Dear Wendy

This flick, with its subtle views on America's obsession with weapons, is likely not going to be a crowd pleaser. One of the main reasons for this is the films use of highly symbolic mise-en-scene takes several viewings to fully appreciate. Another reason for the let down is that some might be inclined to want more action for a movie that centralizes on guns.

However, this movie is brilliant. The shot composition, the editing, the acting-this movie is very well pieced together. Also, as for the meaning of the movie, it goes in a direction that is a really provocative and fresh. I would highly recommend that you give this movie a chance, and keep an open mind. I have never been a fan of the director of this film or the writer, but I was deeply pleased by this film.

Thomas Vinterberg has finally reemerged from the disaster that was "It's all about love", and with help from compatriot Lars Von Trier he has delivered a hugely original and entertaining film. The story evolves around Dick - a small town loser who feels confident by holding a gun. Seeing this, he creates a group "the Dandies" of fellow gun-fanatics. Violent as it may seem, the point of the group is pacifism - to obsess with guns, but NOT TO USE THEM. Yet when ex-criminal Sebastian joins the group tensions emerge, and Dicks ego and his gun-obsession becomes a deadly cocktail. The story is absolutely outrageous, but Vinterberg, realizing this, gives the film a warped, almost giddy, feel. This actually complements Von Trier's screenplay better than the latter's ultra-realistic style, and prevents the film from becoming moralizing. The only real drawback of the story is the slow start and the dialog, which at times has difficulty hiding the fact that it has, in fact, been translated from Danish into English. Nevertheless, a strong comeback for Vinterberg - let's hope he can do some more serious stuff as well.

I saw this movie in France with a large group of friends, something I highly recommend. We all seemed to have a different take on the film and each of us was able to draw something unique from it. Some loved it; some hated it. One of us focused on the powerful characters, another on the coming-of-age aspect, another on the gun control issues, etc. I saw it as a commentary on the power of fear in light of current world events and about how allowing that fear to control your life can ultimately bring about the very tragedy of which you are most afraid.

Dear Wendy certainly lends itself well to conversations that surpass the standard post-movie fare. I am looking forward to it coming stateside so I can see it again with other friends and see what reactions the film provokes in them ...

I went into this film extremely hesitant. I don't know Vinterberg well, but I do know there isn't much about Lars that I like at all. Top that with a subject matter that I'm rather sensitive about as well. But the film was beautifully filmed and the performances were enjoyable. I enjoyed all of it. I disagree with critics who say the film attacked America or had a heavy-hitting message in it. I think it's subtler than that. For me it was the big surprise of Sundance 05. Rich and fun. In the script, the characters were twice as old as those in the film, and I think Vinterberg made a wise choice in changing that. What is powerful in a teenager can look dorky in a 30-something.

First of all Dear Wendy is a tribute to Kubrick: We have the gang from A clockwork Orange, the gun named Lyndon (and the ancient guns) from Barry Lyndon. And there are more subtle references: a chart from one of the bullets reads Full Metal Jacket, etc.

Although directed by his friend Vinterberg the story is written by von Trier and bears all the marks of a von Trier-movie, but this time it is deeply drawn up in irony. A typical Von Trier-story always watches like literature: idealist gains strength from his beliefs but is confronted by the real world (in this case an ex-con), his beliefs are shaken and self-imposed rules are broken. And enter the tragedy.

The US-setting fits the teasing we are now familiar with from von Trier but the wider meaning is much more universal and it raises several interesting questions. Can a society be free of gun violence when people have guns readily available (US vs Switzerland)? Is gun culture and adoration a wider problem than guns themselves? Or do people need guns in order to rise against any form of eventual dictatorship? What does pacifism mean?

This is a very refreshing movie from Vinterberg-von Trier. It is an interesting study in irony and gun culture with good camera-work from Anthony Dod Mantle and interesting special effects. Would certainly have made a splash and controversy at Cannes.