The Commune (2016) User Reviews (22)

Love, friendship, betrayal and deception

[rubenm · 7/10 · 24 April 2016]

The emotional upheaval of a tightly-knit community has become Thomas Vinterberg's trademark as a film maker. He explored this theme with great success in 'Festen' and in 'Jagten', and now he does it in 'Kollektivet'. This time, the community is a group of people living together in a large house, a way of living that was trendy in the sixties and seventies. The group consists of friends and acquaintances of architect Erik and journalist Anna. Together, they fill up the huge villa he inherited from his parents. Anna thinks this social experiment can add some spice into her life. After all, she has been married to the same man and doing the same job for fifteen years.

But the cozy atmosphere of having meals and drinking beer together with a group of friends, turns sour when Erik introduces someone new into the group: his girlfriend, a young and pretty student. His wife Anna agrees with this arrangement, and in fact proposes it, hoping to keep Erik close to her. But predictably, the whole experiment ends in tears, fights and bitter reproaches.

Vinterberg's film has a different tone of voice than 'Festen' and 'Jagten'. It is a bit more lighthearted, and less harsh. He not only analyzes the emotional feelings of the characters, but also shows how society has changed in the last forty years. What struck me, was how easily Erik gets away with abject male-centred behaviour. He cheats on his wife practically in front of her eyes, and seems to have hardly any emotional connection to her or their daughter. In the end, it is his girlfriend who has to point out to him that his wife is having an emotional breakdown. But even then, he doesn't see the damage he has created. Instead, he complains that all these 'women issues' distract him from his work. Nowadays, a man would get a slap in the face after saying something like that.

The seventies-atmosphere adds an extra dimension to the film, and the period setting makes it an easier viewing experience than 'Jagten' or 'Festen'. At the same time, it is also less intense. It's nice to watch, but doesn't make you shift uneasily in your chair.

Seventies Based Danish Drama that is rather good.

[t-dooley-69-386916 · 7/10 · 29 October 2016]

A middle class Danish couple find that they have inherited a rather grand house on the death of Erik's father. It is going to be too big for them and their only daughter and more over too hard to finance and so Anna suggests they invite a few others to live with them and for a 'Kollektivet' or as we would call it a commune.

They waste little to no time in getting an assorted array of waifs and not so strays and soon fine that communal living bring challenges and opportunities in equal measure. Not all of them are going to be easy to grasp and the tensions, that go hand in hand with any social experiment, waste no time in pushing their way to the fore.

Now I really liked this, I loved the idea of a commune having spent time in one in the eighties (when they were a bit passé to be honest) and the themes are explored here but also the lives of the main characters are mostly to the fore. This is Anna played brilliantly by Trine Dryholm – 'The Legacy' and her husband Erik (Ulrich Thomsen – 'The Blacklist') and their young daughter who is growing up much too quickly. His is from director Thomas Vinterberg who brought us 'The Hunt' in 2012 and 'The Celebration' in 1998 and I think he has an eye for style but sometimes struggles to engage, but here I think he has melded all parts of the art very well together to bring a very entertaining watch – recommended.

Danish movie that is in part a relationship drama, in part a coming-of-age movie

[paul-allaer · 7/10 · 28 May 2017]

"The Commune" brings the story of Eric and Anna. As the movie opens, we see the couple looking at the huge house of Erik's deceased father. The couple really can't afford to keep the house, but at Anna's suggestion, they invite several other people to join them (and pay rent). All together, they are now 9, of which 2 kids (including Anna and Erik's 14 yr. old daughter Freja). Then, just as things seem to go quite well, Erik starts an affair with Emma, a 24 yr. old student of his. What impact will that have on the commune? To tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from Danish writer-director Thomas Vinterberg, whose work includes 2015's "Far From the Madding Crowd" and before that, the excellent "Hunt" in 2012. Here, after going "Hollywood" in his previous movie, he returns to his Danish roots and brings us a story set in the 1970s, when the concept of morality and conformity were quite different from what we now know them to be. This movie turned out to be a bit different from what I expected it to be. It's not really about "hippies living together and being one with nature", but rather a study of what one man's affair means for the immediate group around him, including of course first and foremost his wife, a slightly aging but very popular TV news anchor. The film also spends quite of time looking at the 14 yr. old girl, and in that sense is also partly a coming of age movie. There are a couple of acting performances that will knock you out, none more so that Trine Dyrholm in the role of Anna, but Ulrich Thomsen as Erik certainly should be mentioned to.

