Which version should I watch?!

I watched the Remake/US version yesterday and enjoyed it quite alot. If youre a fan of Fincher movies i think its better to watch his version first.

I asked the same about a year ago and just watched it in this thread

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/board/thread/232601652


The movie was very well shot and i thought it was prob one of the best american movies that managed to capture the scandianian movie/thriller atmosphere. Im from Denmark myself and was pretty awed how it felt like one of the few good thrillers some of those countries have made.

The movie itself i gave it a 8/10 so far but i might lower it to a 7/10 on a 2nd watch one day. I felt it was hard to keep track of the many names in the movie and the last 15 minutes felt more like a spy movie than a thriller.

I liked both versions, and I don't think it matters much which one you watch first.

It's the same story but Fincher's version is infinitely more accomplished when it comes to film making technique. The visual aesthetic of the original is a drab drag.

Watch both.

Watch David Fincher's first as it's better acted and has more production value. Then the Swedish versions.

The Swedish version was meant to be a TV series not a film and at times it looks like it. Also Noomi Rapace is the only good thing about the Swedish movies. but she doesn't resemble the physical appearance of Lisbeth as much as Rooney Mara does. She lacks the vulnerability of Lisbeth and is way much more beautiful than Mara. Lisbeth wasn't supposed to be beautiful.

When you go out to eat will you chance a no name dinner, or does it have to be a national franchise? When you go to someones house and they pull out the photo album, do you tend to dwell on the candid shots that tell a story, or the staged class yearbook photos? If you like the candid watch the Swedish version first. If the yearbook pics touch you - see Fincher. One is all about story, the other aesthetics and money shots. Fincher is the safer choice, since you don't have to invest much to watch it, and the '09 version was richer to me.

[deleted]

If you had to pick one, I'd absolutely, hands-down, go with the original. I think most people look to the original as the definitive adaptation of the book, anyhow. Noomi Rapace is absolutely remarkable - she really captured the character on the page and, actually, IMO elevated the material - and I also found a lot of the supporting performances to be superior when contrasted with the remake. Plus, the Swedish original is actually paced far better than the remake, which droned on much longer and had a bizarrely elongated last act.

Fincher's film does have better production values (set pieces, cinematography, etc.), but I find the bump honestly negligible. I'm not sure too many people would notice who aren't normally attentive to those sorts of things. Not to mention it's a little annoying to see a film that supposedly takes place in Sweden populated by main characters with pretty clearly fake phony accents.

Another bonus to watching original would concern the sequels. I know they're filming an american production of the sequels, but you won't have that continuity that the original trilogy did. Of course, the sequels kind of get progressively less interesting, so I'm if you'd care.

I know it sounds like I'm being harsh on the Fincher adaptation, but it's good, too. I just don't really consider it the definitive adaptation, and I don't really think it's being remembered that way. In fact, I don't think too many people remember that there even was a remake. The Fincher adaptation served as a tremendous exercise in style, and if you're not annoyed by Fincher going all-out Fincher-y, it may be worth checking out at some point after having watched the originals.