User Reviews

Five good friends. Young men not yet settled into career lives. Two are trying to become authors. Phillipe gets published quickly, while Erik is struggling to get his first book out. Phillipe proves to be suffering from a psychosis that interferes with his writing. That is in a nutshell the film's backbone. However there is a lot more going on.

The complex narrative with multiple characters is told in a quirky, original style. Time-lines are heavily sliced. Multiple takes are intercut into seamless conversations. Explanatory flashbacks are inserted almost as if they are part of the action. And so on. It's all fresh, fast moving, and fun to watch.

It is a bittersweet story of young adults leaving behind the carefree existence of dreamers and gravitating towards the settled lives of older adults. The characters are well conceived. Their antics and clever dialogue provide much of the material for the many funny screwball moments. Great debut film for the director.

Beautifully shot, written, acted, edited & directed chronicle of Norwegian twenty-somethings making the transition into adulthood, focusing on two wannabe novelists, close friends.

Much more creative, imaginative, risk-taking and original than similar films made in the US.

Friendship between males is intimate & warm in a way never seen in US movies, where we're too macho for this.

Content is dense & detailed, tho film may appear breezy & casual, which is one of its accomplishments.

But above all, something which isn't even mentioned, the movie is hilariously funny. Can't even reprint most of the jokes, given the yoke of censorship and political correctness around our necks in the US, esp. on the internet. Suffice it to say a punk band plays a song entitled "Fingerpult av Gerhardsen" and obscene fun is had at the expense of politically correct "fascism."

That director Trier, an accomplished skateboarder, got his start in filmmaking by making movies about skateboarding may offer a clue to his irreverence and energy. (His new film, Thelma, is also top notch.)

This movie reminds what great storytelling in film is all about. The yarn never gets boring. The humor and angst is subtle and quiet. I never expected to enjoy this movie as much as I did. Great performances.

Forging through subtitles can be a bore but so much of this storytelling is visual. There is phenomenal dialog, too. The best part comes when the gang of neo-intellectual he-man woman haters start to grow up and fall in love with real women.

With so many slick Hollywood blockbusters blanketing the world, it's wonderful to see a good film get some attention. And a Norwegian film, for pete's sake. Who would have thunk it? It's a new New Wave all over again.

Hey, is "Fingerfucked by the Prime Minister" a real song?

This film is about the lives of two young and budding contemporary writers in Norway.

The style of "Reprise" is refreshing. It is simplistic but real, as it has no special effects or computer graphics. It presents the characters just like everyday characters, as we would see them in every day life that everyone can relate to.

And yet, it is quite hard to understand. The story is told with a lot of flashbacks, and you can't tell they are flashbacks. In addition, there is a lot of external commentary as if it is outsiders watching the lives of the characters. Hence, I find it quite hard to follow.

This film is intellectual without being arrogant, hip and stylish without being pretentious, and brimming with youth and energy without being juvenile.

On a simplistic level, the film can be described as a coming of age story about two Oslo twenty-somethings who are writers. The scenes when they are hanging out with their friends contain witty, realistic dialogue and interactions. But this is a very rich, complex film. A unique, fresh narrative structure, depth of emotion, brilliant character development, beautiful photography, and terrific acting- this is really a film that has nothing simplistic about it. At times incisively funny, at other times angst ridden and sad, the film takes the viewer through the gamut of emotions experienced by the characters.

I didn't always know where the story or characters were going (I don't think the characters themselves did), but the director/writer was always in charge and confidently in control of every frame, yet not manipulative; I was a very satisfied viewer when the credits rolled and loud applause broke out in the audience at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

Keep your eye on Joachim Trier- he's going places.

Reprise is the story of two aspiring writers, Phillip and Erik, who both submit their manuscripts to a publishing house, resulting in the acceptance and overnight success of Phillip's novel, while Erik's is returned to him rejected. "It confirmed what I had always thought. I have no talent whatsoever." The film tells of youthful aspiration, unanticipated tragedy and what consequences this has on young people as they try to make a path for themselves through life.

