User reviews

I saw this last month at the 2009 Palm Springs International Film Festival. This is the fifth film from writer/director and noted Icelandic stage director Baltasar Kormakur. Baltasar and Olafur Egil Egilsson wrote the screenplay as a loose adaptation of Anton Chekhov's stage play Ivanov and the film was developed simultaneously with a stage play that featured the same cast. This was Iceland's official entry as Best Foreign Language Film to the Academy Awards. It has won several awards in Iceland and worldwide and was one of Iceland's biggest domestic box office hits. The setting is on the remote Flatey Island off the north shore of Iceland. University professor Jon (Hilmirsnaer Gudnasson) has an impending marriage to Thora (Laufey Eliasdottir), a former student of his and a girl half his age and only one year after his wife committed suicide. Thor's parents Laurus (Johann Sigurdarsson) and Sisi (Olafia Hronn Jonsdottir) run the islands only store, hotel and tavern and have had a bad business arrangement with Jon. A great cast and a great performance by Thorstur Leo Gunnardsson who plays Jon's rowdy and overbearing friend Borkur who has arrived on the island for the wedding. Great character development central cast and peripheral characters in this romantic drama/comedy. Excellent cinematography by Bergstein Bjorgulfsson and editing by Elisabet Ronaldsdott with art design by Atili Gretarsson and Gretar Reynisson. I would give this an 8.5 out of 10 and recommend it.

I'm reviewing this now-old movie because it is currently on Hulu where it is described as an "uproarious comedy", and I want to save anyone coming here from Hulu to learn more about the film some pain. It is not a comedy, let alone an uproarious one. It does have some funny moments, notably the opening scene, but it is generally very much a dark, angst-filled drama. The setting is spectacular and some of the acting is very credible, so it is worth watching, but know what you're getting yourself into.

Hmmmmm. And an admiring hmm at that. First thing I thought of is the same kind of emotional juxtaposition or almost confusion that rings through this movie as Reykevik 101 (the director's first film). Back then I was very uncomfortable with that, now still not normal per se but more manageable yet kind of refreshing.

Base on an Chekhov's Ivanov, the film alters back and forth wonderfully over time on events before and immediately leading up to a wedding on an island between an professor and a young girl. While the story's theme obviously stated in the movie and told by the director in Q&A, is about searching for happiness and doing the "right" thing, many hilarious moments are interjected directly with the dramatic moments and vice versa. And these moments of emotional swings are very immediate creating a push and pull effect. And this might affect some audience immersing into the story.

Q&A also brought out the same cast also acted in a stage production of the same play during the same time as the film's release in Iceland and was a very successful run. At times though, I did find a certain "lecturing" aspect in a few of the scenes. So although good, still a very idealistic or somewhat protruding kind of meandering.

This Icelandic comedy takes part on an island outside the northwest coast. They have a church, a priest, German tourists, a grocery, a white trasher who wants to start a golf business and most of all...they've got this middle-aged philosophy teacher, who wants to start a new life with his mentally weak wife.

But he meets this young girl and the circus is on. Or the chaos. The first half of this film is full of flashbacks. The content is both very tragical and most comical, but in this case, they don't match.

A good try perhaps, but not enough of it to make this a good movie. And the flashback technique could have been used with some moderation.

Icelandic film that would appear to be your typical romantic comedy judging by the movie poster. There's a whole lot more happening than the goofy mess that can be found in the U.S. theaters almost every weekend. This is art house goodness in almost every sense. What a beautiful, unique location this takes place in: a small, car-less island just off the coast of Iceland. A man is about to marry a woman half his age and has flashbacks to his previous wife and what happened in that marriage in the year leading up to this wedding. There are so many emotions going through several of these characters. The story almost seamlessly flips back and forth between past and present. Blink and you might miss which time frame it's in. A pretty interesting story that so easily helps establish the fact that foreign (to me) cinema is often much better than typical American trash! (Oh, and there's a great joke included about big burger butt Americans! Haaa!!!)

