90 minutter

This stern take on contemporary urban life and the dangers of backlashes in modern sex roles is comprised of three separate stories told alternately. They are all condensed in time, space and action, and they are all extremely bleak and unrelenting representations of what writer/director Eva Sørhaug claims is happening behind closed doors in urban Norway (and presumably other western countries). They are like three different novelettes, united by a common theme: men who are not able to handle their own waning manhood, and the catastrophic results of this.

Not all three segments here work equally well. And in order to critique this film, their function must be assessed both separately and as a whole. The first story is about a man who has run his business and himself into bankruptcy and cannot bear to face the consequences for himself or his wife. This is perhaps the best and most resonant piece, elevated by Bjørn Floberg's dignified performance and Sørhaug's aptly distanced observations. The second concerns a typical modern split family, where dad visits his children and ex-wife in his old house, and becomes increasingly indignant by their happiness in light of his own eluding happiness. Although this segment is explosive and full of recognisable elements, actors Mads Ousdal and Pia Tjelta (real-life partners) cannot quite communicate this to us, and it becomes a story of somewhat unfulfilled potential. The final story is about a wife-beater who has locked his wife and newborn child in their apartment. This is both the film's most discussed and least effective segment. My main concern is that I'm not convinced by the Aksel Hennie character's modus operandi. The fact that I have witnessed a similar type of abuse first-hand growing up may not have made me an expert on this particular subject, but what I've seen and experienced makes Trond come off as too much of a concoction for me; he's too much action and too little thought. While Sørhaug and Hennie are able to convey the man's aggression and the wife's desperation, they offer little insight into the mindset of neither - and especially not the ambivalence which must fill Hennie's character. Alas, Sørhaug's writing here is lacking, and Hennie is out of his depth.

As a result of this, 90 minutter becomes an ordeal - both because of the gruelling nature of its stories and because Sørhaug writes checks she's not quite able to cash. And even if you don't agree with me about the ineffectiveness of the aforementioned third segment, the big question remains: What exactly does she want to say? Does she offer any insight into why these men act the way they do? Or, more importantly, does she give any observations as to why these people end up doing what they do? I wasn't able to deduct any relevant social criticism (apart from that concerning the modern male sex role), and I wasn't able to find any redemption either. It's like Sørhaug simply wants to show us that she's discovered mankind's darkest secrets, and then brags about her discovery. She's like an older teenager telling younger teenagers ghost-stories around the camp fire.

Some films are difficult to watch because they appear like a mirror before you, forcing you to do some soul-searching along the way, but with 90 minutter, the unpleasantness comes from having to watch things you would rather think didn't exist. In this respect, the film is in the vein of the hard-hitting French movie Irréversible from 2002, only what Sørhaug asks us to watch is told so flatly and unrelentingly that it borders on misanthropic. The one and only redress we're offered is in the form of downright revenge. And although that may be necessary in some extreme situations in life (like the one Karianne finds herself in) it is not something I'll applaud artworks for fronting.

In my opinion the film was very depressing, dark , real and true . The actors made the film feel so real , there are so much horrors and abuse behind closed doors. Horrifying scenes that makes the watcher feel sympathy, anger, regret and many more emotions. Will give this film a must watch , but at the same time say that it was a "hard watch".

8.5/10 , true movie that makes the watcher Feel and wonder instead of a fast pased happy ending film.

Seen alot of films while sick , but this is the one I will recommend to people who want a film that makes you feel and reflect. Norwegian language may be hard to take serious if you're not Scandinavian.

Almost every Nordic movie has a very special feature - even if the beginning seems slow and the story is unfolding in short steps, the viewer is literally sucked into it and eventually feels like the time was well spent. This is also a case of 90 Minutes.

The movie takes us into distinct lives of 3 very different people. Things do not seem optimistic for any of them from the beginning and they're not going to change much. Even though we don't learn everything - there are many "whys" unanswered - we learn just enough to understand why things end how they end.

As mentioned, the beginning of the movie is as slow as can be, which lets the viewer think about the whole story more. Performances are simply stunning - you can read the emotion from the actor's face. Aksel Hennie is a big talent and seem to fit in any role. Together with great camera (which doesn't always show everything similarly as the story doesn't tell everything) makes 90 Minutes well worth spending the 90 minutes to watch it.

This movie is comprised of three different stories, that only connect with each other on a thematic level. The stories are all very contains (both in place and time), and there's not many characters in each of them. All of this works quite well for the film's attempt at exploring something from different angles: violence in the home. Most of the 3 stories is spent on establishing the relationships, and it works kind of for all of them. But when the movie ends, I was still in a position where I could not quite make sense of the climaxes to each story. While we've been partially explained the motivations between how the stories end, there's still a leap from what we see to what happens in some of them. That leap can be filled with a general "mental disorder", but I don't think the director aimed for it to be that simple.

That is my one and only objection with the film, as I really enjoyed the rest of it. The stories were very distinct, the characters unique, and the individual conflicts engaging. The movie has gotten some attention for its violence, which is both brutal and realistic (especially in how it's shot). I'm not sure how the actors made it seem so real, and I hope that they weren't genuinely attacking each other for the shots. Either way it worked really well.

We get no explanations when we follow three different ordinary situations which seem like ordinary and common, but we're entering the last minutes of three mens lives. We must use our own imaginations, but we understand there's a reason behind the three mens reactions, planned or not. We just don't now what lies behind. The following is anyway the same - despair.

This is definitely not for everyone. Just like the men, this film is detached. Sometimes slow, other times violent, both in pictures as well as other times in you own imagination. Nothing to watch for a troubled mind, nor for those needing the answers. Still this film has got a lot of attention for all this

We meet three men which have lost not only the meaning of life. They have lost themselves. Maybe they hate themselves for this. We really don't get to know, but they are kind of detached. Just like we feel when we hear about these tragedies after they have happened.

Eva Sørhaugs second feature after Cold Lunch (Lønsj) is a difficult film to comprehend. Still we've read and heard about it in the news. the tragedies which we all find impossible to understand and meaningless. I guess this is what Sørhaug here tries to makes us think about.

I enjoyed Cold lunch very much, and obviously more than most. I didn't feel like it was forced. 90 minutes is perhaps a step forward, but it's slow. My problem with it is not the acting, which is very good. But somehow I'm not really able to really feel for them all. Maybe we're not supposed to. Still there are scenes difficult to watch, but I'm not sure if it touches my heart.

One of the three stories does, though. A family quarreling over their kids. Mads Ousdal is doing the best job here. Still they are all men. There are not many tears shed. We might see them in a corner of their eyes, but they never really surface.

I think this makes the film difficult to like. But then again, we not supposed to, are we? I've been swaggering between a 6 or a 7, but the pace of the end, and the mark this leaves upon the viewer, make me doubt myself on to a 7 out of 10.

I started off liking the premise, and also the sections with crowds moving in the city street, but the last time the crowds came back, I found it strangely pointless. Sørhaug is still a young filmmaker, but next time I'd like more of a story behind. Im afraid I'm not sure if this is a step in the right direction. Once again; It's a difficult film to like, still it's strong stuff!