User reviews

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

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 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.

Although the plot is based on a solid book, there are too many too long scenes not providing additional value to the film (especially those in the darkness) - apparently, the world-famous director Lasse Halström wanted to act in the line of Wallander-Beck-Blomkvist type of films, but the Linna- Mark tandem is less elaborated and weaker; well, Mikael Persbrandt is great as Erik Maria Bark, so is Lena Olin as Simone Bark, but they are both long-time highly recognised character actors. The plot has also several confusing and unanswered moments, the ending gives a solution (rather dramatic and peculiar), but it is strange why the film was selected as the Swedish entry for the Best Foreign Language Oscar - it is definitely not among the top films with Hallström's participation. Nevertheless, it is watchable to those fond of Swedish crime thrillers.

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.

The title might be a little bit off, if you think about what the movie is really about. But that shouldn't put you off it. The story is more than neat and it's more than good to see such dramas/thrillers coming out of Europe. Especially because some of them have a new take on things, which makes for an interesting watch.

If you have seen a few movies from Sweden, you might even recognize an actor or two. But that is not the point of the movie! The movie that tangles and plays around with a few characters and their story lines, does so in a good way. It never gets too complicated and it never feels like things are in there to fill the running time. Good actors and a good nice story make this a movie to watch

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.

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.

The book is much better, goes into characters much deeper and the story is very well developed. The movie is a weak representation of the book.

If you want a good thriller, read the book.

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.

This is a cinema adaptation of the first book in the Joona Linna series written by Lars Kepler, a pseudonym for the married couple of Alexander and Alexandra Ahndoril. The Swedish duo has written seven installments until now and the novels have been a huge commercial success around the world. As I'm reading the latest book in the series, titled Lazarus, I decided to watch again the Hypnotist by Lasse Hallström, starring Tobias Zilliacus as Joona Linna and Mikael Persbrand in the role of the titular "Hypnotist", Erik Maria Bark. It should be noted that Hypnotist is the first book in the series and the only one that has been adapted to the cinema screen until now. It has been announced that the second installment, The Nightmare (original title: Paganinikontraktet), will be released soon, perhaps the following year.

The movie retains the basic premise of the book's story and begins with the brutal murder of a whole family that takes place in a quiet neighborhood in Stockholm. Joona Linna, a Finnish detective-inspector of Stockholm's Criminal Investigation Department, is the first officed on the scene and he finds the father, mother, and daughter slain in their home. The only survivor is the little son, Joseph, who is immediately transferred to the hospital as he is also severely injured. The boy is the only living witness of the slaughter, so Joona is desperate to talk with him in order to learn something about the culprit's identity. Unfortunately, though, Joseph seems to be unresponsive, so Joona calls Erik Maria Bark a doctor who is famous for treating acute trauma through hypnotism. Erik is initially reluctant to hypnotize Joseph but Joona's insistence forces him to act.

At the same time, we take a peek of Erik's family life in his house where he lives along with his wife, Simone (Lena Olin) and little son, Benjamin. Erik has a hard time sleeping and he takes some very strong sleeping tablets, something that makes Simone despises and adds tension to an already strained relationship. One night, an unknown perpetrator will invade the Bark household and abduct Benjamin after injecting Simone with a powerful sedative drug. Joona will quickly realize that there is a connection between the family murder and Benjamin's abduction and he will have to use his detecting skills to find out the identity and save little Benjamin's life as well as Erik and Simone's marriage.

There are some major differences between the novel and the film especially as far as the plot is concerned, nevertheless, that doesn't mean that the movie doesn't succeed in capturing the source's mood and atmosphere. The performances by the main protagonists are excellent and Tobias Zilliacus is a very fitting choice in the role of Joona as both his physique and expression match the descriptions of him in the books. Mikael Persbrandt is an actor who can play any role with the same offhandedness, while Lena Olin is more than convincing as the despaired, grieving mother who is ready to do anything to get her son back.

The Hypnotist may not be the thriller movie that you will never forget, nevertheless it is a highly entertaining, exciting ride from the beginning until the end. The fans of Lars Kepler will love it and the same is true for the fans of Scandinavian crime/thrillers. Lasse Hallström is one of the most experienced Swedish auteurs and it would be nice if he continued to direct other silver screen adaptations of the Ahndoril duo's work. In these times we live in, we need films that will make us forget what is happening around us and captivate our imagination. Give The Hypnotist a try and you will not regret it.

One of the best Swedish thrillers recent years. I'm normally not a fan of Lasse Hallströms American productions , mostly consisting of romantic dramas. But in this genre he excels, and the movie is up there with the best swedish thrillers and police movies (Mannen på balkongen, Mannen från Mallorca, Falsk som vatten etc.). And more important, this is som much better than all the low brow "Nordic Noir" based on swedish crime novels that has exploded and overflown TV and cinema recent years. I hope Hallström will direct more of the Keppler books, but unfortunatly Hypnotisören was received poorly by both critics and audience in Sweden. They've proparbly got used to the dumbed down stylistics of "Bron", newer "Beck", newer "Wallander" and so on.

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.

I have read the book first and the film is a little bit disappointing. The characters in the book are much more intense. The unfolding of the plot is not according to the book, which makes certain moments too meaningless and with no connection. All the characters are in the movie but with no light, Joona is just a simple person. I admit I have big expectations because the book is just perfect with a lot of emotion, feeling and suspense. In almost all of the movie I don't feel the thriller or the suspense. I recommend read the book and if you want see the movie but with no expectations. After all, don't miss the books of Joona Lina.