7.1 / 10 stars

--Zoooma, a Kat Pirate Screener

I don't get why anybody thinks this is a comedy. Comedies are funny. Is it different in Iceland? Well acted but unrelentingly depressing.

White Night Wedding leaves the audiences' minds spinning as we witness a wedding gone completely array. Baltasar Kormakur writes twisted story painted on the canvas of beautiful Iceland in complete juxtaposition to his first popular film 101 Reykjavik. As the movie unravels we witness the life of a middle aged professor, Jon, as he recovers from the suicide of his first wife and learns to accept a commitment to his second wife. In interview, Kormakur states that theme of the movie is the search for happiness, which is mixed with a few twists, turns and road blocks. Even against the odds, Jon finds his happiness as the audience enjoys Kormakur's sense of humor along the way. This movie offers moments of laughter but also leaves the audience guessing at what will happen next. We, as viewers, are drawn in by the music and the beautiful landscape and at the same time, put off, by suicide and debt issues that are intertwined into a cinematic masterpiece.

Nature evokes a great deal of emotion in this film and the symbolisms that accompany it are difficult to ignore. The first encounter the audience has with the drama surrounding nature is when Anna, Jon's first wife, strikes a swan with her car. We are met with the vivid image of crimson blood on white feathers. Shortly thereafter, the couple moves back to Anna's home town which is a small but charming island. Here, Anna's deep connection with nature comes alive. Though it is clear she is mentally unstable there is something charming about her devotion for nature. She tends to the sea like her garden when she creates a web of seaweed. In addition to Anna's devotion to nature, Kormakur frequently uses aerial shots of the island. Through these shots the audience is able to view the exquisite serenity of the Icelandic land.

Other themes emerge throughout the film, such as the theme of infectious mental illness. We can see Anna's mental illness and how it leaches into the lives of others. Anna forces Jon to leave his position of professor because she longs to be home. After moving back to her home island she loses trust in Jon, and any love left in their marriage slowly fades. After Anna encounters Jon during a sexual affair with a previous student, Þóra, her depression worsens and she is driven to suicide. Jon, wears the weight of her suicide around like a heavy cloak. Though, his affair did not help his wife's depression, he blames himself fully for her death and repeatedly says that he killed her. This notion that he was responsible for sucking the life from Anna, is the barrier that stand between him and his love for Þóra. This debt that he feels to his deceased wife is not relieved until he flings himself into the sea where she committed suicide. Jon's debt does not end there however.

Jon is also a debtor in the monetary sense. When Jon returns to the Iceland for his second marriage to Þóra he is sought out by his friends and family who hound him for money. We encounter his soon to be mother in law, shortly after arriving to the island. Immediately upon meeting her we can see that she is not pleased with his past actions. In fact he owes her a great deal of money for a golf course plan run amok. His mother doesn't trust his intentions with her daughter and is so hung up on his debt she can't see the devotion between Þóra and Jon. Nevertheless, this is not his only debt owed on the island. The morning of his wedding, Jon is awoken by breaking glass as golf balls are flung through his window. Börkur, an angry friend of Jon's is also here to collect a debt owed to him. From every angle, Jon is bombarded by his debts and his sins which again do not appear to be reconciled until his plunge in the ocean.

Quite possibly my favorite theme in the movie, is that of music. Music seems to permeate all areas of this film. The first experience we have with music being performed in the film is through the musical talent of Anna. Anna requests that a piano be sent to her island home. Later it is during times of turmoil that we see her passionately playing. Other characters are deeply involved in music also. Lárus, the soon to be father in law of Jon sings beautiful opera throughout the film. My favorite scene is most definitely his early morning dip where he awakens the inhabitants of the island with is booming operatic voice.

There is also a great deal of parallel between the "old" life of Jon with his deceased wife and his new life with Þóra. About half of the movie is made up of flashbacks, these flash backs are presumably the memories of Jon. At times it is difficult to differentiate between the present and the past. This is done to portray the stark difference between Anna and Þóra and the difference between past unhappiness and current happiness. This is enforced by the dreary and dark weather of past scenes compared with the bright scenes of the present. At the same time this is in contrast with the static portrayal of the island and its people. The audience can see that life for Jon changes dramatically while the small sleepy town remains consistent and folksy. This theme of rural life is a common theme in many Icelandic films.

