare that we see anybody get the drop on her; Burman does, but she immediately gets him back. Because that's who she is.

[@Wake-Less]

Completelt agree Marie

[@kaptenlemper]

Agreed. I found that Fincher's version didn't have the tension and dread of the original. I'll agree that Fincher's cinematography is superior, but aside from that I found the overall movie to not have improved on the original all that much.

[@plisskenetic]

Completely DISagree with all your comments d.marie. The swedish version is so bland and straightforward but Fincher does it with far MORE craft and better storytelling and unfolding the plot, as proven in this video. You mentioned that mugging scene, I thought it was just over-the-top in the swedish version while the US version executes it more practically and doesn't really show her as a badass, just as a protaganist who thinks. Seems to me you're just disdainful of US remakes and can't properly assess films in general.

[@veronikavartanova4044]

@@plisskenetic the point about Lizbet being a badass that fought to get her backpack, and came out on top without being badly beaten - I agree that it makes it harder to believe she would deem it acceptable (if only barely and to gauge him for future set up) to submit to her new scumbag of a guardian without any active verbal or phyisical resistance, only a couple scenes later. Where was that badass when she was forced by him that first time? This immideately felt like a glaring inconsistency.. However, other then that I absolutely agree that the remake improved virtually on every aspect of this story, especially in its editing, cinematography, and overal visual presentation.

[@demetriuscarvalho8730]

I'm surprised this is the only video in your channel. Your analysis here is very well constructed and compelling, you should make more of these.

[@TheRyanMackfall]

seconded!

[@michaeljohn1462]

Demétrius Carvalho Thirded

[@fahad1584]

maybe he is already a director now. lol

[@SceneCraft]

Hey, thanks. This was a one-off, but perhaps I'll make some more if I get hooked by another idea.

[@kyleclark8522]

please do. this video is fantastic

[@k9pker]

It’s interesting. The cinematography and colour palette is more cinematic in finches version but there are subtle differences that change the storytelling too. In the section meeting lizbeth for the first time it tells you different things about her character her being in the room first or being late.

[@Donnerbalken28]

The manner she is introduced is also different. In the Swedish version, her boss is introducing her to Frode like he would introduce an odd relative with weird taste. In the American version, he is notably tense and puts a special emphasis that he is only doing this because Frode requested it, giving the impression that he is somewhat protective of her.

[@solofemmenoire9108]

I prefer her in the room first.

[@annmolloy8600]

When Salander arrives to meet Friedman in the Fincher movie her hair is raised in a Mohawk style. How would her hair have stayed up while wearing a motor bike helmet? Just a thought!

[@sash9249]

Ok, I'm gonna disagree with you about the reveal of the "answer" of the paintings. The original reveal is more stylish and dramatic - nothing wrong with that. Fincher uses the pov of the character. Neither of these director choices is "better" than the other, because they're stylistic, personal choices and they both work for the scene. Also, budget IS important, because a bigger film will have more time to shoot and more resources to shoot with. Fincher edits digitally (and I assume shoots that way too) so he will be able to perfect every single take. Most films don't have the budget - therefore the luxury that he has to get everything so perfect. The original was probably shot on film, and so would have taken longer on average to shoot. This means that the director was already limited by their choices of shots and compositions.

[@maipad3186]

Sash As Filmmaker also...I think all three films were released the same year too

[@levischorpioen]

The original reveal makes us wonder the exact same thing as our lead character. The other film handles it in a way that we're left wondering something completely different.

[@privatear2001]

Budget is important. All three of the first movies came out the same year in 2009. They were probably shot on a smaller budget for all three combined than for the Hollywood version. I wonder about this: If Fincher had been under the same financial restraints (13 million vs 90 million) would he have truly produced a "better" movie? I'm glad someone had the money to produce a complete trilogy... because I doubt Hollywood will. :)

[@Goutham1826]

Fincher is easily a better director

[@sillyme1673]

I like the version with Rapace in it, i felt the tension, and much more gloomy

[@da.j.9096]

As someone just watching this comparison, I can't see any gloom in the Swedish version. Especially the lighting design. Fincher's version sets a mood, the Swedish version looks like it was all shot in bright daylight with no attempt to alter the vibe.

[@justsomegirlwithoutamustache]

Yup@@da.j.9096

[@Goutham1826]

Lmao there was no tension or atmosphere in the 2009 one. So many shots had too much light and felt cheap tbh

[@oddf3ll0w]

When I clicked on this video, I actually thought the Expert one was the Swedish one and vice versa. I prefer the Swedish one, it could be because I am Swedish, but I think HB says it best in another comment. The Swedish one is much more realistic and targeted to a Swedish audience. Some of the shots you mentioned I feel are better in the Swedish, like the reveal of the flowerpaintings. And you talk about how Fincher creates a dark, suffering, thriller feeling throughout the movie. But if you have that feeling all the time you will not get the adrenaline-kick you get when it goes from normal to thrilling, like it does in several scenes. An example is the "Blomquist is running in the woods, and then get shot at-scene!

[@stevebutler812]

Yep. Exactly. But, Americans wouldn't get that because they use all the tricks to impress.

[@privatear2001]

The Swedish version was much better. I've watched the trilogy at least 20 times. I've seen the 2011 one only twice - first to see what the hubbub was about and a second time to compare it to the 2009 one. I have the trilogy on disc and whenever I get the chance, I show it to friends. Once stayed at the house of a friend who taught design at RISD. He really liked the film. There were two other guys had come over from the west coast for a month and we all watched the trilogy, the whole six hours worth or however long it was, in one sitting. Wouldn't even think of showing them the Hollywood version! :)

[@ben256dev]

I've only seen Fincher's version and I saw it today. The running in the woods scene scared the shit out of me so I don't understand wtf you mean with that.

