A Man Called Otto (2022)

A Man Called Otto
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7405458/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

It’s a solid, well-rounded drama about a retired engineer who's basically lost his spark after his wife passed away. He’s got that local reputation—grumpy as hell, but strangely willing to lend a hand to the neighbors when it counts. Everything changes, though, when a young family with a Hispanic wife moves in nearby and throws a wrench in his rigid daily routine. Tom Hanks is so incredibly good in this that you almost forget you're watching Tom Hanks. It delivers exactly what you'd expect—nothing too wild—but it's consistent and hits all the right notes.

8/10

Have you seen the original?

hey man! if you’re gonna write "a man called this" instead of just saying A Man Called Otto, then honestly, go jump in a lake. you're asking for trouble ☕

goldenhound32 said:Have you seen the original?

Nope.

Why not? 🤷

Patrick Martin said:hey man! if you’re gonna write "a man called this" instead of just saying A Man Called Otto, then honestly, go jump in a lake. you're asking for trouble ☕

That’s the bottom line...

The original Swedish version, "A Man Called Otto," is such a masterpiece that even with a flawless performance by Tom Hanks, I’m not sure a remake even makes sense.

Americans know how to do great things, but when they start churning out remakes of foreign films, it honestly just drives me crazy.

goldenhound32 said:Have you seen the original?

Did you actually read the book?

The movie captures certain little vibes—like how those kids sit on the newspaper in the car—but it doesn't really dive into the "why" behind things. It's like seeing the surface without the depth.
It’s a decent enough flick, but honestly, it misses so much of what makes the book such a masterpiece. The way Fredrik Backman wrote it was just next level.

I don't really bother reading books.

goldenhound32 said:I don't really bother reading books.

That's such a shame.

Kate Chase59 said:Did you actually read the book?

The movie captures certain little vibes—like how those kids sit on the newspaper in the car—but it doesn't really dive into the "why" behind things. It's like seeing the surface without the depth.
It’s a decent enough flick, but honestly, it misses so much of what makes the book such a masterpiece. The way Fredrik Backman wrote it was just next level.

I've spotted the book on the library shelf a few times—might actually grab it.

I actually think this version hits harder than the original; it’s way more entertaining.
But just like every other Hollywood production these days, it's still cluttered with Woke propaganda.

Elizabeth Sanchez2 said:I've spotted the book on the library shelf a few times—might actually grab it.

There is definitely enough meat there to spin an entire trilogy out of it! 👍
You should really read a book—it’s absolutely worth carving out some time for.
(My usual rule of thumb is that if there's a movie, you go for the book, but in this case, it's actually the opposite: the movies are just a light snack compared to how incredible the writing is in the original text!)

Fredrik Backman is an exceptional writer, truly. That Small town in USA trilogy is absolutely fantastic. 👍

Terry Bennett said:I actually think this version hits harder than the original; it’s way more entertaining.
But just like every other Hollywood production these days, it's still cluttered with Woke propaganda.

Obviously it isn't better than the original. ☕

The movie is actually pretty good—fun, a little bittersweet, and definitely worth a watch. Honestly, I feel like the original version from up north might even be better, though I'm low-key losing my mind because all the books are checked out at my local library for ages. I’d love to just sit down and read a book for once. Plus, Tom Hanks is just on another level, honestly, what can you even say about such an incredible actor?

Just finished this one. It’s a nice, emotional ride—funny at times, a bit slow at others. Definitely worth a watch, though it feels pretty middle-of-the-road overall. 7/10

Scott Kern47 said:The movie is actually pretty good—fun, a little bittersweet, and definitely worth a watch. Honestly, I feel like the original version from up north might even be better, though I'm low-key losing my mind because all the books are checked out at my local library for ages. I’d love to just sit down and read a book for once. Plus, Tom Hanks is just on another level, honestly, what can you even say about such an incredible actor?

The book is definitely worth reading regardless of whether you see the movie. I really liked it; you can truly sink into the personality of A Man Called Otto. At least for me, his motivations made perfect sense.

I liked the original, but not the American version. Rolf Lassgård *is* Otto; you don't even see the actor, just the man. Tom Hanks played the part somewhat like Forrest Gump, except while Forrest was a bit slow, his Otto feels almost autistic—just perpetually pissed off. He lacks what Rolf captured so well: a man who’s been beaten down by life but stays principled despite being a loner. He’s someone with a straight spine who lives by black-and-white rules, raised to value hard work, order, and people, only to find those things disappearing from daily life. Between Tom and Rolf, I’m voting for Rolf. He nailed it, whereas Hanks just felt like a grumpy, unemployed retiree who exists solely to annoy everyone.

To me, the American film was just okay—uninteresting, really, aside from the fact that Hanks wore some nice sweaters. The original was moving and made the characters feel real.
It just goes to show that Americans can churn out a commercial product without much depth, but they can't hold a candle to the originals.☕

stormylynx4 said:The book is definitely worth reading regardless of whether you see the movie. I really liked it; you can truly sink into the personality of A Man Called Otto. At least for me, his motivations made perfect sense.

I liked the original, but not the American version. Rolf Lassgård *is* Otto; you don't even see the actor, just the man. Tom Hanks played the part somewhat like Forrest Gump, except while Forrest was a bit slow, his Otto feels almost autistic—just perpetually pissed off. He lacks what Rolf captured so well: a man who’s been beaten down by life but stays principled despite being a loner. He’s someone with a straight spine who lives by black-and-white rules, raised to value hard work, order, and people, only to find those things disappearing from daily life. Between Tom and Rolf, I’m voting for Rolf. He nailed it, whereas Hanks just felt like a grumpy, unemployed retiree who exists solely to annoy everyone.

To me, the American film was just okay—uninteresting, really, aside from the fact that Hanks wore some nice sweaters. The original was moving and made the characters feel real.
It just goes to show that Americans can churn out a commercial product without much depth, but they can't hold a candle to the originals.☕

The US is top-tier when it comes to original stuff—dramas, for instance—but when they try to remake foreign films, they usually miss the mark entirely.