So, how was the $ 90 million Columbia Pictures adaptation of “The girl with the dragon tattoo”, a book by Stieg Larsson compared to the the $13 million Swedish version?
Not much different, to be honest. The end was more accurate to the book and the rape scene a tad longer and more violent. The actors were good, but didn’t exceed the swedish cast. The locations were maybe chosen with more thought but not as much that it would have made a real difference?
It raises the question why the director
Fincher wanted to redo the swedish adaptation so only after three years after its release, especially if he doesn’t make any significant changes? It’s rare that the viewer has the opportunity to compare two adaptations of a book, because if another film is made it is usually shot a while after the first release and better technical equipment or a different perspective naturally makes it different from the first try. I was curious how Fincher would put the first part of the millenium trilogy on screen but was not entirely convinced.
Does a bigger budget make a better film? “The girl with the dragon tattoo” is proof that this is not the case. Despite the huge gap in funding both films are only different in few details. If you’ve seen one of them it’s not really necessary to see the other one, in my opinion. If this doesn’t give hope to all the independent productions put there.
I DO NOT own the rights for these pictures