White Night Wedding

I liked the first half of the movie because of the beautiful scenery of Iceland. The island is beautiful, the small community on it is interesting and one can easily start to dream how it might be to live in there. Some characters are really funny and definitely likable (the huge Viking-looking friend of the lead character is definitely someone who would be very cool to party with). And the "development project" for the island is funny and crazy as well.

On the other hand the story was somewhat hard to understand for me. It took me half of the movie to actually understand that the movie is basically a big pile of mess assembled from scenes from "the past" and scenes from "the present". These scenes are blended so homogeneously that they actually seem to be single linear yet surreal story. Actually I was not sure if there is one lead character who has one wife and tries to marry another one or if there are identical twins or what the hell happens. I was confused. The cuts basically do not give any clues about temporal relations of individual scenes.

So I have started to untangle the storyline mess only at the end - and the resulting story was not something I would like. Especially the lead character is very ugly in the resulting picture - cold, weak and immoral. His first wife was much more interesting and true character. Maybe it would be better for me if I spent the rest of the movie in false idea that it is just visually beautiful, surreal, experimental movie.

This Icelandic comedy takes part on an island outside the northwest coast. They have a church, a priest, German tourists, a grocery, a white trasher who wants to start a golf business and most of all...they've got this middle-aged philosophy teacher, who wants to start a new life with his mentally weak wife.

But he meets this young girl and the circus is on. Or the chaos. The first half of this film is full of flashbacks. The content is both very tragical and most comical, but in this case, they don't match.

A good try perhaps, but not enough of it to make this a good movie. And the flashback technique could have been used with some moderation.

I don't get why anybody thinks this is a comedy. Comedies are funny. Is it different in Iceland? Well acted but unrelentingly depressing.

Hmmmmm. And an admiring hmm at that. First thing I thought of is the same kind of emotional juxtaposition or almost confusion that rings through this movie as Reykevik 101 (the director's first film). Back then I was very uncomfortable with that, now still not normal per se but more manageable yet kind of refreshing.

Base on an Chekhov's Ivanov, the film alters back and forth wonderfully over time on events before and immediately leading up to a wedding on an island between an professor and a young girl. While the story's theme obviously stated in the movie and told by the director in Q&A, is about searching for happiness and doing the "right" thing, many hilarious moments are interjected directly with the dramatic moments and vice versa. And these moments of emotional swings are very immediate creating a push and pull effect. And this might affect some audience immersing into the story.

Q&A also brought out the same cast also acted in a stage production of the same play during the same time as the film's release in Iceland and was a very successful run. At times though, I did find a certain "lecturing" aspect in a few of the scenes. So although good, still a very idealistic or somewhat protruding kind of meandering.

I'm reviewing this now-old movie because it is currently on Hulu where it is described as an "uproarious comedy", and I want to save anyone coming here from Hulu to learn more about the film some pain. It is not a comedy, let alone an uproarious one. It does have some funny moments, notably the opening scene, but it is generally very much a dark, angst-filled drama. The setting is spectacular and some of the acting is very credible, so it is worth watching, but know what you're getting yourself into.