[@salenawaaka6258]

Im a New Zealander and i waaay prefer the Sweedish version. Better acting all round, better character insight, the story makes sense. All this stretching annoyed me lol

[@mrconroy4672]

True, although the sequels to the original Swedish movie did loose their luster. I’m thankful that fincher has a strict no sequel rule after alien 3.

[@joycefortin7877]

I preferred the original in spite of having to read the captions.

[@hrh4961]

Tried the dubbed version. Poor. Went back to the captions pretty quickly.

[@privatear2001]

Me too. I actually did get the dubbed Canadian version and that even seemed to go pretty well with the lip movements for the most part (I may be biased bc I'm from Canada). It wasn't like watching the American dubbed version of "Enter the Dragon" or something where the lips would be moving for a minute beyond the English translation. :)

[@michael-rommel]

I saw both versions and read the books. I think it really comes down to individual preference. The reasons for me liking the Mara/Craig version better is twofold: 1. I liked the acting performance especially of Rooney Mara better than the swedish actors. 2. The swedish version stays very close to the book. While I usually would prefer this, it is in my humble opinion in this very case not a good choice. The plots in the book and all the back-stories of the characters are so complex and detailed and you need to read the book thoroughly to get a good comprehension why the characters act the way they do. In the swedish version, almost all important scenes from the book are present in the film, but due to the time constraints of a feature length film, they felt to me sometimes like a sequence of individual scenes where the "glue" is missing. Without having read the book, I would not have been able to fill in the gaps. Fincher and the script writer took a different approach: they omitted some of the background plots but took more time to connect the filmed scenes together. I was more immersed by the cinematography and sound choices as well. Overall, I would really have liked to see Rooney in the remainder of the trilogy - I thought she put out a spectacular performance.

[@plisskenetic]

You manage to articulate this way better unlike all those commentators here who just frankly say the Swedish is better just bcoz they say so... coz clearly they're just against American remakes and nothing more.

[@Goutham1826]

​@@plisskeneticyeah i see so many people who are prejudiced against american films. Even though im. Not American , it feels annoying after a point

[@amyeunae]

Swedish Version was so raw and authentic, which i love about. There were no scenes trying to make things more eye candy .

[@lloydtxw]

It’s a visual medium. It’s supposed to be eye candy.

[@majimasmajimemes1156]

@@lloydtxw If you want eye candy, watch commercials. The visuals in a movie are supposed to serve the story, not the other way around. A movie about misogyny, in-family murder and incestuous sexual abuse isn't supposed to look "beautiful".

[@lloydtxw]

@@majimasmajimemes1156 If you think film isn’t supposed to consider aesthetics and exists solely to push a narrative, you’re very ignorant about both film and the concept of art in general. The movie is a procedural, both versions, a dry one at that. If you have no eye for framing or production design or any other aesthetic choice that dually serves as stylistic and a narrative device, just say so. You think a specific selection of color scheme, camera angle, diegetic/non-diegetic sound, costume, location…say nothing about character, environment, motivation? Where do you think mise en scene comes from? It’s creating a narrative with visuals/aesthetics, literally ‘setting the stage’ to tell a story. Those choices absolutely make a difference. Maybe Google a little harder before saying stupid things.

[@majimasmajimemes1156]

@SmithOst72 bro I fucking work in the industry. Everything you just listed is accurate but has nothing to do with your original comment? All of that works in favor of the original. You're just reducing the meaning of aesthetics to "looking pretty". Comes off like you kust watched a couple of video essays on filmmaking and now consider yourself an expert, while, ironically, being incredibly ignorant about the complexities of visual art. Maybe try googling harder next time.

[@lindathompson3982]

Majimas: I appreciate your sentiments; all have opinions & preferences, certainly...makes life interesting. Thank you for how succinctly particular you were in your observations and the parameters of your vantage point. In this way, I understand and agree.

[@anigodess]

This video would’ve been much better if you’d just done a side by side comparison as opposed to “Finchers is better because...” I prefer the Swedish version.

[@kasperkjrsgaard1447]

Anigurl28 Which was directed by a dane.

[@NostalgiNorden]

Swedish version is crap.

[@plisskenetic]

I prefer the Fincher version big time

[@1938superman]

Still watching, but I disagree with your assessment of the framed flowers. You're basing your conclusion on the structure of Oplev's scene on the structure of Fincher's scene. You can't do that, especially since Oplev's scene came first. You have to examine both scenes as though they are the only one the viewer has seen. The framed flowers are only an answer in Fincher's film. In Oplev's film, they are the question. "What is the deal with all these framed flowers?" That's Oplev's question. Now, I do like Fincher's structure better here, but you have to give both films a fair assessment. I'll watch the rest, but it looks like you're just gearing up for a Fincher lovefest here.

[@laurawalsh2829]

Just an observation: I liked the Swedish introduction of the flowers better: when the end result of the killings is revealled, I suddenly remembered the framed flowers were presented the same way -- plus the visual pan of the photos of the girls: they're faces to the stories we've been told by Lisbeth's research. As a journalist, I found watching the Swedish version -- and the scope of Blomquist's research -- told it's own story: we are discovering what he is seeing. It matches footwork and technology nicely: Blomquist's old school, vs. Salander's techno-savvy approach. There is good visual story-telling here.

