Den grænseløse

Even though it wasn't as bad as the Marco Effect, which was a dumpster fire of a movie! It's like they don't know how to make a good movie! They're messy and full of side stories that go no where or does absolutely nothing for the story! This one was worse than all the old movies in the series but okay until the final act where alot happens just to end the movie... Leaving the viewer with a bad taste! This wasn't a good movie, yet it had potential they just didn't do anything with it! It started of strong and then lost its way somewhere around the middle and the ending just sucks!!! They have ruined a good series!

Unless there's anyway we can eject author, Jussi Adler-Olsen (from further involvement), and reinstate Zentropa, and, more specifically, Nikolaj Arcel, to Department: Q's cinematic universe again... then this'll probably be my last one.

Adler-Olsen is churlish and triflin; like Stephen King when he didn't agree with Kubrick's interpretation of The Shining (1980).

Afshin Firouzi is an improvement over their last Assad -- even if he's little more than an exposition-absorbing sidekick here; But now it's as if Ulrich Thomsen has realized these new D:Q installments won't live up to their predecessors, because whatever progress Thomsen initially demonstrated in 2021's Marco has faded and is just lackin now.

Really, Rose (Sofie Torp) is the principle sidekick here, since she's allotted the most screen time/dialogue (after Thomsen). She performs ably, but her arc is pedantic and at times antithetical (to her character development).

There are at least two characters whose development is marooned to the film's first half.

Most unfortunate is the story: the premise is intriguing and ultimate-reveal is equally appealing, but the execution is hopelessly rote (they're plainly trying to pantomime Fincher with only Joel Schumacher swagger). The first four films easily demonstrate some of the best procedural facets (of the sub-genre), while still facilitating convincing cold case thesis or agreeable whodunit subplots, but the author has gone out of his way to wipe the slate and insist on cinematic universe-dover (with these last six properties). Unfortunate, these later entries aren't worth your time (and hopefully won't be here for long).

• - - - - -

It's only appropriate Netflix is distributing Adler-Olsen's US adaptation, because these (Marco Effect, and now, Boundless) definitely aren't worthy theatrical exhibition (unlike his first four films, e.g. Under Arcel's pen and Zentropa's oversight).

I looked forward to see this movie. Hoever I was soon felt let down. Ulrich Thomsen is one of my favoirte actors is feels plays more confused than in character. The person playing assad is like a meaningless background character in the book is interesting and has humour. Assad in the moive adds nothing to the movie and is completely emotionless not even a camal joke. I guess the creators thught that humour was lame and did not want it. Rose in the book was also a bit wierd and interesting. In the movie is she is also very dull.

Without any spoilers the plot feels forced.

Also the sex scenes feels like they hold back go all in if you include it.

All in all I don't understand if Jussi Adler Olsen thought it was better to use those actors than Lie Kaas they had humour that could lift the story. But this is not the high standard it could be.

On an island in Denmark where the sun seemingly always shines, a young girl is found dead on the roadside. Years later a chief of police shoots himself in the head due to some inner demons created because the closed case was never solved. Huh? It turns out that absolutely nothing can justify this overreaction, but I guess the story needed some kind of shock opener.

This movie is based on a book from overrated Danish novelist, Adler-Olsen, who somehow got away with penning one of the dullest protagonists ever created, detective Carl Morck, who feels compelled to reopen the case, but just ends up witnessing things, as he strolls along from point A to point B, always speaking in very short sentences and in the end doesn't solve a thing, because all answers are just handed to him (and the audience) along the way, without him doing the slightest effort.

Seasoned director, Ole Christian Madsen, at least tries his very best to make this run-of-the-mill story come sort of alive with a pacing that makes sure you don't fall asleep. But when your protagonist is the least interesting character, there's isn't a whole lot you can do to avoid it ending up as somehow of a mess.

No pun intended - many ways to interpret it - I am going to go with one explanation for you ... I really do miss the duo that was responsible for the author (of this and the previous movies) to make them successful ... I assume this was a novel too first. I have not read any of them, but this kind of leaves me similarly cold as the one before.

Don't get it twisted, the movie (and the one before that, where we got the cut and didn't get our crime fighting duo) are good movies overall. Especially if you are into crime movies ... into the drama, but also the suspense and the guessing game ... who done it and all that. And where are they ... so there are things to love ... question is: are they enough for you? You be the judge (hopefully not jury and executioner as well - no pun intended)