Customer Reviews

Reconstruction

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I was having a lot of trouble deciding which of the two women in this film I liked better, the delicate, pale Aimee or the tan, more working-class appearing Simone. Such a dilemma--and one that confronts and confounds protagonist Alex (Nikolaj Lie Kaas). Turns out that it doesn't matter.

Yes, trickery--as Danish film maker Christoffer Boe warns us up front with his floating cigarette and magician's hands--is of the essence in this romantic fantasy. What is played with is reality, which of course is what film makers do.

For those of you who haven't seen the movie, I recommend that you stop reading here because what follows will likely spoil the movie for you. For those of you who have seen the movie, you might want to see it twice and then read what I have to say.

One thing about movies like this is that if you get the "key"--that is, the director's rationale for the way he plays with reality, you more or less get the movie. That's fine and can be enjoyable. If you don't, the movie can be a bit disconcerting and even exasperating.

The key here is to realize that it is Aimee's husband August, the novelist, who is the puppeteer. As Vladimir Nabokov liked to remind us, it is the essence of the novelist's art to manipulate the strings. The fact that this story is experienced from Alex's point of view inclines us to look for the key to understanding the film from his point of view. That is the error. Although Alex's persona dominates the film, at the center of the story is August. This is his fantasy and Alex is really just a prop in that fantasy, unable to understand what is happening to him. Indeed Alex--a charming and attractive young man with advanced pick-up skills--is a "gift" from August to his beloved Aimee. It may seem strange to some people that some men so love their wives that they want to give them something that they as the husband never can--that is, an affair with the perfect stranger.

The reality of Alex's existence comes from August's pen. In the scenes where Alex finds that his apartment has disappeared, that people don't know him (even his father doesn't know him), that Aimee/Simone think they are seeing him for the first time, the logic is this: what has happened before has been erased and rewritten, that is, reconstructed. Only poor Alex doesn't know since he is just a character in the story.

This reminds me a bit of Vanilla Sky (2001) and Abre los ojos (1997) in which the central character is a protagonist in a larger reality controlled by a software program. Here the control is in the hands of the novelist. Note well who gets the girl as the film ends: the guy who wrote the story, the guy who arranged to be giving lectures so that his wife could meet Alex and spend some time with him. Remember too in the scene where August comes back to the hotel room a bit too soon while Aimee is in the shower, and discovers tell-tale signs of Alex's presence. What does he do? He quickly leaves and returns a few minutes later after she has had time to straighten up.

In the final analysis, a patriarchal view of love in inexorably wrapped up in control. The patriarchal lover (the husband, August) wants to control his beloved. In this stylish and attractive fantasy, he even controls her reality.

Many people seem confused about this movie and how they feel about it and what it means. Thats because there isn't a interpretation that can be called correct, as the director intentionally left it ambiguous.

Other reviewers seem to have covered the basics of the style and plot of the film well, but they seemed to have missed a large part of what the director was trying to do.

This film is more a statement on cinematic expression itself than on love. The director is showing how he can manipulate the viewer's thoughts and emotions, just as Aimee's husband the writer can manipulate the relationship between Aimee and Alex with a few strokes of the pen. With art things can be deconstructed only to be constructed again, and expression doesn't have to be confined to the rules of reality.

The other reviews seemed to have missed the quote at the end, where the director warns the audience that the characters in the film aren't anything more than that. They are simply fictional entities created for the purpose of manipulating the emotions of others, which is achieved by both the director and the writer within the film.


This is a very complex film that requires several viewings before it starts to make sense. If you like artsy films or films with deep meanings then this may be a good film for you. If you don't really like vague and confusing endings (at first) and are more of a person to watch happy-ending films then this definitely isn't the film for you. And if you aren't open-minded artistically you probably won't like this film either as you will spend most of your time trying to analyze the theme of love in the film while it covers much deeper issues than that.

The films narrative is greatly shown and I do think is very original, it is not easy to understand but why do you have to understand everything always. The questions that the film arise are great ,as Bergman would have said "I have the impression that the questions are more important than the answers. I do recommend this movie its worth every dollar.

"This is how it always ends - a little magic, a little smoke, something floating. We begin like this. It's not like the beginning - so take it easy. But it's important. Believe me."

