ufotds

This film disappointed me because the language used is some very clean and un-natural "dixi-antwerps". As the film plays at the sea side, it makes the accent even more unrealistic.

The movie is based on a novel and it feels like the dialogs have been taken literally which doesn't take into account how much more tolerant written language is compared to spoken.

Further, it feels like the scenes chosen drop a bit out of context, with little introduction as to why the characters feel towards one another like they do.

All in all, I found it mechanical and I didn't manage to feel with the characters.

I clearly have to agree with most people that this is a very nice film, but I want to mark two things however: 1. I seriously regret that the film is more critical about the past than the present. In a society that is shifting to the right swiftly, it is far more important to analyse the present than to distract people's attention from it by pointing to the past. It is a bit the same effect as pointing at someone else's business if you have lots of cleaning up to do yourself. In short, the third film is far less powerful than the first two, and I found that a bit disappointing, since there are more than enough things to say...

2.This didn't happen by coincidence though, and neither did it happen only because it's just harder to do it about the present, but it has to do with the director's view on current politics. When we spoke to him after he showed his films, he explained that he thought this tactic of fear would be short lived, and blow in the politicians faces. I think this is a blatant error though, looking at how well propaganda works, and at how lame the people are in western nations. Curtis thought for example that a lot of the "anti-terrorist" laws would not be passed, and was overall optimistic about the future. This is clearly naive, and about the laws he has already been proved wrong, as they have been passed...