Open Hearts (2002)

Simply Perfect

Better Late Then Never

What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

I probably am going the path of the contrarian here, but I really don't understand the high ratings here. I'm all for indie movies on low budgets, but this is just bad. The fuzzy-focus, shaky-camera documentary feel of this movie is totally fine.... But whether it's deliberate or part of the whole Dogme thing, there is absolutely NO editing. There doesn't seem to be any actual script either. It feels like the actors improvised their lines (which is OK) but without much preparation. Dialogue seems forced and unnatural, and you can tell that something is in the dialog because it was a plot point. The video jumps from one thing they say to something else. It was almost like the director was going down a written bullet list of things that need to happen or be said, and was leading them on to improv as they were being videorecorded. "Talk about how your daughter is in trouble", "Ok now cry", "Ok now shout", "Ok now run down the hall", etc... Only bits and pieces to a conversation were recorded, just enough to cover all the plot points, but not enough to seem coherent. The behavior of the actors were not smoothly transitioned from one cut to the next (despite it being only a few seconds/minutes later in 'reality'). It was all dialog without any mood. I don't think this is how people are in real life. It seemed more like 100 cuts of random small little independently acted moments rather than anything coherent. You can tell (whether deliberate or incidental) that the actors weren't paid enough to actually memorize lines (making smooth video scenes possible) and anything more than 15 seconds at a time being recorded.It's just awful. Cuts are not smooth and honestly bothersome. Totally absent of any sort of emotional depth and exploration. The actors weren't allowed to really express much emotionally, it was more about the lines they were saying and the over-the-top reactions that seemed to be about as quality as a first year drama student.The jumping around in dialog make it impossible to actually sympathize or understand any of the reasoning behind what is said. One moment Cecile calls Niels, the next moment he suggest buying furniture for her, then he goes to the supermarket just to have a conversation with her saying how he can't stop thinking about her and thinks he's in love with her. Absolutely zero emotional exploration or transition justifying how he feels. It's out of the blue. Later you see the two seemingly in love, in the middle of having sex, and then the hospital nurse calls to tell Cecile that Joachim finally wants to see her. She of course jumps to the occasion and the literal next scene is Niels in his coworker Finn's basement, implying that he must have moved out of Cecile's place - but without bothering to explain it all. Not even a conversation "oh Niels I'm sorry but I love Joachim and want to be with him".About the best part of the movie was the acting by the supporting people - the daughter, Joachim, the wife, etc. They were more real-life believable. The main actors were just a joke, though.Beyond all that, there was obviously no budget for a costume designer or scene designer. I couldn't decide whether Niels was a doctor or a nurse, with that plain all-white outfit that was clearly purchased at a department store. For all the time he was at the hospital, none of it actually was of him remotely doing a second of his actual work. So I could never figure out what he did there at the hospital. And just because he has an oversized cell phone from 1995 doesn't mean that somehow raises his status to some sort of doctor. He "must" be important with a giant phone! There was nothing 'real life' about moments that showed no actual every day actions (outside of the 'script') of people.The dialog where it is first brought up that Joachim will be forever paralyzed is so made up that there's no sliver of authenticity. Not one line suggests anyone did any research as to medical conditions or even to what might a doctor say. Not one doctor actually said a single medical term or medical condition, no medical explanation as to what happened with Joachim physiologically. Not even something as simple as "his spine was crushed". With the car driving no more than 25mph, how he became paraplegic is beyond me. Not a single bit of dialog justifying his medical condition. Usually a doctor would at least start going into medical details once a family member starts asking about any hope/treatment. Awful.I suppose there is some supposed "real life" feel, but it really seems poor quality. Blair Witch seemed much better. It's fine the car accident scene seemed totally fake, but it really is sub-par for all the actors involved. Low budget doesn't need to be void of intelligent/in-depth dialog, a thought out script, emotional expression, or reasonable editing. With the splices of so many small clips there is really no emotional or psychological exploration of the characters, or transition from one major set of circumstances (the two hanging out) to another (the two living together).This is most definitely NOT Suzanne Bier's "best" as others suggest. All her other movies were light years better. I feel that Mads Mikkelsen's talent was wasted on this film here. Pretty much any other movie of his was far superior, and many of them were also low budget. With Lars Von Trier as the brainchild behind the Dogme rules, I can understand why this movie here is just awful. There isn't a movie of his I can stand. I otherwise really like Scandinavian films.