[@KravMagoo]

The ages old trope of film making is "show, don't tell." Fincher TELLS (through verbalized questions) the audience that there is something mysterious coming...in effect, telegraphing the blow. In the Swedish version, we are SHOWN the framed flowers and are left to ask our own questions: "what is the deal with this unusual setting?" The Swedish version actively engages the viewer in the kind of thought process Blomquist is being made to experience. That is SUPERIOR film making. Swedish version for the WIN! Fwiw, I do like the American version...but with this story, the contrast of visual tour de force vs. gritty psychological drama tilts in favor of the real as opposed to the artful. Obviously, the Fincher version is more visually fetching, but the artfulness is so thick I am never more than an observer, whereas the news gathering quality of the Swedish version is so intense because of the matter-of-factness it presents. Basically, the American version makes me an observer. The Swedish version makes me a participant.

[@vinicio985]

@@KravMagoo You are so damn right

[@KravMagoo]

@@adrianmeerman6493 Tbh, the movies had already climaxed for me by the time the denouement happens. I was already smoking a cigarette at that point and barely remember any of it, Swedish or American. Maybe Italian next time?

[@BryanLomax]

I was totally thinking the same thing about the flower scene. As soon as we see the flowers in the original I'm like, "what's the deal with all these flowers?" So you're totally right. Oplev still asks the question. It's just not the same question. And it's not dragged out unnecessarily. But I say that as an absolute Fincher fan. Dude is one of my favourite filmmakers.

[@beth-rg8bm]

I found the actors in the Swedish version much more believevable!

[@LeeLee19901]

Yes especially noomi rapace

[@kcush8258]

@@LeeLee19901 agree, I like Roony Mara but she made Lisbeth a little softer character which did not match what I felt she was in the books. Noomi nailed it.

[@LeeLee19901]

@@kcush8258 so true

[@madztorya]

@@LeeLee19901 true

[@plisskenetic]

That's just plain biase. Repace is the only one comparable. The other foreign actors were either dull or over the top as heck.

[@AskeBS]

Like a lot of other people commenting, I have a heavy preference of the Swedish film because of its autenthic atmosphere and rough but far more believable characters. The film is based on my favorite book of all time, and even though I’m from Denmark and read it in Danish, what gained it this status was exactly its incredibly authentic and believable atmosphere, which is why this aspect also means so much to me in the film. Great job, Niels Arden Oplev!

[@gnarlin4964]

Can you please do a similar comparison between "Let the right one in" and "Let me in" ?

[@TheTrailerCREAT0R]

gnarlin let the right one in is superior to let me in but let me in isn’t too bad.

[@Stewbular]

Oh my God Another superior European film Remade for no good reason But to celebrate mediocrity

[@MikeNelson-s4o]

@@Stewbularlower your nose a little , please

[@PimpDragon108]

I find Fincher's version criminally underrated among his films. I think it's an outstanding film - and I admire the original, as well. But, as you said, Fincher sets a strong tone and atmosphere for his film. I remember being genuinely cold in the movie theater when watching it! Now THAT'S setting a scene!

[@jaydauria4593]

EXACTLY! I remember seeing it in the theater and being completely blown away. I was so impressed, I went back to absorb the gritty details two more times in the theaters. I can only name a very small amount of films that made me as impressed as Finchers version did. He nailed the style and tone of the novel in almost all ways I can think of. Of course he has a very unique style to his films, but his style is what makes him so successful. He sets such a realistic and respectful tone to this film, from the color of the cinematography, down to the set design, screenplay, acting, and score.. A truly memorable crime drama that I still love to watch at least once every few months to remind myself of what a great film is.

[@kothgames]

Probably my favorite Fincher movie (which is saying a lot because everything he’s made is mind blowing). It’s such a chilling mystery/ thriller movie but it’s usually not mentioned as one of Fincher’s best.

[@gloomyJulia]

Fincher's version is amazing, very artistic and I appreciate that in a film. It's the kind of cinematography and attention to details that reminds me of the Hannibal series - dark mood, lots of tension. The scenery and the soundtrack plus the great acting.. it's just perfect. I rewatched it many times and never got bored. Rooney did a great job, she and Daniel were a very good match.

[@roboct6]

I became a Noomi Rapace fan after seeing the Swedish version. So I was stubbornly attached to her as Lisbeth Salander and wasn’t giving Rooney Mara a fair chance. I immediately knew that the Fincher version was far superior but I clung to Noomi’s portrayal. I’m still a Noomi Rapace fan but what Rooney Mara accomplished was amazing and her version of Lisbeth fits what is in the book. I’m sorry it took me so long to get there. I now believe David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a masterpiece.

[@Masssch]

This was a brilliant analysis and comparison evaluation for the movie - Definitely make more of these for screenplays. Its awesome.

[@bijibadness]

I think, without a doubt that FIncher's film is one of the COLDEST movies ever made. And I mean that literally-I watch that film and I get chills; the low temperature is OPPRESSIVE. It's antagonistic. Atmosphere is just SCREAMING IN YOUR FACE without really saying a word. It's awesome.

[@amandamfds]

Bijinius Cross Agree. The worst part for me happened when Mikael was freezing his ass in that cabin!

[@xlhits]

100000%

[@justsomegirlwithoutamustache]

Yea, it feels so cold and isolated

[@sew_gal7340]

I think anything in America is big, explosive, and maximum pleasure....the food portions are big, the body is big, the lips are big, the houses are big, the attitude is big....everything is excessive and more! MORE MORE!!! Just extreme everything, no place for gentleness or softness...no meekness or sweetness...just dialed to the max.

[@mophead_xu]

2:27 I beg to differ. Though I haven't watched the original Swedish movie, based on that scene you showed, a question was actually introduced: What are those on the wall? What do they mean? Then the answer (though rather quicker than the American version) came: mementos from Hariett's murderer. Just because the question and the answer are flipped from one movie to the other, doesn't mean there were no question asked.

[@Rizziculous]

Exactly

[@wabii6714]

L

[@Drunkenst3v3]

This only makes me want the other two more! It was a great movie based on only the first in an amazing trilogy. I watched the Swedish version just so I could see the completed trilogy.

