Pax, which means peace, is a film about a plane on it's way to a crash, and the passengers last minutes. One of the passengers is a human heart going to a new body.
There's bee so many fabulous Norwegian films for the last years, and the idea of his one was promising. This could only have failed because of bad judgments. This film's only crash was in the cinemas, where almost no one saw it.
Pax is beautifully filmed, but the lack of good writing ruins the idea. A lot of good Norwegian and Swedish actors are not able to lift this pretentious writing up to more than two stars out of ten.
What a waste of a great idea, and good acting talent. The music makes the film even more pretentious. It's not there with the film and the actors. It's not wrong. It's simply not there.
I expected another great film from director Annette Sjursen, which made the film "My envious hairdresser" ("Min misunnelige frisør") which really was enjoyable and great. This on the other hand is an enormous let down, compared to that one.
The best parts of this film, except the good filming, is the visuals and the blue sky when the actors are presented at the end, and that it's only 75 minutes long. Go see some other Norwegian films getting great scores. This is is a study in how not to use the investors money, and we don't even get a crash to satisfy the time spent with this pretentious stuff and after listening to all this nonsense coming from the bad manuscript.
This movie started off an unfair debate about female filmmakers in Norway, and about governmental sponsoring of films. Did this film get a go just because it had a female writer and director? The debate failed as well. Good luck next time, Sjursen, I still haven't lost faith, due to the great first film.
There's bee so many fabulous Norwegian films for the last years, and the idea of his one was promising. This could only have failed because of bad judgments. This film's only crash was in the cinemas, where almost no one saw it.
Pax is beautifully filmed, but the lack of good writing ruins the idea. A lot of good Norwegian and Swedish actors are not able to lift this pretentious writing up to more than two stars out of ten.
What a waste of a great idea, and good acting talent. The music makes the film even more pretentious. It's not there with the film and the actors. It's not wrong. It's simply not there.
I expected another great film from director Annette Sjursen, which made the film "My envious hairdresser" ("Min misunnelige frisør") which really was enjoyable and great. This on the other hand is an enormous let down, compared to that one.
The best parts of this film, except the good filming, is the visuals and the blue sky when the actors are presented at the end, and that it's only 75 minutes long. Go see some other Norwegian films getting great scores. This is is a study in how not to use the investors money, and we don't even get a crash to satisfy the time spent with this pretentious stuff and after listening to all this nonsense coming from the bad manuscript.
This movie started off an unfair debate about female filmmakers in Norway, and about governmental sponsoring of films. Did this film get a go just because it had a female writer and director? The debate failed as well. Good luck next time, Sjursen, I still haven't lost faith, due to the great first film.