The Middle Man

For those who have enjoyed Bent Hamer's earlier films, and his eccentric, odd and unconventional style, often located in a very provencial universe, The Middle Man seems to hit some new manner. However, it stumbles, and it's basically because Hamer, and perhaps the producers, possibly to better hit the American market, have located this original Norwegian novel based plot to a town in the US Rustbelt, somewhat similar to how Lasse Hallström, who in the early and best part of his career as a director with success played his stories out in genuin Swedish local town environments, Hamer has earlier made his art in even more narrow settings, and this has become a very basic value for his ingenuety. So, when he tries to be more internaionally 'public friendly', and even more so when he simultaneously casts highly regular Scandinavian actors, who don't fit the location with either accent or behaviour, it only becomes weird, pretenciously funny, and not so much in the original Hamer sense, but as a stumble in the wrong direction. Another Norwegian environment would be just perfect.

Dark story about a man whos given by the local sheriff, a job that usually policeofficers and priests signs in for due to their profession, namely being ''the middleman'', or in a more dubious tone the messenger of death, informing families etc about a loved ones deaths...

based on the book by norwegian author lars saabye christensen, that usually raits books filled with weird stories and tales, drawn and screenplayed by norwegian director morten hamer, with half the small cast filled with rather famous norwegian actors, that has for this occation learned how to speak english instead of norwenglish since last time i saw them in similar english language film settings, really makes no sense at all...

its a sad ambient undertone all through the plot, and the job as the messenger is done in a durable manor, until one day things go misarably wrong, and shows how pivotal human minds may be, sitting at the center of the action, one word and one deed may be misplaced and lethal.

But its also a film of hope and love in this rough and desolate city by a river with railroad criss crossing the city grounds and where job opportunities are sparse and the road to staring at the bottom of the liquer glass is short and brutal. But does the film make any sense at all??

Being a grumpy old man with solid scepticism towards norwegian filmakers and actors, i will outta gracious kindness give 5 stars for its filmography, the acting and the short playtime, cause it really runs slow on the fuel. If you want a film with an understandable actionfilled plot and a non suggestive ending then move somewhere else, cause its a sail into the sunset and maybe popup with a sequel kinda movie, with an ending that may give you the feeling of being robbed for life.its norwegian(and a little tiny bit american too )after all, and who have ever seen liv ullman smile?? Yeah , its the kin'.

All the way through you're waiting for it to be interesting. It never is. You keep wanting the 'quirkiness' to pay off. It never does. The storyline is both odd and predictable. It's like the filmmaker is trying to prove they're an 'artist' by making everything about the film awkward. Not so awkward that it would be notable, just awkward enough to try to be an 'art house' movie for people who hate art house movies.

The cinematography is excellent. The actors are excellent actors. The production design is impressive, if a bit on the nose at times. But the script and direction are just completely and utterly dull, directionless, and trying too hard to be cool.

It's the cinematic equivalent of one of those dudes at parties who quotes Camus and Satre but doesn't have anything to say for himself.

Indulgent. Irritating. Smiling smugly at you when you finally admit you just don't get it. Even though there is quite genuinely nothing to 'get' about this film.

I was a bit skeptic to the film due to the "bad" score, but I liked the cast and was willing to give it a try. I am glad I did. This is one of those good films, with depth and very good acting. The scandinavian actors struggle some with sounding canadian/american, but it's not hurting the film.

I guess the negative reviews are from folks wanting something else, this is just a good movie.

Hagen is a decent actor, but what does Hamer want to convey with this movie? So many things didn't make sense to me. Like, why is the story set in a Rust Belt town, in the middle of nowhere in the US, when it's not even shot in the US, but Canada, and the plot is loosely based on a Norwegian book called "Sluk?" There are plenty of depressing rusty old industrial towns in Scandinavia Hamer could use as a more efficient backdrop to this story. This backdrop would even better match the acting style of the Scandinavian actors, Nordic noir. All of them looked out of sorts in this Rust Belt town. I was not convinced the Scandinavian actors were American and/or had any real connection to the town, even though Hamer threw in a few family members and friends for the connection to seem real. Their accents were also all over the place, even though they tried to pull off an Appalachian dialect. Hamer could have closed this gap if he'd chosen a location closer to home. Nope. The movie fell flat for me and in the end I didn't care what happened to any of the characters. Sad. I really wanted to love this movie.