User reviews

A HOLE IN MY HEART... I was surprised, disappointed and most of all: shocked! Though the contents of this film (both images and themes) sure are truly disturbing, it weren't really those that shocked me the most. The end-result did, and even more: What has become of Lukas Moodysson! It seemed like Moodysson, after LILJA 4-EVER, skipped a few phases in his evolution as a film-maker, and then suddenly came up with this experiment (which is what it is actually: an experiment, NOT a movie). During the first 15 minutes I had the feeling this just might end up being a 9/10 movie. By the time it was finished I felt like rating this movie 4/10 would still be too much.

So, what is it about? Well, you can forget about a plot, because there is none. Just four characters and the stuff they do in an apartment. Rickard lives in his apartment together with his timid son Eric. The latter appears to suffer from some sort of autistic disorder or something (whatever it is, he's got mental issues). He also has a deformed hand and some very weird hobbies: he has worms for pets, he seems to collect dirt and junk in his room (don't ask me how it got there, since he is never seen leaving the apartment) and likes to listen to electronic noises and distortions through his headphones. Other than that, he does nothing. Rickard himself is into making home-made porn videos. Other than that, he too does nothing else. Geko is his friend and fellow porn actor who spends most of his time at Rickards place. Enter Tess, a quite attractive young blond girl who is into hard sex, make-up, taking a lot of showers and snorting coke (amongst other things in general). Now prepare yourself for a disturbing descent into the depraved minds of these four characters. Admittedly, this might seem fascinating or intriguing, but however, due to the lack of any form of coherency whatsoever, also prepare for boredom to kick in about halfway through the movie and best expect it to never go away.

Despite the nudity and pornographic subject matter in this film, no clearly visible shots of penetration are shown (though a rather explicit female masturbation scene does grace the screen for a minute there). However, a lot of other offensive images are being shown (along with plenty acts of the disturbed). Needless to go into them now (and besides that: I don't want to spoil anything for anyone), but I'll just name one random fact: You'll never look at a raw steak the same way again after having seen this film.

But now for the worst things about this whole experiment. There wasn't a real script to begin with (one page of the script, according to Moodysson, had only written the word "excorcism" on it). Moodysson clearly had no clue what the hell he was doing while shooting this 'movie'. Neither had his long-time director's assistant, the crew nor the actors. Moodysson only gave vague directions like "Don't act, be yourself" or "It's a documentary, not a movie". He sure might have had a lot of ideas, but it was clear to me that in no way Moodysson was able to communicate them to his actors. At one point Moodysson even shut down and left the set, leaving the actors to continue spewing out their confused thoughts on this project. (Source: Published interview, "Discussion on set"-featurette). True thing might be that a lot of metaphors and statements are to be found in this movie, but as a viewer you just have no clue what to look for. So if anyone says to you: "This movie is about this or that" or "This is what Moodysson is trying to say", then be careful and take it with a big grain of salt. Because you will never be sure until you've asked the director himself (and I even doubt he can give you a straight answer himself).

But I'd like to add just a few more positive notes though. On a technical level, this movie is pretty interesting. Especially the editing is remarkable and progressive. The same can be said about the many sound effects and the way they blend together with the on screen images (aswell as the complete absence of any sound in some scenes). It also strangely leads to the conclusion that both editor and director might have been on drugs, which actually could be a good thing in experimental film-making. And that just was another key-word here: "Experimental" (film-making), instead of the word "Amateur" some people like to apply on this film. No matter what's being said, Moodysson is an experienced and gifted film-maker, so why he decided to throw all his knowledge overboard is beyond me. Indeed, A HOLE IN MY HEART might have worked very effectively as an experimental short-film, but as a full length feature it fails after about 45 minutes.

But love it or hate it: This still remains an unforgettable piece of film. I have a difficult time recommending this to anybody, as I have a lot of trouble with liking much about it myself. But people who have seen Makavejev's SWEET MOVIE, Lars von Trier's THE IDIOTS, Harmony Korine's GUMMO or maybe (but to a lesser extend) Dylan Bank's NIGHTMARE might be interested in seeking out this Moodysson effort. But keep in mind that all the aforementioned movies had at least some sort of story, as where A HOLE IN MY HEART doesn't even try to tell one.

To end this all, I feel I just might want to suggest something to Lukas Moodysson himself: Maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to go and visit a psychiatrist and get some good medication. Then, please come back and make another movie, this time telling another decent story. Otherwise I'd suggest going back to your first love and start writing poetry again. Good luck either way.

