Levottomat 3 - kun mikään ei riitä

I disagree with the previous reviewer about the ads.. I think the product placement in this movie is done with a good taste and it's not too obvious compared to many other movies.

Anyway, the movie itself could have been so much better with a better script. The movie is well-directed, actors are good and good-looking, atmosphere is fitting, and basically all the elements for a good film are there - BUT the script is totally unoriginal, predictable and boring. The screenwriter should have included some surprising twists to the plot. As it is, it resembles more a propaganda film for conservative moralists than an entertaining, fictional movie.

Kieslowski's colour trilogy must had been some sort of an inspiration to all the unattached trilogies we're having these days. Producer Markus Selin is one of the most influential producers in the Finnish film scene and is often credited as the man who brought Finnish commercial cinema back after some 40 years of absence in late 1990's.

The so called Restless-trilogy was meant to be a series of films directed by young directors about the state of the young adults in Finland. A great subject and a great idea although one could see the commercial aspects of this money-making early 30's demographics shine through.

The first part of the trilogy "Levottomat" (Restless, 1999)can be seen as a huge success for Finnish cinema being controversial, sexy and very much tapped into the moment in time as well as the subject. The second part "Minä ja Morrison" (Me and Morrison, 2001) was slightly dimmer success as for some reason it wasn't marketed as the second part. The film and acting were good, though the story ended a little suddenly and the deeper aspects of modern young adulthood were more absent than in "Levottomat".

The third part i.e. "Levottomat 3" (Restless 3, 2004) was a complete let-down of the trilogy. Huge skin-deep marketing, poor acting, poor dialogue, poor story and safe and "pop" choices in casting made sure that the audience felt sick about the whole trilogy. It is told that screenwriters resigned throughout the project and in the end it was just pure bad luck that the last one's name ended up in the credits. Whereas the earlier parts got their young directors to a beginning of a promising career, this one must had been the worst call-card for the poor director who obviously didn't know what sort of a money-making machinery she was getting into.

Sure I should write something about the film itself. Well, dialogue in "Oxford Finnish" is the first thing to take you of the mood of getting into the story. The story itself about sex-addicted young mother getting de-railed for her ambitions has a certain contemporary touch to it but the solid numb acting between her and his husband and her and the new lover of doom leaves everyone stone cold. The plot shows how things get from bad to worse and then a shimmering happyish ending.

I think the only positive thing in this film was to tie it to the contemporary Helsinki scenery at the time when the nations biggest building project (Kamppi commercial and traffic centre) was being built right in the middle of the city. Well, that's about it.

I have to say that I saw the movie again after about 10 years, as I do this time with my various old DVDs, and I decided to express my opinion. When I first saw the movie seemed okay. There is no bad acting, especially from Mi Grönlund and Nicke Lingell. Re-watching the film I noticed, despite the nice try, a rather pell-mell written script with many flaws, and an only executive summary of the disease, not overall. Let me post a few. MARITAL RELATIONSHIP A woman with compulsive sexual behavior doesn't avoid her partner. As much as he learns to keep it secret, for certain many times the symptoms on bed are evident. Nothing about that. MOTHERHOOD No mention about the effect of the disease on children. Almost impossible, and a simple infidelity has. Usually kids always tell the truth. TREATMNET Only group therapy is mentioned and then happy end. It's not the key part and there's a lot more and most crucial for aiding recovery. No mention. How to say there is a happy marriage with no simple love scene between them, not explicit, showing no such a problem in marriage. On the contrary, we see him workaholic, avoiding her and not give in to her desires (love, trips). It refers more to desperation than addiction. Only to say she loves him? Only sudden passion? Cliché are also not avoided. The husband is "stupid", he always finds out it in the end. His "revenge" is use of force (mid 20th century). His has no time for retaliation (too many ways, not extramarital affair, etc) and with a few words he easily believes forgives and trust. Really degrading. Does a marital argument last a minute or two? Does a confession last less than a minute? If they lasted longer, they could show a lot more about the disease. Any case is individual. The scenes between the heroine and the richboy look like two lovebirds. We see someone who says is careful and never meets anyone twice and finally dates only one person for a long time, without seeking anything else, gives phone number, yearn to meet him, avoids husband, ready to follow him everywhere and risks anything, without any feelings of remorse or guilt. It's deliberate infidelity. They must kidding with "It disgusted me, but I still did it." Before the treatment has been successful? Fake confession, fake happy end. With the sudden leap to end anyone can be of the opinion that the end is a tribute to female craftiness, not cure. Pity, because an initially promising film ended in disaster. I don't know about production financial or time issues that might have been a brake, but they should achieve better presentation. The result is an erotism film, not presentation of the disease, not drama and not romance (is there?). No message is getting across. And I agree a lot with the poor end. I believe that the producers had a hand on this destructive jump to visual effects end. Perhaps they thought that they gonna earn their money back with explicit scenes only. Personally, I wouldn't care if there wasn't one. From all these I don't disagree with the low rate. Mine is 4/10, only for the promising beginning. There are more flaws or what could be added or removed for a fuller plot, but I don't like to become tedious. However many well done to Mi Grönlund, who I believe did her best despite the shortcomings in the script. That she didn't reappear enough the next years and was made by her own choice then fair enough, otherwise the star system...

Right, first I have to say that I have never before commented a movie because I haven't felt that I need to. This movie made an exception. I kind of liked the original Levottomat, as I could identify myself with the main character and I also thought the story and casting were quite good. This of course doesn't mean the sequels are equally good, not at all. Usually the sequels simply are cheap imitations and fail miserably.

Levottomat 3 proves my case only partially. The story behind all the glitter, bad directing and bad acting, feels all right at the first glance. Although, I would think the idea of female sex addict isn't yet approved by the great public (not even by all females). Whatever the case, the story is semi decent.

The same can't be said about casting, choice of actors and directing. I wouldn't like to be disrespectful against miss Grönlund or miss Virtanen, but one of them or both together ruined this movie. The "sex doctor/psychologist" performs equally bad and is extremely unbelievable. Show me a psychologist who would judge someone after just few words said in a emotional storm (or as in the case of this movie, a slightly darker cloud, not a storm)? The actors equal to products of human product replacement. Simply horrible and unbelievable.

As I said in the beginning, the story is quite all right. The only flaw is that the movie is simply unbelievable. I entertain myself with the idea of this being directed and acted by someone else. I smiled slightly for the thought of Kati Outinen being "Jonna" and Sakari Kuosmanen being "Niklas". I would definitely buy the whole thing bit easier. I wish it was set in a bit less glamorous atmosphere in the first place. Come on, an architect and a big ad guru? Nobody believes that. How about clerk and accountant? Car repairman and housewife? Waitress and construction worker? Anyway, one of the worst ones I have seen: 4/10

I disagree with the previous reviewer's comments on the script. The film is well written; the dialogue simple, real and without ostentatiousness. It's a personal drama and the script reflects that. It's not the kind of film to throw in twists for the sake of plot interest. It's an exploration of one woman's descent into her addiction: slowly, gradually, and with full knowledge of where she's headed, we watch her life disintegrate. That's what happens with addiction. The low-key nature of this film is what makes it so good. The direction is stylish yet simple, and complements the script very well. How much worse to over-dramatise what is already highly dramatic subject matter?