[@colbs237]

I do not agree with this analysis at all. The original version was so much more beautiful and mysterious and inviting.

[@JackLively]

I wouldn't say that the story is *supposed* to be beautiful or inviting though. It's a story that focuses on a young woman who's been abused by the state for years, and it involves rape, murder and conspiracy. It's not a *fun* story. The analysis is perfect. Fincher's film is vastly superior to Oplev's. However, that's not to say that Oplev's is bad. As a series, the Swedish version is really good. Great acting and a fascinating story. However, Fincher was able to take that same story, (along with a much higher budget, granted) and completely rebuilt it, carefully analysing each segment so that it was the best it could be. I didn't care much for Oplev's Lisbeth. I found her to be a bit offputting, and I'm not sure why, but her character came across as fairly contrived. However, Fincher's Lisbeth seemed much more complex as a person. I felt a mix of emotions watching her, and felt far more invested in her story. Undeniably, the Fincher film is better, but Oplev's deserves some massive credit. It's good in its own right. Had I not seen the Fincher version, I would have liked the Oplev version, but not thought much about it later. Fincher's version is able to draw me in more effectively, because of the narrative pacing, as well as the characterisations. You may not like Fincher, but you can't deny his skill. I just think it's a crime that the film wasn't a success. I don't know what constitutes a "success" but I guess it's just one of those things that's not meant to be.

[@armandocesar3954]

the other two arent worthi it

[@ThelouwseFD]

Read the books !Nothing can beat them !

[@maipad3186]

colby phelps AbsuhLootlay

[@wictoriaojheden]

As a Swede i have to say the Swedish version is better, darker and more authentic and i guess you are American and therefore has to say the American version is better more polished and eye candy as always. The Swedish version is better because they are in the original language and there is always something that gets lost in translation when you make another version in another language and that goes for all remakes or movies that has been made in another language. i loved the Swedish version Noomi and Mikale are so good together and they click and ther scenes are much better and authentic than in the American version. Sadly Mikael passed away as did the writer of these great books.

[@MrJCTONE]

Agree 100% - Bollywood has lost it - no original idea,s - only remakes & CGI -

[@wictoriaojheden]

@@MrJCTONE Bollywood ????

[@RodgerYoung2024]

@@wictoriaojheden kkkkkkkkkkk o cara tá maluco

[@Neo-tn1mc]

As an American, the Swedish version was more realistic and darker

[@HerenowGoneforever]

As an artist...the American version is better... Fincher had a better palette and did more with what he had drawing is in..keeping the viewer interested. Maybe American audiences just appreciate the time and effort put into our art. America just does everything better. Dont hate us for that. Someone has to be number 1. Truth is not arrogant. It's just true.

[@darkphoenix474]

The Swedish version is a great film

[@Tamaresque]

I don't agree, I didn't see any of that in the US film, I just saw it as being drawn out. However, I'd already watched the Swedish version, which preceded it by a couple of years, and fallen in love with that version of Mikael & Lisbeth, so I thought the US actors were but pale imitations.

[@maipad3186]

Tamaresque mmm...I wouldn't say that...I think the new one does do a good job... just that the original one is much better cuz its more real etc etc etc

[@plisskenetic]

Tamaresque That’s just unfortunately your biasness at work. And I watched the Swedish version first too long before Fincher’s version existed and seriously found the latter version far more engaging

[@NostalgiNorden]

You are wrong.

[@pchinnIII]

There is no comparison on any level. Noomi was Lisbeth, no other way to see that role. There was one role that might have been better in the US film and that was done by a British actor (not Daniel). I am an American and always wished I could watch the original without subtitles even so I have seen the Swedish film at least 8 times. I don't think there are any highly regarded film critics who think the US version is better. The US version is more for those who have grown to like Marvel Films.

[@akhilnair1137]

@@pchinnIII and for those who understand better cinema and direction . Seriously , the swedish version is loved only for the fact that it came first without being better in any characteristic of Fincher's film .

[@feardrinker]

In my experience, American remakes of foreign movies consistently outspend yet underperform the original.

[@maipad3186]

Feardrinker oh Teri... fact of life!

[@whutzat]

This was the exception.

[@sammeo]

I really like the Swedish version

[@majasienkiewicz8016]

Rooney mara is perfection in fincher's version. such a rich character.

[@atheist666]

I watched and loved the original version on it’s release, and having read the books was completely satisfied with its portrayal of the story, because, before we all crawl up each others backsides, whilst cinema is a visual art form, it’s first and foremost about storytelling. When I heard Hollywood was making a copy I feared the worst, but I watched it, and every single one of my fears were confirmed. The trilogy was absolutely Swedish, and was absolutely the story of Lizbeth, one film understood this, the other film not only ignored this, it completely twisted it. Let’s not even mention the casting of non Swedish actors in the main roles, because obviously it must be hard to find competent Swedish actors? But they basically destroyed the character of Lizbeth, to the point that she needs to ask permission to go after the killer towards the end of the movie. You can take all the “beautiful” camera work, and “expert” scene composition and shove it up your arse… One film was exactly what it needed to be, the other was the worst kind of disaster that seems to always happen when navel gazing arseholes mess with real art, to make dollars…

[@miroslavjanecek9993]

1. Why would swedish actors play in american movie? (And actually Stellan Skarsgard was there) 2. Main characters in the novel are both Mikael and Lisbeth, not just Lisbeth. Both movies balanced it well. The Fincher movie is maybe little more oriented towards Mikael. It didn't twist anything.

