Skip to main content

I apologise for Oslo's low murder rate.

The Snowman
(2017)

(SPOILERS) Maybe Morton Tyldum made Jo Nesbø adaptations look deceptively easy with Headhunters, although Tyldum hasn’t show such facility with material since, so maybe Nesbø simply suits someone with hackier sensibilities than Tomas Alfredson. It’s a long way down from the classy intrigue of John Le Carré to the serial killer clichés of The Snowman, and I’m inclined to think that, even if Alfredson had managed to film that 15% of the screenplay he says went awry, this wouldn’t have been all that great.


Because that’s Alfredson’s excuse, and as they go, it’s a fairly good one. Working Title’s involvement in the project raises eyebrows since they tend to run a tight, selective ship, but even they’re prone to missteps (Grimsby).  They had, after all, made a surprising success of the pared-down Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy with Alfredson, so there was probably no reason to think they couldn’t strike gold together again. Perhaps The Snowman was just too commercial. Or perhaps the serial killer genre, while still alive in print and Nordic realms, is spent on the big screen. Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was a relative bust, after all. We might even lay its failure at the door of the Red Sparrow effect: the incongruity of English-speaking thesps portraying characters in non-English speaking countries. It might have been an everyday thing once, but today one can legitimately argue people should suck it and learn to read subtitles (or, if you really must adapt it, relocate it to the US, or Britain). 

 

The Snowman wasn’t merely ignored, though; it was visibly spurned. There are nice things to say about the movie – Dion Beebe’s cinematography is gorgeous. You might not be persuaded to live somewhere so chilly, but you can’t deny Norway looks incredibly picturesque. And the cast are eclectic, even if no one ever gets a chance to exactly shine – a movie with Michael Fassbender and Rebecca Ferguson in the leads, supported by JK Simmons, Toby Jones, David Denick, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Val Kilmer can’t be all bad. 


Unfortunately, there’s no point at which Alfredson (aided by the efforts of successive editors Claire Simpson and Thelma Schoonmaker – Scorsese was pegged to direct at one point, but made Shutter Island, so it was clearly a toss-up between schlock at Marty Towers that weekend) engages with the material. The killer’s modus operandi seems almost like a parody of such fare (leaving snowmen at the scene of his crimes, and eventually the head of a victim atop one) as does his motivation (he murders women who don’t want their offspring because his mother never wanted him – or so he has assumed, due to her effective suicide, corrected in Harry Hole’s rather trite reinterpretation that it was actually his absent, abusive father he resented; this element is a revision of the novel, where he murdered his mother on discovering his father wasn’t his father). 


Harry himself is a walking tortured genius, but without being especially interesting with it. He’s an alcoholic – when he doesn’t have a case, it’s that Sherlock Holmes thing but with booze rather than opiates – and comes armed with a string of failed interpersonal relationships, as admitted during a rather ludicrous expository climax in which the killer threatens his ex (Gainsborough) and her son (Michael Yates, not that one) unless Harry admits to his foibles (“Because I’m selfish. Because I’m an addict. There isn’t enough room for them”). Fassbender looks far too healthy for one abusing himself in such chronic fashion, and the movie has to be chalked up as yet another of his doomed attempts to kick start a franchise (Assassin’s Creed was also a bust, so he has to make do with Erik Lehnsherr for the time being). 


Not all the excisions from the source material are necessarily a bad idea. I certainly can’t fault not making Ferguson’s Katrina Bratt a suspect (or was this simply part of the 15% that didn’t get filmed?), which is surely the last resort of the writer desperate for red herrings. On the other hand, she’s unceremoniously killed off here, but goes on to become Harry’s boss in the novels (this being the seventh of them). Her being the daughter of Val Kilmer’s detective Rafto might have worked better if there was some degree of emotional investment in either character. Instead, there’s some tricksy time-shifting, such that we aren’t’ aware Rafto has been dead eight years until Harry finds out. There’s also the problem that poor Val, recovering from throat cancer, is hardly in the movie and has been unceremoniously dubbed, so the character seems even more disconnected from the proceedings.


If The Snowman were more engrossing, the lack of viable suspects among the main characters would probably have highlighted the actual culprit even earlier (Sea of Love syndrome, although at least there we had compelling lead performances propping up the weaknesses of the plot); Denick’s dodgy doctor and Simmons’ businessman only ever seem to be included as distractions, which leaves James D’Arcy’s grieving husband and Jonas Karlsson as Gainsbourg’s boyfriend, the latter further underlying the silliness of the proceedings (that the killer should be someone you know ought really to apply to the victim, rather than the cop investigating the case). 


