AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
5,6/10
8,9 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Um detetive junta-se a um psicólogo famoso num caso que envolve uma jovem testemunha traumatizada de um crime.Um detetive junta-se a um psicólogo famoso num caso que envolve uma jovem testemunha traumatizada de um crime.Um detetive junta-se a um psicólogo famoso num caso que envolve uma jovem testemunha traumatizada de um crime.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 3 indicações no total
Avaliações em destaque
A straightforward Swedish crime thriller starring Mikael Persbrandt, of HAMILTON fame. The story is based on a novel and I'm reliably informed that, as per usual, much of the best material was cut out, leaving this a distinctly average addition to the genre.
The story begins with a brutal massacre in which an entire family are slaughtered by an unknown assailant. The exasperated police then call in a renowned hypnotist in order to bring the sole survivor out of a coma and find out details of the perpetrator. Much is made of the hypnotism angle but truthfully it only occurs a couple of times in the movie and feels rather wasted as an angle.
THE HYPNOTIST suffers from a lack of interesting characters, particularly the investigating detective who's as bland as they come. Lena Olin is incredibly annoying as Persbrandt's harridan of a wife, and only Persbrandt himself retains sympathy for the viewer. The storyline isn't bad, and it does have a sufficiently dark and vicious edge, but director Lasse Hallstrom does a workmanlike job at best and should stick to the insufferable likes of CHOCOLAT.
The story begins with a brutal massacre in which an entire family are slaughtered by an unknown assailant. The exasperated police then call in a renowned hypnotist in order to bring the sole survivor out of a coma and find out details of the perpetrator. Much is made of the hypnotism angle but truthfully it only occurs a couple of times in the movie and feels rather wasted as an angle.
THE HYPNOTIST suffers from a lack of interesting characters, particularly the investigating detective who's as bland as they come. Lena Olin is incredibly annoying as Persbrandt's harridan of a wife, and only Persbrandt himself retains sympathy for the viewer. The storyline isn't bad, and it does have a sufficiently dark and vicious edge, but director Lasse Hallstrom does a workmanlike job at best and should stick to the insufferable likes of CHOCOLAT.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesLasse Hallström's first Swedish language film in 25 years.
- Erros de gravaçãoThe movie shows a hemophiliac being administered antihemophilic factor through an intramuscular injection at night. Antihemophilic factor is mostly administered in mornings and always intravenously.
- ConexõesReferences O Mundo Perdido: Jurassic Park (1997)
- Trilhas sonorasEpilogue
Music by Oscar Fogelström and Niki & The Dove, lyrics by Malin Dahlström
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is The Hypnotist?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 7.181.735
- Tempo de duração
- 2 h 2 min(122 min)
- Cor
- Proporção
- 2.35 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente