Simon & the Oaks (2011)

it is the film who makes me consider Bill Skarsgard a great actor. the motif - off course -its performance. but, in same measure, the atmosphere, the dialogues, the science to use details, the feeling to discover a family album, with old pictures, familiar and , in same measure, strange. a war film and the map of the world of a young man. sensitive, vulnerable, strong, brave, viewer and judge, Simon is a guide for the steps from an universe to the other. a guide who seems be reflection of yourself. and this fact does the film a kind of scent. not the story itself but the state of characters, like a large ball remains after the final credits. a film to see. for discover an old way to see the near reality.

Maybe I had too much expectations for this, but it was a pain to watch this to the end. I must first of all say that I haven't read the book of which this is based. I understand that this book is re-known, and I also understood that this was nominated to nothing less than 13 guldbaggar in Swedish film.Well, that's not at all understandable to me. I tend to like films like this, but I'm afraid to say that this film is impossible to get hold of. It's pretentious, both in manuscript and in acting.But far worse is it that it becomes boring when the chemistry between the actors are missing.What is likable, is Bill Skarsgård. He's the one coming from this alive, due to his charm, though the film can't seem to make the best out of it. Simon is not likable, if still charming. Maybe also with small Isak. A good actor, but not taken care of. I see this as helpless instruction of what must be fine actors to work with.I tend to see it as Lisa Ohlin is not cut to make films like this. Both on screen writing and in directing this is very flawed. Overacted, constantly staring people is bad enough. What's even worse is the sense of us not believing one bit of the story. It's too far fetched. It might have worked in the book, but in the film, when something gets remotely interesting, it's a cut into pieces. The clipping work is awful. It tears up what could have been a great scene. Like when Simon is confronting his parents. The next scene is him walking away from the little house with luggage on his bike.Even more stupid is the thoughtful sequences, which are far-fetched, boring and badly done technically. The whole thing about the oak is also both pretentious and artsy fartsy. It makes you yawn and hate the concept.What is good, is the environment and filming. Beautifully shot, it is, and so in vain, when the rest is not making up to it. I've read some quite good reviews for this one, but the critics must have been out to lunch. Such a waste. It's not a turkey, but rather a pheasant. I'd rather have chicken, any day.

One of the many virtues of this outstanding film is the complexity of its characters. No one is purely good or bad. Good people make horrendous mistakes. Nature versus nurture has a huge role to play in individual and family lives. Another major virtue is the acting: I did not experience a single false note in any of the performances. Kudos also to the writer and director for the way World War II and the Holocaust are embedded in the story: realistically but without clichés. I found extremely interesting Simon's relationship with the oak tree and would have liked just a bit more of it throughout the movie, rather than most of it at the beginning, where it is hugely intriguing but ineffable. My only (very minor) complaint is the music, which I found at some critical points to be overbearing; I prefer it when the acting carries the day without the audience having to be signaled as to the importance of a certain action or moment. I was totally riveted through the entire film—for me, it doesn't get much better than that.

Two boys meet at school in Gothenburg 1939. They become friends. One is a Jew and one is supposed not to be. One is upper middle class and one comes from a working class background.Quite much is foreseeable here, but the greatest problem is the acting. Not that it's disastrous or even bad during the circumstances, but there are plenty of anachronisms here. From the laboring father, who is something out of the 60s, more than 1939. To the boys, who have a way of staring into the camera, which is common-piece in every Swedish movie, which tries to portrait harsh times. Especially if it's the 40s. "Something is going on inside that boy". The problem is that we know exactly what, when he has those eyes.That is disturbing and takes quality out of this film.