I wouldn’t say The Snowman is straight-up incomprehensible, as some reviews have suggested, but itisdisjointed to the point of distraction. And there’s an additional problem when material this dour and tonally earnest is hinged to plotting so pulpy that it really needs a Paul Verhoeven to bring out the guilty pleasure side. As it is, I suspect Harry Hole will find his home, probably not dissimilarly to Tom Cruise’s failed attempt at a Jack Reacher franchise, on the small screen, where the material is given a chance to breathe and unfold with due care and attention to chronology. And who knows, if Netflix goes fishing for it, it might even end up airing in its native language.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Espionage isn’t a game, it’s a war.

The Avengers 3.3: The Nutshell
Philip Chambers first teleplay (of two) for the series, and Raymond Menmuir’s second (also of two) as director, The Nutshell is an effective little whodunit in which Steed (again) poses as a bad guy, and Cathy (again) appears to be at loggerheads with him. The difference here is how sustained the pretence is, though; we aren’t actually in on the details until the end, and the whole scenario is played decidedly straight.

Set mostly in a bunker (the Nutshell of the title), quarter of a mile underground and providing protection for the “all the best people” (civil servants bunk on level 43; Steed usually gets off at the 18th) in the event of a thermo-nuclear onslaught, the setting is something of a misdirection, since it is also a convenient place to store national security archives, known as Big Ben (Bilateral Infiltration Great Britain, Europe and North America). Big Ben has been stolen. Or rather, the microfilm with details of all known double agents on bot…

This is no time for puns! Even good ones.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014)
Perhaps I've done DreamWorks Animation (SKG, Inc., etc.) a slight injustice. The studio has been content to run an assembly line of pop culture raiding, broad-brush properties and so-so sequels almost since its inception, but the cracks in their method have begun to show more overtly in recent years. They’ve been looking tired, and too many of their movies haven’t done the business they would have liked. Yet both their 2014 deliveries, How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Mr. Peabody & Sherman, take their standard approach but manage to add something more. Dragon 2 has a lot of heart, which one couldn’t really say about Peabody (it’s more sincere elements feel grafted on, and largely unnecessary). Peabody, however, is witty, inventive and pacey, abounding with sight gags and clever asides while offering a time travel plotline that doesn’t talk down to its family audience.

I haven’t seen the The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show, from which Mr. Peabody & Sh…

Ah yes, the legendary 007 wit, or at least half of it.

The World is Not Enough (1999)
(SPOILERS) The last Bond film of the 20th century unfortunately continues the downward trend of the Brosnan era, which had looked so promising after the reinvigorated approach to Goldeneye. The World is Not Enough’s screenplay posseses a number of strong elements (from the now ever present Robert Wade and Neal Purvis, and a sophomore Bruce Feirstein), some of which have been recycled in the Craig era, but they’ve been mashed together with ill-fitting standard Bond tropes that puncture any would-be substance (Bond’s last line before the new millennium is one Roger Moore would have relished). And while a structure that stop-starts doesn’t help the overall momentum any, nor does the listlessness of drama director Michael Apted, such that when the sporadic bursts of action do arrive there’s no disguising the joins between first and second unit, any prospect of thrills evidently unsalvageable in the edit.

Taking its cues from the curtailed media satire of Tomorr…

I know what I'm gonna do tomorrow, and the next day, and the next year, and the year after that.

It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
It’s a Wonderful Life is an unassailable classic, held up as an embodiment of true spirit of Christmas and a testament to all that is good and decent and indomitable in humanity. It deserves its status, even awash with unabashed sentimentality that, for once, actually seems fitting. But, with the reams of plaudits aimed at Frank Capra’s most enduring film, it is also worth playing devil’s advocate for a moment or two. One can construe a number of not nearly so life-affirming undercurrents lurking within it, both intentional and unintentional on the part of its director. And what better time to Grinch-up such a picture than when bathed in the warmth of a yuletide glow?

The film was famously not a financial success on initial release, as is the case with a number of now hallowed movies, its reputation burgeoning during television screenings throughout the 1970s. Nevertheless, It’s a Wonderful Life garnered a brace of Oscar nominations including Best Picture and…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

Perhaps I am dead. Perhaps we’re both dead. And this is some kind of hell.

The Avengers 5.7: The Living Dead
The Living Dead occupies such archetypal Avengers territory that it feels like it must have been a more common plotline than it was; a small town is the cover for invasion/infiltration, with clandestine forces gathering underground. Its most obvious antecedent is The Town of No Return, and certain common elements would later resurface in Invasion of the Earthmen. This is a lot broader than Town, however, the studio-bound nature making it something of a cosy "haunted house" yarn, Scooby Doo style.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

What if I tell you to un-punch someone, what you do then?

Incredibles 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Incredibles 2 may not be as fresh as the first outing – indeed, certain elements of its plotting border on the retread – but it's equally, if not more, inventive as a piece of animation, and proof that, whatever his shortcomings may be philosophically, Brad Bird is a consummately talented director. This is a movie that is consistently very funny, and which is as thrilling as your average MCU affair, but like Finding Dory, you may understandably end up wondering if it shouldn't have revolved around something a little more substantial to justify that fifteen-year gap in reaching the screen.