Mr. Moodysson made a flick here that has very little rhyme, but a lot of reason. No, wait...it has a lot of rhyme, but zero reason. No! It's...uh, there's a little bit from...hmmm.

As soon as A Hole in My Heart began, I realized taking that little bit of Nyquil probably wasn't the greatest of ideas. But luckily, I'm a tough guy, and I managed to keep focus on Lukas's lil experiment. Because that's what this was kinda, an outlined experiment. Well, I think so anyways.

For me, I split the movie into separate aspects. One ideal is for the three adults (the Dad, his friend and the porn actress) of the movie, and the other is for the son. With the three adults your shown immaturity, delusion, confusion, and just a whole wave of emotional problems. Not far away is the son; overly thoughtful, a shut-in, quiet...and simply appears the polar opposite to the three on the other side of the door. And whatever story this movie was trying to present, in my opinion, lies within comparing the two sides to another other, and hoping they would find a common ground. And even that was hard to do, as all the characters (even the son) were rather unlikable, and all relied on pity.

Was the film intriguing? Yeah, I guess. Was it well directed? I thought so. Was it entertaining? Not really. Is there a deeper meaning than simply comparing the people to one another, and not trying to look at them as useless human beings? Maybe. But if you really want to do such a thing, I think you're already fighting an uphill battle.

From my point of view there's not much to learn from this film, as it was mostly full of negative things. And I'm curious to know Lukas's point of the film. I would guess it was a very simple idea. I could easily say this film's underlying message is to get an education. But I could be dead wrong. Watch this flick if you like to ponder about movies afterwards. Don't if you don't.

I chose Moodysson's film out of another 200 at the Jerusalem Film Festival because of the good impression of Fu__ing Åmål. Apparently, he has gone to a totally different place meanwhile...

Even before genres and modes, I believe there are two basic elements for any film whatsoever: there has to be a reason, a motivation for what you see, and there needs to be some effective cinematic language in use. Some good films do well with just one, sometimes one feeds the other. My problem with Ett Hål i mitt hjärta, and eventually what made me give up watching halfway through, was that I found none.

A blatant, border-breaking experiment? nice, but after 15 minutes it got boring. A manifest against the porno industry? OK, but the shattered style blocked any attempt of mine to get closer to the characters. If anything, it reinstated how essential it is to identify with your protagonists on the screen in order to feel empathy.

I don't mind seeing labia all over the screen - there just has to be a REASON. It's the fine border between noise and music, scribbles and art.

Having loved 'Together' and admired, for the most part, 'Lilya 4-Ever' (as well as his short films), I was dreadfully disappointed with this new work from Moodyson. In an interview about 'A Hole On My Heart' Moodyson stated that he thought it was his best and most complex film, before saying that he didn't know what the film was supposed to be about, not offering any explanation other than 'it has many layers'. Such statements reveal entirely the reason behind the film's failure. Depsite Moodyson's assertion of complexity, there is simply nothing in this 90+ minute film that could not have been adequately communicated in a short. Simply juxtaposing unpleasant images of cosmetic surgery and action men figures with home-made pornography does not constitute a complex statement on anything. In fact the film is hopelessly meandering and one has the increasing feeling that it was 'discovered' in the editing room. I'm very interested in non-narrative film-making, and I don't need a 'story' to communicate events to me, but it is evident to me when there is a severe paucity of drive and ideas, and that feeling was evident throughout a viewing of this film. It concerns me that this film will be defended by people who feel that sitting through the unpleasant content constitutes some sort of test of intellectual rigour and that those who didn't like it are not prepared to 'face up' to the reality this film purports to present. In fact the simple truth is that this is an empty film, with a painful lack of understanding of how to dramatise ideas. I really hope Moodyson comes up with something better next time - I think his talents outstrip nonsense like this.

Probably the most pointless and irritating watch since Gummo. The film has nothing to say, or anything entertaining to offer. We are assaulted by a stream of unconscious, disgusting visuals. The film is also mindlessly repetitive and just becomes like a scratched CD of some cheap erotica. Moodysson ventures into the world of the experimental, but instead, just insults everyone's intelligence. Art has to say something, and if it wants to depict the harshness of humanity, there should at least be some sort of emotional focus point. Without the emotion, it's just three people in a room, being disgusting. A good watch if you wish to feel empty.

This is, without the smallest doubt, the worst movie I've ever seen..

