L'Hypnotiseur

The movie "The Hypnotist" (2012) is based on the 2009 novel by the same name that launched the husband-wife writing team of Alexandra Coelho Ahndoril and Alexander Ahndoril, writing as Lars Kepler, into the Scandanavian crime-novel genre. This novel, which introduced Swedish Detective Superintendent Joona Linna, vaulted quickly onto the best-seller lists when the English translation came out in 2011. The 6 installments of the Joona Linna series have so far sold 12 million copies. IMO, the books are well-written, though not quite at the Per Wahloo-Maj Sjowall or Henning Mankell level. But they're still very good.

This movie, OTOH, does not measure up to the book in many ways. First, and *always* foremost, is "How faithful is the adaptation of the screenplay to the action of the book?" Every film changes something. Sometimes the filmmakers makes good changes. They resolve the plot more efficiently and more believably than what happens in the book. Alas, that cannot be said for this movie. Without including any spoilers, I'll just say that the film changes the book in a completely unrealistic, unbelievable way.

Second is casting and character. Some really serious questions could be asked here about why the producers chose the actor they chose for the lead role of Joona Linna (a male, btw), and also for the dr. who is also a hypnotist--? IMO, those 2 actors could've switched roles and the film would've worked better. I also felt that the character of Simone, played by Lena Olin, was manipulated by the screenplay in unfavorable ways. Just let her be who the authors wanted her to be, for crying out loud.

I also have the same 2 questions I always have whenever I watch a European-made movie about Europeans. 1, Are all Europeans, and especially kids, really as surly and hateful and disrespectful toward the police as the movie-makers portray them to be? And 2, Are all European men really as passive and unassertive as European movies portray them to be? They never verbally defend themselves, never respond when someone, even a punk kid, accuses them of ridiculous nonsense, never say anything. They just sit there and take all the abuse anyone wants to throw at them. I can't believe Europe is really like that. But European *movies* are really like that.

Bottom line--read the book. This movie could've been so much better with 2-3 tweaks. It got a lot right. But it changed far too much.

It's a strange feeling, watching Swedish genre movies of this kind. Because, even as a swede myself. It never feels natural. It feels like a pale imitation of something that HBO would slap together for an episode of another CSI knockoff.

Starting of with the plot. Which is infuriatingly predictable. And if it's one thing a thriller shouldn't force its viewer to do it's to make us sit and patiently wait for the characters to catch up with the obvious conclusions that the viewer has already reached. This makes the few points that the movie does well into forgettable set-pieces. Things will happen that are mildly intriguing. But then a character will do something that just makes you want to slap them. They'll start to whine. Argue about something non-relevant. I swear. For a long time I even forgot that there was a murder in the movie because the story got so bogged down with lazily written marital problems. For most of the film I was simply thinking two things: "Get on with it!" and "Why are we still here?". And even "Naw, it couldn't be that simple? right? oh, it seems like... yup... they really think this was clever?"

And then there's the characters. My summary mentions Lena Ohlin. And yes. She did become my biggest gripe here. Every scene she was on screen I grew to dislike her even more than the last scene. When not picking unnecessary fights with everyone she meets she's being either hysterical or well... a bit less hysterical. I don't think it's the fault of the actress. Because I think no one would be able to save the characters written into the film. Bland. Uninteresting. Two-dimensional cardboard cutouts of personalities. Again. It's like watching a bad imitation of a mediocre American cop-show where the filmmakers think they're doing the next Sixth Sense.

In many ways it reminds me of the recent series called Äkta Människor. It's that feeling that you're watching a product that the makers are so fond of. But has no idea what has already been done in the genre. Or even worse, they figure that the audience (Swedish middle-class) hasn't seen the films they are influenced by.

About the only redeeming aspect here is the cinematography. But even that where mostly drab grey. Dark and bland...

But as it seems to have been fairly well received I might be in the minority here. It had a couple of interesting ideas in execution. But at the same time it's just too bogged down in mediocrity to stand out in any way, shape or form.

The current rating on IMDb is too low. This is an enjoyable enough film. It's certainly worth taking in, especially if you're into crime dramas.

The plot is fairly straightforward. Three members of a family are brutally killed, only the oldest boy surviving. He's in a coma though. Police investigator Joona Linna (played by Tobias Zilliacus) ends up investigating the crime. He gets a doctor to come in to hypnotise the boy to identify his assailant, and the doctor succeeds in doing so. (It is apparently possible for comatose patients to talk under hypnosis.) But then the doctor and his family become caught up in the drama. Will the killer be stopped?

It's a good, simple story. The start and end of the movie in particular are quite strong. The climactic scene at the isolated farm was unexpected and the best part of the movie. Spectacular filmmaking really. It had me on the edge of my seat.

The acting was fine. There's a lot of character development involving Joona Linna, Erik Maria Bark (played by Mikael Persbrandt) and his wife Simone (played by Lena Olin). The movie is called "The Hypnotist" but I didn't really see the doctor as being at the centre of the movie.

This is a slow paced movie, a little too slow for me at times. That might be why people have not rated it higher.

Most of the events take place in a hospital and three homes. There are a lot of shots of wintry Stockholm, a suitable backdrop I suppose for a dark Scandinavian crime drama. I enjoyed what I assume is a realistic portrayal of Swedish life. The dialogue was in Swedish, with subtitles. Everything in the movie seemed rather understated and starkly realistic. This is not a grand Sweden of magic and beauty.

As you might expect in a thoroughly Swedish movie, mental illness and human foibles are the major crime themes. No Hollywood moralising here about good and evil, right and wrong.

Bias disclosure: This is not my favourite genre. I know next to nothing about Scandinavian crime novels, television shows and movies. I haven't even yet read the Larsson "Girl" trilogy, although my sister gave it to me two years ago. Even most American or British crime shows don't interest me, although I am an avid fan of Law & Order.

Also, I went to see this movie without knowing anything about it. Haven't read the book. I didn't even know it was a Swedish movie. Even so, I thought it was OK. You might too.

i thought the movie was quite good while watching it. it is a nice thriller, with suspense to the very end.

somewhat strange motivations of the main villain, but then you probably cannot really connect to insane motives.

it was kind of strange that while the hypnotist's character was well developed, with character history and family environment, the other main character - the cop, was very under-developed.

apart from this and a few weak moments that every decent thriller carries in order to support the storyline, it is a pretty good production

The film is quite enjoyable but it does not come close to the book. I think this is the main reason why the movie has such a low rating: majority of people watching this film were first readers of the book. I did not expect word for word adaptation of the book, but this film does not do justice to the story. It alters and reinvent the story. It takes a few motives from the book but that's it. I was quite disappointment. Maybe I am biased and I'm judging the film in comparison to the book. But what can I say, the screen play is just bad. What it has me baffled is, why did the two authors allow the release of the movie in state as it is? If only goal was commercial success than I am deeply disappointed.