I recently saw "The Commune" at the Landmark E Street Cinema in Washington DC. The Saturday evening screening that I saw it at was attended okay but not super. That's a shame, but maybe this movie will find a wider audience on Amazon Instant Video or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray. If you are in the mood for a quality foreign film that is in part a relationship drama and in part a coming-of-age movie, I'd readily recommend you see this out.

It would probably work better on stage.

[MOscarbradley · 6/10 · 7 June 2019]

"The Commune" at the center of Thomas Vinterberg's film isn't typical of the communes I knew back in the day. For a start, the members of this one are reasonably well off and are mostly middle-aged and, of course, they bring to this 'living together' thing all the baggage you would expect. Things come to a head when commune founder Erik, (Ulrich Thomsen), falls for one of his students and moves her in leading his wife Anna, (Trine Dyrholm), to have a nervous breakdown.

Vinterberg's film began life as a play and it's certainly very theatrical but despite the emotional conflicts at the film's heart, it's also fairly conventional with everyone other than Erik and Anna fading very much into the background. You never get to know any of them. Subplots come and go and it just trudges on. On the plus side, it's very well acted particularly by Dyrholm who won the Best Actress prize at Berlin; she's the only one you actually care about. It might have worked better on stage where at least you could feel 'in the same place' as these commune-dwellers. On screen, it just feels like another piece of Vinterberg navel-gazing.

The pivot of the story is a mediocre individual.

[roland-scialom · 21 July 2016]

The story is not a good study of characters. All of them are almost caricatures. When the existential problem between Erik and Ana arises, both behaves in a way too much elementary, taking in account the gravity of the situation which is going on. More precisely (1) Erik is absolutely incapable to realise that he is ruining the emotional life and the self respect of the woman with whom he has been married and living in a pleasant way during at least fifteen years. A woman who proved to be generous when she accepted that Emma could live with the community, and who had probably fantasies of living a ménage à trois, along with Erik and Emma, thing that I think reasonable and human, considering what was going on. Erik sticks with Emma as if he hadn't any responsibility with regard to Anna feelings. (2) Anna is incapable to react in time to rescue her dignity which is being hurt by the irresponsible behaviour of Erik. The rest of the characters manifest themselves very poorly with respect to the crisis between Erik an Anna. Except the young Freja, daughter of Erik and Anna which is the only one capable to say that her mother must leave the community and seek for a new life. In short, Erik who is almost a pivot of the whole story, behaves - in the light of existentialist philosophy - as an individual with bad faith. I would add also, on my part, that he is a kind of mediocre individual.

A slow watch about trust and family dynamics

[lom83 · 7/10 · 27 January 2019]

This is quite a slow burner, plot pace wise. Its mostly about family dynamics and trust. It took a while for me to feel especially interested in the characters but I thought it was somewhat of a powerful watch by the time it headed towards the end and I would say it may make you think.

If your not keen on character focussed dramas then this won't be for you. Also of course you likely have to rely on the subtitles, as its in Danish, although I was pleased to see that the subtitles were quite large in terms of text size, compared to other films with smaller subtitles, so if anything it was slightly less of an issue than it might have been. I felt sorry for the wife Anna and I did find myself wondering what might happen next, as things moved on plot wise but it is, as I say, a relatively slow burner, so don't expect fast paced action or anything of that sort. Its a reasonably intriguing watch and overall I suppose I'd say its a good watch, hence my rating.

An interesting, exotic, intense story that is not truly engaging

[zoranov · 7/10 · 6 May 2016]

Less difficult to watch then The Hunt or Festen, Thomas Vinterberg's Kollektivet (The Commune) impresses with great cinematography and how successfully it seems to reconstruct the details of the sixties and seventies fashion in Copenhagen, Denmark. But at the same time, it fails to deliver a truly engaging story. It's an interesting story, it's an exotic story, but the situations presented are so unfamiliar for someone who hasn't even considered living in a commune that it simply makes the plot hard to relate to. The Danish director apparently grew in a commune, but that doesn't mean that the story is autobiographical. However, it is pretty obvious that such a subject couldn't be presented so convincingly by someone without the experience of living in a commune. European movies are more and more something of an alternative cinema treat and this movie is a quite a delight from that perspective. The alternative lifestyle of the protagonists is presented in such detail that it doesn't seem forced or artificial. Most of the characters have strong personalities, but these are kind of ignored, as the pace is too quick to stop for them. Ultimately, what truly sticks out in your memory hours even after watching the movie is a very sad love story. A story about allowing extreme changes to your lifestyle and then having to bear all the consequences, with all the associated happiness and tears. "Maybe this is what people use to do in the Northern parts of Europe, I don't know what to say" was the first reaction of someone in the audience that I overheard at the European Film Festival, after the Bucharest opening screening. I kind of agreed. It is quite difficult to relate to a movie about an extreme leftist commune from Denmark. However, if you like strange stories that show with great talent a historical time and place, then The Commune is something you might fully appreciate. Yes, the action could also take place in a more modern setting, as the world is full of communes. However, what really makes this movie watchable is the love invested in recreating the look & feel of a defunct 20th century decade as seen and felt in a Northern Europe capital by a truly talented and hard- working director.

Life in community is possible?

[Vikingbyheart · 6/10 · 10 October 2016]

Kollektivet (original title) or The Commune (English title), the new movie from director Thomas Vinterberg (known for Festen - The Celebration - 1998, Submarine - 2010 and Jagten - The Hunt - 2013), one of the founders of the film movement Dogme 95, which seeks to create a more realistic and less commercial cinema, deals with a family in the 70s, formed by the father Erik (played by Ulrich Thomsen, known for Festen - The Celebration - 1998 and Adams æbler - Adam's Apples - 2005), the mother Anna (represented by Trine Dyrholm, known for Festen - The Celebration - 1998 and DeUsynlige - Troubled Water - 2008) and the daughter Freja (played by Martha Hansen). Erik inherits the house of his family after the death of his father, but considering it very large and with high maintenance costs he is willing to sell it. However, his wife convinces him to turn the house into a kind of community, inviting some friends and even interviewing strangers to share the house and to help pay the bills. Living in a group, like a big family, they have dinners, parties and regular meetings so that important matters are made democratically. But the utopia around this experiment begins to be questioned when a love affair shakes the small community.

Kollektivet hits to portray very well the time when the story takes place: the 70s in Copenhagen. The production design, costumes and characters's characterization, expressed by the clothes, hair and costumes, confer credibility and immerse the viewer in the plot. But the film errs for not develop enough the characters that are not part of the central plot. The director should have further explored the group in conflict scenes and the writer could have better elaborated the difficulties of social life that are inherent to a life in a community. As it was written the supporting actors add little to the story and the parallel plot of Freja's journey into adulthood opposed to the reflection of everything that happens within the community deserved to be better developed.

The big highlight is the actress Trine Dyrholm, who received the Silver Bear for Best Actress at the Berlin Film Festival this year for her excellent performance. The most dramatic scenes and the strongest blows that we took in the feature film are starred by her character, Anna, a television news presenter. The actress representation convinces not only because her ability to express emotions in times of joy or in the darkest moments, but by the naturalness of interpretation, which makes the viewer forget that it's just a role play.

