Magnus

"Magnus" by Kadri Kousaar was a film chosen for Un Certain Regard, one of the side festivals of Cannes, but not in main competition. It was visually interesting, but the characterization and particularly the dialog were weak. It undermined the story. Especially as it is a true story about a father and son relationship and the father plays himself in the fictional film, and then gives a documentary testament in the final five minutes. In my opinion it was a very uneven film, beautiful in many regards but undercut by so much on-the-nose sturm-und-drang and weak character development (most of them didn't have names outside of Mother, Father, and Sister, and these were major characters).

I have seen the film and must admit that it is very good attempt for someone who is making her debut. Fact that film is related with really happened story does not weaken the film itself. It is story of father who have made mistake and throughout this film he shares us his pain. But we must not forget that it is still a truth of art not the reality. And also note that if we didn't know that father character is played by origin person - there would never come out any question of ethics. It makes us think of it and about many other things. And that is important for me!

Nice film with excellent camera work.

... when I arrived for this film 30 minutes before start time and saw five people in the ticket holder line and a dozen in the pass holder line that something was amiss. This is a stinker of film that collapsed under the weight of its pretensions. I gave it two stars for the beautiful shots of scenery but minus one star for the dearth of story, subpar acting and the director's pretentious tomfoolery with the camera angles, filming some scenes upside or from odd angles or through distorted reflections. Yeah, I get it: it was to reflect the state of Magnus's mind but a five minute shot of water or a three minute shot of Magnus staring off into space does not further the story and was ultimately boring and sleep inducing. Too bad too, because there were some great characters in the self absorbed modeling agent mother and the drug addict purveyor of porn father. BY FAR THE WORST FILM I've seen at the Seattle International Film Festival so far.

A good effort from a young director. Some of the previous comments are peculiar. Particularly the ones posted in consecutive days by "different" users from several countries, saying basically the same (making negative personal remarks about the director). For someone in Lebanon and Slovenia and wherever else, people seem to know a lot of details about an obscure celebrity from an obscure country. A personal crusade from a disgruntled former admirer perhaps? Anyway, this is a movie website and the comments should stick to the movies. If you really want to wash dirty laundry, go do it somewhere else. It's not like there isn't plenty of space for that in the internet. And as for accusing the director of being "self-involved"... Does anyone get into any kind of artistic expression without being self-involved?

There's an old joke about Estonians.

A guy dies, goes to hell. Before his eternal torture begins the devil gives him a tour of hell. Everywhere the guy sees huge pits filled with boiling tar and people in agony, struggling to get out. When someone finally reaches the edge of the pit, there's always a devil's apprentice with a pitchfork there to push him back in.

Finally the guy reaches another such horrible boiling hole, but there aren't any devil's apprentices around. Confused, he asks the devil: "Where are the guys with the pitchforks? Aren't you afraid one of them is going to climb out?" "Relax," says the devil. "This pit of boiling tar is for Estonians. When one of them reaches the edge, the others pull him back in." This joke and this film both sum up Estonians almost perfectly.

I find it odd how the negative comments by other Estonians here are either personal, aimed at the director Kadri Kõusaar, or aimed at the film's quality. Which isn't groundbreaking, but is certainly good enough.

Quality, then. The quality of this film does not hinder storytelling. It's not up to the standards of Hollywood and the visual language doesn't really enhance the film except in a couple of parts, but it certainly doesn't hinder anything. It works to tell the story and it succeeds in that.

The story, then. There's a clear plot, but it might not be very clear on the first viewing. Nonetheless, every scene is crafted around the film's central idea and once you get it, you'll see it for yourself. The writing is not only competent, it's good. It's very good. Someone compared it to the cryptic works of Paulo Coelho. Well. I'm glad to say that Magnus is nothing like that. It's a lot better.

Magnus has a very clear point. It's about the dichotomy of Estonian life. You either don't give a sh*t and live a great life or you can bugger off and kill yourself. Nobody cares and if you look for someone to care about you, you'll just be disappointed.

One place where the film does suck, however, is the English translation. It's dry. It lacks soul. If that's all you have to go by, then sure, you'll probably not get what the film is about.

Magnus and Klass are two Estonian films I'm not ashamed to recommend to my foreign friends. Good films are made with great passion and both Magnus and Klass certainly have that passion.