The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

David Fincher's Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo, based on the novel published by the late Steig Larsson, is a Hollywood remake of the 2009 Swedish film. Although it could be said that it is more of an adaptation than remake, as the two films are substantially different from each other.
Disgraced Journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is lured by Swedish industrial tycoon Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), to uncover the 40 year old mystery concerning the disappearance of his niece. Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a withdrawn, socially awkward but very talented computer hacker, is enlisted by Blomkvist to uncover the truth behind this epic mystery.
The film is a bold thriller, covered with David Fincher trademarks throughout (the amazing opening credits is one fine example). It is beautifully shot and has an exquisite use of sound to help tell a very haunting tale of murder and rape. 
The plot includes more points from the novel than the Swedish original did, with some very interesting changes to the final twist. For an audience member who has read the book and seen the Swedish film, I was surprised to find myself on edge in the final crisis point. The beginning (long) hour; saw inter-cuts between Blomkvist and Salander before they finally meet. Whether it was the screenplay or the final editing of the film; these cuts between the two separate stories felt lengthy and unnecessary. The film was forever over explaining the situation instead of leaving an air of mystery or hey, even some nice subtext. The Hollywood film takes far too long to bring these two characters, Blomkvist and Salander, together. One could argue that the Swedish film takes about the same duration to bring the pair together, but Salander is forever checking up on Blmokvist's activities and actually has a pivotal role in joining their destined fates. This brings me to screenwriter Steven Zaillian, who has done well in capturing the themes from the novel. But really his main job was to write a screenplay to sell to the market comprised of dead-shits, unwilling or incapable of watching the original film, because lord forbid they should have to read subtitles.
Cue the comparison from the Swedish film to the Hollywood remake. Firstly the Hollywood version obviously has a massive budget, meaning the production is a lot more sleek and modern. Even the appearance of both films rival each other. The Swedish film, while capturing the beautiful European landscape, wasn't also afraid to show the dark, less and glamours side of Sweden. But the remake with its American cinematographer, who was obviously blown away with the sheer beauty of Sweden... only captured the beauty of Sweden. The Hollywood film subsequently loses the grunginess of the original that perfectly matches the atmosphere set in the novel. The Swedish film also has a shorter act three which is important because the source material has a mother-fucking-long third act. Instead the Hollywood film's third act, feels like it drags on and on once the mystery is finally resolved.
The acting in the Hollywood film doesn't annoy me as much as I thought it would. Daniel Craig does his shit and is a fitting Blomkvist. Stellan Skarsgård as Martin Vanger is also very good. But it is naturally Rooney Mara's performance of Lisbeth Salander that is the most outstanding. Mara brings her own flair to this great female character and she will probably be nominated for best actress at the Academy Awards. She however did not outshine the original performance by Noomi Rapace who perfectly nailed the essence of this intricate character and will forever be in my heart; the real Lisbeth Salander.
The Hollywood film is an admirable thriller with its glossy production, but it's the Swedish original that still retains a puncher, more emotional and more rewarding cinema experience.

Hugo

It is Paris, 1931. Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is a young orphan boy who lives in the walls of the train station. He maintains the station clocks and steals from the cafe to stay feed, while constantly eluding the train station guard (Sacha Baron Cohen). Hugo befriends Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) and the two set out on an adventure to uncover the secrets of a mysterious gadget left to Hugo after his father's death.
Hugo has to be one of the most visually beautiful films ever to be made. The flawless camera work swoops in and around the station, through gadgets and gears, and showcases the beauty of Paris. This film has to be viewed in 3D, it perfectly demonstrates what can be achieved from this effect and adds an extra layer of emotion to the storytelling.
Butterfield brings charm and wonder to the Hugo character while Mortez is adorable as Isabelle. The supporting cast are all great and Ben Kingsley gives a fine performance in his pivotal role.
One particular character, which I will keep unnamed, is actually based on a real life French filmmaker who helped pioneer the film industry and inspired cinema goers and fellow filmmakers alike. His work, along with many other examples of the first films in history, are showcased in Hugo.
Director Martin Scorsese, pays homage to pioneering filmmakers and to the early world of cinema. Scorsese's own love for film is evident throughout Hugo.The Academy loves to cream all over themselves when it comes to old cinema, meaning Hugo may very well win Best Picture at this years Oscars.
Hugo is an instant classic from a time where cinema was about making dreams and spreading joy, and this film is no exception. Pure magic.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Sherlock Holmes (ROBERT DOWNEY JR) and crime solving partner Dr. Watson (JUDE LAW) return in this sequel to the 2009 film. This story sees our heroes uncovering the truth behind evil mastermind Professor Moriarty (JARED HARRIS) and his plans to start a world war.
The film has many highlights and the screenwriters add some interesting new characters to the franchise. Stephen Fry as Sherlock's brother is a good device to get an insight into Sherlock's past meanwhile gypsy Simza (played by the beautiful NOOMI RAPACE of Swedish Girl with the Dragon Tattoo fame) brings a European touch to the film. Her character is however underused, and what could have been a fun asset is left to dwindle in the background.
Director Guy Ritchie brings his unique style to the sequel once more, amplifying the action, the humour and the slow motion. Some people hate an excessive amount of slow motion but Guy Ritchie is a rare director that seems to be able to pull off this over used effect. One scene where our heroes are running through the woods is actually incredibly intense. It's not only the action that is engaging but the physical comedy and visual gags employed in the film add great comedic interludes between the action.
The best thing about this film is the casting of the two leads, Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law, they have great onscreen chemistry and have amazing banter throughout the film.
However it is the plot that is the weakest part of the film, while it is a clever mystery it is not as carefully constructed or visually explained like the first film. There are still plenty of twists to be enjoyed but they aren't as satisfyingly brilliant like the original was. There are some nicely executed emotional parts in the film, the crisis point was especially surprising.
The end of the film does leave the audience literally questioning what may come next for Sherlock Holmes, but my bet is that in two years time we shall see him on our screens solving another action packed mystery once again.