The film opens with Phillip and Erik standing by a postbox, preparing to send off their literary efforts. Already the scene is tinged with the dreary greyish blue and grey shades that colour the whole film, the two boys clothed in black. The dreariness of these colours (trendy as they are at the moment) add to the film's style but also stains the action with a frustrated melancholy that reflects that of the protagonists', as they come up against failure and difficulty. In this first scene, however, the post box shines out against this backdrop in deep red, a beacon of hope. Already we see the controlled aesthetic beauty of the style, and an attention to detail with which the emotions of the characters are portrayed through visual means.

Six months after Phillip's book is published, we see Erik and Phillip's other friends pick him up from a psychiatric hospital where he has been since a mental breakdown that eventually caused him to come to blows with a glass door. The film treats the issue of madness sensitively and thoughtfully, inspiring empathy and understanding. The young Anders Danielsen Lie is excellent as Phillip, playing the troubled but gifted writer subtly and powerfully. The events are not shown chronologically, to give weight to those things that made the most crashing impact. For example, it is not until Phillip's return form hospital that we learn of the existence of his girlfriend Kari, whom he loved so intensely that it, according to the psychiatrists, triggered his mental disintegration. This side of the story is told separately from the progression of events, giving it a strength that shows just how much it affected him. Similarly, Trier makes use of flashbacks and mixes up viewpoints of situations to show them in the way that they would be remembered - allowing us to understand and associate with the characters all the more. Also, when we see conversations between Phillip and Kari, they are often shown to not be speaking, while their voices play in the soundtrack, and only occasional words are mouthed out. Such techniques portray a scene filled with emotional closeness, and show it how it might be remembered - after all the mind does not retain all details with photographic precision, but holds on more tightly to those which have some emotional importance.

However, the film is not entirely pervaded by this intense mood, which might make it too heavy. Trier still has a sense of humour, and that is what gives the film its completeness. He portrays the charming silliness of the youths with empathy - for example, their great admiration for their literary hero. They find his house, and seeing that he is walking his dog in a nearby park, take a picture where it seems like Phillip is jovially discussing some fascinating topic with his hero. The next shot cuts to their discovery that the photo is completely black. "It helps if you take off the lens cap." Trier's gentle mockery of the protagonists endears us to them, with their youthful ineptitude. I also particularly liked the use of text - when they discover that said hero will probably be present at a book launch party they are invited to, his name flashes up in white lettering that fills the screen in a news headline manner that captures their innocent joy perfectly, and also pokes slight fun at it. In general the film captures the vivacity and excitement of the characters, though still in a controlled manner. After we see them post their manuscripts, Erik narrates a black and white passage which excitedly reels off all their dreams and hopes where they jet off across the world, meeting weird and wonderful women and sparking literary debate, and eventually accidentally find each other again in a café, no, in the street, no, in the metro.. It becomes all the more tragic of course, after all of this, to see how things actually turn out. By showing not only the events of the story, but also the characters' thoughts and memories, Trier gives a full account of the emotions that the characters endure. In addition, the importance of friendships and relationships is also shown through the characters' banter and teasing and stumbles as they try to find the right way to deal with other people. Their hearts are open and we are let into them and bond with them as they are swept along by events.

In the introduction to this film, the audience was told to be kind to Trier and the rest of the delegation, as this was the international premier of this debut film - and the director had never had a feature film shown to any audience ever before. Cheers welcomed them into the hall. And I have to say, I think they are deserved. This is an extremely proficient effort for a first film, which combines sensitivity and dry humour, style and emotional understanding, excellent acting and cinematic control. It is certainly one of the strongest films in the competition this year.

"Trier perceptively fastens on that hygge and ennui are the two faces of the same mirror of Scandinavian existence, financial comfort and quotidian amenity doesn't necessarily lead one to happiness, Phillip is ill-prepared for the fame engendered by his juvenilia, and he is almost destroyed by it, a stable relationship with a nice girl Kari (Winge) might save him, but the jury is still out. Meantime, Erik has a more orthodox approach to pursue his vocation, it is a bumpy road but you never know when a pat on the back can boost your morale. REPRISE is a film underlay in reality and fraternity, but systemically it is desultory, like its somber, stonewashed palette, it dissuades you from investing yourself too much in the characters, Erik is a honest-to-good, handsome young man, but lack in personality, or enough sophistication (which is a prerequisite for a man of letters); Phillip is more angular, but tends to keep his own counsel and his psychosis feels like a cheap plot device, plus the blokeish banters reek of caddishness typical of the noughties."