Convivial challenges can be overcome? To what extent a community project should override the individual interests? What is more important: the individual or the collective? Life in community is possible? These are some of the questions that The Commune tries to address, but ends up doing superficially. Director Thomas Vinterberg had talent to produce a film with a final result much better than he produced.

Originally posted in: https://vikingbyheart.blogspot.com.br

1970s' commune problems reflect upon contemporary social planning

[maurice_yacowar · 8/10 · 6 February 2017]

The film is set in 1970s Denmark, when idealists launched communes as a love-loving, open counterweight to the conflicts of and over the Vietnam war.

Today the film reflects upon the challenge that human emotions and relationships bring to any theory of social planning. Though set in the 70s it's clearly about the post-commune age of today as well. However strong the spirit or idea, the flesh, the human reality, may well prove too weak to sustain it. Write in your own contemporary context.

The commune spirit is personified by Anna. She has the idea of turning her husband Erik's inherited family estate into a commune so they and their teenage daughter Freja can afford to live there.

Erik is an architect, a builder, though his professional career still requires him to teach. Anna is a well-known TV news presenter, an observer not a maker of news or structures. In inviting family friend Ole to join she launches the commune over her husband's concerns. Anna most visibly enjoys the spirited life in the commune. The observer's venture into building seems at first to work.

But despite all that new idealism, the old male privilege persists. Erik may extravagantly deny being any "boss" and he signs over his ownership of the estate to the commune. But in the crunch he asserts his authority to admit his new mistress to the commune, at whatever pain to Anna. In her idealism Anna suggested his Emma move in, but her emotion at her loss of Erik and her sense of her own fading beside her young successor defeat her resolve. The modern sophisticated commune proves essentially tribal when its founder Anna has to move out to allow Erik's peaceful life with Emma.

Men are so privileged that even the little boy with the heart condition uses his weakness ("I'm going to die before I'm nine") to hustle women. Including Emma, at first sight: "You want to shag?" His heart finally gives out when his more practical romantic chance, Freja, brings her boyfriend to dinner.

In her New Age womanhood Anna tries to accept her husband's affair with the pretty third- year (i.e., really young) student. She even treats her rival warmly. But her valiant effort can't stand up to her emotional needs. She crumbles on air, then shatters the dinner table peace when she declares her own emotional needs. Erik's more violent emotional eruptions are excused but not Anna's. The temperamental male here even gets to faint! Anna is fired for her first freeze.

Fired, humiliated, shattered, she luckily has her daughter's trust and confidence — which empowers her to move out of her idealized construction and take on the real world on her own. How she will fare we don't know, because the film opts for the happy ending of the commune, carrying on without her.

But there's still another scene. Daughter Freja leaves the family to go to her boyfriend. He's older but rather vacuous in looks, character, wit, manner, but he accepted her sexual initiative. In the last scene she finds him lying stoned at a party so she snuggles up. He offers her headphones to join his experience and doesn't hear her "I love you." Like her mother, Freja constructs an idealized, romanticized connection and invests herself in it, to her own peril and eventual cost.

Like Freja later, Emma took the sexual initiative with her professor with the delusion she's empowered by submitting to the supposedly impressive male. She comes to his office disturbed at his humiliation of her male student friend. She even puts up with the prof's arrogant dismissal of her own project proposal. She needs to plumb her own emotional experience, the up-tight unproven architect insists. Claiming to detect a more sensitive inner guy, she invites his kiss.

The 1970s setting allows for another ironic presence: the swarthy Allon, a broke, jobless, helpless loner, whose testiness at the admission interview provokes Erik's anger. By crying, Allon converts the commune's rejection to admission, even though he can't pay his share and seems incapable of making any significant contribution — until he magically produces the collective's desired dishwasher! No contemporary representation of a European society could omit the refugee factor. Allon is a vulnerable outsider, anticipating the Muslim refugee issue we recognize today in fuller form.

Extreme situation of coexistence

[pacolopezpersonal-22057 · 7/10 · 8 October 2017]

Thomas Vinterberg performs an experiment / study of the human personality by gathering a gallery of characters (with whom it is difficult to identify yourself personally) and placing them in an extreme situation of coexistence. The supposed pragmatism or cold- blooded of Nordic people to face problems, here blows up. The ability of the director makes the viewer to take part inadvertently in the plot of the film as one more character of his work. Anna, TV presenter. and Erik professor of architecture form together with his teenage daughter an apparently happy family with no more complications than "the problem" of managing the use of a big inherited house. So great the house that they decide to share the use. The new experience begins with great joy but ends up in a dramatic way by crushing the promoter of the idea of sharing the house. It is interesting to observe the behavior of the teenage daughter through the story and also trying to understand how difficult it can be for a teacher accustomed himself to dominate students and situations from a position of strength to have to give up the domain of his house and almost his way of life for the general interest of a group composed by people whose specific weight is equal to nothing; the parasite that barely contribute, the "bums" that do not compromise themselves in anything, a liberal couple contributing to the experiment with a sick child who possibly might have been better brought up in the privacy of a normal home, etc. In summary, this film is full of teachings and is a great exercise in the expression of different behaviors, through the coexistence of a group of people with whom (out of the movie) it would be difficult to establish a friendship and still less to share your life. Finally highlight the great interpretation of the wife versus the weak of Erik's lover. talking of actresses terms, of course. The plot is set in 1970 but this fact is totally irrelevant.

Unfortunately, a very incomplete piece

[solefab-53302 · 2/10 · 27 February 2016]

The scenery in the commune is all about the fuzz. Lovely to watch a scenery from a 70's. Fine performances by the whole crew of actors.

Firstly, the line of story has some really weak spots. The turnaround of Anna, she persuades Erik in not selling the house and start a commune with some friends. Erik feels overlooked ONE time by her wife at a joyful dinner party. Minutes later he has found relief in a student of his which becomes his second girlfriend.

Anna openly accepts it in a awkward scene between Erik and Anna. Ulrich Thomsen is just one of the most awkward people to portrait the life of a couple. I didn't know whether to laugh or not.

Why does Anna turn from being a the main fire of the whole commune-thing into a deep crisis? It doesn't make sense, from what we know.

The woman is a very good looking and successful news host in television. She has a largely part of the Danish population of men to adore her.

To me, that makes the story unreliable. The movie could have been a lot more interesting, if she went with the flow and found her own sexual way of dealing with her challenge. It doesn't make sense that she is the one who crashes and become the victim of her own free spirit. You could tell the exact same story in 2016-settings. So why use a 70s commune setting if you won't use and exploit the unique spirit of open sexual relationships?

The Commune would have been a great pitch for a TV-show, likewise 'Arvingerne', 'Sommer' and so on. 10 episodes. Let's get deeper into the different characters, when the movie doesn't the have time. Why does Allon cry all the time? Why does Ole always burn other peoples stuff? Why does Mona lay with so many men? Why is Steffen so co-dependent? And let's see more about the development of the teen-years of Freja.

Instead, the movie which is a love story between three people, it fails as a comedy in a commune in the lustful 70's.

Indeed, Trine Dyrholm plays the role very authentically. I don't know if it is the luck of Thomas Vinterberg or maybe the movie would have been complete different without her going in destruction.

Again, would have been a great episode in a TV-show. But fails as a movie.

Vinterberg's most important message

[oppaimauspad · 8/10 · 20 April 2021]

Vinterberg, understandably having grown up in a commune, doesn't properly establish the hippy commune lifestyle. Probably because to him, that's just what he grew up with. He assumes you already know (and I do) but most people don't (or haven't thought about it) so the film feels severely lacking in world building. If this movie were an essay the first paragraph with the hypothesis is missing. Tell us a little bit about the ideology behind the choice in lifestyle; you did it beautifully did with Druk! Without it, the dramatic, emotional and ideological arithmetic doesn't quite add up. Have Ole tells us a bit about his left wing literature! Not to mention, Vinterberg shares nothing of the drug culture that the hippy lifestyle so adamantly relies on. Squash any human instinct/desire with a physical simulation; that's the hippy way. Feel unhappy: drink. You don't get that spark from learning something new? Just take a smoke and you'll get that spark relearning things you already know. Everything is material for the hippy, everything superficial. Real emotions always denied because we have pills for that! This film severely lacked a proper set up of that world in the first half.

That being said, this film develops into a deeply pertinent and important message. He perfectly diagnoses the problems with a hippy approach to a family structure. And I know this because my own family was a victim of this way of life. The mom in the film is my mom. The dad is my dad. The people in the film are from 70s Denmark, and my parents are from 90s LA. And while we live miles apart, the way of thinking leads to the same outcomes, and I have to repeat: Vinterberg perfectly diagnoses the problem with this type of thinking. While the woman may be the one suggesting a free love lifestyle, it's ultimately the women who will always suffer. The patriarch is to blame because he is the leader, whether or not he rhetorically offloads his duty to others.

The institution of marriage protects women, as their prospects of love virtually become null and void once they become old and ugly. The man however can remarry. This is why marriage exists. My parents were stupid enough to never make this observation and like in the movie, my mom ended up hooked on pills and alcohol while my father ran off with his tight new muse. And if you think the corporate world has any interest in supporting old women, think again.

What's a commune?

[born_naughty · 7/10 · 1 June 2016]

Don't look at the synopsis because that's not what the movie is about. Prior to the movie I didn't know what a commune was. After the movie I still didn't know, I had to look it up. I love atmospheric movies with low-key stories. The fate of the world doesn't need to be in the balance in every movie. Kollektivet is about human feelings and relationships and nothing more. A film doesn't need conflict to be interesting. It can have a compelling narrative, or can give the viewer a look at a person or situation (like a documentary). Kollektivet doesn't offer much of conflict, doesn't offer much of narrative and only offers a slight look at life within the commune. Despite that is succeeds. The natural way the conversations take place alone makes it interesting. It all feels so very real. Everything about Kollektivet feels real. Because we only see a small part of everyone's life and struggles the movie doesn't succeed in being involving the viewer emotionally. At least not at the moment. But after the credits rolled it stuck in my head nonetheless. And there's only one single reason for that: just how natural it all is. It's so natural that I could just feel myself as a part of that commune. And that's what makes this movie so special, because it's so freaking atmospheric it's scary. The fact that the setting is in a "commune" in the 70's really doesn't matter that much. It could have been set anywhere and at any time. I simply don't know why the word "commune" is used as often in the movie as it is, as if it's so important. Because, at least in Kollektivet, it's simply about multiple people living in one big house like one big family. Threating that simple fact like it's such a special thing is weird to me. People live together all over the world. Anyway, like I said: it's all about human feelings and relations here.

communities are for teamplay

[CheriePage · 2/10 · 15 March 2019]

This Danish movie is primarily a husband and wife drama going through a midlife crisis that turns more and more bitter. For the matter of tears and cries the scenes are extremely realistic. Yet, their drama would have unfolded in any social setting, the community is the movie title but not relevant at all. To my regret, the only reason to review this movie is to point to a much better one that demonstrates all the funny and positive sides of living in a shared home as in the French made L'Auberge Espanole, 2002.

Sad one

[shad-mzf · 7/10 · 6 April 2024]

Although the whole concept feels a bit fantasy the true/normal feelings will show up later in the movie. Feeling the stuggle of one character more clear and the other one not being exposed. The roles are played well with many characters just being in the background of the play of 3 family members. The feelings get very real at the end and the audience can feel a lot of pain if can imagine the situation. Through the whole story each main character finds a way out of the reality they cannot accept or like. The whole story reveals the loneliness of each person although being a part of a big group.

