Godland

The first thing that strikes the viewer at the outset of Hlynur Pálmason's GODLAND is the 1:33 aspect ratio framing. The edges are curved like that of a photographic plate. It's the first of many indelible images that Cinematographer Maria von Hausswolff captures in 35mm. The visuals are key here in Pálmason's screenplay as he weaves a story around photographs taken by his protagonist, Lucas (Elliot Crosset Hove), a vain Danish Priest tasked with traversing the rugged Scandanavian landscape in order to build a church in Iceland in the late 19th Century.

Lucas hires a brawny Icelandic guide, Ragnar (Ingvar Sigurdsson), to lead the journey. After many travails, they reach their destination - a remote village. Lucas finds a room in a shack owned by Carl (Jacob Lohmann) and his two daughters, Anna (Vic Carmen Sonne) and Ida (Ída Mekkín Hlynsdóttir - the Director Pálmason's actual child).

The plot is merely a device for Pálmason to create the setting for his film. The term "Godland" could be more accurately translated as "Godforsaken". The terrain is at once beautiful and foreboding. The innate impatience of Lucas is exacerbated by the physical and mental toll the surroundings take on his body and mind. He doesn't lose faith as much as he fails its challenges. Von Hausswolff's camerawork brilliantly creates a world of its own - a character. Pálmason uses a number of long single takes to place the viewer in the environment.

The villagers aren't a particularly religious group yet they seem to embody what is known as faith, more than the preacher sent to enlighten them. Pálmason seems to be initiating a conversation with the viewer where one ponders whether the notion of organized religion truly has meaning in such a remote habitat. Is the earth god or goddess (Gaia) the rightful ruler here? Lucas is such an imperfect vessell that Pálmason does stack the deck a bit (and a few of the plot permutations come off as unneccessarily specific), but he has a well wrought vision. GODLAND is something to behold.

GODLAND reminded my of MEEK'S CUTOFF, and not just because of the squarish aspect ratio. Both are a journey across harsh landscapes that test and transform people. But to my mind it is no BLACK ROBE. I've read reviews calling the main character, Lucas, pious with a desire to save souls etc. I didn't get this feeling AT ALL. He seemed more preoccupied with taking photos than being some kind of head in the sky religious zealot on a mission to spread the word of God (as in BLACK ROBE). There's very little Bible thumping to be had. Other reviewers have also called it 'bone-chilling', 'horror' etc. It's none of these things. I'm not sure why they are reaching for such superlatives. It's actually a fairly pedestrian story and the dramatic moments came as something of a surprise (to me at least). I found the ending somewhat unfathomable as well bc, for me, little led up to it. Still, it was satisfyingly bleak with majestic mountains, mist, rivers and glaciers. But really, it could have been much more,

A bit slow and vague to my personal taste the movie is divided in two parts that shows the travel and settlement of a young Danish priest (protestant) and photographer to a remote village on Iceland, on the 19th century (then a colony of Denmark, from 1376 to 1918), with distinct languages.

The first part focus on the travel and hardship of the travel with the loss of a friend and rising animosity between the priest and some people of the party; the second part focus on the settlement of the priest and some of the locals, with rising of of disputes and claims, while he involves with the daughter of a local farmer and a builder that acompanished him the first part of the movie.

The photography is marvelous with the Icelandic landscape and to a degree it shows the variation between the seasons and the body and soul of man, that loses gradually his aim and mission till he looses all of his former personality.

But other than that it didn't have a really strong message being more a display of beauty in harshness landscapes and personalities than having a message on itself. For this I score it with a 6.5 out of 10.0 / B-.

No likes yet.

This movie is a feast for your eyes. The colors, sounds and scenery are lusciously incredible and pull you into this terribly, beautiful world that is Iceland. The story moves in a continuous slow beat that makes you feel every moment of the journey. The story unravels slowly but keeps your interest throughout. Some parts were shocking, a few funny in a dark way and some even puzzling. The attention to detail is striking, in every scene the contrast and saturation of color is near perfect. There isn't anything I disliked about this movie. I thought it was a true piece of art. I recommend seeing this movie and being patient throughout.

The film has some amazing imagery, it is intriguing, it has drama, mistery and above all, it shows the dominant force of nature, that is depicted as far more powerful than the ephemeral characters that try to make a living on earth.

I found it as an odd to nature, to specifically the Icelandic harsh but majestic natural landscape and to the way people used to respect this. It is a great movie in many ways.

However, it's plot is slow-moving, the scenes are extremely long, do not expect to be entertained as it is the complete opposite of a fast-action, Hollywood-style movie. It is often rather boring and there is the real danger that the 2 hours and 23 minutes to pass rather slow to you as it did to me. I has the impression that the movie could have been just as deep and beautiful lasting only say 1 hours and 45 minutes.