Read my full review on my blog: Cinema Omnivore, thanks.

I watched this movie at the first official showing and I was really, really impressed.

It deals with its serious issues in a very thoroughly and convincing manner, without ever becoming sentimental or depressing. It keeps the pace all through the movie, and the balance between the humor and the horror is subtle and touching. It has, however, rather many references to Norwegian culture, and therefore I am curious how the movie will work for an international audience.

It would be modest to say that this is the best Norwegian movie since 'Aberdeen'.

Joachim Trier's smart, witty first film about a group of talented Oslo twenty-somethings won a prize at Toronto and was Norway's Oscar entry. 'Reprise' focuses on Erik (Espen Klouman Hoiner, who's blond, and smiles practically all the time) and Phillip (Anders Danielsen Lie, dark-haired, crew-cut, and wide-eyed). They're well-off, presentable, and ambitious young men (and best friends) who try to launch writing careers by submitting manuscripts at the same moment. They also share a passion for the same reclusive novelist, Sten Egil Dahl (Sigmund Saeverud). The film amuses us right away by showing a series of alternative possible outcomes to the young men's ambitions with quicksilver editing and a bright voice-over--a light approach which, with the close artistic friendship in the story's foreground, brings up memories of the Nouvelle Vague and especially Truffaut's 'Jules et Jim.' The screenplay, appropriately for a treatment of young people on the brink of maturity, constantly toys with possibilities, which we briefly see. Much of its charm is in the editing, but the opening segment is such a flood of wit, it's a little hard to sustain it.

Moreover things turn a bit more Nordic and dark when Philip is the one to get published first, but immediately has a psychotic episode--partly attributed by doctors and family to his "obsessive" love for his girlfriend Kari (Viktoria Winge)--that lands him for a while in a sanatorium. Much of the film that follows deals with the problems for Phillip and the problems Phillip poses for others after his psychosis emerges.

Now Erik gets a MS. accepted, a little novel (we guess) called 'Prosopopeia.' He thinks that with this event, he must end his relationship with his longtime girlfriend Lillian (Silje Hagen) -- a decision perpetually put off that may recall Matthieu Amalric's wavering over Emmanuelle Devos in Arnaud Desplechin's similar study of a group of (a bit older) intellectual young people, the 1996 'My Sex Life. . .or How I Got Into an Argument.'

Reprise is full of little ironies, some a bit obvious. There's one friend who acts as a mentor for the guys. He says not to have girlfriends -- they'll make you settle into a life of watching TV series and having nice dinners and give you too little time to read and listen to music, he says. Then, wouldn't you know it, he's the first one to wind up married and living the bourgeois family life. Another easy irony is the way the pretty editor at Phillip's publisher's is first utterly repelled by an older punk rock band friend's politically incorrect and offense chatter, then later is drawn to him like a magnet and marries him.

The film's co-writer Eskil Vogt studied at La Feris, and his French residence comes out in the way two segments of Reprise take place in Paris, where Philip and Kari first discover they're in love and where they go back after his mental problems to recapture the feeling, with mixed success.

Erik and Phillip know where the reclusive Sten Egil Dahl lives and occasionally spy on him. Phillip shoots Erik on a bench pretending to talk with the writer but forgets to remove the lens cap so the photo is a blank. Undeterred, Erik enlarges the resulting black rectangle and hangs it in a prominent place on his wall. Later it turns up as an emblem on the jacket of his book.

Erik performs badly on TV after 'Prosopopeia' is out (arguments over the odd title stand in for a young author's stubborn missteps). He refuses to acknowledge a personal element in his references to psychosis, or anything else for that matter, in his book; and such reticence doesn't go over well on the boob tube. He also reflexively uses a lot of affected finger "quote" marks imitating their mentor, making him look the fool even to his friends. But, in another quick irony, Sten Egil Dahl sees the show, reads Erik's book, and, rescuing him from a mugger, reassures him that he did right on television and that he likes his novel -- or most of it, anyway.

