The movie tries to copy the 50;s film noirs of Hollywood. Dialog rich, action little. The plot is a retread seen many times before. He has a tale to tell and he'll spin it out slowly. It all takes place in a hotel room and when we realize it ain't going anywhere we presume it's a no action movie. So the plot and dialog are key and in this regard they are a C+ variety. The characters are never interesting enough to pique one's fancy. It might have worked better as a one act play but as a movie it needed more scope. It sort of ambles along and when that happens dialog is key and this is where it falters by dragging out a story that has little weight.
5 Reviews
Mumbling without Core
werwolf_dk28 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I ticked the box indicating that this may contain spoilers, although I don't know whatever there could be to spoil. The scene is set in a hotel room where Mikael is rehearsing a witness statement. There is top security. (So why not let it happen in a secure place like police headquarter?) The exposition is slow, awfully slow. The script tries, unsuccessfully, to build up tension between the characters, but never manages to start a conflict or anything worthwhile or interesting. The characters remain paper-like two-dimensional without depth. it is obvious that after the lengthy introduction something has to happen. So when the action is fueled by a bang, we are not really surprised, but rather happy that the film has finally ended.
mmmm can be
pretor_cba2 November 2019
Good story, horrible execution
ottodevantier30 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
While I think the screenwriting along with the many lines were terrible, I think the plot had some good ideas that they tried to show.
We have some classic Stockholm syndrome, where in the beginning, the guards have a grudge with the main antagonist but eventually lays off their guard and sort of acknowledge him for how well he executed the heist he did, and the antagonists ex girlfriend eventually forgive him for what he did, clearly because she didn't got that closure they both needed 7 years earlier.
Thus we see the main antagonist in his manipulating charm, where we learn that he really is dangerous and selfish because he figured out that the other antagonists where coming for him, and he tries to figure out how he can escape the way he did.
Finally he thought of everything and is escaping with 4.200.000 DKK (roughly 619.329 USD) to go life off the rest of his live in Spain, but even though he got what most would call a happy ending, he didn't get the love of his life because her morality is just way above the main antagonist and she couldn't live with that. Also she felt like she was lied to, which was one of the reasons on why they broke up to begin with. But him not getting her makes the classic "I got all that I needed but at what cost and is it really worth it now?" scheme.
These were good points in the movie, but horrible screenwriting and terrible screencasting drag the movie down.
We have some classic Stockholm syndrome, where in the beginning, the guards have a grudge with the main antagonist but eventually lays off their guard and sort of acknowledge him for how well he executed the heist he did, and the antagonists ex girlfriend eventually forgive him for what he did, clearly because she didn't got that closure they both needed 7 years earlier.
Thus we see the main antagonist in his manipulating charm, where we learn that he really is dangerous and selfish because he figured out that the other antagonists where coming for him, and he tries to figure out how he can escape the way he did.
Finally he thought of everything and is escaping with 4.200.000 DKK (roughly 619.329 USD) to go life off the rest of his live in Spain, but even though he got what most would call a happy ending, he didn't get the love of his life because her morality is just way above the main antagonist and she couldn't live with that. Also she felt like she was lied to, which was one of the reasons on why they broke up to begin with. But him not getting her makes the classic "I got all that I needed but at what cost and is it really worth it now?" scheme.
These were good points in the movie, but horrible screenwriting and terrible screencasting drag the movie down.
Thieves' life
kbantov2 October 2017
Recently it is rarely possible to watch a good movie. By good movie I mean a movie with a good performance of at least the main actor, with a story that has setup, confrontation and resolution. Suddenly the Danes surprised me. I pay much attention to the Danish film industry after "The land of mine" movie. The Danes try to influence the audience not by crazy somersaults and twists of a plot, not by mind-blowing special effects, but by the ability to tell a story.
"3 Tings" is about a robbery and its consequences. But if you are expecting the next set of explosions and people in black masks - you are wrong. The process of robbery is seen from the inside, the motives of people involved are analyzed philosophically. The effect of presence in the heist is very strong, because of pretty decent acting of Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau - he is somehow a medium through which we can look inside the heist.
There are three reasons to watch this movie: 1) well narrated story, 2) crazy suspense, 3) deep philosophical content.
"3 Tings" is about a robbery and its consequences. But if you are expecting the next set of explosions and people in black masks - you are wrong. The process of robbery is seen from the inside, the motives of people involved are analyzed philosophically. The effect of presence in the heist is very strong, because of pretty decent acting of Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau - he is somehow a medium through which we can look inside the heist.
There are three reasons to watch this movie: 1) well narrated story, 2) crazy suspense, 3) deep philosophical content.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