[@TWHueyGuitar]

Completely agree. Lisbeth loses all agency once she asks permission to go after the killer. Her asking is out of character and an affront to the novels themselves. Mostly people seem to love the Fincher version because it's Fincher with money creating a slick, market produced product. Fincher's version is sterile and lacks the gritty punches the Swedish version got right.

[@Goutham1826]

Im not American or Swedish. And i prefer Finchers version. I find it much more artistic, cold, thrilling. It had better characterization, perfomances, music etc. Swedish version was great but had no atmosphere, tension or anything.

[@atheist666]

@@Goutham1826 Your comment would be relevant if I was talking about individual preferences, plus your opinions are your own, and lend no weight to the values of either production. One was accurate, designed to highlight “man” made social issues in Sweden with a empowering female lead, and one was trite, cliched and had “james bond” as the lead, being designed for a socially bankrupt American audience.

[@Goutham1826]

@@atheist666 American version is objectively better only biased swedes would prefer Swedish one

[@Akiss]

Undoubtedly Fincher's cinematography is superior, but storytelling wise the original is more raw, believable. "Stretching" the introduction of Lisbeth makes her out to be some anti-hero right out the gate, a larger than life personality. The original presents her more matter-of-factly, but the contrast comes with her demeanor and style contrasting to the color temperature and lighting of the scene (warm, well-lit vs. her dark and brooding).

[@maipad3186]

sugasugaki yayayayayes

[@gustavkohn2887]

I think the Swedish version is superior because it works way better as a mystery/criminal drama

[@crouchingotter]

I saw the Swedish films first and really enjoyed them. I’m a big David Fincher fan but I found the idea of remaking this for an American audience to be a very “Hollywood” and unnecessary idea.

[@bookeblade]

Is it a problem?

[@Higginsfilm]

It wasnt a remake. It was another adaptation of the book.

[@wabii6714]

when i first was about to watch it i thought the same but as it turns out its nothing of the sort

[@nekozombie]

This is one of my favorite videos on this platform! You're great! :D

[@heliopyre]

I suppose it comes down to what you want the audience to feel. as far as storytelling goes. one builds her up and primes you for her reveal. the other drops you in and catches you off guard. one sequence uses the flowers as the answer. the other uses it as the question. it was a decent video but it was too biased. there are arguments to be made for either approach and I think you should lay them out them to give a more balanced analysis.

[@stevetreloar3129]

Michael Nyqvist RIP

[@fionnualathompson2228]

Wow, incredible work you did! Loved it. I had wanted to see the first version, but watched Fincher´s first. After that, I just couldn´t imagine it could get any better and so I never did. This sums it up pretty well. Fincher is a genius and Zaillian did a perfect job. Craig and Mara were incredible!!

[@maumaumau59]

Hopefully you found the 2 sequel films done in Swedish - the style and pace of those naturally mirrors the first. I personally enjoyed all the films and agree with this video's viewpoint, Fincher's film making is on a higher plain.

[@jeromebell1245]

Truly brilliantly edited video and analysis. You should do more videos. You've got a real skill for it. And David Fincher is a master filmmaker. Couldn't agree more with this commentary on the two films.

[@Dave.666.]

"Expert & Auteur" would have been a far more correct title. Calling the first film's direction as average seems pretty dismissive and uninformed.

[@taylorvaughan3257]

I think the fact that there is so much back and forth about preferences between these movies is a testament to how good both are, a rare thing when different versions of a film exist, usually there's a landslide preference for one or the other, and this is a rare case. In my opinion some positives and negatives are: American version: - FAR superior soundtrack. - The unveiling of Martin Vanger as the killer and Blomkvist being saved are dramatically better, amazing tension, the use of Enya and Martin's dialogue and that whole scene I think is the single strongest point of either movie BUT... - This scene is immediately followed up with an absolute action movie cheese fest. 1) Lisbeth tries to pass his SUV on the bridge with her motorcycle for... Reasons? Lisbeth is an intelligent character, and the scene reads as her trying to pass him and get ahead, rather than bait him into a crash, which needless to say is a wildly dumb move when he's already on the ropes, weaponless, and in a slower vehicle, 2) he crashes and then *HOLLYWOOD KABOOM*. It was stupid as hell, cheesy, and nearly made me laugh compared the brutal, truer to the book, thematically relevant for the sequel, AND way less cheesy scene in the Swedish version when Martin is begging and lets him slowly burn to death. Martin's death scene in the American version is easily the WORST sequence in either movie. - Ending is more authentic to the book and characters. - Better cinematography Swedish version: - Better acting in my opinion - Better casting, all the characters feel real instead of overly dolled up attractive hollywood stars, their ages and appearances more closely reflect the book - Better (this one is vague), mood and atmosphere. Everything feels real. In the video the introduction of Lisbeth in the American version (which Scenecraft seems to prefer) to me (while not explicitly cheesy) leans more in that direction. "She's different" cut to her taking off her helmet (with somehow an intact mohawk?...), "in what way? Every way?" cut to her mohawk and wiping her nose. The whole thing feels #punk #notlikeothergirls a bit in how it's edited. The swedish version feels raw, real, and honest in how it's presented, she turns around looking wildly out of place in her attire, and she doesn't give a crap and drinks her coffee. Liseth feels shy at times in the American one, too soft for the character. The swedish Lisbeth feels actively hostile and standoffish, which is much more true to how she was originally written, and doesn't fall into this hollywood "shy girl opens up and finally falls in love with Blomkvist" in the same way the American film does. Both movies are great, and parts of the American one are EXCELLENT, but I prefer the Swedish film primarily because 1) the characters feel real, Noomi Rapace IS Lisbeth Salander in my mind much more than Rooney Mara, 2) the whole feel is grittier and more raw, 3) the story's climax with Martin's death is stupid, childish, and cheesy in the American version, and is a real black mark on an otherwise great film. A final (probably my most controversial take), I thought the opening CGI sequence (while cool looking) in the American version clashed terribly with the vibe of the movie. It feels like the opener for a 2000s cheesy teen horror movie, and it would have been better if it wasn't included at all.

