Ma Loute (Bruno Dumont, 2016)

Before I was not acquainted with the work of Dumont. With the need to work for a living and the need to sleep at times, some, maybe even essential, features remain unobserved. However, now I was told that Dumont might be my cup of tea. So I gave it a try.
A rich family, the van Peteghems, industrialists as we learn later, is spending their usual summer holidays in the north at the Pas de Calais in a monstrous palace in Egyptian style. All men have curious tics and deficiencies. The women have on generally hysterical, always at the verge of a nervous breakdown. We are in the heyday of psychoanalysis after all. The only halfway normal acting person is Billie, an androgynous person. The rich enjoy again the picturesque poverty around them.
The fishermen are represented by the family Brufort (brutal force). They make a modest living from collecting mussels, maintaining a ferry service over the bay. They also enhance their diet by random killings of tourists.
Enter police men investigating the mysterious disappearing. They are a blend of Dupond and Dupont from Tin-Tin and Laurel&Hardy. Let me start with them. Is it really funny to put a fat man in too small clothes? Is it really funny to see the fat man stumbling over things, falling on his butt and not being able to get up again by his own means? I think not. Their level of incompetence was somehow matched by the ignorant inspector in L'inconnu du lac from 2013. This came to my mid, because in both films the disappeared people are not really missing
The van Petteghems are a bunch of eccentrics, to put it mildly. We are informed that they are the product of very long inbreeding. They are grotesque, they are ridiculous, they are exaggerated - but I don't see them as funny.
When I saw the trailer, I thought of Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis, maybe in an arthouse edition. I think the Bruforts are talking the local dialect, maybe they also have a speech impediment. My French is notvgood enough to decide which. However, the snobbish Peteghems occasionally make fun of their way of speaking. Viewing a beautiful female neck can, however, also trigger the animal nature in Ma Loute. The affair between Ma Loute and Bettie gets a bit like Beauty and the Beast. While such a romance can work in a fairy tale, it is impossible in this dysfunctional world. Actually the scenes between Ma Loute and Betty were the only scenes which I enjoyed. But it just doesn't work for as a comedy, let alone a funny one. Dumont tries very hard, though. At least it seems that they had fun making this movie, but I as viewer asked myself less than halfway through this movie: isn't it soon going to end.
3/10 (mainly because of some beautiful cinematography).

Gloria (Sebastián Lelio, 2013)

Finding titles from minor film nations on IMDb can sometimes be a challenge. This film, although it got a prize at the Berlin Film Festival is at the leading database of films only "Gloria (2013/II) and not even mentioned among the top results. This puts the notion of world culture in a dim light. On the other side - the database is only as good as the users make it.
It was by coincidence.
It happens that I also yesterday saw a film about mature people having sex. Yesterday I saw the German film Wolke 9 by German director and auteur Andreas Dresen. That film was more explicit about "knowing each other" (I mean it in the Biblical sense of the word). Gloria is exploring the (im)possibilities of building up a relationship between two people who at least partially are stuck in the past.
I have a good friend who has experienced all aspects of this kind of dating. My friend is, as Gloria, constantly confronted with men who do not dare to move into the future, but stay for some vague reasons in their pasts.  At least Gloria moves on in this film.
I will recommend this to my friend. I wonder what she will make of this film. I give it 7/10.
TBC

Den bedste mand (2017, Mikkel Serup)

Jeg har det svært med biografiske film. Problemet er vinklingen: hvorfor skulle jeg interesse mig for lige netop denne person. Dette spørgsmål stillede jeg mig selvfølgeligt også i forbindelse med denne film. Filmen lægger op til en sportsbegivenhed fra 1977. Er det ikke ørkesløst at genfortælle sådan en gammel event fra 40 år siden? Hvorfor er dte relevant? Efter jeg har set filmen, blev jeg ikke meget klogere på Jørgen "Gamle" Hansen.