Ordinary people, new combinations

[paul2001sw-1 · 8/10 · 29 January 2019]

Thomas Vinterberg is an outstanding film-maker, whose first movie fulfilled the terms of the Dogme95 ultra-minimalist manifesto. There's something of the Dogme vibe about 'The Commune' as well, although it may be just that I'm reminded of Lars van Trier's Dogme effort, 'The Idiots', which was also set in a commune of sorts. That was a deliberately provocative film: this is a much more understated kind of movie, an account of a collection of disparate individuals trying to set up home together. The film is set in the 1970s when such efforts were more common than they are now, and in some senses, it tells a familliar story of the loss of privacy, the breakdown of one-to-one relationships, and conflicts of interest. But it's a better film than the summary would suggest, notably because its characters are not obviously hippies, but also because they are all highly flawed but in supremely normal ways - their world and its inhabitants might be unfamilliar in some respects, but in others, it's just the same as ours. In spite of dealing with highly emotional subjects, I found 'The Commune' a little less intense than Vinterberg's finest works, but the detail with which he renders everyday life is compelling nonetheless.

love hurts, danish edition

[christophspielberger · 1/10 · 17 October 2016]

The film wants to tell the feasibility of free love in a shared house, concurrent with the sexual evolution of a 14 year old girl. Big fail. The camera is constantly showing the girl's face, the face and again the face, to the degree of of boredom or revulsion; for no reason fathomable. Maybe because for the lack of better options, or the director fell in love with her (didn't they also promote sex with children back then?). The girl wants to get rid of her virginity and decides to get shagged like a peace of meat, worse than in a porn movie. No problem for her. Why? Because she learned, that to love means also to suffer. Where did she learn that from? Her parents just separated, because the father wants to shag the younger edition of his wife. The younger being his student, admiring him for some reason, that the film isn't able to describe. The father always looks grumpy, because of stress, too much alcohol, too many women, life in general, or some other reason, not mentioned in the film. The wife, in a desperate attempt to win her husband back, agrees the mistress joining the happy commune. So she loses her mind, her job and her house, because so sweet an oh so smart daughter knows that love flows like a river - her boyfriend's sex skills had improved in the meantime - and convinces mummy to move out. The rest of the people in the group agree, because there is no way to deny the new couple their love. It doesn't get any more superficial than that. Like the director, they all seem to have the emotional maturity of teenagers.

The Commune

[d_carlotaj · 10/10 · 14 February 2020]

OK. Here goes. Last night I watched Thomas Vinterberg's movie, The Commune, a Danish film. Immediately came to mind My Queen Karo. The star of that film said that the hippie culture taught us that free love and hippie lifestyle did not work. He was right. And when you watch The Commune, it will become obvious that that sentiment is reiterated. This film is a point of view film. And the action goes from a healthy plateau to straight downhill with the wind in a basket...a linear structure. The only other film which comes to mind immediately that is similiar in this structure and point of view is The Birds. The main characters in this The Commune film are Erik, Anna, Freja, and Emma, a husband and wife and their daughter and the other woman. Now it is easy to feel a tremendous sympathy for Anna. Her husband Erik ends up bringing his lover Emma into the commune which he heads with the ultimate result of his wife leaving a broken and humiliated woman. At one point Anna pleads with Emma to share Erik with her, stating that Erik knew her so well that his instincts about her from the physical level to the emotional level proved that they were meant for each other. But Anna did not get my sympathy. She did not know Erik and assumed that she could control him as she always had. But unfortunately for people who push Erik, he explodes when he is pushed to do something he doesn't want to, and his resulting decisions change his course of thinking and actions permanently. In the beginning of The Commune, Anna wants to move into the large house that Erik inherited from his family. He has done the math and cannot concede that he and Anna and Freja can afford it. Here is the pivotal point: Anna tells Erik that she is bored with him, and she needs stimulation of other people in their lives. So Erik concedes. But something has happened to Erik: he is no longer satisfied with Anna. He succumbs to his third-year student Emma's "play for the A." Things heat up. Erik and Emma are caught by Freja in the act. Now note the astuteness of Freja. Erik asks Freja why she didn't tell her mother what she knew. She says, "I don't want things to change." Erik says that he will tell her mother. So what does he do? He tells Anna. And boy do things change. So the upshot of this film is...the theme...that once the words are out in the etheric, they don't disappear. They ring forever. And had Erik and Anna used discretion, things might have ended differently. The other night I saw a film which had the same theme: Three Night Stand. Instead of a triangle as in The Commune there was an octagonal or the one up from that which precipitated marrital disintegration. So, the upshot is that sometimes you need to just to learn to keep your mouth shut. I give it 5 of 5 stars. The direction, action, photography were excellently.

