suneurth

Just saw the film for the fourth time, and thought I'd chip in on the discussion. It seems to me a lot of the criticism the film meets is about the incoherence of scenes, and the kaleidoscopic manuscript. Well, as it is a retrospective view upon a time long gone, I find it trustworthy and natural that the memory of the narrator is thus fragmented. That is how the mind works. And the narration is never torn, but keeps flowing. Yes, it is absurd, yes, it is grotesque, but this is what we call magic realism, a genre often attributed to south American writers. Here, the book that lays basis for the film, intelligently mixes the exotic air of magic with the harsh environment of Pajala. Enough about that. I find this one of the best examples of a successful adaption from book to film I have long seen. I do not see the bad acting that many point out. The dialects may vary, I am not Swedish and cannot tell, so I'm save from harm there. All in all, the ambiance of the film is sort of "happy in spite" and I am impressed every time. But I am a sucker for that magic realism, so bare that in mind.

9/10

Well, first of the art design is polished and makes the entire film look like something that's trying to be really... unimportant. The guy playing Tomas Alcala (his name will not be mentioned here) is presenting a horrid lack of acting skills. (Look up, curse God quietly, look sad, make audience laugh with embarrassment) and his female sidekick is only vaguely better. It looks to me like the good Mr. Barker has actually forgotten that he needs to give instructions to the actors. They're looking completely left alone in this.

The basic idea could be OK, if it wasn't for the weird plot holes. Halucinations that come from who knows where, the wheel of time that is an artifact left completely unexplained. I know it isn't fair to demand intelligent script writing from Mr. Barker, but it makes me mad every time.

The worst part is really that it looks so cheap, sort of like a pilot for a stupid TV-show. And the phonographic idea for the succubi is just bad. That straw they use to drink from their victims looks ridiculous on a good day.

Had I only had a feeling that there was something he was trying to say with this, but no, some ramblings about Christianity and sin, that can't really interest anyone.

Only plus in this, and the reason why I rated it a 2 and not 1, is the opening scene:

we open on a shot of Tomas Alcala lying in the grass. Zoom out till we think he's naked, but no, he wearing this diaper, arms outstretched like a Jesus in the grass. Then he takes a bite of an apple (oh no), and sees a young woman washing clothes in the river. She bends over, and then - then - you can actually, for quite a while, see her breasts. And they are pretty.