[@paulafernandez9462]

Such a nice and interesting video, I loved the american movie but the swedish one is more accurate

[@HappySlayer81]

Well it's easy to call something "expert level" when it takes from something that has already been done and they finesse it. Ridiculous

[@filmreviewer117]

Having finally managed to see the Swedish version in total now, I can honestly say that I think the Swedish version is more realistic and authentic. However I prefer the Fincher's one because Fincher is expertly able to enthral us into the serial killer angle of the story and I find the relationship between Lisabeth and Mikael more compelling and profound. There is a better handle between them and that comes down to Fincher's direction. Something that is empathized with is the ending moment when Lisabeth sees Mikael with Erika and knows that he'll never see her that way, which is so much better as the characters had so much emotion built up that I felt missing in the Swedish.

[@a.a.7416]

I think both versions are interesting and worth watching. The Swedish version is various episodes long; thus, it has pros and cons. As a viewer, I wanted more length to extend the watching and the excitement. After many years, I recently (February 2024) watched like 6 episodes of the Swedish version and I loved it. The English version is fine, too, especially if you wish to cram the entire storyline within 2 hours.

[@Fred_Lougee]

"But we're going to forget about fairness..." Riiiight. Because if you keep the budget disparity in mind you don't have a video. Now, I have not seen Fincher's version, but I have seen the entire trilogy subtitled and I have zero complaints about it. The fact that you can not watch the entire trilogy filmed in English because the second and third movies don't exist completely refutes your thesis about Fincher making the better version of Dragon Tattoo.

[@MrLiam241]

When Lisbeth is introduced the different choices of the two directors perfectly illustrates the difference between suspense and surprise. I love suspense, but I kind of think surprise is more appropriate here.

[@levischorpioen]

It is, if you have zero interest in humanising Lisbeth.

[@arthurwild6563]

Why?

[@levischorpioen]

Arthur Wild The point was to adapt the trilogy, the American film wasn’t supposed to be a stand alone. If you know anything about the sequels, you know that Lisbeth is the main character and the sequels basically act as character studies of her. By introducing her with so much contempt and treating her like an inhuman thing that we don’t understand, you just create disinterest for her. The company doesn’t like her, she doesn’t make herself likable, so why should we like her? The Swedish adaptation handles this much better, they don’t treat her like an 80s slasher villain.

[@myopenmind527]

Totally agree. Fincher is at the top of his game. I can watch the fincher version over and over and never tire of it.

[@danieloskarsson215]

Having lived in many countries and watching local productions I would like to state that american movies compared to nordic feel to need to extrapolate EVERYTHING! They seem to need to explain more and make things more obvious while European often are more raw and real, trying to mirror reality rather then staged and more easily consumed reality. Reality is key, it gives uncomfortable, honest feeling while many bigger hollywood productions as well as some newer european trying to emulate hollywood productions this means its easier consumed, gives oddly enough a "cosier" feeling while the more subtle raw approach feels poorer although in comparison. Both styles have their cons and pros. But it is a chosen style and approach to how to tell stories. Dont forget the cultural approach, while americans in sweden are perceived as being loud and sometimes dishonestly expressive, the swedes pride themselves of showing less emotions unless truly felt and honest. From a cultural perspective the two styles are rather obvious and therefore hard to explain and interpret this way.

[@gsmitchell]

What an excellent video. Great breakdown of what makes a great director, and how Fincher tells the story. Please do more of these.

[@unknownpersonofinterest]

I am blown away by this video, great work! just subscribed.

[@cupcakekiller7545]

Unpopular opinion but I prefer the remake as well,😂

[@AngelXO96]

It’s not unpopular tbh, the director definitely understands the story better

[@neterwan]

I watched the American version first and it left a very interesting feel: dark, intimidating and very complicated to think about afterwards. I really liked it and would always recommend it to others. Later on I watched the Swedish films and I must say, that they made quite an impressive telling of the story. I would agree with some, that the difference is not just about the film making in different countries per se, but about the mentality - whether we like it or not, it affects the way the story is told. The American film as good as it is - makes it quite clear, that we must be fascinated by a thrilling story from Sweden or something like that. In Swedish version it is simply a chance to see a spine-chilling mystery with quite a lot of details not omitted. The fact it took place in Sweden - is secondary in the original films, but still serve the purpose of accentuating both the grim atmosphere and the plot.

[@lunarcat632]

I love how the remake emotes a lot of feeling. I think people are missing the point of this video...

[@yvonneshanson1525]

Yeah, because people nowadays are emotionally stunned and prefer acting which permits them to remain numb.. - which is the opposite of what any art should aim for tbh...

[@QuioGoyo]

I keep rewatching this every once in a while. Really well done.

[@saminouminou]

Glad to see that most people defend/prefer the original 👏😭 y'all have great *TASTE* imo

[@rickdynes]

I don't see many saying that the male lead is better in the 1st one but I really do: He comes across as someone who has a great deal to teach me about personal style: quite fascinating

[@niallcochrane3331]

The original trilogy was vastly superior to the hollywood remake in my opinion - I think Noomi Rapace had alot to do with its success in my mind

[@privatear2001]

She has been in a lot of different movies since that role. But I think it definitely brought her into the limelight regards to getting calls from Hollywood. Much as I think "Pitch Black" really made Vin Diesel's career (the role seemed WRITTEN for him), playing Lisbeth Salander really made Noomi Rapace's, as well. She definitely took centre-stage. I loved the character. And I loved her interaction with Mikael Blomkvist. There were some really great actors and actresses in that trilogy.