Mikkel Boe Følsgaard giver et solidarisk portræt. Han har nærmest alderen, selvom han fysisk mest ligner en stor dreng. Det siges at Søren Malling spiller manageren Mogens Palle overbevisende. Det kan være. Da de var store navne, var jeg endnu ikke i Danmark. For min skyld kan det altså være lige meget, om de spiller op til deres reale skikkelser. Alt i alt en jævn præstation.
Om plottet er der ikke særligt meget at sige. Alle kan læse om "de virkelige begivenheder" på Wikipedia eller hvor det nu skal være. Der skal selvfølgeligt klistres en privat detalje på. I Sommeren af '92 var det køkkenet som Møller Nielsen ville tømre for sin kone. Her har Hansen lovet sin kone en svømmepøl. Så nu ved vi, at de også er private mennesker.
I bund og grund en ørkesløs film. På IMDb gav jeg den 5/10 og skrev dette:
This is a biopic "inspired by true events" and as such it can hardly contain spoilers. Anybody can check any dictionary and get informed about the story line. And even if you didn't check out the biography of the boxer Jørgen Hansen, the chain of events can hardly be surprising. The question is thus: why should I be interested in the life of a boxing event that occurred more than 35 years ago. Actually I don't know either. The movie seems to follow its hero with solidarity. Jørgen Hansen faces all critical situations with some sort of rural whit, which seemed to be his trademark. Right from the beginning the focus is on the age of the main character. Hansen is contrasted with an aspiring boxing champion from Uganda. Their rivalry develops into a nice friendship and in the end he helps him fight the phantoms of the past. Nice movie for lovers of sport. 

Leave to Remain (Bruce Goodison, 2013)

Is it possible to have an opinion about tgis movie without forming an opinion about the political issues as well? I guess not, but I try.
This film presents us with the story of three asylum seekers in the UK. They came as children without any grown-up relative to that country and they have to prove that they qualify for political asylum. First there is Omar. He starts by telling his story at a hearing. Later we hear that this story might not have been quite the truth. Actually Omar worked for the Taliban, although we never know if by force or by conviction. He is recognized by Abdoul. Now Omar threatens Abdoul to keep the facts for himself. Abdoul might be traumatized by his experiences in Afghanistan or maybe he is an even better actor than Abdoul. In any case Abdoul's soul is tormented. At last we have Zizidi from Guinea. She is evidently a victim of domestic violence. She was even mutilated by her husband, but, unfortunately this is no reason for giving political asylum, as she was not persecuted as political activist or member of any dissenting minority.
Goodison presents the three cases. He doesn't resolve anything, but leaves hope for the future. All will be well. Don't worry, be happy. The best thing is that Goodison did not produce a feel bad film. But what to make of the story?
We see three persons and "Uncle Nigel" who teaches them English and wants the best for everybody. Nice trait. Nigel is only a little bit shattered when he learns that he fed a snake at his bosom.
Sure, these kids are victims in  a bad world. There are traditions that don't permit kids to be young. There are extremists and fundamentalist seizing countries and populations. Of course anybody can give reasons for getting out of Afghanistan or Guinea for that matter. But basically this does not resolve anything. Regions haunted by bad regimes or traditions won't change when everybody who is able to move gets out as quick as possible.
Fortunately this film does not give a solution. It does not assign guilt either. It does fuel thinking, at best. Or will it only confirm already existing opinions?
6/10

1001 gram (2014, Bent Hamar)

The director seems to be known to the Happy Few. This was my first encounter with him. It would be an exaggeration to say that I was amused. Yes, I do like comedies, yes also the slow ones. I have been told that this is a comedy. Else I would have thought that it was about the tragical boredom at a calibration institute.
Ane Dahl Torp plays Marie Ernst, a dry, almost withered scientist whose life consist of measuring the world. She is getting a divorce. She sees her former husband only when he takes things from their home. Including pictures. Obviously art and imagination have been his domain. Marie's father Ernst (thus Ernst Ernst, haha) is working in the same institute. In contrast to his daughter he is interested in other things than science, as he likes cooking. He is also a part-time farmer. Marie measures.
Ernst Ernst suffers from a heart attack, therefore is sent as representative for Norway to the international kilo-conference in Paris.  In Paris resides the prototype of the kilograms of the world. All others have to be calibrated accordingly.
However, Paris is also the city of romance. Marie meets a professor of physics who also likes gardening and cataloguing the variations of bird songs. We get a dash of romantic comedy and maybe a transformed Marie.
If there is irony in the dialogues, I didn't catch it. Irony can be too subtle for me. I caught the cinematography - everything has to be put in patterns. That is probably how Marie sees the world. I also noticed her monochrome world. That is very nice, but what is the point? Emotions can't be weighed on a scale? A  rather poor tag line. It is interesting to see this film, but I didn't understand why I should see it.