What does Moodysson try to say? "Look how bad a movie can be" or what? I see what it's trying to say; with all the dark sides in the society like doubt, depression, lack of love and care, but there are a thousand better ways to say it. Sure, to make people react, one might sometimes have to be a bit shocking, but this is only disgusting. I've seen more disgusting movies, but this one simple doesn't seem to fill its purpose.

Sadly, the actors will have to live with the roles they've played for the rest of their lives, and Moodysson said on a TV-show just the day before I saw the movie "I wouldn't want my daughter to grow up in a society where this movie exists" I can see why..

For the first time ever, I regret seeing a film. I bumped in to a friend at the theater and she told me to change the ticket and see something else, but I still wanted to see for myself. Gee, was she right..

Just when you think that the film has done everything it can to shock and disgust you ... it gets worse ! Thinking about scenes in isolation, they shouldn't be too bad - but I guess it's the whole development of the characters that make events so disturbing.

The director was on stage afterwards (London Film Festival) and said that he thought there were something like 68 different messages in the film, but wouldn't expand on any of them, and wouldn't answer questions about why he had blanked out all the logos - other than to confirm that he had done it on purpose. He also claimed that he didn't understand the film himself, and that he would much prefer to be making children's movies rather than this type of film.

Before the film he had predicted that 9% of the audience would walk out during the film - he seemed pleased that the dropout rate was lower than expected !

Worth seeing, if you like being made to feel uncomfortable ...

Moodysson's latest is an intense and disturbing barrage of shocking imagery and an unflinching view of broken people who form an attachment built as much on hatred as it is on need for companionship. The film takes a claustrophobic look at four people who live in a small flat; a porn film making man, his son and the man and woman who 'star' in his porn films. Moodysson blurs the boundaries between the porn they film and their bizarre antics to create a bewildering world of obsession a Marat Sade of contemporary mores. This is a profoundly disturbing film; ugly and noisy but with occasional moments of calm and beauty amongst the ugly sex scenes and close ups of heart and genital operations and doll mutilation. It seems that Moodysson is angry and wants to scream his anger full into the viewers face - neither easy or essential viewing but challenging and interesting.

In many ways i can understand why people would take a disliking to this film, it is very difficult... but it's also one of the most human films i've seen for a long long time.

It's a film for people who don't want to go to see a film to 'enjoy it' it's a film that is what it is, it's not a sing and dance, it's not an entertainment piece.

I found this film very interesting indeed and found all the characters to have a lot of depth to them. This film is much closer to Lilja 4-ever rather than Together, so that may sway you to one way or the other. What makes this harder than Lilja 4-ever is that it isn't addressing issues in a very forward manner, it isn't always clear what this film is 'trying to say'.

But yeah, if you give it the chance and don't come to this film for a laugh or to enjoy yourself and are actually interested in film in it's purest form, then this should prove of worth and an interesting purchase.

Imagine someone putting a chair in an empty room and then calling it 'art'. That's a pretty good analogy for what I think of this film. There's no talent behind it and it's utterly pretentious! Crap acting, boring script and countless independent film clichés, purporting to be artistic. Lukas has really let me down on this one. It's the worst film I've ever seen. The saddest thing is that he considers this to be his best work yet. I'm sorry Lukas, but filming a bunch of mediocre actors completely naked with a hand-held camera is NOT original NOR is it brilliant. At what point after you made Lilya 4-Ever did you go insane? Don't see this film if you like other films by Lukas Moodysson. You will regret it. Unless you're lucky enough to fall asleep after the first 10 minutes, of course.

Having seen (and loved) both Lilya 4-Ever and Together in the same week, I decided to continue trawling through Lukas Moodysson's filmography with his latest offering, A Hole In My Heart. If I'm being completely honest, I've never been more disappointed by a film as much as this. It's not hard to see what Moodysson was trying here - set up a chaotic atmosphere with only a handful of characters, then turn things around by unveiling the raw emotion exhibited by these human beings - all on a DV camera. It was done so much better in Miike Takashi's Visitor Q. A Hole In My Heart just smacks of uncomfortable pretension. Had this been Moodysson's first film, I might have been a touch more lenient. However, this is the man who directed Lilya 4-Ever, one of the most disturbingly candid films available, and to go from that to this is just vexing.

It's a promise. Clickbait. All movie long you're just waiting for something to happen. At least evil people do evil, but these ones are actually doing nothing at all, as if stuck in a void filled with assumption and tension for a war that is never to come: next to some loud music and naked girls, there is nothing but anticipation for a non-satisfaction. Like the Rolling Stones, because Mick Jagger also has become pretty old. It just doesn't come. You can wait for it or spend a beautiful evening doing something else. This movie is better than your random scary movie but never reaches the level of Saw; rather, it's like Liz Truss: it promises, it promises, yet when the going gets tough, the tough gets going.