[@Standard_Jay]

The Hollywood version is not a "remake" ...it was in the pipeline to be adapted as a film at the same time the Swedish adaption was being filmed

[@andrearuss6396]

I've watched both versions, I have the original trilogy, I've also read the books. Although I like the American version, for me the original is far better

[@Bjjbhcoa86]

I know I'm in the minority, but I think Fincher version even improves on the book. The totally unnecessary Australia trip is omitted for example. The book is good, but it feels bloated at many times, Fincher really shaves it down.

[@vitanilange6926]

Noomi Rapace were perfect..

[@violetchanel438]

I'm soooo happy Knowing that almost everyone preferred the Swedish rather than the American version of the flim. But the American has some stronger aspects in some parts but the advantage is definitely in the Swedish court😎😎☕

[@alejandromolinac]

Wasn't the Swedish version a TV movie? I like the original cause it was more "mean spirited". Also the main guy looked like a regular, average, reporter man... Love Daniel Craig but he looks too "hot"

[@hrh4961]

No man EVER looks too hot!

[@lucykitty6492]

So agree. The Swedish version casting was so much better. Craig was wrong for this part.

[@Niobesnuppa]

Not a TV movie, no. The Swedish movies were all released in theatres. I saw the first one at the cinema back in 2009.

[@PiCheZvara]

I've seen both movies almost back to back this past week. I honestly can't believe how anyone would say the Swedish original is better. IMO that opinion must come from a biased anti- American or anti-mainstream sentiment, because watching the two films it's beyond clear the American version is superior in every way. The way it's shot, designed, the music, acting, etc. It's clear the American is a top of the line 100 million dollar production and the Swedish is a 13 million dollar local production. The Swedish version isn't more authentic or less flashy - it's just cheaper and looking more like a TV movie. It's not a conscious artistic goal, the goal obviously is to be a cool movie - but the Swedish filmmakers simply didn't have enough money and sorry talent or major league experience to make it look better. The American version also flows better. The Swedish is almost like a Harry Potter movie - just a breeze though a large book with all the important moments in there, but it can lack a certain feeling of tension building, escalation. The American version just basically does a better job at telling the story effectively so that the right moments linger. Lisbeth too is IMO definitely better in the American version. In the Swedish original, she is too normal, confident and despite the appearance Noomi Rapace plays her straight, like someone well normal in behavior, mimics. Rooney Mara however plays Lisbeth like someone really withdrawn, weird, introverted, odd, you simply feel and see that she has deep issues. And that's a huge difference and IMO the American Lisbeth is spot on and a way, way better and more precise characterization. The only downside of the American version is that it can occasionally be too ham fisted and too obviously a product attempting to be a franchise - like Lisbeth wearing a t shirt saying "fuck you you fucking fuck". Like we know she is alternative and angry, but she doesnt have to be like a teenage emo girl from upper middle class who thinks Green Day are punk rock. Other than these details which are obviously the result of the studio wanting Lisbeth to be exactly this - a popular hero for emo teenagers - American version wins in everything.

[@properduction2586]

Exactly !!! I literally can not believe how anyone with a working brain can say that the Swedish version is “miles” better than the American one…The only thing I can say that are slightly better in the Swedish version are some of the scenes like the one where Lisbeth photographic memory is mentioned or how the they figure out the bible verses..

[@TalesHilaricki]

I think is funny when I see people saying the Swedish version is more "grounded, gritty, realistic, less flashy" like it was artistic choice, because I've watched a lot of German, Danish and Swedish movies from the 2000s across genres that have the same look, and the reason is that they don't have money and are filming during winter/fall lol

[@facuuaf]

Both are great in their own categories. Given the lower budget, the swedish version is still entertaining. But David has an amazing cast and crew at his disposal, and he's so methodic and talented.

[@ungzheenedd2273]

Hey! Hoping you can make more videos like breaking them down, learned so much from this! Cheers!

[@job3rg]

Dude. This is an amazing essay. Wish you would so more.

[@locustslacker6614]

Я искал комментарий про то, что нужны новые видео. Жаль, что автор остановился.

[@Socrates...]

I love the gritty Swedish version

[@065Tim]

I think a important part to how you view this is the culture you where brought up in. The US version has a lot of drama. The Swedish version tries to prevent caricatures and makes it feel relatable for Scandinavians. Drama would put distance between the viewer and the story. Good comparison but I would not call it average & expert when comparing styles which serve different goals.

[@joshwalker2152]

well done. I loved Fincher's version and would love to see more, but probably not gonna happen

[@SceneCraft]

I was thinking of doing a short about the differences between how Oplev and Fincher suggested violence, so... we'll see!

[@fionnualathompson2228]

Do it! Please...

[@dearrratboy]

This was a superb analysis. Intelligent and logical. Please, please make more videos!

[@angelmorrigan7680]

i loved the american version with fincher directing- beautifully made and rooney mara was much closer to how the character was described in the book, anti- social angry, hanging her head down,.....with so many more expressions, and the wardrobe was so much better too! the swedish version salander was dressed like it was the 80's punk scene- the wardrobe budget mustve been very small in the swede version.

[@jamierichardson9549]

The original treats the audience as adults and is a joy as it unfolds, making you think. The copy is an American ‘spoon fed’ job for the popcorn generation.

[@sabeaniebaby]

I agree. I felt manipulated in the American version, while I felt I participated in the Swedish version.

[@ashandwit]

Disagree. BOTH are quality films, but have different styles in covering the same info.

