valis1949
MAELSTROM labored far too hard be unconventional, yet Denis Villeneuve(director) did demonstrate the possibility for a very interesting film. Guilt due to an abortion which is exacerbated by a hit and run incident communicates a compelling narrative, but why introduce...a talking fish??? Sure, one could make a case for a 'talking fish', but how about a 'laughing typewriter', or an 'all knowing piece of cheese'. You just can't introduce something so outré without explanation, or you cross the line into extreme pretension. Of course, the 'talking fish' might represent Fertility, yet 'a laughing typewriter' could also indicate a playful creator, or 'an all knowing piece of cheese' could represent all of the above. If you want to get weird, the weird can turn pro. MAELSTROM had a fine cast, but the script failed to blend the ham-fisted element of 'the fishy fable' with the story's inherent dramatic subject matter, and in the end, the film aborted
raymond-15
The film opens with an apology to all Norwegians affirming that the film is based on imagination. If you dislike fish, you had best not watch this film for it is decidedly fishy from beginning to end. Indeed even the narration is given by a North Atlantic fish about to have his head lopped off in a fish processing factory. Not a pretty sight (quite ugly in fact) with the fish and the process worker all covered in blood.I never dreamed that a fish would have a philosophic outlook on life and anxious to deliver prophecies such as "He who kills shall be killed" . Yes this is certainly an imaginative film...rather nightmarish in fact with its scenes of hallucinations and gore. Whatever next, you may ask. Let it be said, this film is never dull.Misfortune they say never comes singly as Bibiane ( Marie-Josee Croze) soon discovers. In the depths of despair through most of the film, she finally falls in love with the son of the fisherman she accidentally kills. This is a strange turn of events. But then there are many surprises in this film. For example, would you dare ask a stranger at a railway station what you should do if you killed some one accidentally and no one else knew about it? Hardly. But there is an interesting twist to this later in the film. Indeed the film is all twists and turns and convolutions together with lots of fish and fishy smells and water everywhere. But after all this is a story taking place in Norway.If imagination is a measure of quality, this film is it! Highly commended.
richard-mason
Someone has to put a counterview, and I'm happy to do it. The film starts promisingly, with the fish head narrator, but descends so quickly into arty pretentiousness that any goodwill is quickly squandered. I found it so unbearably up itself that I walked out, something I rarely do. It was probably the worst film I saw at the 2001 Sydney Film Festival.
Bil-3
There's not much you can say about a movie narrated by a bloody, dying fish. Quirky and wry, this French-Canadian film tells the story of a young woman who is not having the best week: she's suffering with guilt over the abortion she's just had, her career as a boutique-chain owner is threatening to flush down the toilet, and she's just run over an innocent pedestrian with her car without stopping to see if he was alright. Enter the victim's handsome Norwegian son to assist her towards redemption and happiness. The story tries for poignancy, but as it takes half the film's running time just to figure out what it's all about it fails to really make its mark. What you are left with, though, is gorgeous cinematography of Montreal locations and an excellent lead performance by Marie-Josee Croze. Winner of the Canadian Genie Award for Best Picture.
AD
