Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

oOoBarracuda From my introduction to Michael Haneke through his 1997 film, Funny Games, I knew he shared an important quality with one of my favorite filmmakers. Like David Lynch, Michael Haneke doesn't care if the audience is comfortable while watching his films. Haneke extends his scenes past the point where the audience watching thinks is necessary, creating a hypnotic trance that one is unable to look away from. This ability of Haneke's to espouse the audience's attention forces the viewer to become an active participant in his films and thrusts us into an often much-needed self-examination. Haneke's feature film debut, The Seventh Continent takes an in-depth look at the lives of a family chained by the shackles of their expected existence willing to go to extreme measures to escape the monotonous confines of their daily existence.The long takes Haneke favors throughout The Seventh Continent, introduce the audience to a young family living in Europe that live in precisely the way that is expected of them. Georg Schober (Dieter Berner) works diligently at his career, always placing himself in the best possible position to advance through promotions and better situate himself in his profession. Anna Schober (Birgit Doll), an optometrist, steadfastly maintains her family's home, dutifully completing all the tasks and errands to keep the everyday lives of her family running. Anna is also reacting to the death of a parent, which has devastated her brother, assuming the role of the strong focused sibling taxed with the burden of maintaining her parents' business. The youngest member of the family, Evi, fills her time coloring pictures, doing her homework, and occasionally causing mischief at school by feigning blindness. Neither Georg's career advancements, Anna's mourning, nor Evi's misbehavior is consequential to the story--they are simply moments that happen in each of their lives and fills their days. This is precisely Haneke's point; most of what we do in our lives are mundane activities which fill our time until we die. Whether it be a scene filmed in real time at a car wash or listening to someone relay a story during an eye exam, Haneke gives us these moments in as similar a way as they actually occur, removing all sense of grandiose filmmaking, forcing the audience to see themselves in the lives of those depicted on screen. It's hypnotizing they way we can scoff at collective suicide, yet through watching the events that lead up to the act come to understand the universality of the expectations we adhere to. Every move is repetitive, the same food is served every day at breakfast, the same pommel horse is jumped over in gym class, the same filling station is visited when the car is low on fuel. We often live our lives thinking of the future, fooling ourselves into believing that the monotony we serve daily is crucial to our growth until we are shocked to learn that the future we have been striving towards has become the past. We get so lost in the day-to-day that we need Haneke to make clear that the way we actually live our lives doesn't make all that much sense once analyzed. The cold emotionless state maintained in the Schober home is sobering to watch. No amount of intimacy brings the family closer together. Even after making love, Georg and Anna immediately return to the distance between each other that fills their days. Not only does one hardly see any affection between the members of the Schober family, but we also rarely see them enjoy conversations with each other. The cold, detached atmosphere isn't confined to their home, either. Each time they exchange currency for a service, the audience is afforded a glimpse into the lives of everyone they interact with, each doing their job or performing a service while all vitality seems to have been drained from their being. Through the entire runtime of The Seventh Continent, we don't see a single meaningful human connection. There is even a scene in which a man recently released from his employment with Georg, returns for his things and isn't given a single embrace of encouragement or a kind word. His appearance disrupts the work because he is unexpected, further cementing Haneke's notion that our lives are simply made up of a series of repeated actions, and we are stricken by the break from routine when interrupted. Despite the lack of compassionate connectivity, I would argue that Haneke's feature is one of the most humanistic films I have recently seen, because it gives hope to our existence and alerts us to think critically about our society.

Tim Kidner My three previous forays into Austrian director Michael Haneke's dark world - The Piano Teacher, Funny Games & White Ribbon - I found to be just a little bit sadistic and nasty, almost for the sake of it.Why then, would I want to buy his ten-disc Collection, starting with this, his first feature? Wasn't that just rubbing my nose in it? It was cheap, that's why! And, good old curiosity.The other reviewer certainly goes to some lengths to describe the ins and outs, so I won't. I basically agree but can pare my thoughts back to a few lines.After the monotonous rituals of daily life, which are sort of compelling, as not only are they part of the ongoing story but show us another country and twenty odd years ago, so culture comparisons are interesting and inevitable. I don't know whether it was me, or intentional, but the destruction in the latter part seemed to take exactly as long as the film had taken to construct it, thus far. Whilst these scenes are unfolding, we don't see any faces, though we know which family member is doing it. It's almost so alien and anonymous, the ripping, smashing etc could have been done by the production assistants.It is also the unfolding expectation that things are going to get worse, but by how much, we just don't know. That makes it all the more uncomfortable.From the basis of adapting a true story, it's a well crafted and put together movie. I found the cut-offs, where the screen went blank at unexpected times a bit annoying, but I'm sure that was intentional, to induce a level of unease. The gaps went on for too long, also to be comfortable - all the same length but to the point where you wonder if the disc's sticking; again to create tension in the viewer.I can't see how it could be improved but it certainly won't be very many people's cup of tea. If you found it enjoyable, someone might say that you were maladjusted yourself, too. On the strength of this one DVD, the rest of the box set looks enticing.....

forgions This movie is not so bad. I rented it because I was intrigued by the conceptual gloom it promised. But the actions of the family are not committed wholeheartedly, the mother is reluctant to follow through, indicating a hidden normalcy to the characters. The suicide is referenced in voice-over letters and in explanations as to how it "should" be done before it actually is done, (e.g. the father breaking down a shelf and telling his wife, who is drawn into the room and bewildered by the scene, "it is best if we do it systematically"). I felt that it would have been stronger if the family had not referenced it, but had just done it in an organic, fluid and uncompromising manner. When the characters have lines foreshadowing their suicide, it gives it a predictability as banal as the bureaucratic world the family is abandoning. I haven't seen any of Michael Haneke's other movies, but he seems like a very deliberate, intellect-wielding director. Sort of like a contemporary Godard, although he had to break from Godard in order to replace him. I was watching this with a friend, who said, "I feel like he is making a clear-cut argument." I felt the same way. Although I am not opposed to this way of approaching film-making, it detracts from the characters, because they become tools of the director's thesis rather than living, emotion-showing individuals. This movie is not disturbing, it isn't depressing, it's just a point of view, cut and dry. I did like one thing about this movie- the way that it was shot. It has a photographic crispness to it.

Alocirp I went into this film with very high expectations. Unfortunately, I can't say that it lived up to them. The first hour is incredibly dull, as we watch an upper middle-class family lifelessly perform mundane tasks (take a shower, eat breakfast, tie shoes, etc.). I failed to sympathize with any of the characters, and some scenes dragged on so long that I found my mind wandering. I generally don't mind long takes, and even in other films by the same director (Funny Games, Benny's Video, etc.) thought they were used extremely well. However, here they were simply tedious.The film wasn't totally a let down however; far from it. The last 45 minutes really picks up intensity and re-grabs the viewer's interest. I won't spoil anything for those who haven't seen it, but the scene in which the family destroys their own house and possessions is extremely well done. The ending is bleak and depressingly powerful, and I realized that it wouldn't have worked without the boring first hour. But that doesn't change the fact that it was boring.Overall, I had trouble giving this film a number rating, but I guess it would be somewhere around a 6/10. I think it's possible that that number would change on a second viewing, but to be honest, I doubt I would ever want to watch this film again.