At the end of July i wrote this article after seeing the first trailer of the film version of The Snowman, Jo Nesbø's best-selling and most popular novel. I kept the tone contained as well as reserved on what we could expect both readers of the Norwegian writer and viewers without references. Well, it was released ten days ago and today I already have that opinion that only I can take responsibility for and I was already suspicious.

Again the cinema does not hit the umpteenth literary adaptation of a novel. And this one is especially weak because the material was more than good in terms of the plot, the atmosphere and the great characters created by Nesbø. Because his most beloved and charismatic creature, Commissioner Harry Hole, did not deserve a portrait or a narration of one of his best stories so washed out, empty and boring. Neither the director, the Swede Tom Alfredson, nor the international and very irregular cast are up to the task.

The film

You had to see this movie, especially and especially if you are an unconditional reader of Jo Nesbø and consider that Harry hole He is one of the most powerful, charismatic and best created literary characters of the contemporary crime novel. What's more, you have to see it to have the real and complete opinion and feeling that you can effectively continue to idolize them without any problems. And that will continue to be so. Because this unnecessary version cinematographic absolutely nothing changes about pleasure that we have obtained Nesbø readers with their novels.

La disappointment It is not because this movie was unnecessary and failed, but because of the deep laziness when doing it. Perhaps at first an enlightened mind decided that it might be a good idea. A Nordic writer of the best and biggest bestsellers, that cold cinema so fashionable and that usually gives international play, that sounds Martin Scorsese as a director, flashy names for an international cast, the beautiful Norway with a very white set ... Maybe. 

Then Scorsese remains only as a producer, the Americans put the money and sign Tom alfredson, a Swedish director of supposed prestige and a cast with too many nationalities and that, in general, does not fit with the physical descriptions of the literary characters. And what happens happens. This.

The director and the movie

And it seems that Alfredson sat one day in the director's chair and between sequence and sequence or he smoked a cigarette or took a nap. Because if he really had been where he had to be, this movie could not have come out so faded, washed-out, bland and dull. Quite the opposite of what Nesbø novels are and of course who and how are their characters.

I'm sure that If this project had been done by the Norwegians, it wouldn't have gone so badHis You just have to see the best one Danish saga of Department Q, written by Jussi Adler-Olsen. But it is useless to lament over an impossible.

What there is is what there is: nothing, a nonsense from start to finish. Only those beautiful Norwegian mountains are saved, ice, snow and that glorious cold for those of us who love it. The rest is a succession of slow, dark and depressing scenes in a confusing montage, especially in time jumps. There is no soul, there is no life or emotions. Y no one seems to know where he is, much less who he plays. And if they do, they seem to be wondering what they are doing there.

The cast

The first, my admired Michael Fassbender. He seemed to have accepted that he did not give the physique of Harry Hole and he limited himself to making the face of being passing the cold that is seen and moving the lashes the least. Y Harry Hole is not that man content, not cold, neither sad nor of course depressive, but passionate, unpredictable, wild and romantic. And an alcoholic, but not a drunkard carried away of the one that with three times that they show it lying on the ground, they already want you to believe that it is. Just a single detail so seemingly insignificant but significant for the readers of the series: they don't even hit the mark with the bottle of Jim Beam because they put one of vodka. 

And the second, that cult actress (of the auteur films, of course) who is the French Charlotte Gainsbourg, very lost in such an extraordinary role and with as much weight as that of Rakel Fauke. Thus, there can be no chemistry or anything credible between two literary characters who stand out for something, it is because of their chemistry, passion and love.. How bland and cold that supposedly letting go scene that both actors share in the supposedly most romantic moment. 

But it is that none of them is good and the last straw is to see an unrecognizable person for retreading Val Kilmer. Or what wasted that they are good actors like English James D'Arcy or the Norwegian Jacob Oftebro. The only ones can be saved a little are the swedes Rebecca Ferguson as Katrine Bratt and Jonas Karlsson as Mathias Lund. But now.

And another important aspect is that ...

… If Nesbø readers may find it devoid of any essence, viewers who do not know the Hole universe are lost no doubt in that washed-out narrative. And they won't understand those barely developed portraits of the characters either, especially the main one. Regarding the points gore, how well Nordic cinema tends to show them, are diluted in apathy before what you see.

Anyway, more details could be pointed out, like that final decaf that I understand the most feasible (and plausible) to adapt. But it would have already been the height of disaster if they had dared to shoot the much more shocking literary ending.

So ...

Nothing happens. Harry Hole is still spotless, flawless and perfectly imperfect on the pedestal of its millions of readers around the world. But they better not play it again in the cinema. They haven't done you any favors.