I'm annoyed with the director of this picture for his apparently 'holier than thou' attitude. It does not make a great film if people walk out of it - they're likely to be walking out of it for real reasons, other than those of insult. I left after forty minutes, so will be restrained here since I can't offer a fair review. However, the sex scenes I did see were fairly tame, so I will assume they get more explicit. What made me leave was something that made me dislike another 'shocking' film - 'Baisse Moi' (Virginie Despentes, 2000) - the deliberate use of a controversial subject to grab and hold your attention. Like the directorial style of the film as I experienced it, I find that to be wholly crass and a disappointing waste of the opportunities the cinema offers over other media: turning up the emotions, soundtrack, and editing contrast to 11 is not enough to hold together a film, and it quickly became (for me) a badly conceived mish mash that was too interested in itself than the audience for it to work.

There is potentially a very strong film in there, but I really struggled to find it through a very limited directorial style.

I recommend you see it, and that you double-bluff the director by not being sidelined by a smattering of sex and sado-masichism.

I could not watch this. I watched maybe a total of 1/3 of it, since I had no interest whatsoever in watching any of the pornographic scenes.

For the record, I only even wanted to watch it because the director did "Show Me Love" ("Fucking Åmål"), a favorite of mine; "Lilya 4- Ever"and "Mammoth", both highly recommended, as well as "Together" and "We Are The Best", which are admittedly only alright. This is obviously his worst. At least the most experimental and explicit, therefore not to my liking.

It is pretty much pornography with scenes in between that serve as interludes. How disappointing. You might disagree, but to each their own. For anyone who may or may not be willing to admit their interest, the film is notable for its explicit imagery, including close-ups of vaginal reconstruction surgery, an anal sex scene without the use of lubrication, and a masturbation scene with a toothbrush.

From the director: "I have cooked you a delicious meal, but I'm not going to chew it for you."

I've seen (and loved) Together and Lilya.. - this film is different, and will not appeal to the vast majority of people.

I'm not sure about the themes; that these characters ultimately need each other? The dialogue, although perhaps improvised, is at least free from cliché. The editing is a little annoying, but not really distracting. It's mainly the soundtrack that grates, with its casual use of white noise and drone. The film is essentially a day in the cramped flat filming Rickard's amateur (gonzo) porno movies, while he tries to connect with his introverted goth son / the son has a tentative yearning for the girl / the girl discovers that these people who can be so hurtful are still better than 'normal boring ugly' people / and the actor who is slightly insecure and has a confusing & frustrating habit of falling asleep, but has quite a close relationship with his friend the director. There's more to it (particularly with Rickard, the father/porno director), and the ending is characteristically upbeat (relationships resolving/issues in the open), coming off a real emotional low-point.

The film itself occasionally jumps forward & back in time, and there are a few dream sequences. The surgical cuts (literally and editorially) are scattered through the film, along with blurry out-of-context 'organic' shots, and a parallel version of what's happening in the porno film, as performed by Barbie and Action Man. I'm just not 'deep' enough to understand (or care) what all these bits mean.

Yes, the film is pretty graphic - not so much in the sex, but there is nudity on all counts (although not in a sensational way), there are intimate surgical shots, and one quick scene following a food fight which may make you feel ill (and will burn itself on your memory, whether you want it to or not).

Although I can't be bothered trying to understand or analyse the use of the surgery bits and other possible motifs, the film is mostly pretty straightforward and - if you stick with it - a fairly 'okay' plot/resolution develops by the end of the film. It just takes a while for the characters to reveal enough of themselves, because they all start out as fairly unlikeable.

I discovered this film after looking at director Lukas Moodysson filmography. I had been recommended his film Lilya 4 Ever. I watched and was impressed. That film is about a 16 year old girl in a former Soviet area that needed to prostitute herself to survive. That film was very bleak and realistic. It was unflinching and though to sit through but it was compelling and even poignant. I was so impressed that I wanted to see other films by this director.