Stupid, pointless movie

[johnpmoseley · 2/10 · 26 March 2021]

I can't resist trying to finish the story here, since Vinterberg seems to have been stuck for ideas and there's such a glaring arc waiting to be completed. For those who haven't seen it or read summaries, the existing action is as follows: Anna's husband of 15 years inherits a big house and she convinces him to turn it into a commune. Then he gets a new girlfriend and Anna convinces him to move her in. Then Anna gets really depressed and leaves. This, with the padding out of a couple of thin and largely unreflective side plots, is the whole film. What Anna seems to have missed, despite it being front and centre with a ton of supporting characters floating around to notice it and, potentially, point it out, is that her husband is a humongous arse, his only defining characteristic seeming to be flying off the handle for no reason. Her daughter, Freya, in particular, could have paid off Vinterberg's many lingering shots of her taking it all in by having her point this out. And then Anna could have blithely ignited yet another of her husband's toxic idiot rages by not giving a damn about his new squeeze and maybe started something up with another inhabitant of the

Actually, the more I think about it, this film is well-nigh unsalvageable. There's no reason for any of it, nothing about it matters. As other reviewers have pointed out here, you don't need the commune setting to tell the story and the other characters it brings in are almost completely ignored. Maybe the constraints of Dogme were good for Vinterberg or maybe he just somehow struck it lucky with Festen, but this and The Hunt suggest he needs to take a few screenwriting courses and stop wasting our time.

An interesting topic

[osmangokturk · 8/10 · 4 November 2017]

I watched this move without understanding all the conversations. But I guess the idea is transferred through the emotions.

First of all, it is a good trial to analyze the concept of the "Community". I graduated from a boarding school, sometimes I miss the atmosphere of it, and I dream an utopic commune life, where people share and make life easier.

The Director touches on ore intense and sad moments than happier moments. In this regard it is not an fantasy but more close to the reality.

Often we encounter hard moments due to the new love affair of Eric, but nobody step back from the set up, in another word the Commune continues and people stay in it.

In a family we can have sad and happy moments like sickness of the kids, even their loss, kids growing and having companions so in a Commune life. Maybe in a commune we can overcome more easily.

The movie focuses of the emotions of a Woman, Anna, who loose her husband to a more younger woman., Emma. Anna accept Emma and approve her stay in the Commune, with some hard emotions later. Anna enters into deep depression, loses her job and finally loose the race and leave the house. It seems that it is Anna who loses this game.

The movie concentrates on the emotions of Anna, and do not much delve into others lives apart from that of Eric, Anna and Emma. The movie could tell more about the benefits or the functioning of a Commune life.

As a good trial to explore a hard topic, it deserves a watch.

Made me want to say WTF

[hceydapala · 5/10 · 21 November 2020]

This movie is worth watching but way too unreal. The way that Anna never reacted to Eriks betrayal or the fact that she suggested Emma staying with them is way too disturbing.

Emotionally totally infantile

[ole-witt · 2/10 · 8 February 2024]

The characters act in such an unreflective way, I don't know who waved this through. In my opinion, it's just proof of how little access boomers have to their feelings. Apparently there is only drunkenness or emotional delirium. The only scenes where the characters were able to express their feelings properly, were when it came to their work. Jesus how long rhis review has to be, I only wanted to express my Rejection. So, only watch it if you have to, it's really not worth it... I saw the movie on a flight, might as well have counted the blinking of the wings during that time... ok that's it... what.