Mysteries

The stranger in a small town looking for love ? It seems strange and the story does not make too much sense to me. Clearly a mystery. Other than that there is a sense of eroticism. Very light.

In MYSTERIES, agronomist, Johan Nagel (Rutger Hauer) arrives in a small, seaside town where he befriends a small man (David Rappaport), whom the townsfolk seem hellbent on humiliating and otherwise tormenting, until Nagel intervenes.

Nagel spends much of his spare time walking around in the world's largest fur coat. He also enjoys checking out the local female population.

A bit of an enigma, Nagel is kind one minute, and biting someone, or poisoning their dog the next!

This is a stunningly slow movie. While many films of its era are rather slow moving, this one appears to subvert time itself, actually running backward in many spots!

Hauer isn't really the problem, and he somehow keeps his dignity intact throughout this interminable affair. His character is fairly interesting in a bizarre, looney sort of way. However, anyone expecting a true story line, action, or even a pulse from this movie had better steer clear!

Punctuated by Rappaport's voice-over narration and sudden, inexplicable nudity, MYSTERIES has no real reason to exist, other than to offer Hauer an excuse to stroll about in his grizzly bear coat...

This is a fascinating little film. It is based on a Knut Hamsun novel. It stars Rutger Hauer as an enigmatic agronomist who finds himself in a small town near the ocean. It has a truly European flavor. He is long on ambition and very lonely. He becomes a puzzle to the people in the town, despised by some. He befriends a midget, whom the locals actually call "Midget." He falls in love with a vain woman who rejects him and manipulates. He falls back on an older woman who lives in a hovel on the side of a hill. He seems desperate, but he is so darned weird and so full of mysteries that no one can really figure him out. He is obviously despairing of a previous life and can't seem to move ahead. He is very strong and self centered in some respects; yet, he is fragile and self destructive in others. The midget is his true friend and we find out that he has great sympathy for his plight (he is ill treated daily by the villagers), yet we find him, at times, almost as cruel as the townspeople. He becomes angry at the midget because he doesn't stand up for himself, yet he is totally closed up himself. The strength and the weakness of the film is our lack of concrete connection to the man. He is likable at times and so irrational at others. It's a film well worth watching. It was filmed on the Isle of Mann which adds to its mysterious nature.

have watched this movie over 10 times but I still do not get what is going on. I want to believe that the movie tried to follow the book but failed eithier due to budget cuts or crappy editing. I am guessing a combo. The performance of Danny is laughable, Hauer tries to be good, Rappaport excellent. To tell you the truth, Rappaport is the only reason I watched the film in the first place. His performance stands out from all others and was great. Anyway, If you are not a diehard fan of any of the actors, do not watch it. Not worth anyones time.

I could have given this review many titles, but this statement really needs pointing out.

The other thing that needs pointing out is that "faithful adaptation of the Hamsun novel" is code for "you should know what to expect".

Well, if you don't, the film's plot is akin to the plot of "Shaun of the Dead", in other words, irrelevant, a mere contrivance to have the.protagonists do something, while the only thing that matters is what their personal perspectives are doing it. Actually, the parallel to "Shaun of the Dead" doesn't stop there. The films are even about the same subject: a man trying to find happiness with a woman, and they make even somewhat similar observations, both have the craved beauty and both have the down to earth practical one. But "Mysteries" is not a comedy. I wouldn't call it a drama either, the films main intent is to provoke, although that's in the source material, the film's handling of it doesn't try to add any extra provocativeness, in other words: if you don't ponder the film like you would ponder a book, you may not feel provoked at all.

Hamsun's main lines of provocation are: Life's a joke - yes? No? (does nicely for "Shaun of the Dead" as well - again) Is man free to live his own egotistic dreams instead of paying attention to the moment? (Here it departs from "Shaun of the Dead": although that film makes it very obvious that Shaun's dreams are egotistic, there is no question that he is within his rights) Is man made to live by the standard of what he himself can understand to be the right thing? Here it gets very ugly and I will not repeat Hamsun's reasoning, something along the lines of "And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:"

The beautiful thing about Hauer's acting is that he's not Hauer for once, but just an actor playing a role. And in this role there is one scene, just a couple of seconds, that contains the rest of his acting career, namely when he stares at the dog, which got him the casting for "Blade Runner" no doubt.

As opposed to "Shaun of the Dead" the film doesn't point out how to understand it by being absurd on the surface, but it does something similar, it uses surreal dream sequences and melodrama that doesn't quite ring true, managing reasonably well to get the viewer into a distanced mindset, although there are some scenes where it fails and only huge deviations from the style of the novel would not, owing to the differences between a novel and a film.

Well, and that's my rather lengthy review of this film.