VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,6/10
8897
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Un detective si unisce a un famoso psicologo per indagare su un caso che coinvolge un giovane ragazzo testimone traumatizzato di un crimine.Un detective si unisce a un famoso psicologo per indagare su un caso che coinvolge un giovane ragazzo testimone traumatizzato di un crimine.Un detective si unisce a un famoso psicologo per indagare su un caso che coinvolge un giovane ragazzo testimone traumatizzato di un crimine.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 3 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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 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.
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.
The movie features internationally known actors who perform excellent with the material they have got to work with. I never got to sympathize with any of them though, the script and the way Lasse Hallstrom directs never lets me. There is a fast pace throughout the movie where things just happen without visible motive or any chance of contemplation, which makes it feel erratic at best. All you can do as a watcher is to lean back and disconnect the grey cells.
As far as the plot goes, there are huge plot elements missing from the Swedish best selling book of 2009 which in my opinion never was that great to begin with. With the parts that gave the books some depth excluded we are left with a shallow story at most.
At least Lena Olins performance elevated the movie a notch, and I believe no other Swedish director than Hallstrom would have been able to provoke the feelings she is showing. The other actors were fair to good, not more not less.
I would not recommend this movie even if you have two hours to spare.
As far as the plot goes, there are huge plot elements missing from the Swedish best selling book of 2009 which in my opinion never was that great to begin with. With the parts that gave the books some depth excluded we are left with a shallow story at most.
At least Lena Olins performance elevated the movie a notch, and I believe no other Swedish director than Hallstrom would have been able to provoke the feelings she is showing. The other actors were fair to good, not more not less.
I would not recommend this movie even if you have two hours to spare.
First of all, if you can read something, better do that and only then watch the movie. To see if your imagination and fantasy after reading something is near/far from something that the director had in his mind.
The book itself is solid, interesting read, I love thrillers and mysteries and as a thriller there are multiple options to make you think that you know the answer. To some it might be predictable, to some like me, are let to be driven by the book. It is a long book and has some parts that could have been shorter ... but at the finish you feel good about it.
The movie however, I know it is difficult to put everything in a two hour movie, plus to keep the focus and the things interesting, but the scenario is changed. There are so many good book adaptations on screen, but sadly this is not one of them. So many things are not like they are shown in the movie. That is what bothered me the most. Stick to the story! And secondly I was not impressed with the acting at all. Very frigid, yes I know the book is a little bit dark and the characters are as well, but somehow even the slightest emotions are presented very cold and robotic.
You don't have to agree, after all that is my opinion. And to conclude my opinion, I say read the book. Much more fun.
The book itself is solid, interesting read, I love thrillers and mysteries and as a thriller there are multiple options to make you think that you know the answer. To some it might be predictable, to some like me, are let to be driven by the book. It is a long book and has some parts that could have been shorter ... but at the finish you feel good about it.
The movie however, I know it is difficult to put everything in a two hour movie, plus to keep the focus and the things interesting, but the scenario is changed. There are so many good book adaptations on screen, but sadly this is not one of them. So many things are not like they are shown in the movie. That is what bothered me the most. Stick to the story! And secondly I was not impressed with the acting at all. Very frigid, yes I know the book is a little bit dark and the characters are as well, but somehow even the slightest emotions are presented very cold and robotic.
You don't have to agree, after all that is my opinion. And to conclude my opinion, I say read the book. Much more fun.
Lasse Hallström is a master of sentimental American Feel-Good Dramas with films like 'THE CIDERHOUSE RULE (1999)', 'WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE (1993)' and 'AN UNFINISHED LIFE (2005)' and others on his resume.
With 'THE HYPNOTIST (2012)' he decided to go back to his roots (at least country-wise) to Sweden after more than 20 years working abroad (primarily the US).
This movie is as far away from the typical feel-good movies he usually makes as possible though, a very bleak and very typical Swedish detective film.
Another thing you can usually count on with his films is great cinematography with beautiful rich and warm colours, but being that this movie is not his typical bag he decided to go the complete opposite in that aspect too.
Most scenes are filmed with intentional poor lighting to cause a sense of dread but honestly just makes it boring to look at instead with washed out colours and overall just a very unimpressive look (save for a couple outdoor scenes).
The script I guess it could have been an okay movie technically but the acting is really dodgy, especially the lead detective played by the unknown (for me at least) Tobias Zilliacus who's seemingly sleepwalking through the scenes for the more part.
Persbrandt and Olin occasionally gets it right but hardly either's proudest acting-moments.
Helena Af Sandeberg is in it for a little bit, I usually like her a lot but her role is fairly pointless in this one.
So yeah, not very impressive and incredibly drawn out.
It's based on a book and even though I haven't read it I am sure that that is much better than the movie, don't see how it could be any worse.
With 'THE HYPNOTIST (2012)' he decided to go back to his roots (at least country-wise) to Sweden after more than 20 years working abroad (primarily the US).
This movie is as far away from the typical feel-good movies he usually makes as possible though, a very bleak and very typical Swedish detective film.
Another thing you can usually count on with his films is great cinematography with beautiful rich and warm colours, but being that this movie is not his typical bag he decided to go the complete opposite in that aspect too.
Most scenes are filmed with intentional poor lighting to cause a sense of dread but honestly just makes it boring to look at instead with washed out colours and overall just a very unimpressive look (save for a couple outdoor scenes).
The script I guess it could have been an okay movie technically but the acting is really dodgy, especially the lead detective played by the unknown (for me at least) Tobias Zilliacus who's seemingly sleepwalking through the scenes for the more part.
Persbrandt and Olin occasionally gets it right but hardly either's proudest acting-moments.
Helena Af Sandeberg is in it for a little bit, I usually like her a lot but her role is fairly pointless in this one.
So yeah, not very impressive and incredibly drawn out.
It's based on a book and even though I haven't read it I am sure that that is much better than the movie, don't see how it could be any worse.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizLasse Hallström's first Swedish language film in 25 years.
- BlooperThe movie shows a hemophiliac being administered antihemophilic factor through an intramuscular injection at night. Antihemophilic factor is mostly administered in mornings and always intravenously.
- ConnessioniReferences Il mondo perduto - Jurassic Park (1997)
- Colonne sonoreEpilogue
Music by Oscar Fogelström and Niki & The Dove, lyrics by Malin Dahlström
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is The Hypnotist?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 7.181.735 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 2h 2min(122 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti