Daniel Craig compared to Nyqvist isn't even close. Again, more to do with the characters in the book than the actors. Nyqvist just isn't anywhere near how Blomkvist should be.
The film as a whole is just better, imo. It's got a better director, higher production values and a better cast. Whilst none of that SHOULD always matter, in this case it does. The film handles the plot a lot better as a result, and the tension and character devlopment unfolds way better in the Hollywood version.
it's far from a perfect film, and it has annoying things, like the whole some people having Swedish accents and some people not, or the slight tweaking of the ending (although I don't think that added or took anything away from the film, just served to shorten an already long film without hurting the story)
But I don't see it as a remake of the Swedish version. Rather a "reimagining" of the book. It's a different film based on the same book, rather than a new film based on the old film... if that makes sense.
If the Hollywood version had come out first, I don't think there would even be a debate. But because the Swedish was the original and it's in foreign, I think people think it's better.
For me Craig didn't really represent Blomqvist well at all. The bloke is a journalist - to have James Bond knobbing about was huge miscasting IMO. Rapace as Lisbeth, whilst I agree didn't totally capture the character in the book gave a better performance overall than Mara.
I will also conceede that the Fincher version is slicker and has been shot better.