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 Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a withdrawn, socially awkward but very talented computer hacker, is enlisted by Blomkvist to uncover the truth behind this epic mystery.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.