MCN Blogs
Kim Voynar

By Kim Voynar Voynar@moviecitynews.com

TIFF12 Review: Love is All You Need

Susanne Bier’s latest film, Love is All You Need, takes an accessible, easy-to-digest premise – at their children’s wedding, a man who’s closed himself off to love meets a sympathetic woman whose marriage is falling apart – and makes of it a much better film than it sounds on paper, thanks in no small part to a smart screenplay by Anders Thomas Jensen, who’s just good enough at storytelling to pull it all off. I enjoyed this film quite a lot, although I went into it fully prepared for it to be overly saccharine, based on the catalog description. It’s not. Bier and Jensen have crafted an entertaining little slip of a story here, quite Danish in style and with bit of a humorous bent, and if it’s not taking itself too seriously, well, it is at least entertaining to sit with for a couple hours.

The man in question, Phillip (Pierce Brosnan, whose presence also lends heft to keep things from being too fluffy), is a wealthy trader of fruits, and we learn early on that he’s an emotionally impotent, walled-off jerk who rejects any semblance of kindness or connection from others and treats his employees like chattel. Ida (Trine Dyrholm, previously seen in weightier works A Celebration, Troubled Water, and In a Better World) comes home from her final chemotherapy treatment to find her husband, Leif (Kim Bodnia) on their couch balling Tilde-from-accounting, a hot blond who’s keen to make Leif her own man.

Everybody comes together at the wedding of Phillip’s son Patrick ( Sebastian Jessen) to Ida’s daughter Astrid (Molly Blixt Egelind). Also along for the ride is Paprika Steen as Benedikte, Phillip’s brash, brassy sister-in-law, who’s always had a thing for him, and hopes to use the auspicious occasion of the wedding to kindle a little flame of her own. Steen is a terrific actress, one of my favorites of any culture, but Benedikte is so over-the-top that she tends to play a bit more as caricature than character; then again, so is Leif a bit of a caricature, and so is Tilde-from-accounting, so perhaps it was an intentional choice on the part of Bier and Jensen to render the less appealing characters with broader strokes, all the better to contrast and define those that are more firmly on the “good” side – Ida and Phillip, of course, but also Patrick and, especially, Astrid. It all plays a bit like a soap opera, but it’s a mostly entertaining one, and the scenery, especially once everyone goes off to Italy, is stunningly lovely and will make you want to call your travel agent to start planning your next vacation.

I could see this one doing well on the arthouse circuit, boosted by its rom-com-for-older-women sweet spot and the built-in appeal of the undeniably sexy – but also here sometimes bumbling and funny and sweet – Mr. Brosnan. It’s also exactly the kind of nice little film you could easily see some Hollywood studio think about buying remake rights for, after which they would take Jensen’s charming little script, butcher it mightily, cast some older actress (Meg Ryan, perhaps, or if they were sincerely aiming for “good,” maybe Meryl Streep (visions of Mama Mia?) or Toni Collette or Patricia Clarkson in the lead role, and turn it into some overly sentimental, sappy romantic comedy targeted squarely at middle-aged housewives in the Heartland who won’t watch films with subtitles. Here’s hoping that won’t happen; Bier has already done a perfectly fine job here with Jensen’s material, and it wouldn’t hurt some folks to stretch a little and learn to watch films with subtitles anyhow.

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “TIFF12 Review: Love is All You Need”

  1. marianne says:

    butcher it mightily is what will happen if this is made into a remake. leave it alone. broaden your horizons heartland housewives. learn to be a multitaskers and read subtitles. millenium trilogy fanstastic as it is. i will not bother with the lynch version.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon