Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Howard Schumann Have you ever seen a movie and wondered afterwards, "what would have happened if…" or "how would it have turned out if …?" The immensely talented Joachim Trier (Oslo, August 31st) does the wondering for us in his intelligent, innovative, and highly entertaining Reprise. Using a fractured narrative that is awash in flashbacks, flash-forwards, and imaginative fantasies, the film moves with a dazzling rush of energy, propelling us into the world of aspiring writers Erik Høiaas (Espen Kloumer-Hoinen) and Phillip (Anderson Danielsen Lie), both in their twenties. While Reprise has its quiet moments of contemplation, it mostly moves at an energizing pace, displaying images from each character's past and examining a stream of potential outcomes in an alternate universe.As the two friends stand in front of a mailbox ready to mail the manuscript of their first novel to potential publishers, an unidentified narrator (displayed in italics) speculates about what might happen in certain situations, presumably reflecting the imaginings of each character. In their minds, the novels become so successful that they have worldwide repercussions. They are banned by the Vatican, cause disillusionment in the Dalai Lama, and create a revolution in an East African country. When we at last return to reality, Erik's novel titled "Prosopopoeia" is rejected while Phillip's work is published and he achieves recognition as a major young talent.Phillip falls deeply in love with Kari (Viktoria Winge), a glowing part-time student and salesperson, and they visit Paris together in a trip so perfect that they attempt to recreate it later in the film, but little of the original magic remains. Unable to handle fame, Phillip attempts suicide and lands in a psychiatric hospital, his doctor attributing his breakdown to his obsessive love for Kari, a cause that prompts his mother to remove all pictures of Kari from Phillip's room. Phillip recovers but his mental health remains fragile, flying high one minute and immersed in despair the next. Meanwhile, Erik continues to work on his novel which is finally published, but when it receives some negative reviews, and a TV interview goes badly, he likewise teeters on the brink of losing control.Reprise has many ups and downs and, at times, seems to go overboard in its attempt to be clever, but it has a charm and wit that keeps us engaged throughout and we never doubt the humanity of the characters. Lie in particular is a very expressive actor and the pained look on his face (even when he's smiling) creates a lot of empathy. His game of counting down from ten to zero conjures up various scenarios from possible suicide to a breakthrough into another realm of being, but we are left to guess what he has in mind. Through it all, the friends support each other even in the most difficult times. Reprise is not only a film about letting go of illusions, but also about the tortuous path of the creative process. A Scandinavian "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man," Reprise is a coming of age film with a difference.

Joseph Sylvers Good direction, great soundtrack, dialog, editing, a surprisingly full movie from a first time director.Two Norwigian friends in their early twenties Philip and Erik, submit there first manuscripts on the same day, one is accepted and becomes a...(read more) critical darling, the other swims in a sea of rejection letters. In the first five minutes we see at least two altered timeliness of what might have happened to these characters had they both been accepted or had they both been rejected, Run Lola Run style in accelerated montage lead by voice over.The world which could have been, is then followed by six months later, when Erikis getting out o mental institute after a having suffered a breakdown sometime before, Philip is sticking with him, keeping a spare key, making sure he takes his medication on time, and still trying to get his own work published, which it shortly is.Erik and Philip, and their motley crew of friends like the the crude Morten singer of such classic punk songs like "Fingerfucked by the Prime Minister", and the intellectually over-zealous "Porno Lars", all hang out and well just hang out.Erik is trying to recreate his obsessive relationship(against dr's orders), going as far as to meticulously re-create a trip they took to Paris. Philip is debating whether or not to dump his girlfriend so he can sew his whitely oats, and trying to escape the shadow of Eirk and their hero Stein Egl Dahl, their favorite author who also happens to live in their home town.As the title suggests, the film is about these characters trying to re-create, re-capture the past, which can be both a good thing and a bad thing. Are you holding onto your dreams or are you clinging to them, are your friends a support group or a crutch to keep out the "real world", do you really love her, or is she just an obsession, should you leave him, or are you just selfish. Is there any way to escape cliché, and live "genuinely"? These are questions which are especially pertinent to the coming of age twenty somethings in the film, but they are universal questions everyone probably at numerous times in their life will have to face. And this film captures them, the highs, the lows, and the cream filled centers...good stuff.

