Let me start this by saying that I am a little disappointed in the movies (just a little, really), because they never got one to perfectly match the real Lisbeth - she is supposed to be a 23-year old punk, brilliant hacker who looks like 12 years old, height is 4'9" and she's got almost no boobs - that's why she got a boob job on the sequel. Not that it mattered, but that was supposed to add a chill to the character, right? - a little tough lady.
As I understood, since the Swedish film came out first, David Fincher tried to hard to make the plot as close to the novel as he can yet as different from the first movie adaptation as possible.There are major details of course that they cannot alter, so the difference are mainly on the minor ones. But since the Sweidsh adaptation had been critically-aclaimed, not to mention a box-office hit, for sure it had been a huge challenge in Fincher's filmmaking ability. As what they say, it's like fixing something that is not broken (or is already brilliant) in the first place.
I cannot argue with most Western reviewers, in general, the English adoptation is indeed a better one in a lot ways. Well, since it got a better budget ($100M vs the later's $13M), it looks and sound better (of course Hollywood would never settle for less).The characters too suits better. Yeah, Noomi Rapace is a very good actress, she did the role very well, but there was not too much chemistry in the two main characters in the first film. Mikael looks to old and too lumpy and she was too spiky and harsh - and it's so unlikely and akward when they ended up together in bed. On the other hand, Ronney Mara and Daniel Craig had this chemistry and dynamics since the start - when Mikael broke into her apartment with coffee and bagel. Even without reading the novel, you'll know somehow, they will end up having beautiful rromance despite the age difference. And Erica Berger (Kalle's co-editor of Millenium and long-time lover) is supposed to be a hot lady on her 40's - and they got that on the English version, the first one was too old and not so classy to be projected as a lady who had been married to a rockstar and is having a long time affair with her co-editor, and note - her husband permits the affair and even allows her to spend a night with Mikael, provided that she keep their marriage intact - she should have a hot personality to have such a colorful lovelife, right?
But in fairness to Niels Arden Oplev's Swedish film, it is also better in some ways. Since the novel is on Swedish setting, the Swedish actors looks more natural in the film, the places looks more appropriate - that is if you had read it of course. An quoting from Oplev, "It’s like, what do you want to see, the French version of “La Femme Nikita” or the American one? "
If you had read the novel though, you'll surely notice that there were little, yet good-to-have details that the adaptations hadn't included or altered. Which, I believe, is inneviatble because you cannot really put all of the details from a novel of hundreds of pages into a two-and-a-half hour film. Here are some of them:
In the English version (so with the novel), Kalle's daughter visited her and she was the one who discovered that the names and numbers in the journal are reference to bible verses, in the Swedish film, it was Lisbeth who discovered it and emailed it to Mikael, there was no reference to his daughter in the Swedish film. Palmgren, Lisbeth's first guardian was not mentioned in the Swedish film too, I believe he played a huge part in Lisbeth's character and it is a good thing that the US version includes him. The flashback of the 60's is also a good one. And they also made a big deal out of the part where Lisbeth had dressed up, went to the Carribean and withdrawn funds from Wennerstrom's bank accounts in the Cayman Islands - i love that part, she's so gorgeous!
On the Swedish version on the other hand, they had their share of good stuff. There were more details in Lisbeth's life showed on the Swedish adaptation. It shows how she had killed her dad, something that's not told on the novel until the sequel (The Girl Who Played With Fire) although the prequel had already somehow gave us an idea of what happened back then that bought her to be under guardianship. It also tells about her relationship to her mom, something not mentioned on the English version. The Swedish fillmaker also chose to include the fact that Mikael will be in prison for 3mos on top of the fine.
And my favorite in the Swedish version - the whole travel to Australia thing. Although they altered how they found out that Harriet is in Australia, it's still a good thing that they had included that Harriet migrated to Australia, using Anita's name, got married to a sheep farm owner, now managing the farm with her sons - she's also sun-tanned so it looks really believable. In the English film, they left out that part and decided to find Harriet in London where Anita used to be living before she died. But Anita isn't supposed to be dead right? She should be in London and wiretapping her line will lead them to Australia, were Harriet is living under Anita's name. But that was fine.
For me, both films are great in their own ways. And I really cannot say one is better than the other. Both movies are great because they came from one single plot - one great novel. And this is just the start. I havn't watched the sequel yet, it's because I am not yet done readin "The Girl Who Played With Fire". For some reasons, I love reading it first before watching it.
