This movie must hold a record for its reliance on close ups. It's as if the director had no confidence in his ability to find interesting images and relied on close ups of his actors' faces whether they're interesting or not.
Wildly overrated as a work of cinema. As a vampire story maybe it's worthwhile, but it's not good for much else.
bbpictures:
I respectfully disagree.
There plenty of (visually) medium and long shots. They are also held for a long time, rather than the rapid cutting that many are used to.
The stark visual palette is a deliberate aesthetic choice and is part of the experience.
It's too bad you didn't enjoy it.
Just wanting to get noticed by dumping on anything and everything. Typical attention starvation. How can anyone who has never been to Sweden, or the Western suburbs, comment about the visuals which were a huge part of the film. The horrible attempts to sell it in the English regions by dubbing resulting in never ending conflicts in translation. Only those who speak Swedish should review the film. It was never intended to be released outside Europe this angered the Hollywood establishment as they didn't get their cut. It was snubbed by the Oscars for best foreign film for this very reason-all one needs to do is look at the stupid documentary that won-if you can remember it. The insertion of the Pub and the locals that hung out there in the screenplay was done as an afterthought because the manuscript had a much more of a supernatural feel to it. That area still looks as it did in 2007 and it has acquired a life of it's own.
shareConsidering that it's actually the opposite, I'm taking this post as irony until proven wrong, in which case it'll fall back into 'ignorance'.
"All these squares make a circle."
With all due respect, your face is visually uninspired and I've heard that you are dramatically lacking in bed.
'Remember when' is the lowest form of conversation. - Tony Soprano
Your opinion.
Not a fact.
My opinion is the opposite.
Where is everybody?