The Snowman

This movie once again confirms that transferring a quality book onto the big screen is not so easy. At first glance, everything seemed pretty good. The cast with the lead Michael Fassbender is great. The man in the director’s seat is adequately Nordic. What else could you ask for? If only the screenplay was a bit more logical. This way I pretty much  watched this film without much interest, even though there was a number of really interesting actors. For example, Val Kilmer, whom I have not seen for a thousand years and I will not need to see him for another thousand years. Or J. K. Simmons, who was possibly just a decoration in the movie as I cannot recall him doing anything at all. Well, he actually did do something, he was taking creepy pictures of women on his phone and consequently the screenwriter did not even explain why. And that was the same with everything, the schmuck. It is crazy that the main character Harry Hole, played by Michael Fassbender, seems like he just had a lobotomy, so it feels like he isn’t investigating at all, plus, what is even worse, you way too often realize that he does not speak at all. The cynical bastard Hole, whom all the people who’ve read the book love for the endless bullshit he says, utters at maximum two sentences in a row in the film. How could that make me like him? And the investigation? Just tell me, all of you who haven’t read the book, what was Val Kilmer doing there at all? Or why were the murders committed? Was it obvious from that conclusion? I didn’t feel that way. Overall, a terribly badly filmed crime film that was meant to tell the best story of Harry Hole and, in my opinion, killed the whole series. I haven’t been as pissed off for a long time as I was in the case of this movie. One of the worst crime movies I’ve ever seen. If it weren’t for the beautiful Norwegian locations, I would have left the cinema in the middle of the screening like the Czech film critic Mirka Spáčilová. (10/12/2017)

I have not read the book, so I can only judge The Snowman in its film form, and I must say right away that I only hope the novel is better than its adaptation. The film has a pretty decent run-up, and the setting of the snowy north almost always adds some extra plus points, as do the complex crimes going into the past. The film even features a very decent cast. What I couldn't get past, however, was the completely unconvincing, even incomprehensible, motivation of the perpetrator for his actions. The final nail in the coffin, however, was the incredibly disconnected ending. I was expecting a chilling and raw thriller with a decently constructed plot, and I was obviously disappointed after watching it. (03/28/2020)

Poor in terms of story, in terms of form – brilliant. Paradoxically, everybody was worried about all sorts of things, just not a faulty story, especially when it’s filmed according to the Norwegian crime-writer king, Jo Nesba. Alfredson’s realistic approach with wonderful, long shots of seriously snowy landscape warms the heart. The same applies to modern investigation techniques, which aren’t given much room in this movie, because when something starts happening that might be of interest, it cuts to another place – the screenplay diverges from the book. That’s where the problem lies. Fassbender is excellent – a guy a bit off the rails, but still in form, but on the point of giving everything up – is a perfect Hole. On the other, the second most famous name on the poster, Kilmer, comes across as almost charming. Otherwise, the cast is a delight, although they don’t get the chance to show they stuff on screen, which is another reason why lots of scenes seem just to fizzle out. A movie full of contradiction which most likely won’t lead to a series. (10/15/2017)

Some spoilers: Inspired by Douglas and Gilmour93's unconventional defenses of the film, where the director himself admitted that it had no beginning, middle, or end because there was ultimately nothing to use to piece the film together, I also picked up the thrown gauntlet of alternative readings of this jumbled mess and came up with the idea that actually the only thing in the film that's real is the last scene. The rest is a glimpse into a perspective on Detective Harry Hole's past, warped by years of alcoholism and exhaustion, that superimposes disjointed, surreal scenes of his previous cases and burned-out relationships on top of each other. Right when he can just barely reach specific occurrences in his memory, he disappears right before he can touch them under the ice of an irreparably damaged mind. Postmodernism lives even if it doesn't want to, and old Lynch is somewhere in the back, nodding approvingly over his cigarette. PS: it still looks better than a lot of other adaptations of Nordic mysteries, though, and Alfredson's handling of space, camera work, and (wherever the wind keeps him from tripping over his own feet) dynamics is exemplary. But unfortunately, you simply can't turn a concentration camp into a bouncy castle by simply redoing a few barbed wires. (01/03/2018)

What a disaster. I have no idea why the creators decided to introduce Harry Hole to the audience through an adaptation of the sixth part of the book series. I don't know what someone who has never read the series can take away from the film, as it contains a lot of references to the previous storyline which isn’t part of the film. The film itself didn't make much sense to me, regardless of having read the books. The filmmakers made such a mess of the original story that I’m not sure why the murders were so complicated, and most of all, why J.K. Simmons agreed to take part in it. (03/07/2018)