All About Anna

Well made. Cinema-photography is great, camera angels and movement work well with the story subject. It is not a porn flick! Porn flicks zoom in and only focus on the peoples private parts, which is disgusting to me. This movie shows things from a nice distance so you can take in the whole scene. This allows the viewer to see and feel the story not the bump and grind.

Our only negative is the female on female scene, we fast forward through it.

At one point in the movie, Anna's voice over asks if she has squandered her chance to be with Johan, and that's the point where I had to explain to my girlfriend why I was yelling "yes, you muppet, and it's your own fault!" And then I had to explain why I was watching someone else's home video.

This movie was shot in the Dogme 95 style, and that doesn't do it any favors. Though, in all fairness, I don't think I would have enjoyed it any more if I had been able to see what was going on.

Anna is alright, I suppose, but her voice overs were a little grating. Blame that on English not being her first language.

Johan was... something else. Though early on he did briefly look like Owen Wilson achieving a mild orgasm, but that wasn't during a sex scene, so the jury is out on whether that's a good thing.

Those two pale in comparison to what in my opinion has to be the worst imitation of a human being to have ever been put on screen: Camilla, the roommate.

I firmly believe that this is the kind of roommate who creates serial killers. I think Jeffrey Dahmer had a roommate like her and decided "If I kill and eat a bunch of people I can go to jail so I don't have to listen to her anymore." Hence, the best part of this movie was when Camilla performed oral and I didn't have to hear her cough up noise for a few minutes.

To keep myself from going off on a tangent about what I believe is an extra terrestrial who crashed near the filming location, I shall conclude by saying that if this film had been about logical thinking, sane human beings, the runtime could have been cut back to half an hour tops.

If you enjoy Dogme 95 style films you'll want to give this one a quick look.

Everybody else, just put on some Scandinavian porn.

'Tagline: Not since Dogme95 has passion felt this real.' - 'To achieve a realism beyond even Dogme95'. The makers of this film clearly wrote this - if not it must be someone deprived of all his senses. First of all: to even attempt to put this movie in the same league as movies by Von Trier or Thomas Vinterberg is so misguided I do not know whether to laugh or cry. This is nothing more than a porn movie (a bad one at that)trying to create some aura of intellectualism about it - and much like Catherine Breillats Anatomy of Hell it fails miserably. There are hardcore scenes in this film, and it is even sold as porn in Denmark. Two of the actresses have made more than a few porn flicks... Lars Von Triers Idiots had hardcore porn in it too, for at split second - but that does not mean that there is any viable excuse to put it in - there is nothing in the way of motivation or storytelling that suggests that hardcore scenes could have a defining impact on a movie - it's put there as shock value only, which in this day and age is just daft.

There is not a single capable actor in this film, Gry Bay is best known in Denmark for being willing to do most anything in front of a camera (this film more than proves that). The camera movement is as uninspired as the script, there seems to be no greater design to the angles chosen, and the editing seems rather random, and does not lend this movie anything in the way of flow. Generally the post production is shoddy at best and by the looks of it the proposed 'realism' and Dogme familiarity (SIC!)is the excuse for not making a decent product... The fact that Zentropa would have their name associated with this amazes me - even if they have produced porn before it was of a much higher standard... Because... It's just porn, mum

Let's get one thing straight, normal people have sex for real and capture it on video. They made a decent flick out of it. But it could have been so much more groundbreaking. In the end, Nine Songs went further when it comes to fully explicit content.

The problems with this film were as follows. The director tried to avoid full hardcore shots even though the producers wanted hardcore. Her version of the movie is disjointed and odd. If you are disappointed with what was recorded, blame her.

Plus, she seems to have hired her friends to work the camera and sound, because both were seriously unprofessional. Plus, at one point on the extra disc you spot a production camera they were using, something no better looking than a TRV-950. I know you may be low budget, but please get someone to pony up the cash for a GL2 or something.

Basically this film seems like it was sabotaged by the director. I've seen amateur pornography with higher production values. Maybe in the future there will be another more substantial attempt at this kind of movie.