Christoffer Boe's debut film is a mesmerizing love story that challenges the viewer to follow his ever changing storyline in a very unique way. Boe warns "it's not so complicated - there are four people - Aimee and I, August - we are married. Then there's Alex, the young photographer and his beautiful girlfriend Simone - they're not married. Alex and Aimee are going to meet."

Boe creatively injects himself into the role of August, an author. "They're all looking for love" and thus the story begins. The surrealism that follows is captivating. August continually plays with, or reconstructs the storyline, which in turn affects Alex - essentially transforming him into a freefalling bystander of his own life, leaving him to deal with the choices he himself didn't actually make - but after all, he's just a fictional character from August's writings.

This personal favorite of mine is a testament that creativity, beautiful camera work and editing, solid acting, and the right choice of music can overcome the budget restraints most debuting directors face. This stylish film will not disappoint. It is all film. It is all construction.

A very interesting movie from Denmark. The story revolves around Alex (Nikolaj Lie Kaas), Aimee (Maria Bonnevie), Simone (Maria Bonnevie... again!) and Aimee's husband. The plot is a complex mix of two stories. One is for real and the other is a writer's (Aimee's husband) imagination. However, the two stories are complexly mingled and the characters swing back and forth creating a very (confusing) surreal mix. The Director has craft fully (and purposefully) used flashbacks to switch from the real to the imagined (reconstructed) story and effectively blurring the distinction between the two. It is really hard to tell if the real story is influencing the imagined or vice versa. Another interesting aspect of the movie is the insertion of narrative dialogs (narrated by Aimee's husband). The timing of these narrations is perfect. All in all, a controlled masterful mix created by the Director.
The dialogs and cinematography (especially the lighting and facial close-ups) are very creative. The director has used GPS like track points to show Alex and Aimee in the streets of Copenhagen. Pretty neat. I am particularly impressed by Nikolaj Lie Kaas's acting and Maria Bonnevie's captivating screen presence.

The concluding dialog of the movie is "It is all a reconstruction, but it still hurts". Very true ...

I find that Danish movies have a great sense of realism and honesty, it makes the characters very likable. This film throws the narrative structure upside down but I still connected with the characters. I also enjoyed the film because I'd spent a short time in Copenhagen....I tracked where the characters were going on google maps while I watched the movie!

I just watched this movie for the second time. I saw it first about a year ago. Although I agree that the manipulator of reality here is the writer (the husband of Aimee), and that the lovers are living his novel as he writes it, there are other subtle layers to this tale. Other reviewers have glanced over the issue of why both of Alex's lovers are played by the same actress. The make-up and cinematography here are so good, in fact, it took me until half way through my first viewing to realize this. It haunted me upon my second viewing, however, and
ultimately I concluded that this was a necessity of the story, not merely a showcase for the actress. Alex turns his back on his "girlfriend," a pleasant, pretty, devoted and very safe woman, in favor of a strikingly beautiful, exotic woman of mystery. In the end, however, he harbors doubts as to his true feelings for the woman he does not, and maybe never will know. Yet, having doubted, he loses her and cannot go back to his girlfriend. This is his tragedy - fear of an unknown love. This, to me, is very typical of most people. The vast majority tend to marry the "safe" type, yet fantasize about the mysterious exotic type. If one should come face to face with the mysterious, however, one usually is too frightened make it a reality. The mechanations of the story line and the shifting reality reminded me of the movie "Julia, Julia," starring Sting (in a fantastic job of acting) and Kathleen Turner. In that movie, the tables are turned, and it is the woman whose reality is at stake. I would highly recommend this movie to those who enjoy borderline surreality.

My three star rating means a rather positive one; I like certain points of this film from Denmark, especially the stylish camera and impressive acting from the leading lady. And unlike Dogme films, the film uses (perhaps overuses) good music like one Cole Porter song and 'Adaggio for Strings.'

But at the same time I believe this could be a much better film, possibly with a less pretentious touch from the director. Is there anything good about the idea of 'Reconstruction' of love? Or a love story dissected by intentionally confusing tricks that have no function except for confusion?

'Reconstrucion' starts like a perfume commercial, but it is about one young photographer Alex (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) in Copenhagen, who happens to have a love affair with a writer's wife Aimee (Maria Bonnevie) travelling from Sweden. While doing so, Alex decides to leave his girlfriend Simone (played by the same Maria Bonnevie).

