Wir - der Sommer, als wir unsere Röcke hoben und die Welt gegen die Wand fuhr

I didn't really get the point of "Wij". Was it just to pruriently show the sex lives of its teenage protagonists? Perhaps. But the movie makes no attempt at eroticism, and the full frontal nudity takes us by surprise because there's no build up to it. It appears to be trying to show us how everyday this behaviour is for its characters, and at that I guess it makes its point. But what is the wider point?

Eight teenagers - four boys and four girls - engage in increasingly depraved sexual behaviour during a hot summer in Belgium. The girls, particularly, seem to have no regard to their rights to their own bodies, flashing their bushes at oncoming cars (and causing a pile-up in the process) and playing games in which foreign items are inserted you-know-where. At one stage, somebody pretends to listen to earbuds that have their cord inserted into someone else's vagina.

The movie also features a death-by-insertion that may have to be seen to be believed.

So, that's the movie. The characters remain totally undifferentiated throughout. They never emerge with personalities or motivations. You don't even know who you're looking at half the time.

This material is the kind of thing US director Larry Clarke makes, and comparing it to his material reveals its limitations ever more. Clarke would have chosen a gritty photographic approach to the material, and may also have based the movie off a true story, to give it much needed weight.

As is, "Wij" is pretty forgettable.

Difficult to understand even if you are Dutch speaking, as a certain quantity of spoken Dutch is in a local dialect. The script and directing are also way below standard.

Safe to say that this film is not worth seeing, even if it is based on fact. The only thing that stands out is male and female genitalia and sex. But this cannot save this rubbish, rather, if you like that sort of thing, watch a porn movie.

The film tries to portray a story of young adolescent people discovering life while engaging in all kinds of debauchery. The vile acts that are shown are partly based on events that have happend in real life at some point. Dissapointingly this is merly used to create shock value for the audience and as the story progresses none of the disturbing acts have a carthartic element to them. When you take all these disturbing acts and assign them to one group of people that act like its all a big joke, they just become shallow and not interesting at all. Their motives just seem dumb and futile. I couldn't wait for it to be over.

I find the film's only redeming quality to be how a kind of psychadelic form of cinematography was used, where you as the viewer feel confused as if you delve into the psychotic minds of these kids and how incoherent their story's about the events that took place are from each other. At least that is how I interpreted it.

Rene Eller's adaptation of a shocking novel by Elvis Peeters has all the hallmarks of its Vice co-producers sub-Mondo, faux docudrama approach. This makes for a queasy mix of wrong-headed moralising and vapid sensationalism that seems cribbed from REQUIEM FOR A DREAM.

The film has a slightly Rashomon-structure, as four of the film's gang of privileged delinquents tell their differing versions of events. The latter version is from the ringleader Thomas (played with real sleazy noxiousness by Aime Claeys), and pulls in the film's most difficult narrative strand, namely that of the perverted mayor's sex scandal. This whole section is problematically rendered, as the film seems to hint at the idea that child-sex scandals may not be about the exploitation of innocents. There is a damaging disconnect in the film between what is being shown, the way it is being shown and the wider context within which these things could be said to operate. None of this would have really been so much of an issue if Eller didn't so devotedly follow the Vice handbook and attempt to blur boundaries between factual and fictional forms of narrative address.

What is undeniable is that Eller has been able to extract strong performances from his young cast, made up mainly of non-professionals. It is a shame then, that the material to which their great efforts have been put to the service of, is so trivially worked out. A little less fake meta-textuality and this may have been something more like Stephen Frears' BLOODY KIDS (1980).

Having no knowledge of this film and seemingly stumbling upon it, "Wij" was quite different in comparison's to the typical Hollywood films we see today.

The story is quite depressing and the characters for the most part are unlikeable (mainly the lead male along with the two lead females). What made very little sense is how there were 8 of them yet none of them had any sense to stop doing what they were doing. Of course something tragic was bound to occur.

The storytelling dealing with four of the main eight characters retelling their version of what occurred was quite well done. These four stories seemingly range from tamest to most disturbing in order- Part 1 relatively tame, while Part 4 is the most disturbing and vile.

This isn't a film for the faint hearted. The director definitely goes out all, pushing boundaries, such as more excessive nudity than needed (including brief unsimulated sex scenes). The acting was surprisingly convincing and good.

Without revealing anything, the end revelation or twist told by one of the characters in the finale was quite disappointing (Part 4). We watched the film up to that point only to find out, that was what really occurred. As some of the other top reviews has stated, this end payoff isn't exactly satisfactory.