Simon (Cees Geel) and Camiel (Marcel Hensema) are two opposing characters becoming friends. Marcel is gay, well-educated and polite; Simon hates gays, seems to have little education and is rude. In the beginning they meet at the height of Simon's life, as Simon has several thriving coffeehouses (where weed is on the menu) and beach cafés, Marcel is still a poor student wanting to become a dentist. 14 years onward they meet again and the roles of luck have somewhat reversed: Marcel is a working dentist now living with a male friend; Simon has gotten ill with cancer, has lost his girlfriend and by now only manages his businesses via others.
It touches several themes where The Netherlands has become renowned for: A liberal attitude towards sex in general and gays in particular, with gay marriage possible (but still limited adoption possibilities and an increasing hostility towards gays by a portion of second-generation immigrant youth). A liberal policy on soft drugs, where selling and buying (small) quantities of soft drugs is formally forbidden but allowed, but where production is out of the question. And also a front runner in euthanasia, the main theme of this movie. All these themes define Dutch national identity to an extent, and therefore they are fiercely stood up for by most political parties except the more orthodox ones.
Simon uses some slang used by original inhabitants of Amsterdam (By the way, who is an original inhabitant in a city that has welcomed people from all over the world for centuries?). It will however be impossible to translate, as much of the black humor and crudeness together with the dialect will not survive the translation. By the way, the director claims to portray real Amsterdam here. This is bit of a travesty, as the city is luckily more diverse with the many immigrants, artists, current stream of English and Americans and the well-off living there.
There are several problems this movie has. The first one is the writing, as most of the dialog is rather stupid and infantile. For me, Simon was not just a funny rude guy, but an irritating character letting every dumb joke follow by his own laughter. And the liking of the movie stands or falls with the liking or disliking of the basically good-hearted Simon. And another side note: With the rise of AIDS in the eighties, why is that not a subject here, as several characters end up in bed with each other, among them the risk group of gays.
The second one is the acting, which is traditionally bad in Dutch movies and is unfortunately up to previous standards. Nadja Hüpscher as Simon's daughter Joy for example follows the highest possible secondary education for her age group, but behaves almost like a retard and is certainly too old for the role.
The lack of a movie culture in The Netherlands means there is no passing on of talent to newcomers. The Golden Ages in art are long gone. So the last problem is the director Eddy Terstall. Lacking any visual talent he comes up with a movie with almost no interesting visuals to be fond of. Take the clumsy ending for example: Simon jumps from a rock in Thailand, a poor man's visualization for death. And he is unable to structure the story in an interesting way, with the not-too-interesting flashback structure as the best on offer. The whole movie feels like a sixties flower power director's fantasy. He is however able to tell a compelling story and the final drama part of the story is the best part of the movie.
The euthanasia theme is far better explored in other movies, for example in the mundane Million Dollar Baby, but even better in Mar Adentro. And the movie is a bit of a copy of Les invasions barbares.
It touches several themes where The Netherlands has become renowned for: A liberal attitude towards sex in general and gays in particular, with gay marriage possible (but still limited adoption possibilities and an increasing hostility towards gays by a portion of second-generation immigrant youth). A liberal policy on soft drugs, where selling and buying (small) quantities of soft drugs is formally forbidden but allowed, but where production is out of the question. And also a front runner in euthanasia, the main theme of this movie. All these themes define Dutch national identity to an extent, and therefore they are fiercely stood up for by most political parties except the more orthodox ones.
Simon uses some slang used by original inhabitants of Amsterdam (By the way, who is an original inhabitant in a city that has welcomed people from all over the world for centuries?). It will however be impossible to translate, as much of the black humor and crudeness together with the dialect will not survive the translation. By the way, the director claims to portray real Amsterdam here. This is bit of a travesty, as the city is luckily more diverse with the many immigrants, artists, current stream of English and Americans and the well-off living there.
There are several problems this movie has. The first one is the writing, as most of the dialog is rather stupid and infantile. For me, Simon was not just a funny rude guy, but an irritating character letting every dumb joke follow by his own laughter. And the liking of the movie stands or falls with the liking or disliking of the basically good-hearted Simon. And another side note: With the rise of AIDS in the eighties, why is that not a subject here, as several characters end up in bed with each other, among them the risk group of gays.
The second one is the acting, which is traditionally bad in Dutch movies and is unfortunately up to previous standards. Nadja Hüpscher as Simon's daughter Joy for example follows the highest possible secondary education for her age group, but behaves almost like a retard and is certainly too old for the role.
The lack of a movie culture in The Netherlands means there is no passing on of talent to newcomers. The Golden Ages in art are long gone. So the last problem is the director Eddy Terstall. Lacking any visual talent he comes up with a movie with almost no interesting visuals to be fond of. Take the clumsy ending for example: Simon jumps from a rock in Thailand, a poor man's visualization for death. And he is unable to structure the story in an interesting way, with the not-too-interesting flashback structure as the best on offer. The whole movie feels like a sixties flower power director's fantasy. He is however able to tell a compelling story and the final drama part of the story is the best part of the movie.
The euthanasia theme is far better explored in other movies, for example in the mundane Million Dollar Baby, but even better in Mar Adentro. And the movie is a bit of a copy of Les invasions barbares.