Let me ask you a question: If a movie already exists in a language other than English, in a cinematic style other than what most North Americans are accustomed to, does that mean that an "Americanized" version is really necessary?

Perhaps you don't think so, but Hollywood certainly does. In recent years, American directors have remade numerous films that already exist, including Death at a Funeral, Let Me In and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. With the cinematic release of the latter, I have reached my limits; I simply cannot watch any more Hollywood remakes of films that I love in their original form.

Something about David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo just doesn't sit right with me. So many aspects of the story both big and small have been changed and it doesn't seem that Mr. Fincher is doing the story or any of its characters the justice they deserve. The original Swedish film, however, seems to hit the nail right on the head. So why is it that one version works, and the other falls flat?

Perhaps an answer can be found in the title. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is actually just the North American name for the story, in both its book and film forms. The original title is Män som hatar kvinnor, which means "Men who hate women." This makes sense, as the film doesn't actually revolve around Lisbeth Salander, the tattooed girl — though she is an important player — but in fact a series of men who brutalize women and the justice they are served. Maybe Hollywood should have focused the film, much like the title, on the story rather then one of its supporting characters.

Perhaps an answer can also be found in subtlety. In one very poignant scene in Män som hatar kvinnor, Lisbeth is dealing with the physical aftermath of being sexually assaulted. In the original scene, Lisbeth leans against her shower wall, water streaming down her back, and the focus is on her heavy breathing, which makes it appear as though the dragon tattooed on her back is coming alive. In the remake's scene, Lisbeth squats in a stark, overly lit shower while an atrocious amount of blood gushes out of her very visible nether regions. Maybe Hollywood should have taken a lesson in subtlety and the power it holds.

Perhaps a final answer can be found in the sexualization of Lisbeth herself. Sure, Lisbeth isn't an overly feminine character in the remake, but she is significantly more sexualized than in the original. Män som hatar kvinnor presents us with a woman who doesn't shave her legs or her underarms, and who spends the majority of her time modestly clothed. The Hollywood version, however, gives us a smooth Lisbeth, who, despite her boyish figure, spends more than one scene topless. Maybe Hollywood should have let her be a little more reserved.

Sure, these things all may seem small, but they make a great deal of impact on the story and what it means for the viewer. I don't believe that North American audiences need to have stories changed to fit what they are used to. If people can simply give the original films a chance, they will surely see that other cinematic styles and traditions can give a story a whole new meaning that they might just even prefer.

So let me ask you a question now, Hollywood: Why?