This is an old love story, but Christoffer Boe decided to present it in a more unorthodox fashion. Everything happens in one day, and though we know exactly the places where the characters are (the film literally teaches you the places of the bars, the hotel, etc, all the real locations in the city of Copenhagen), the usual continuous order of love story (from meeting to, say, kissing or parting) is disrupted. Aimee meets Alex (or vice versa), but how? 'Reconstruction' very intentionally blurs the order, and moreover, even the memories of the people are not safe in here.

The results are a strange one. Jim Carrey's 'Eternal Sunshine' has an unconventional narrative structure, but we can put the pieces into the right places. In 'Reconstruction,' the puzzle goes on and on, for some part contradict the others. Suddenly, you hear the echo of one Greek myth. And it is suggested that the Swedish writer may be the original creator of the whole story. Those bits add up to nothing but the mood.

Sorry to say this, but I have to say for each bit is often refined and breathtakingly beautiful. The conversations between Alex and Aimee are convincing, the camera captures the feeling of the city of Copenhagen. Most astonishing is, however, the skillful, and at times moving acting from Maria Bonnevie, whose CV includes 'I Am David' and the original European 'Insomnia.' And 'The 13th Warrior'? Oh please, where was she?

And her superb dual-role makes me think, why this Aimee/Simone situation? What's the point of this (or many other gimmicks for that matter)? Mr. Boe, I think, wanted to show a love story in a totally new way; for after all there are too many things about love -- love stories, words of love, and films about love -- but deconstruction or reconstrucion is not necessarily the right way to show a new love story. And the film says that even if you know the story is made for film, 'It hurts.' No, it doesn't when we are too much aware that the characters are manipulated by the author.

Northern European films are either extremely interesting, or completely whacko.
This falls into the latter category.

The film was grainy, like filming at night.

It was a movie about 2 people falling in love, but from a director's POV.

I watched 15 minutes, became completely bored, fast forwarded & took the detour to Animatrix.

I've seen "Reconstruction" twice. The first time I saw it I thought it was an OK film, but, I didn't quite understand it. I knew I was missing something. So I watched it again, and while yes, I thought I was able to see things I hadn't the first time, I felt even more confused than before. And that's the film's problem. The movie sets-up too many questions and answers none of them.

The movie is directed by first timer Christoffer Boe, who previously directed a short film which starred the two leads from this film. What I think Boe's problem, and most young filmakers, from anything country face, is this idea of not wanting to be mainstream. That is a sellout so they want to dazzle you with all the tricks they pull off with editing, sound, and cinematography. But, perhaps this comes with experience, but, it's very hard to do. The trick is, if you want to play around with these conventions do it in a way where it doesn't overshadow your story. I felt Boe was playing too many games and not giving enough attention to his story. He's jerking us around, constantly reminded us he's a pupetmaster pulling all these cinematic strings.

Movies only work when we have an investment in the characters. The viewer needs to feel he\she knows the characters. Films like "Mulholland Dr." and "Swimming Pool" understood this. They gave us characters to think and also played around with editing, sound, and cinematography. They were brainteasers, but we never felt cheated. "Reconstruction" has no emotional core. We don't clearly understand what we are watching.

The movie is about a man named Alex (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) who is in a relationship with Simone (Maria Bonnevie). One day Alex meets Aimee (also played by Bonnevie), but Aimee is married woman. Her husband is August (Krister Henriksson), who is a writer. The movie then moves around time. We see event that haven't happened yet. He big clue here is that August is a writer who is working on a love story. He is also the film's narrator. So the viewer rathers the feeling that some of what we are seeing is fake, part of August's novel, but, the big question is which parts? That is what the movie never answers.

As far as craft goes you have to give Boe his credit. He does have talent but he needs to learn not to rely of heavily on manipulating his audience and trying to give his characters more dimension. It also wouldn't hurt if his film explained things more to let the audience in on what his film is trying to say.

There is an audience for this film who may not dispute what I'm saying, but enjoyed the film anyway. I too almost decided on giving the movie 3 stars, but, in the end, I decided I wouldn't be being fair to myself.

There are elements here to enjoy. The acting by Maria Bonnevie is impressive and Kaas is good also. The movie has a nice look, and again, Boe is actually a good director. He has a good eye, only he needed a little something more. ** 1\2 out of *****

Bottom-line: Disappointing but well meaning film that ultimately sets-up too many questions and never fully answers them.