Otto ragazzi - quattro ragazzi e quattro ragazze - sono migliori amici. Un'estate, per noia, sperimentano ogni sorta di nuovi mezzi per divertirsi. Questo degenera in qualche comportamento e... Leggi tuttoOtto ragazzi - quattro ragazzi e quattro ragazze - sono migliori amici. Un'estate, per noia, sperimentano ogni sorta di nuovi mezzi per divertirsi. Questo degenera in qualche comportamento estremo e porterà alla tragedia.Otto ragazzi - quattro ragazzi e quattro ragazze - sono migliori amici. Un'estate, per noia, sperimentano ogni sorta di nuovi mezzi per divertirsi. Questo degenera in qualche comportamento estremo e porterà alla tragedia.
- Premi
- 3 vittorie e 4 candidature totali
Gaia Sofia Cozijn
- Sarah
- (as Gaia Cozijn)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
I enjoyed watching the movie. Nice to see a movie that does not follow the cliches or take itself to seriously. I can't believe I never heard of this movie before. Way better then the over hyped "De Premier" movie.
The movie starts great, loses momentum after 1/4, but picks up halfway to the end. The scenes were well done, but the way they combine was a bit messy, that is my only complaint.
Very good acting, the 8 kids were played very convincingly.
Overall great and entertaining movie, not the best, but a breath of fresh air in times were lots of mediocre movies come out all the time.
The movie starts great, loses momentum after 1/4, but picks up halfway to the end. The scenes were well done, but the way they combine was a bit messy, that is my only complaint.
Very good acting, the 8 kids were played very convincingly.
Overall great and entertaining movie, not the best, but a breath of fresh air in times were lots of mediocre movies come out all the time.
Very satisfying movie to watch. A reminder of just how wide this world is we live in, aside from how deep it is. A strange story of eight teenagers getting up to no good in a foreign version of rebelling. The story is told and retold by different members of the 8. With each retelling the absurd becomes believable, and this even though each version is different. These kids use sex to hurt, but they don't realize it at first. A marvelous story and direction.
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).
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).
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 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.
Lo sapevi?
- Versioni alternativeThe director's cut features a brief scene of explicit unsimulated sex.
- Colonne sonoreHush
Written and performed by Tiptoe Falls
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Wij?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 40min(100 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.65 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti