Guldkysten

No one enters the tropics unpunished. Joseph Wulff, a young and talented entrepreneur, naturalist and all around progressive type, is eager to put this tired old saying to bed. Armed with a coffee plantation patent from the King of Denmark, Wulff is determined to beat the odds in an 1836 Danish colonial outpost in West Africa. However, his companions have other ideas in mind. Wulff soon learns that even while Denmark was the first European country to ban the slave trade, evil and human cruelty still flourish as strong as ever.

The film is stylish, sensory and resplendent. I was immersed in the ocean swells, tropical light, exotic dances and forest flowers. The story is loosely based on an actual character and Wulff is admirable. He empowers others, sustains the natural world, promotes the good of the community and romances his new bride, Flitsbue, from afar. "Plants are a part of you," maintains Wulff "fruits belong to all." Despite a great theme and an intriguing main character, the film is hampered by unrealistic acting. It is hard to imagine the actors straying far from a tin of Danish butter cookies much less entering the African frontier. Outside of the beautiful imagery and storyline, the film lacks depth and substance. Seen at the 2016 Miami International Film Festival.

I had the pleasure of seeing this movie at the Scandinavian Film Festival in Melbourne and was not disappointed.

As other reviewers have noted, it is a beautiful production; the setting and cinematography are glorious.

I won't waste time with plot (I was engrossed in it), as it has been covered, I would like to add my voice to balance out some negative points raised by others.

The music, a deeply sombre, melancholic, electronic score is a striking juxtaposition to the colonial African setting. It is so out of place that is absolutely works. There is a particular scene at a tribal party. It is disorienting both for the characters and the viewer, however the (oft-times used in a disorienting fashion) authentic, rhythmic tribal music is replaced with the frenzied electronic score. It is fantastic film-making.

The film is well, albeit slowly, paced. Some scenes do outstay their welcome, particularly the prison scenes on, but this film reaches an aching crescendo that is totally rewarding.

It is, at times, gory, explicit, disgusting, and real, but that is true to form for the brutal time and place in which it is set.

It offers a rich symbolism, and spiritual side as well, via the character's dream-like progression through the film. It is utterly fascinating.

The acting is first rate.

The direction, music and ethereal nature of the film reminds me somewhat of Nicolas Winding Refn's work, particularly Drive and Only God Forgives. Which a touch of Donnie Darko's existential spiritualism. But still it's own thing, completely.

It is absolutely not for everyone, but I was completely taken with it.

Method acting? Check! Two actors actually urinating on a third. Actor starving himself half to death? Check! Jakob Oftebro lived on an almond a day. Provoking? Check. At least some Danish nationalists will raise eyebrows at characters singing royal hymns while group raping African slave women.

I could go on with the bullet points that many critics will check off before arriving at a higher than average review. But these common features are far from enough to entice me.

This movie was, however, close to capturing me. By its sometimes dreamlike filming; the naturalist main character's musings; the imminent conflict between the scientist and the religious fundamentalists pushed aside by their common basic decency opposing the brutality of slavery; the long overdue treatment of that historical period and place.

But then there is the very special and in my opinion horrible techno music soundtrack which at the very least is completely alien to the time and setting. There is the slow, abrupt progress of the story. The lack of belief in most of the actors. The apparent difference between historical facts and this fiction; i.e. the main character being a pure hero while the historical person was actually a slave owner.

And at the end of the day: How much do the descendants of the victims of slavery care for a movie about it, that portrays a white man as the sole hero and liberator of slaves?

Didn't like it. Hated the music.

Oftebro is a great actor. The setting (the Danish slave colonies) is interesting. They are willing to experiment with music. But sadly, the movie is quite bad.

With heavy handed symbolism (flags, horned skulls, etc), good-or-evil characters, a messy storyline and ill fitting soundtrack, Guldkysten will sadly become another failed Scandinavian epic movie. A movie about a slaving colony with a protagonist ahead of his time (sharing the viewer's opinions on slavery) standing up against evil old fashioned slavers - we ought to be past these kind of stories by now. While I did enjoy the more experimental music, I had a hard time relating it to whatever was going on in the story. The movie is at its best when its characters borders on the insane, and the last quarter of the movie is by far the best one.

Oh well. Onwards and upwards, Scandinavian movie makers!

This is not a real review, it should be understood more as a collection of impressions on the film.

Who knows what to say about this film, well surely one word that describes it well is boring, but not boring in the classic sense of the word because many interesting things happen in the film, but boring because the film alternates parts where literally everything happens in a very confusing and films where absolutely nothing happens and where the spectator's attention span is lowered to truly minimal levels. This is not to say that the film is insufficient, for goodness sake it is very interesting, but if it had been even more entertaining it would have been better.