mttiro 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.

l_rawjalaurence With a big budget and two star actors including Mikael Persbrandt (from BECK fame), THE HYPNOTIST has everything going for it.Set in Stockholm around Christmas, it concerns the mass slaughter of a family, a traumatized boy (Jonatan Bokman), and a hypnotist (Persbrandt) who uses his powers to try and coax information out of the boy. Brought in by the local CID inspector (Tobias Zilliacus), the hypnotist thinks he is doing a good job, but matters take an unexpected turn when his son Benjamin (Oscar Pettersson) is unexpectedly abducted. The plot becomes a race against time to rescue Benjamin, a hemophiliac, before he hemorrhages.Lasse Hallström's production is highly atmospheric, using the snow- covered streets and gray lights of a Swedish winter to create a sense of foreboding in a story that proves more complicated than initially suggested. The film brings out the hypnotist's complicated past - he was struck off for having been involved in a child abuse scandal a few years previously. Persbrandt conveys an air of injured pride, as someone trying to do his job but victimized by circumstances beyond his control.As the action unfolds, however, so the plot begins to fall apart, leaving plenty of unexplained holes: how does an apparently catatonic patient manage to escape from the hospital and try to stab the hypnotist? Why should the mother of one boy want to kidnap another family's child? And how did she find out about the other family anyway? The film comes to a highly melodramatic conclusion in the frozen wastes of rural Sweden, involving a minivan gradually sinking under the ice and at least one unwanted death.The film invites us to speculate on the morality of hypnotizing someone so as to obtain information, but loses the courage of its convictions by the end.

showdown Sorry, this movie was a let-down. It was a totally mediocre, implausible mix of too many different threads. The focus was not on the case, but on the sub-plots. The only positive things about this movie are the cinematography and the showdown, which was fairly thrilling. Even though I usually like the actor Mikael Persbrandt, in this role I found him not authentic. Try to avoid this one and consider my recommendations. I didn't read the book, maybe it's much better than the movie (hopefully).Recommended movies, which are similar, but far better than this: - Stig Larsson's Millennium-trilogy + US-remake by David Fincher with Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara - The Woman in the Cage/The Keeper of Lost Causes - Most of the Wallander-movies - The witness(es), mini-serial - The bridge I + II*** Warning: Begin of spoilers ***the hypnosis-scenes: bad, uninspired, boring. - one of the victims is the persecutor: seen so many times, but in a much better way. - the problems in the relationship of Erik and Simone: superfluous. - the story was in total too unbelievable.*** End of spoilers ***

Raymond I'm a big fan of both Lasse Hallström and Swedish crime drama (Beck, Wallander etc), so needless to say I was expecting a lot from this. I didn't come here before watching, so I had no idea of the low score and I can tell you it's totally justified, maybe even too high.Crime drama clearly is not Lasse Hallströms forte. He's done some remarkable films and often creates very likable, believable and true to life characters. While Persbrandt and Olin create somewhat solid characters, they are still miles away from characters Hallström has previously put on screen. The rest of the cast on the other hand is just amazingly dull and underdeveloped.I haven't read any detective Joona Linna books, so I have no knowledge of him as a character. And after watching this movie I still know absolutely nothing about him. I don't know if he is also downplayed in the books, but in this movie he's just plain uninteresting. There is no background info at all. The detective characters are the driving force behind all crime series. Wallander and Beck are both very solid and interesting characters as is the Norwegian Varg Veum. Germans have crafted the art of "krimi" for years and are masters in that genre. Hallström clearly hasn't watched any of those. Altho I was wondering at times if they had just made a bad casting choice with Tobias Zilliacus and wanted to minimize his screen time in editing and instead focus on Persbrandt and Olin, who steal the show. Zilliacus - at least with his screen time - is incredibly boring and lacks charisma.Then the story. While initially interesting, the script is just horrible. I will probably have to read the book just to see how they filled in the plot holes that ended up in the movie. Absolutely nothing is logical here. Why did the crime happen? The relationship between the boy and his mother is a complete mystery. A lot of loose ends like her sister. It's a complete mess and the pacing is horrible. The finale is rushed after spending way too much time on everything else.The only positive things in this movie is the relatively atmospheric cinematography and the acting by Mikaeal Persbrandt. Since this was the first of the Linna series, there will probably be more. They probably wanted a big name to direct the first and then make the rest with a different crew and an established crime series director like Kjell Sundvall or Anders Engström (atleast I hope so).Not for fans of the genre.