First things first: There are only few notable merits regarding this particular "experiment" but it is certainly not completely devoid of them: for one, the director attempted to create a counterbalance to what is universally considered as the problem of the mainstream pornographic motion picture, be it soft core or hardcore: the presentation of a mechanical, emotionless, unengaging, uninspiring and ultimately tiresome repetition of sexual acts aiming solely at the physical arousal of its viewers and probably achieving that in the first few minutes; rendering the rest of it as a distasteful and vicious circle.

The producers misleadingly labelled it as "pornography for women", perhaps acknowledging the fact that the scenes are not explicit enough to present it as the hardcore pornography they would have liked. And a large portion of it probably isn't as it seemingly provides to bridge the gap between hardcore pornography and erotica and create a film that would ultimately excite the senses in both a physical but also an emotional level as well as provide an engaging storyline that would justify the sex scenes as a meaningful entity of the whole. If that was the initial intention, as the producers of AAA claim it to be, it certainly wasn't given justice by the end result - in spite of the fact that that premise and intention was probably there in the offing. This is less evident in the actual producer's cut or even the director's cut of the film but a lot more evident from the outtakes of several of the sex scenes included on the DVD: they are long, varied, passionate, well rehearsed and acted and emotionally engaging; while the camera work is such that makes them appear both sensual and realistic. They're shot in a way as to provide a clue to the fact that most of the sex in the film is unsimulated; but with a more cryptic, more erotic vision, contradictory to the average porn sensibility.

It's not surprising that this film is described as a collaboration of a major mainstream pornographic production company and Lars Von Trier's Zentropa. But this dichotomy ultimately leans towards the side of the porn producers as they seem to win over the intentions of the director and probably some of the actors themselves who probably had a more concrete idea of what they wanted to achieve or rather what they wanted to avoid. As a consequence, although there is the actual "philosophy" of supporting the making of such a film - the existence of a "manifesto" in the like of Dogme95 that states the preferable and the avoidable - it all seems to escalate and ultimately fly in the face of that it was purported to be. Crudely put, there are facial ejaculation scenes; there is "cheap" music that is supposed to "complement" the sex - but in fact it is totally out of place. There is also a sorry excuse of a script and what is supposed to be a storyline but it is all done so poorly that can hardly conceal the fact that there isn't one. And most importantly: there is bad acting - which is quite surprising given the fact that some of the actors are allegedly unfamiliar with the territory and are earning their living from participating in more socially acceptable genres of film-making. However, judging by the actual acting in the film - give and take the sex scenes - either the levels of acting in Denmark are really low at the moment or these particular actors are hardly adequate in their chosen field. All the more so when particular emphasis is given towards presenting a story: the bad acting and lack of a meaningful plot to back things up create an even bigger problematic. Then there's the attempt to dress it all up with the addition of a supporting cast that comes straight from hardcore pornography; acting in more explicit and conventional scenes and overall giving a very uneven feel to the whole endeavour. Why add more characters and more scenes and "embroider" the film with what was supposed to be trying to avoid in the first place? Let alone make things even more complicated and disjointed when the leading characters themselves are so underdeveloped? It's therefore obvious that the initial intention was not shared by all of the people involved and consequently not sustained throughout the project - which is a shame and perhaps a wasted opportunity? The end product ultimately reflects those dichotomies: It's half-baked to such an extent that would equally disappoint both the fans of porn - because of the lack of enough explicit scenes they are accustomed to watching - but also those viewers who, deluded by the producers' promises, were prepared for watching something entirely different. It is different but not different enough to dissociate it from mainstream porn in terms of overall sensibility or production values. Finally some suggestions in case somebody else attempts something similar: give the director more artistic freedom to shoot what they like and present the film the way they like. Give them more time to work on it and have a more concrete picture as to what they aim to achieve. Lose the voice-over, especially when the script is so poor; get a decent scriptwriter to write a meaningful story, not an excuse for bad acting. Or perhaps simply give Lars Von Trier himself the camera and step aside...