Bloody Angels

I had some expectations to this movie, and at least I hoped it would live up to one or two of them. But it didn't. It's an all so typical Norwegian film that I'm ashamed. I must say, the only Norwegian film I've ever seen and liked was "Moerkets oey" with a great soundtrack from the Norwegian band Seigmen. 1732 Hoetten, by the way, had Magne Furuholmen from A-Ha behind the music. Not that it could save this film.

There comes a time when you are just tired of seeing the same Norwegian actors in all of our films. I released a big sigh when Aud Schøneman showed up..not that she's not a fantastic old lady, but can't they find *anybody* new? And of course, they mix in some swedish actors. That's funny, I haven't seen many norwegians in Swedish or danish movies, but still somehow we always seem to import those Swedes..I'm quite sure we have enough competent Norwegian actors that can replace some of the old faces, and some of the Swedes..but they never seem to get a chance to enter the film industry.

The classical setting is of course all taken care of. A hillbilly's town far up north, where everyone knows everyone, and gangs of elder boys torture the youngsters. A strange priest, and a weird family. A girl that is killed. The awful torture of this one little boy, the horrible school. And a really cynical and strange expert from the police in a bigger city, whom is supposed to fix all their problems.

Can't Norway contribute with something new soon? Please?

A Norwegian mystery thriller that tries hard, very hard, to be clever. Nicholas Ramm (Reidar Sorensen) is a cynical city cop dispatched to an end-of-the-world province to solve a double murder. He is confronted with the Nordic version of omerta and must learn that the whole hicktown has conspired against him. Though on the outset, it seems like it has many ingredients going for it, 1732 Hotten was recklessly turned into a grade-A stinker by a bunch of taut overachievers. For one, everyone in the film, right down to the faintest supporting act, is a confirmed and heavily overdrawn nutcase, which despite the partly good acting becomes unbearable after just ten seconds. The music score, a poor man's Tom Waits (is that a pleonasm?) imitation, is the most annoying single piece of dreck ever to come out of a synthesizer; worse, it mostly kicks in for no reason other than making you beg your ears fell off. The same goes for the camera work, which is hardly ever purpose-driven and instead veers off into some of the most complacent film academy mannerisms to-date. The transitions, takes, and cuts are so deliberately arty that it hurts a blind man's eye, while the few physical action scenes look downright ridiculous. The fundamental problem with this film is that there's too much of everything: too much madness, too much bigotry, too much mystery, too much cynicism... And just when you think you're finally over it, this silly little cockroach of a film turns into a hideous monster, topping all the incoherences it's been churning out by staging one of cinema's most infuriatingly deceptive ends. I do sympathize with the Norwegian fraction that has expressed its anger on this site. Not that you'd necessarily expect a naturalist depiction of rural Norway – but even if your option is atmosphere, there has got to be some credibility. Excentricity has to be authentic, too. Director Karin Julsrud should burn all her Lynch and Coen tapes and go fishing.

The film follows the traditional storyline: big city detective Nicholas Ramm in a small town, trying to solve a horrendous crime, dealing with the townspeople who want to take care of the problem themselves. Vigilante justice is explored in detail and it is obvious what side the filmmaker, Karin Julsrud, is on. It was easy for me to side with Julsrud's outrage. I was a bit worried with the red herrings coming true, making the film a little too convenient but thankfully they didn't. When the twist comes, it is unexpected but (and this is a big but), I think Julsrud paints herself in a corner. Ramm's actions at this point are a little out of character and seem to be more of a way to clean things up. In this day of extensive media coverage of awful crimes, emotions are often manipulated and I thank this movie for making me more aware of how easy this is but as a film, I can't say it was a success.

Clearly the Norwegian jury doesn't agree (read the other comments) but I think this Scandinavian take on David Lynch's TWIN PEAKS (hey, that's what they're marketing it as, so call me lazy, see if I care !) is one of the more startling cinematic experiences to come along in many a year. First time director Karin Julsrud didn't intend her fable of how violence can only breed more of the same to be taken as a documentary but as the idiosyncratic mix of drama, comedy and horror which led publicists to make the comparison in the first place. Unlike Lynch however, Julsrud doesn't let the viewers off the hook at film's end with a far-fetched supernatural conclusion but forces them to confront their own dark side by making some of the violent outbursts her film suggests (but rarely shows) seem 'righteous' at first, though that doesn't stop them from poisoning the close-knit society they sprang from. Opening with an atonal rendition of 'When the Saints Come Marching In', this spellbinding thriller charts the investigation led by big city cop Nicholas Ramm into the small town murders of a mentally retarded girl and one of the alleged perpetrators of that crime. To reveal more would take away much of the film's pleasures as well as shocks. Progressing thoughtfully, Julsrud has enlivened her narrative with such a wealth of telling details that you may need to see this one more than once. I for one welcome that prospect.

I watched this very powerful Norwegian thriller on Encore's Mystery channel last night. I'd never heard of this before, but looking it up on the IMDB, I see it was made in 1998.

It follows the story of a police investigator who comes from Oslo to a small town in the Norwegian countryside to investigate a pair of related murders: a young girl with Down's syndrome and one of a pair of local men believed to have been involved in raping and murdering her. Wherever the poor detective goes, he meets with angry, sullen, and secretive townspeople--in fact, a bartender suggests that maybe the whole town was in on the murder and what will the investigator do if he discovers this is the truth?

During the course of investigating, the policeman befriends the young brother of the murdered man and tries to keep him from being abused by the locals, who kidnap and mutilate his father in a gruesome way, and who are on the lookout for another brother, believed to be the second perpetrator in the rape/murder. At one point, the policeman gets beaten up by a group of locals, including one man he recognizes, who tells him, "I was never here, and I've got at least 20 witnesses who will testify to that fact." It all moves to a rather startling conclusion, as we find out who the killers really were and the third brother finally stands up to his bulliers.

This was a very dark and disturbing and well-made film. If you're in the right mood and don't mind subtitles, you might like it. But it isn't all gloom and doom: a comic highlight: the visiting detective asks one of the glum-faced local police, a woman, if she ever smiles.

She says, "When something's funny."

"What's funny?" he asks.

"Cosby," she answers, and gives him this little half-smile/grimace, which, in the scheme of things, is laugh-out-loud funny.