[@Goutham1826]

You're extremly biased. If you think having better sense of atmosphere, pacing and direction is childish, you know nothing about film making

[@Goutham1826]

You sound extremely biased. If you think having better sense of atmosphere, pacing and direction is childish, you know nothing about cinema. And American one is not a "remake" or "copy", both versions are adaptions of the book

[@toectter8886]

Yeah this is just nit picking. Just the same as if I were to point out that in Fincher’s version Lisbeth has spiky hair. Yet was wearing a helmet. What did she do,fix her hair in the elevator on the way up? That’s not very punk. So you like Finchers version better,obviously. Why not just break down the craft of that film.

[@OneManParade]

GIVE ME THE ORIGINAL VERSION EVERY TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

[@SirBurticus]

I’ve loved Fincher’s version for many years and just recently decided to watch the original Swedish version. I find it astounding people prefer that one over Fincher’s. It is a good movie no question but imo Fincher’s is the perfect adaptation of the material, even the things he tweaked I found to be more engaging for a film version. I love the leads in other roles I’ve seen them in but I found Mara and Craig more engaging. They felt like real people, Craig got to be messy (takes up smoking again, sleeps around) and Mara brought more of a stunted child who is actually brilliantly dangerous vibe to the role. Their chemistry is palpable in a way I never felt with the original and when their relationship progresses it feels more real than in the original where it comes almost out of left field. Fincher also excels in making things that are typically boring like snooping through old documents and pictures engaging for the viewer as opposed to the original where it got a little corny in spots. Tone is also extremely important and Fincher with help from Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross’s soundtrack pull you in to the dark and cold world of the story in a way I didn’t feel in the original. I think the main things the original has over Fincher’s is being in the original Swedish language and the fact that they got to do all three books with the same cast, Fincher never got the green light for the other two.

[@heyguyslolGAMING]

Perhaps you should replace the phrase "Better" w/ "My Preferred", great explanation of your points.

[@GAD-mn5wn]

"The swedish version (...) is just okay" : seriously what ?! Come on it's not fair to Oplev's work ! It deserves so much more than that. Fincher based his movie on it, with more than 6x the original movie budget, of course its cleaner... But the original really makes you feel stuff man, and Noomi Rapace... my god she was way better than Rooney for this role, she was living it.

[@kevinrendal8732]

swedish version is wack it looks like a underpaid tv series

[@violetchanel438]

Definitely... I watched all three and I prefer the Swedish by a lot... I do love the American remake for some of the paths but noomi was the best Lisbeth ever♥️♥️♥️♥️

[@emmagrove6491]

You nailed it. I watched the Swedish version first, and it felt very cold, like I was just being fed information. I didn't remember any scenes or performances afterwards. With the Fincher version, I FELT what the story was about and what the characters were going through, and so many scenes and performances are etched in my mind. Lesson: Feeling first, information second.

[@Endru85x]

One scene i love in particular in Fincher version is money laundering by Lisbeth pretending to be Irene Nesser. Eerie soundtrack, Lisbeth behaving as special agent doing his plan, camera work which make you think " something wicked is about to happen and you cannot avoid it". I bet even with smaller budget Fincher would still make a memorable scene like this. After watching swedish version i did not feel urge to rewatch any part of swedish version.

[@pod9363]

All I know is I have a much more powerful reaction to Fincher's film than I do from the other guy. I wanna see much more of fincher's world than I do of the others.

[@JohnWadmanScanlan]

what’s the song after the 0:37 mark? fits the video perfectly, absolutely agree with your point of view

[@blessyourheart1167]

I’m American , I read the book then seen the Swedish version. I absolutely LOVED IT !! I seen the American version after it was released at theaters . I could not Finish watching it . I got up and left the theater. Noomi Rapace sets the acting bar so hight. I was an instant fan of hers. Phenomenal actress !! ❤

[@Snafuski]

I have to agree with longoats below. Hollywoood plastifies everything, and they've done it again. The worst thing about Hollywood, though: casting/typecasting.

[@tmbucktue]

The Swedish version is the best by a mile I've watched it several times and own it. I wouldn't waste a dollar on the english one. The bad guys get punished in the Swedish Version.

[@Bjjbhcoa86]

The book ending and the Fincher ending are the same though, no?

[@jozo035]

So basically, it is about stretching of moment? Anyway i am prefer Swedish version. US version seems to be too americanized, which migh be better in comparisons, but for me its less believable. btw.: 'framed flower' stretch was not stretch at all. In Swedish version it was revealed in first minute of movie, so there was no reason for stretching in minute 19. Just detail. :)

[@KayKay114]

Could you please do, Let the Right One In vs Let Me In?

[@kevinrendal8732]

fincher set the standard for TGWDT so high, the swedish version looks like an indie film.

[@distortiontildeafness]

its too bad the same cast and director from American version didnt follow through witg the sequels

[@rivverboy]

the story might as well end there, it's by far the best of the three.

[@tophers3756]

Derpy Derp true. I couldn't even get through the second Swedish film. I think it's amazing that two good movies were made of the first book. I couldn't finish it either. Just awful writing. If it's the best I can't imagine how bad the other two books are.

[@Sofia_._._]

Topher S the second book is considered better than the first actually. Maybe the movie was just bad?

[@ozybeastias8893]

Your video highlights the main problem I have with the Swedish version - Nyqvist’s performance. I hate to admit it since the actor is no longer with us, but I was quite unimpressed with him in the film due to just how stoic he looked.

[@DarkRuins]

you are a genius, this is an amazing analysis, well done!

[@Bitlox]

This is fascinating, I really hope you grow this channel. Kudos. Wait this channel only has one video?!?! I am totally confused.

[@bluecarob]

I prefer the original.

[@kostajovanovic3711]

That is fine, just don't call Fincher's a bad one, because it isn't