Autumn Lights

Autumn Lights is a drama about the main character, David, who is on a work-related vacation in Iceland. The movie focuses on his interactions with the people who live near his vacation house. Since it is a remote location in Iceland, he frequently meets up with a couple, Johann and Marie.

The Good:

A lot of the conversations that were had in this movie will be very relevant to most people and it gives the viewer some food for thought when they leave the theater.

The actors were able to communicate their characters' thoughts and feelings about a situation with just a look on their face. This allows for quiet moments of tension that enhance the tone of the movie.

The Bad:

The overarching plot is a paint-by-numbers of many movies that came before it which led this one to be predictable.

The actors all give subdued performances. Most, if not all, of the dialogue has a monotone delivery which removes some of the emotional punch that could have been present. The director attended the screening I was at and he said he wanted the actors to give quiet performances because it adds to the mystery and depth of each character. This would have been a plus if it was applied to maybe just one character and not all of them.

Overall, if you like movies that are more focused on the conversations that the characters have than the actual plot, you will most likely find some enjoyment from this one. If you don't like slow-paced dramas, I would stay away from this one because it's nothing you haven't seen before.

The general response to this film is bipolar. Either a masterpiece or godawful. I thought something in between. It is definitely a psychological rather than action movie, but I found the interpersonal dynamics interesting enough to hold my attention. The acting was good, and the characters pretty well crafted. People exhibiting a mix of behavior one will find familiar and unfamiliar. Overall it seemed to me a worthy effort. The critics certainly felt otherwise.

Snorri Englibertsson, please read the scrip before you do another drab film like this. The G on G scene was so boring and humiliating to watch. Don't bother watching this one.

As the movie progressed, I was wondering if it was one of those that I wouldn't be able to finish. It was mostly predictable which is something I never like. Despite this, there were a few minor curve balls, and the characters were interesting enough to keep me watching. As the end neared the movie was looking like a high-3 / low-4 rating until the ending. It was good - quite good actually and one of those that keeps one thinking about well after the movie is over. Was it enough to make this worth watching? For me it was.

As a first review and as a fan of small, foreign films, I happened to stumble upon this title when it was being advertised as playing in Los Angeles & New York. But to my surprise, the title was available on VOD and after watching the intriguing trailer, I gave it a whirl with my husband. I was very moved by this movie. It was unexpected. And I unexpectedly am now writing a review.

To start, the craftsmanship is superb. The music, the cinematography, the strong performances and the direction were not formulaic and expected. It's a film of bold choices and it felt very original. I applaud the director and writer of the film Angad Aulakh for creating something so different... Massive superhero fatigue in this household.

Now the story... it's a small story. It's conversation-driven. It's not about A to B to C, it's about learning who these intricate characters are and it's a dance between them and how their interactions with one another reward (or the opposite) their lives. My husband and I were engrossed by the heart and soul of these characters. They were wise, astute, interesting people who carry immense pain with them. This is not some hot-button, socially-relevant film but why does every film need to be that nowadays? It was lovely to watch a movie about characters who feel very real and lived in and didn't have to be politically or socially charged.

Now Iceland, if you've ever been like I have, you'll know the spectacular beauty. The cinematography just enhances it. But I love that it's not a travelogue film that uses Iceland as a tourist film would. It's just a setting. And it's cold and barren and is an interesting location to set these characters in.

Ms. Gastini, who was beautiful in Borgia, is splendid as Marie. She's complex and highly-watchable. I was very moved by her character's storyline and emotional dilemmas, as she delves in with the film's David, played by the handsome young actor Guy Kent. He, too, is beautiful and touching in the role. There's subtly to his emotions, his melancholy, his lust, and he feels like a real man from a different generation. As they say in the film, "there's more to him than he lets on, and I find that attractive." Well, so do I. The character of David is interesting and unexpected and was filled by an actor who I enjoyed watching and entering into this world with.

My husband and I discussed the film at length afterward. If you like films that provoke conversation, make you look at your own life and your choices, and inspires you by the artistry, this is a film for you. It's a wonderful movie. I highly, highly recommend this title.