I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

This movie was almost unwatchable from the first scene. I could tell from the outset that creative liberties would be taken, and I was not wrong. It barely resembled the book, which is a shame since the characters in the book's narrative had much more dimension. This movie is a "what not to do when you are making a best seller into a motion picture!"

While investigating a missing persons case, an Oslo detective comes to the realisation that he's hunting a prolific serial killer who leaves snowmen near his victims. Based on the novel by Norwegian writer Jo Nesbo, Michael Fassbender does an admirable job working with either an awful script or a butchered final product (it's honestly hard to tell). It's not interesting and it's not engaging ... in fact, it's boring and confusing. The story jumps back and forth in time with no real indication that you, the audience, have done so and there are only a few moments worth the price of admission, including a victim's head discovered atop a snowman and Val Kilmer uncovering a body by firing his gun to scare away the gulls (as seen in the trailer).If you did happen to see the trailer and deciding the film looked half decent, you'll remember dramatic shots of Fassbender running around outside a burning house ... but ... there is no burning house in the film (apparently it was cut after initial test screenings). That disappointment summed up the entire film - it just seems to have been hacked apart and put back together but with significant chunks missing. There's a subplot regarding a corrupt Winter Olympic bid run by J. K. Simmons which just stops unresolved once the result is announced, there's a woman who's nude photo is taken and kept for no discernible purpose, and the final encounter with the killer is an anti-climactic deus ex machina and a slap in the face to an invested audience.It seems like no one likes this film. It currently has 5/10 on IMDB and a whopping 8% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is perhaps a little harsh since that's the same score given to The Emoji Movie. You might think it's lazy to recite statistics rather than continue to review the film, but I refuse to put in more effort than the production team did. Best Quote: "I apologise for Oslo's low murder rate."

Lmao - this is complete garbage! There is horrible fake CGI snow? WTF -? The story makes no sense and the actors are terrible. An utter waste. Dreadful.

The critics gleefully rip this one to shreds. They have many valid points, such as the dragging flow, confusing narrative of it all--a insipid and pervasive banality underlying. But the acting, cinematography, lighting and direction keep this one moving in a lesser impact than Crimson Rivers, but at least at par with Dennis Quaid's "The Horseman." This one should probably be a mainstay in film school about a movie that failed though all the right ingredients were present: a popular novel about a serial killer, one of our best actors living, superb supporting cast and a great premise. But the film feels like they shot a bunch of scenes, threw them into a lotto grinder, and hoped for the best. Was the editing the fallure? And if so, who approve the editing failure? Was it a direction failure? If so, which producers signed off on their final product? Really, all they had to do was follow the basic 80's horror films: a traumatized child, a mother complex, followed by compulsive sausage grinding. Why didn't they just follow a few episodes of Blacklist or Hannibal? So Easy. Was the ego of the director allowed so much freedom to mess this one up this bad? Honestly, without any film experience at all, following basic formulas, I'm sure I could have directed this one into a pale version of Silence of the Lambs, leaving all tech to everyone else, and instead using my skills as a psychologist to work with the actors to give their best performance. Let's just see if we can come up with our own story....there is a detective. An alcoholic detective--who strangely experiences missing gaps in time. Suddenly, he begins receiving messages from a serial killer--formerly dubbed as "The Picasso Killer," (because he arranges his victims within grotesque picture frames in surreal fashion). The messages taunt and tease him, sending him vague clues he must decipher in order to stop the next killing. But then a twist occurs. The detective is actually suffering from multiple personality disorder, and it is then revealed he has been writing letters to himself all along. But then there is another twist, a twist within a twist, for we then understand the detective has a paradoxical form of multiple personality disorder in which he believes he and his twin are one person, due of course to childhood abuse. Who is the cop and who is the twin? The twin is a high ranking political candidate, sure of his victory, which is predicated on his twin detective solving his murderous rampage. Sounds great, doesn't it? Movie Time!