Sprängaren

A few years ago, "Sprängaren" was one of the most hyped and popular movies in Sweden. Just like the novel the movie is based on was when it was released. So far I have only seen the movie, and after the impression it made on me, I doubt I'll ever get around to reading the book. But I can't say for certain.

The story:

Annika Bengtzon* is a middle-aged female journalist working for a Swedish evening paper, "Kvällspressen", her articles covering a series of bombings in Stockholm, starting with a recently built stadium, meant to be used in the upcoming Olympics. As any good journalist (Or any journalist?), she starts digging around a little, making some interesting discoveries. Before long, Bengtzon has the undivided and most unwanted attention of the bomber. And that's about it, should I tell you more about the plot, I might start giving it away.

My opinion, short:

"Sprängaren" is a movie worth watching, as long as you don't have to pay for it. I would never rent it on tape or DVD, or go see it at the theaters, but it's worth watching on TV. But it doesn't even come close to the hype surrounding it. It is not the masterpiece it has been promoted as. Rather a quite mediocre thriller of the kind you could expect to find as paperback in a local supermarket, or at the railway station or airport.

My opinion, long:

One of the most evident weaknesses is in my opinion the predictability. Nothing really surprised me, so to say. No twists, no mysteries. To a fairly observant viewer, the identity of the bomber will become evident quite soon. But not to this supposedly clever and competent journalist? I fail to see the logic in that.

As stated, I haven't read the book yet. And it's likely that I never will - The movie didn't impress me. Especially not after the tremendous hype that surrounded it when it was made a few years ago. Without this hype, I might have felt differently. But as it is, it was a sad disappointment.

I believe that there are three reasons for the hype:

1. The author is Liza Marklund, an already well known columnist and journalist at a Swedish newspaper/tabloid. The novel itself was basically considered and promoted as a masterpiece before the final print. - Without the background Marklund has, and the subsequent connections she has within the Swedish media industry, would this novel even have been printed? Would it have received those high ratings if the reviewers hadn't been her colleagues and co-workers?

2. Colin Nutley directed it. Nutley have previously made a number of movies that I consider very good. "Änglagård" is one example, arguably the best Swedish drama ever filmed. - This is a different kind of movie, that might require another kind of director with a different background and experience?

3. The lead actress was Helena Bergström (Nutleys wife), quite an accomplished actress with a long and successful career behind her. - Bergström absolutely shines when she stars in more conventional roles, but maybe this isn't her kind of role?

Since we don't have any really accomplished novelists/writers in Sweden at this time, I suppose the hype was inevitable. The most popular novel was picked to make a movie out of, the most prized director was put in the director's chair, which of course meant Bergström in the female lead***. Leading to very high expectations.

----------------

Footnotes:

* Annika Bengtzon is a more or less fictional version of Liza Marklund, who wrote the novel this movie is based on. The letter "z" in the names are a kind of link between them, since that letter rarely is a part of any of those names, where it replaces the letter "s".

** "Kvällspressen" is a fictional newspaper inspired by tabloids "Aftonbladet" and "Expressen", the word "kvällspress" is a slang term for "tabloid" in Sweden.

*** No matter the movie, plot or cast, Nutley always casts his wife in the female lead. A Woody Allen-ish policy that at times annoy me, especially when I feel that there could have been more suitable choices.

Well, it's been a long time since I've seen a movie as boring as this one. It's a thriller but there are no thrills. There's no pace either, the film moves as slowly as a snail, and it is more a drama about a newspaper than a thriller about a murderer. I've read Liza Marklund's novel, upon which this movie is based, and I quite liked it, but it is obvious that it doesn't work as a movie. At least not when Colin Nutley's at the helm. I've never wanted to sleep at the cinema before, but this time I actually longed to close my eyes and take a nap (I didn't, though). I recommend this film if you're an insomniac in need of a cure... I mean, it's not even bad enough to be funny. (3/10)

This movie is based on a great book, one of the best thrillers I've ever read. As many times before the movie can't live up to the expectations, but still it's entertaining. In the book it was much easier to understand how the main character experienced some of the real rough situations in the story. Some apparently considered too rough to be filmed. This one you have to read first, then go see the movie.

I watched this Swedish movie Sprangaren with subtitles based on an IMDb recommendation on another film (Irene Huss - Nottrand). The comments here had discouraged me but I went ahead with this. This is not a nail-biting thriller and may not be as good as the "girl with ..." series. But it is definitely watchable. The lead actress has done a good job as have most of her colleagues. There is a little thrill, a little investigation, a little analysis, a little emotion (especially with the colleagues) and a good bit of curiosity. And I did not find the movie slow. It is just that most of the events were inside the newspaper office and not out on the streets like American movies. There isn't much of screaming, either. But after watching a movie like this, I can appreciate why screaming and street action may not be required for every thriller. Overall, it's a good job done.

I watched this film on TV eleven years after it was made, with absolutely no background knowledge of the book or the stars. I live on the other side of the world.

I found it very interesting - the office politics, and the portrayal of a couple of professionals with young children, trying to balance all the demands of modern life. These things were more interesting to me, than the plot about the death of the public figure and the matter of who was responsible for her death and the following attacks. The performances were very good, and I thought Helena Bergstrom's performance was excellent. I've read in other 'reviews' on IMDb that the author of the book is a similar person -( journalist with a leading newspaper,) to the role that she played - Annika. No doubt this is why the realistic portrayal of the daily challenges at the office was so interesting to me. I was not bothered that the author may have written about herself, not knowing about that at the time of watching the film. Therefore, I was free to appreciate the film for what it is - with no background baggage. And all the hype mentioned which took place at the time of release, - well - I missed it! I don't understand how people found it boring - maybe they don't enjoy dialog and observing human nature.