Nova Zembla (2011)

The Worst Film Ever

Don't Believe the Hype

Absolutely the worst movie.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

it is strange to define it. it is a homage to pioneers of geographic adventure, a history lesson, an inspired trip at the true essence of adventure, not ignoring the portrait of noble heroism ,but giving a realistic story . sure, using the precise expectations about artistic virtues, it is far to be a great movie. but it is a decent one. and this fact remains a significant good point. or,maybe, a reasonable portrait of brave men and theirs fight against nature.

Nova Zembla doesn't hold up to the promises made. In fact, it fails utterly, which, truly, is a shame. An adventurous story, a beautiful setting and (for Dutch standards) good acting but all that cannot make watching this film bearable.The storytelling is unbelievably slow. While being promised an action-packed heroic story it instead halts drastically every time a little climax should be due, resulting in the opposite. And if your film is to be made for a Dutch audience based on a classic Dutch history lesson almost every Dutch person will remember, you just can't get away with it. Not even with showing random scenes of Doutzen Kroes' breasts.The cast was fine though and the acting wasn't particularly bad. The lines didn't seem forced and it all had a genuine feel, which is often lacking in Dutch films. The technical side of this film wasn't bad either and the effects, costumes, locations and props are a rare perfect blend.It is clear this film lacked the experience of a great captain and should be a learning opportunity for inexperienced director Reinout Oerlemans. Nova Zembla fails to hoist the colours and sail full speed ahead and instead feels more like a rowing boat without oars. A typical trailer-beats-film.

Doutzen Kroes is beautiful, yes. She is even beautiful enough to carry the entire movie, but not on her push-up bra alone. Director Oerlemans put her in the film to give the male audience a reason to buy a ticket. I did not (I watched on DVD), and so I missed the 3D-effects. Just like I missed the polar bear. Turns out I haven't missed anything at all. The original story is exciting enough, but Oerlemans manages to make it a child's tale, and a boring one for that matter. The reason is in Oerlemans' view towards his audience. He produces so much crap with his Eyeworks-company that he is convinced all people want to see is crap. Just look at the pictures provided with Nova Zembla on IMDb to understand who Oerlemans considers to be his biggest star: Oerlemans himself. All Oerlemans ever does, is promote himself, hoping that one day we will believe him. The media hype in The Netherlands when Nova Zembla was launched was utterly embarrassing. Look at Arnie go! Look at Arnie with the real Spielberg-beard! One Big Oerlemans-commercial, broadcast every evening for weeks in a row. I am very sorry for all the (good) actors in the movie and for Doutzen Kroes and Semmy Schilt, who are not actors. Just as Oerlemans is no director.

this movie had so much promise: -a famous story from dutch history -several well-known experienced dutch actors and a famous model trying her hand at acting. -nice scenery of amsterdam and nova zembla, in 3D no lessunfortunately all of that potential was wasted: -the story is messy and most of the scenes feel disjointed. if you know the story you'll notice all the parts that are missing or incorrect, if you don't know the story you'll just be confused. -the dialogue is horribly written. the acting is terrible, most off these actors have done way better in the past. and don't get me started on doutzen kroes -the 3D was of the universally-hated post-production kind (shot in 2D, then digitally converted to 3D, instead of filming with a 3d-camera). no doubt done to save money, but they needn't have bothered: good 2D looks way better than bad 3D (though i'm a big fan of GOOD 3D)and wtf did this movie start with the shot of them in a boat with a dead polar bear if that scene is nowhere in the movie? seems like this is a director who wants to include *every* scene that has been shot.and why did everybody on board apparently forget to pack their gloves and a warm hat?