Phillip's psychosis seems to come and go. He can't write any more -- but then he does, though it's unsuccessful, as Erik feels obliged as a best friend to tell him. Phillip has a habit of counting from ten down to zero and we may think when he gets to zero one day he's going to throw himself off a roof or in front of a truck. The darker side is always there, but also the light side. That's why, Trier says, he used lots of punk music but also French poetry in his film. Part of the pleasure in this enjoyable, fresh piece of work is the sense of a group of talented, bright young people at work together making it. The punk band is part of the way the film fills in a whole group of friends from this generation of whom Phillip and Erik are only the foreground. Norwegian film-making plainly is infused with plenty of new blood and in a good period: there were plenty of Norwegian competitors for their Oscar submission this year.

Shown at the San Francisco International Film Festival 2007.

'Reprise', the 2006 debut film by Norwegian director Joachim Trier, is a tribute to the directors of the French New Wave and their films. In many ways it looks like a New Wave movie made in Norway in the 2000's. Its heroes are young intellectuals searching for their personal and artistic identity. It is filmed mostly on the streets of the metropolis that is Oslo, and even includes in the story two episodes that take place in Paris. The style of the narration is non-linear, reality is intertwined with imaginary 'what-if' scenes, the point of view is personal and the off-screen voices are used copiously. The problem is that 'Reprise' was made about 45 years after the New Wave appeared on the screens of the world, and another 15 years have passed since then. The novelty effect is non-existent. In order to be able to capture the attention of the spectators, it is necessary to have a story and characters that will win the interest and, if possible, the affection of the spectators. From this point of view, the success is partial.

'Reprise' begins with an exceptional opening scene. Two young men stand in front of a mailbox, each with a large envelope in his hands. They are excited and hesitant. They finally put the envelopes in the box. The two are Philip (Anders Danielsen Lie) and Erik (Espen Klouman Høiner), two 23-year-olds aspiring to become writers. The envelopes contain the texts of their debut books, which they hope to see published. From here, with the help of the off-screen voice, we enter the field of conditional mode. One of them may succeed and the other may not. Their sentimental ties may have diverted them from writing. Life and literature may come into conflict and the price of success may be the inability to feel or, conversely, the fear of feeling and engaging too much.

The narrative is quite twisted, storytellers alternate, and the style of 'possible scenarios' is a permanent challenge for viewers. The masters of the New French Wave understood the difficulty and in their best films they had the skill and maybe the luck to cast actresses and actors who won the empathy of the audiences of their time. They also simplified their stories or used classic narrative structures borrowed from the detective genre or from American movies. Joachim Trier, in this debut film, failed to follow his teachers from this point of view. He tries to say too much, which is a debutant syndrome. It is obvious that he is very familiar with the environment he describes, after all the heroes are his generational fellows. He has some great ideas, such as the mute dialogues with outside voices between lovers. The soundtrack is composed exclusively of live music, punk and metal, violent and at full volume, kind of a counterpoint to the rules of Scandinavian conversation. However, the narrative is too contorted, and from the cast only Anders Danielsen Lie as Philip and Viktoria Winge as his girlfriend Kari manages to create a credible relationship on screen. The rest of the characters are simply not interesting enough (at least that's how they seemed to me) and their intellectual contortions and even the satire of the editorial system remain too abstract, especially since we are never told what the writers film's heroes write. 'Reprise' is the interesting debut of the talented director who was to become Joachim Trier, but the title of the chronicle of the debut book of one of the heroes, 'Form without substance' fits also the film.

I usually enjoy most films about writers and their artistic process, whether they're fictional (such distinct films like "Barton Fink" or "Wonder Boys") or biographical narratives (Virginia Woolf's imagined but wonderfully creative portrayal in "The Hours", Brian Gilbert's rendering of "Wilde", etc.). I haven't seen many interesting attempts to portray the young writers of the new millennium, but Joachim Trier's captivating début "Reprise" is as fresh, smart and instigating as discovering a new literary voice.