A Hole in My Heart caused a completely different reaction in me. It was one of the most unpleasant, incoherent, dull films I have ever seen. It is about 4 people in an apartment that make porno movies. A woman, and 2 guys male the porn, and the 4th is the son of one of them and wears black and ruminates about how life sucks. That's it. The film is supposed to be very realistic and I guess wants to comment on how these people are somehow broken and porn is their way of expressing their pain. Very deep. Gimme a break. The film is full of sexual imagery, disgusting behavior by its characters that suddenly start telling their stories to.the camera. I am.not offended by sexual, violent or even highly disturbing imagery. But when it's done as a gimmick to illicit just shock I am.not impressed. Lukas Moodysson wants to say something with this I am sure but just because he wants to make a point about porn and how many people that see it and film it are somehow wounded just throwing shocking images and dull quasi intellectual psychological babble at his audience doesn't a good movie make. He is successful in purposely putting off the viewer So?

Pathetic.

Grade: F

You'll probably hear a lot about how shocking and unrelenting this film is. My first reaction was to call the film "Pink Flamingoes"-esque, but I knew this was wrong, as this movie never shocks for the sake of shock itself. I've never seen another Moodysson film (although I will now), but his fury really came through and spoke to me here. He is taking our civilization's obsessions with seeing everything, with pushing limits, and shoving it in our face, making us hurt for it. That said, there is much beauty here as well, and a pitch black humour that carries viewers through the darkest moments. The protagonist, a teenage boy who spends most of his time in his room with headphones on, attempting to block out the increasingly depraved porno being filmed by his father and friends in the living room of a tiny apartment, tells a couple of stories based around the theme of beauty existing under the most impossible conditions, life flourishing where no one would've thought it could, and he is referring both to himself and the moments of grace that Moodysson places throughout the film. He even manages to give a feeling of hope by the end, which stuck with me as I walked down the street, although my stomach gave a serious churn as I walked by an adult video store.

Another that has received some pretty dreadful reviews but I don't completely agree. 'A Hole in My Heart' is an uncompromising, hard hitting, controversial film from Sweden. A movie that because of its subject matter, the production of Hardcore Porn (and the lowlifes involved), is going to be a massive turn off for most. Still it's well acted, produced and without (thankfully) any moral or social comment. Graphic, 'Out There' and even disgusting at times. For once justifies those silly warning stickers on the cover jacket. I might have scored higher but it goes a bit a bit o.t.t at the end and sort of loses direction. Both powerful and disturbing.

Well, well...This was a rather strange movie. I've never seen a movie like that. After seeing Moodyssons's excellent movies 'Show me love' and 'Together' I wanted to see another movie by this director. 'A hole in my heart' happened to be his next movie I saw. I was surprised, confused, shocked, bored, and excited. There is no real plot. Just a few people stuck in one place and doing all these weird things. The scenes are loosely connected. Throughout the movie I tried to figure out what Moodysson wanted to tell the viewers. I could see general chaos, filled with disturbing images. It puzzled me how 'Show me love' and 'A hole in my heart' could be made by the same director. They seem so different but in fact they deal with the same thing Moodysson is an expert on, the human nature. Only this picture is much more extreme. It shows the darkest side of humanity. The characters had none morality whatsoever. They talked about and had sex like it was the most ordinary thing. One of the guys even fell asleep during having sex...Where was the magic of love so tenderly shown in 'Show me love?' Where was the warm-heartedness of 'Together?' It's impossible for me to rate this movie. The rating range could be as extreme as the movie itself. I could give it 10 for showing something so complex and profound I don't even have the capacity for grasping or I could give it 1 for the most worthless piece of sh.t I have ever seen. It certainly is a haunting movie that will make you wonder why it was made in the first place. Personally, I don't know what to make of it. One idea occurring to me is that the true meaning of this movie lies in the scenes in which one of the guys and the woman go outside, sink to the ground and coil up. The demons of sex acting up? The burden of life got too heavy? The sense of guilt overwhelmed them? One thing is sure, Moodysson's characters are very open-minded, the issues of sexuality are given a great deal of attention. Only in this movie the limits of the sexual frolics were stretched dangerously far.

The most relentlessly nihilistic, intentionally disturbing wannabe art-house vomit ever made. So totally devoid of humanity it should be erased from history. The impression is that the film was intentionally made to worsen the viewer's life to somehow even the playing field of all human existence out of some sort of morally relativistic sense of justice. It doesn't. Whether the film-maker had this intention or not makes no difference. The end result is inhumane garbage. The act of creating suffering or pain for another person doesn't guarantee any kind of revelation on the part of the one enduring the pain. I understand the value of shock. I understand our need for art to wake people up. I agree that our world is often relentlessly harsh. But no matter how noble the intentions, this film makes things worse. Garbage on garbage.