Så ock på jorden

With Kay Pollak's last film, "As it is in heaven" (Så som i himmelen), it seemed that there were two camps and two camps only - people either loved it or hated it, with nothing in between. The same thing seems true of this sequel, among both critics and general audiences. For my own part, I belong to the camp that loved it!

Both Frida Hallgren and Niklas Falk give absolutely masterful character portrayals, and they both deserve major acting awards as far as I'm concerned. I found the story gripping and deeply moving, and shed my first tears (far from the last) at a very early stage. Lena's struggles with a repressive village environment and her own self-esteem, and Stig's struggles with an old-fashioned church leadership stuck in its old ways as well as his own inner demons and failed marriage, provide a perfect mirror of easily recognizable struggles in just about anyone's daily life. The issues of loss and tragedy are also very easy to identify with on a personal level.

For me, the film evoked both laughter and tears, and left me with a feeling of hope and joy. I disagree completely with those critics, both professional and amateur, who feel that Kay Pollak has failed to make a sequel as masterful as its predecessor - I absolutely loved both films, found both the acting and the direction superb, and it has stayed with me since seeing it for the first time (yes, I will see it again) a couple of weeks ago.

While all the actors were excellent at playing their characters, Kay Pollak wasn't able to recreate the amazing experience from the previous film "As It Is in Heaven".

This sequel is not even close to be as good as the previous film. The plot is too cliché and not very original. It tries to get the same concept from the previous film but fails at doing it in a new and creative style. The plot takes place about one year after the ending in the previous film, which wasn't a very smart move because it's eleven years ago since the previous film was made and it's different times now for these kind of movies to work in.

The only thing Kay Pollak was good at was the directing of the actors. They did an excellent job at replaying their characters from the previous film, especially Frida Hallgren, Niklas Falk, and Lennart Jähkel. That's the only credit I can give the movie; just the acting. Everything else was so uninteresting and unoriginal. I want to believe that Kay Pollak did the best he could. Unfortunately it wasn't good enough. Better luck next time I guess.

The showbiz saying 'always leave them wanting more' has special relevance to movie sequels. The highly acclaimed Swedish film As it is in Heaven (2004) set an Australian record with the longest run of 103 weeks at Sydney's Cremorne Orpheum. It is a funny, heart-warming, musically delightful, and well-directed story about a world-famous conductor who returns to his small village, finds romance, and helps the local amateur choir create beautiful music. The sequel Heaven on Earth (2015) continues the story after an eleven-year intermission. But while the first film left audiences wanting more, the sequel is a case of 'no more please'.

Heaven on Earth begins with the widowed Lena (Frida Hallgren) suddenly giving birth to a daughter in a snowstorm aided by a bumbling alcoholic priest. His church used to be full until his parish deserted him for Lena's robust country music and dance hall concerts. To save his job, she agrees to bring music back to the house of god, re-form the choir, and teach them to sing Handel's Messiah. This narrative arc mimics the 2004 film, with Lena following in the footsteps of her former conductor-lover. But where the original had a clear sense of direction, this film meanders through several diversionary subplots without knowing where it wants to go or what it wants to say. The small-minded idiosyncrasies and hidden secrets of rural village life is a dominant theme for both films. The first was played out with humorous understatement by a cast of funny odd characters, while the second is dominated by over-cooked melodrama: too many males punching and screaming at Lena, too many appearances in her underwear, and too many implausible scenarios that contribute little to what was originally a tightly scripted and authentic story.

An outstanding feature of both films is the superb cinematography. From the filming of a beautiful birth scene, to the wild dance hall scenes, to the wonderful Swedish landscapes, the camera-work is triumphant. While acting performances are generally over-done in this film, Frida Hallgren's performance provides warmth and humour, as well as one of the widest smiles you will find in cinema. But at two hours and 24 minutes this film is far too long to sustain any narrative tension and ultimately fails to reward the viewer for their patience. Where the first film had a truly memorable ending, this one limps home completely exhausted as a tired parody of a once-great idea.

I admit that I had a lot of expectation for this one because i am big fan of the first one. Well, there is always a risk when you make a sequel to a successful movie. Usually you should not try to follow up the success, there is a lot more examples of bad sequels that there is good ones. Unfortunately Kay Pollack fails very big with this one. The story is much to simple when you compare it to the first movie. You also see a lot of bad acting of many of the people who did a decent job in the first one. A big disadvantage is of course that we with this movie do not enjoy a great song like the one we had i the first movie. So, if you like "Så som i himmelen" i am afraid that you are in for a big disappointment with this one.