The story of two competitive Norwegian friends from Oslo (played by Anders Danielsen Lie and Espen Klouman-Høiner), their literary ambitions and troubled personal lives, is told with fast editing, quirky humor and solid ensemble acting. Trier clearly knows what he's talking about, an has an eye for stylish, bittersweet and cynical images (there's a fantastic scene with the protagonists' group of friends and a female editor who's interested in one of them, as they sit and talk by the water: the dialogue is sharp, the imagery is sensual, vibrant and tense all at once, and it plays like a good cathartic speech directed by the Danny Boyle of "Trainspotting" time). This is a promising director we should keep an eye on. 8/10.

The opening scene is extremely messy, almost impossible to understand what's going on, especially when watching with subtitles. gets into the groove midway through with some great scenes and ideas, but the ending is difficult to comprehend as well, so intriguing arthouse indie drama, just perhaps not particularly rewarding

Joachim Trier has definitely accomplished something with his debut feature film. The opening sequence is so disorienting that you can't begin to expect what will happen next. Showing a montage of what "could" happen once our two leads mail out their manuscripts, from success to failure to meeting again and succeeding together, is a bold move. I wasn't sure if we had just been privy to the entire film condensed and would soon see the details, or if the title of the film would be taken literally and we'd see a Reprise of the events. Of course, the latter is what occurred. After the montage, we are transported back to that fateful moment of their first novels being submitted for publishing. This time, however, in the real world, only Phillip succeeds in getting a book deal done while Erik is rejected to try again. Both young men then find their lives going in different directions only to converge once more at a dark place for both, a time for a rebirth in life for Phillip and career for Erik.

The gimmick of showing the audience multiple vignettes of the past throughout the film never seems forced. Always seamlessly giving us insight and background into the proceedings, these teleportations through time help flesh out our characters and their motivations. We learn how these two writers got mixed up with a group of friends a little rougher around the edges than them, how Phillip and his girlfriend Kari met, the boys' affinity for author Sten Egil Dahl, and much more. The most brilliant use is when Phillip and Kari go to Paris to relive the journey that made them fall in love the first time. A trip where he hopes to regain those feelings he had been programmed to forget during his stint in a mental hospital, the mixing of scenes from the first time and this current time are nice. The dialogue is overlapping the images, sporadically rejoining with the mouth movements of the characters before getting unsynched again. Words and images don't necessarily have to converge here, whether it the voice of the leads or that of the narrator. A story is being told; we are shown what could happen in their lives, not necessarily the end all.

When the final black screen of Stop is shown, you begin to wonder what other way the story could have gone. What could have happened if Erik found initial success and not Phillip? Would the latter's psychosis still have cropped up? Would Erik have fallen fast into pretentiousness like fellow writer Mathis Wergeland? Who knows? Trier just gives us a glimpse of this one way that it can happen, and for once it is not the easy way out. What continues on as a tragedy, one where you can just feel something horrific will occur, to the point where the director puts us in a sequence that screams suicide is made all the more powerful by the prospect of happiness at the end. The opening introduction ends on a happy note, so there is always hope the meat of the film will too, despite the allusions to epic tragedy of Icarus flying too close to the sun.

Overall, the actual activity of writing a novel has little to do with the meaning of the film. It is just the occupation of these two men, the driving force of their lives and impetus for how they live. What Reprise truly concerns is the meaning of life and how one chooses to live it. It is a cyclical path bringing people in and out of each other's vision for good or worse at the most random times. Relationships play a huge role as well, whether they are romantic or platonic. Erik and Phillip have a bond with one another, a bond that had been forged at a very young age. The two compete yet also prop the other up when they need it most. At times there is jealousy and hatred, but never at their cores. The inclusion of Lillian and Kari only show both men's insecurities in themselves; Erik keeping Lillian away from the friends he hangs with and Phillip unable to accept the profound love he has for Kari. Both writers have dreams, but they are young, and achieving them too fast can have a profound effect on even the strongest soul.

