In the days when the only way to view a moving image was to go down to your local cinema, remakes were common. If there was a hit movie from ten years ago why rerelease the old version when you could make a grander remake with bigger stars. This was the only way to relive the experience of a certain iconic story, and pass it on to a new generation. Now in the age of home video and instant streaming there really is no legitimate reason at all to remake any film except to broaden its audience appeal, as is the case with this film. Yet other movies are being remade over and over so that studios can cash in on a built in cult audience, selling the same old garbage to idiots who like throwing away ten dollar bills. Remember when Tobey Maguire played Spiderman? You should, it was only ten years ago and its reboot is already coming out. Is that necessary? Not at all. Are they doing it just to make money? Absolutely. Could it be an interesting experiment? Maybe.

Some things should be remade. Tim Burton’s “Batman” not gritty enough for you? What if Chris Nolan directed it? It becomes “The Dark Knight.” Is one better than the other? Maybe, but not necessarily. It's great to see two different takes on the same story. Granted, it's a pastime for the most extreme cinephiles, but if a remake is done differently enough it may be worth seeing the exact same story again. But if done badly, which 99% of the time they are, remakes are just boring rehashes that were made for a quick buck. But who among film fanatics hasn't wondered what a remake of “Star Wars” done by Scorsese would be like, or Judd Apatow’s version of “Ghostbusters,” Edgar Wright’s “The Shining,” or even David Lynch’s “Avatar.” So why was “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” remade not but two years after the original? Because studios think you’re illiterate. To be fair, the original didn’t get much of a theatrical release in the states, but it’s available quite easily in every other window of distribution. Reading subtitles on a movie is not everyone’s cup of tea, but is it worth spending millions just to make a version that takes place in an imaginary Sweden where everyone speaks English all the time?

Whether the gambit paid off remains to be seen, but it’s just a matter of time before the movie is massively profitable. So despite it being way too soon, this might be one of those rare instances where seeing a different director’s take on familiar subject matter is worth it for its own sake. “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is David Fincher’s take on the book and movie of the same name. Fincher is one of the best directors ever, if not evident from all the stellar works in his canon, then surely based on “Fight Club” alone.

Here's what you need to know about this movie: it's great but the other versions are better. The acting is great but the other version is better. If you don't like watching people get raped then don't see this movie. If you do like watching people get raped then go turn yourself in to the police because you’re a sociopath. I've seen more of Rooney Mara naked than I ever wanted to, it’s pretty gratuitous. You'd think in a place as cold as Sweden people would have sex with the sheets on. There’s plenty of porn on the internet, it doesn’t need to invade a mystery movie. Perhaps in the rape scenes it may have served the film to be as graphic as possible even nauseatingly so (more stomach churning than “Black Swan” if you can believe it), but for the rest of the sex scenes it serves no purpose to the story.

Weirdly, the coolest part of the movie is the opening credits. They play like a hyper-sensual music video. It's awesome. It will make you miss the good old days when music videos were still a thing that existed. So the lowdown is this: the movie is great, another great film from Fincher, and it will be great again when Gary Marshall remakes it one day.