I'm not going to explain what the rules of Dogme 95 actually are. If you want to know them, you can look for it on the internet. All I want to say about it is that they were made by Lars Von Trier and that should already be enough for the people who know something about European cinema, to know what this movie will be like. Fact is that I like the concept behind the Dogme 95 movies, even though the directors don't always follow the rules very strictly. The main reason why I like them is because they make honest and truthful movies. Not using any big explosions or big action shots, the stories and the acting are the main stars in these movies and that's something that you won't find very often in a Hollywood production.In this movie we follow several people whose lives are devastated after one incident. Cecilie's life seems to be perfect, she is happy and will soon marry with her fiancé Joachim. But than he is seriously injured in a car accident, caused by Marie. He is paralyzed from the neck down and all he can do is talk and eat. Because he can't cope with that, he tells Cecilie that he never wants to see her again, breaking her hearth several times, just to be sure that she will never ever return to him. In the hospital where Joachim is treated, Cecilie meets Niels, a doctor at the hospital and Marie's husband. He offers Cecilie to help her in this difficult times, but it doesn't take long before they fall in love and start an affair, which of course breaks up Niels' family...I'm a great fan of European cinema and in my opinion the Scandinavian movies are one of the best. They know very well how to make movies that don't seem very complicated or original at first, but that will blow you away once you have seen it all. And it's exactly the same with "Elsker dig for evigt" It's very hard not to be touched by it and I really wouldn't understand it if there are many people who don't like it. Next to the good story I also liked the acting. Like so often with Scandinavian actors, I haven't heard of most of them before, but they give away an excellent performance. Add to this some nice camera work and you know that you've got a movie that should be seen by a larger public. This isn't a very complicated movie, but the story is very recognizable and touching, making it an easy accessible movie. But don't be mistaken by it. It will, without any doubt, have a deep impact on you once you've seen it. And I'm pretty sure that many people will have difficulties to keep their eyes dry from time to time. Anyway, I really liked this movie and in my opinion it doesn't deserve a score lower than 7.5/10. Even an 8/10 isn't too high for this movie if you ask me.

Enough has been said about the Dogme rules, and the many movies that have been made with the certificate. No matter if you like the concept or not, Dogme will always ad a great amount of realism into a movie. And in "Elsker Dig Forevigt"/"Open Heart" the realism is very strong. Probably stronger in any of the other Dogme-films I have seen.Even more realistic the movie gets from the acting, which is outstanding. I found Mads Mikkelsen a bit under-achieving in the beginning, but as the drama gets more intense – so does Mikkelsen. He is Niels, the soft, modern, Danish family-man, who is as good with the kids as he is with his job. Other of Mikkelsen's parts has been very far from that, not least playing Tonny in Refn's "Pusher" and "Pusher II".The wife of Niels, Marie, is well performed by Paprika Steen. Danish movies have had a reputation (in Denmark) that they are all dull, everyday-dramas with Paprika Steen in a leading role. "Elsker Dig..." has probably played a part in creating this reputation. It's not really fair, firstly because Danish movies are a lot more than that and secondly because Steen is really good. In "Elsker Dig…" she shows great dept in her acting, and in one of the best scenes in the movie Marie's 'house-wife-facade' breaks down, showing that Marie is a lot stronger than what you could have expected. It's a difficult scene, but Steen carries it out very well.As the third corner stone of the triangle Sonja Richter is the young woman Cæcilie who's boyfriend Joachim (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) is severely injured, when he gets run down by Marie, driving a bit too fast. The performances by Richter and Kaas are as spotless as they are outstanding.I have to comment on the children in this movie. It rarely works really well, because children aren't actors. But the teenage daughter of Niels and Marie, Stine (Stine Bjerregaard), has a lot to offer. She too has a big scene, again it works, and it's brilliant. The younger brothers, Gustav and Emil, works very good too. These kids aren't 'acting' they are 'living' their parts. Stop casting wonder-kids, and look this way!This thing is normally not my thing. But still I rated this movie high – because it is a good movie. I generally like realism in movies (which I guess this review unveils) and that is 100% here.

I got the feeling a lot of care went into the production of this film, but ultimately I walked away unsatisfied. Instead of catharsis, this mournful story left me with feelings of frustration. I heard another viewer express the same reservation after the show.Wonderful acting all around; decent photography; interesting and fairly believable story. But nothing really clicks. I suspect part of the reason for this is that the main character simply isn't easy to sympathize with: her motivation throughout the story seems, to me, to be selfish and thoughtless. ***POSSIBLE SPOILER*** When she complains to the neurosurgery nurse, at the bedside of her now paralyzed boyfriend Joachim, "I'm as unhappy as he is!" I voiced an objection aloud: "Oh, no, you're not!" She seemed to me totally self-centered and unlikable. Others may disagree with my take on her personality.The use of one photographic effect irked me. There's a frequent shift to grainy black-and-white, apparently signifying a character's fantasy or notion of what he or she wishes were happening, instead of what is in fact happening. I found this awkward, confusing, and distracting. The soundtrack music seemed tacky and inappropriate. And the "arty" negative and blurry sequences that began and ended the film could happily have been dispensed with.