Wij

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.

Eight teens - four guys and four girls - are the best of friends. One summer, out of boredom they experiment with all manner of new means to entertain themselves. This degenerates into some extreme behaviour and will lead to tragedy.

Intriguing movie, told in a way that keeps you engaged and wondering what happened. By telling the story from the perspective of several of the teens, one at a time, you get fed enough information to get a piece of the picture, but not enough for the whole picture. This creates a great sense of mystery and makes you stick around for more.

However, when everything comes together and the secret is revealed, it is a bit disappointing. The revelation is rather flat and what develops from there feels a touch implausible. Is quite topical and thought-provoking though.

Kids, A Better Tomorrow, Alpha Dog...we've seen it before...a group of teenagers who are living lives outside of their parents' knowledge, discovering themselves, indulging in sexual behavior and criminal activity. This Belgian/Dutch spin on it wasn't bad.

The cast was very talented-although I didn't find any character likeable-but, they did their job. Still these teens are insensitive jerks, with barely no remorse for their actions, and how the "big dilemma" was handled at the end didn't make me like them any more. The ending is...interesting(in its open-ended glory). I'm assuming the controversial novel this film is based on is spectacular though.

(I will say without giving anything away: one of the main characters may have had childhood trauma that caused some of his actions in the end-but I'll say no more.)

Basically this movie is fine; if it's on Netflix check it out, but definitely don't break your neck looking for it. You've probably seen stuff like this before-this is just the Dutch version.

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).