In conclusion Kormakur puts on a great show. Though this film is not similar to his past success, 101 Reykjavik, it holds its own position in his collection of films. The message of a search for happiness is theme that most can relate with. Along with this the audience enjoys the gorgeous nature in the film and beautiful music. All elements in combination make a quite striking film.

Director of 101 Reykjavik Kormákur wants you to think there will be dark nights and an expensive wedding by misleading you with the title. However there are no dark nights in this Icelandic setting only a married bachelor, a disgraceful golf course, and a money hungry ogre. This dramatic comedy hailed as the most popular Icelandic film of 2008 has the funny dysfunctional family of meet the fockers paired with the drama of a mid day soap opera.

The setting of the movie takes place in beautiful Iceland which was settled by the Norwegians in the 9th century. It's a really interesting place for a setting because it always seems like its day time due to the plentiful amount of sunlight. This movie was filmed during the summer solstice where Iceland experiences 24 hours of sunlight or just every morning to get this affect. With that being said we get to experience both the city and country life in this movie.

Kormákur takes an interesting approach simultaneously showing you the past/present throughout the movie as you get to know the goods about each character. For example we get glimpses of Jon teaching and walking the streets of Reykjavik which occurred earlier in time line. As we're taken back and forth we get to witness first hand the struggles Jon had with his traumatic marriage and how he struggles in the present days before his second marriage. Jon is a man full of problems because you soon find out that he is debt with the mother of his future wife and we get to see how the escalated situation got to this point. I've always enjoyed this approach because in my opinion it has helped me better understand the movie. These "flashbacks" serve as a reminder to me and help me follow the movie. Just like in the epic Fight Club, the past/present film technique really helps you understand the struggle Jon is having with himself and not his wives.

I think its way to easy to label Jon as a bad a husband or a bad man but honestly I saw his actions as a warning. It's not like he tried to get his ex student to fall for him but with that being said he doesn't prevent it and that causes the whole mess. Jon is just a writer looking for inspiration and cant handle being both a husband and a writer; I think this movie is a perfect example of a man torn between his two loves; work and pleasure.

Oh the golf course and how significant it is, in my opinion it is a huge factor that lead to the domino effect. It all starts with the move away from the city and when Jon feels he needs something to do up pops up the GOLF COURSE IDEA. This leads to the debt, enhances his marital problems, and possibly a second wife…..

In conclusion White Night Wedding has imperfect characters in an imperfect world that everyone can relate too. With that being said I think Jon is just a guy who knows what his worth as a partner is and doesn't want to hurt anyone. He understands that he is not suitable for the life as a husband but more of a bachelor. In my eyes this movie was the story of George Clooney getting hustled into a marriage and what becomes of it. The fun is in the chase or being chased after.

I liked the first half of the movie because of the beautiful scenery of Iceland. The island is beautiful, the small community on it is interesting and one can easily start to dream how it might be to live in there. Some characters are really funny and definitely likable (the huge Viking-looking friend of the lead character is definitely someone who would be very cool to party with). And the "development project" for the island is funny and crazy as well.

On the other hand the story was somewhat hard to understand for me. It took me half of the movie to actually understand that the movie is basically a big pile of mess assembled from scenes from "the past" and scenes from "the present". These scenes are blended so homogeneously that they actually seem to be single linear yet surreal story. Actually I was not sure if there is one lead character who has one wife and tries to marry another one or if there are identical twins or what the hell happens. I was confused. The cuts basically do not give any clues about temporal relations of individual scenes.

So I have started to untangle the storyline mess only at the end - and the resulting story was not something I would like. Especially the lead character is very ugly in the resulting picture - cold, weak and immoral. His first wife was much more interesting and true character. Maybe it would be better for me if I spent the rest of the movie in false idea that it is just visually beautiful, surreal, experimental movie.

Unless there is a great answer... somewhere, there was no point to making this movie!