Steve Schonberger Philip (Anders Danielsen Lie) and Erik (Espen Klouman-Høiner) are friends, both writers, both fans of elder writer Sten Egil Dahl (Sigmund Sæverud). They finish their books around the same time, and dare to submit them only by dropping them into the mailbox at the same time.While awaiting a reply, they hang out with their guy friends, a superficial bunch of misogynists who think girlfriends are a drag on creativity, free time, and ability to be interesting. IMDb lists Henning (Henrik Elvestad), Lars (Christian Rubeck), Morten (Odd Magnus Williamson), Jan Eivind (Henrik Mestad), and Geir (Pål Stokka), but I couldn't keep them all straight.Philip's book is accepted; Erik's is not. But while Erik suffers self-doubt and possibly, Philip suffers a nervous breakdown.A voice-over narrator (Eindride Eidsvold) blames Philip's nervous breakdown on his obsessive love for his girlfriend Kari (Viktoria Winge), who is advised not to visit him in the mental hospital to avoid making him worse. He reminisces about the trip he took her on to Paris, where he tricked her into falling in love with him, as he remembered it.SPOILER PARAGRAPH: Meanwhile, Erik manages to beat his book into publishable condition, and his editor Johanne (Rebekka Karijord) tries to talk him out of his title, Prosopopeia, which the editor considers too obscure. (The film doesn't ever define it; I had to look it up. It's a Greek word meaning "anthropomorphism" or "personification".) When it sells, he feels obligated to dump his girlfriend Lillian (Silje Hagen), apparently thinking himself too good for her once he's a published author. But he wimps out, and sticks with her.When Philip has recovered enough to be released from the mental hospital, they go back to their routine with the annoying guy friends. He tries to write another book. Kari and Philip meet up again, and they go back to Paris in hopes of repeating the falling-in-love trip (apparently the "reprise" of the title, which means roughly the same thing in Norwegian).Near the end, someone dies.Director Joachim Trier uses a style that is distinctive, but I'm not sure it's good. In most shots with more than one person, he frames the people just a little too tightly, with backs of heads in two-shots crowded out, and people on edges of group shots only half in the frame. Every scene seems to have a desaturated blue color to it. To the film's credit, the shots are in focus, and although most or all shots are hand-held they're steady. I rate the directing fair (5).The director and Eskil Vogt wrote the script. Although the directing isn't much good, the script is the film's worst weakness. Philip is mentally ill, which could make him an interesting subject for a film, but all the film does with his illness is show him enter and leave a mental hospital, and fail to write a decent second book. Erik struggles with his self-doubt and apparent lesser writing talent, but the film's presentation of him is so vague that his struggles aren't interesting either. Their literary idol is vaguely interesting in his brief screen time, but he's a bit part at best. Their male friends are unlikeable, but not in an interesting way – they're just a bunch of guys who hang around and complain about women.The most interesting characters are the three women. Kari is the best-developed character in the film, even though she gets less screen time than Philip or Erik. Johanne is interesting because she actually does something other than whine about teen-angst, which the mostly late-20s characters should have outgrown. Lillian is a small part, but she's interesting because the misogynist chorus seems to have a special dislike for her, which could be an interesting story.One good point in the script is that there are a few scattered scenes that are funny – not great comedy work, but at least it was a break from the tedium. Overall, I rate the story lackluster (4).The acting is all solid, most notably that of Viktoria Winge. But the good acting goes to waste on a script that is dull, and directing that obscures the performances.One good point of the film was interesting music, featuring Norwegian bands and various punk rock.On the basis of the lackluster story, and other elements that don't do much to elevate the film, I rate it lackluster (4) overall.My wife and I saw this at the 2007 Seattle International Film Festival. It was even worse for my wife than for me. She had seen it in Norway, sucked in by favorable reviews. She didn't like it. Then she ended up seeing again, because of an unannounced festival schedule change. I suggested she slip out and shop, or otherwise have some fun, but I figured I'd sit through it to see if it just didn't work for her. But she decided to give it a second try, thinking maybe there was something admirable about it that she missed the first time. No such luck; it was just as boring the second time.

Gordon-11 This film is about the lives of two young and budding contemporary writers in Norway.The style of "Reprise" is refreshing. It is simplistic but real, as it has no special effects or computer graphics. It presents the characters just like everyday characters, as we would see them in every day life that everyone can relate to.And yet, it is quite hard to understand. The story is told with a lot of flashbacks, and you can't tell they are flashbacks. In addition, there is a lot of external commentary as if it is outsiders watching the lives of the characters. Hence, I find it quite hard to follow.