This strong story and deftly handled craft is bolstered by a couple brilliant performances. Sure the group is fun to join with on their excursions—a party towards the end is a lot of fun—yet the main three shine above all else. Viktoria Winge is stunning as Kari, so deeply in love with her broken man, she is willing to pick up the pieces of their relationship after his time away getting help. Trying her hardest to stay patient with Phillip, she does everything in her power to make him remember what it was they felt upon meeting, to smile at the memory of him saying they were always destined to meet and be together. Espen Klouman-Høiner as Erik is very good as well. He is the rock of the group, the one with his head on straight always attempting to help those around him, sometimes at the neglect of himself. At the end, when faced with the dilemma of staying around to help or going away from Oslo to clear his mind and hone his apparent skills from his first novel, the decision weighs deeply upon him. Lastly, and most importantly, is Ander Danielsen Lie portraying Phillip. A deeply emotive soul, he is one who needs to break and fail in order to except the fact that he is fallible. Getting all he wants so early only eats away at him, making him feel that it is undeserved. Needing to find alignment again, it takes time and pain to be able to live once more is happiness.

As a huge fan of the 2021 film "The worst person in the world", directed by Joachim Trier, I was really excited to watch this one.

It really surprised me when a read that this was his first film ever. This is a story about life, and all that comes with it, love, loss, dreams, mental problems, adulthood and friendships. A really touching film that will make you sad and happy, just like life itself.

Since I saw a movie that i could relate to as much. In some ways it really felt like my life with my group of friends when I was longer.

I truly enjoyed that movie, there is a feeling to it and the cinematography is excellent. The actors were amazing. I went to look at their profile and it seems that most of them don't have a lot of experience but it doesn't show, on the contrary, there is a freshness to their performance, they are quite good.

The Soundtrack is amazing, from Joy Division to New Order and other cool music that unfortunately I don't know yet about. Totally what I needed to watch in the cold snow storm coming down right now in Montréal.

See it!

Entertaining but overrated. This movie is a perfect testament of first world problems. Characters are all the time drowning in a glass of water (as we say in Latin America). This said, it is a pretty window to life in Norway. Appreciated.

A prizewinner in Norway, this debut feature by director Joachim Trier traces the friendship between two young novelists, one who makes a splash with his first book and cracks under the pressure (Anders Danielson Lie), and another who takes a while to find himself but seems poised for a much longer and more substantial career (Espen Klouman-Hoiner). In the opening scene, childhood buddies Phillip (Lie) and Erik (Hoiner) nervously stand in front of a mailbox about to ship their first novels to a publisher. We're told that cult status beckons, because mainstream celebrity is for losers. Then reality sinks in and deals them both a blow: Erik's novel is rejected, while Philip's is published to great acclaim – only for a psychotic break to undo him at the height of his success.

In "Reprise" time is fluid. Scenes meander, disappear and reappear and sometimes the film jumps forward, showing us what will transpire before it does. The movie has a smart and knowing script, inviting the audience for reflection of their own. Joachim Trier neatly encapsulates that take-on-the-world optimism of unsullied youth. "Reprise" is many things at once: a window into mental illness, obsessive love, the uneasy transition from youth to adulthood, and finally the most intriguing aspect of the story line-fraternal competitiveness. The only real problem with the movie is it doesn't entirely establish a genuine, heartfelt interest in the characters for the audience. Both protagonists' grew up idealizing Norway's greatest living writer, who tells one of them his novel is good and shows promise. In the same sense, the movie itself is good, and first time director Joachim Trier shows great potential.

I'm happy to finally see a well written and well directed Norwegian movie, that have lost all the "arch-norwgian lines and way of acting" The cast is mostly newcomers,that raises the level of the established filmmakers and actors in Norway. Finally a line works naturally in Norwegian. The movie is about two young writers and their friendship, love and insanity. The story is edited nicely together, and shifts through real life events and the possible, fantasy events Eskil Vogt has written a drama that makes you emotionally evolved in laughter, tears, anger and despair.This is a nice credible piece of film, but still i've got a hunch that it will be soon forgotten...

Some details make the movie even more beautiful. There are a lot of those details in this movie. Especially their connections to the past. The artificiality of friendships impressed me.

I like movies, I like new movies, I like not afraid to watch a different movie, also I saw the whole movie. Now, why did I not like this movie? For me, there was no point. There was no beginning or end. No story. Just some character development which was OK, the characters seemed interesting. I like that it was in Norway, I like to see how foreign people talk and act. But besides that, i got nothing from this film. It was to choppy and didn't flow very well. People make fun of me for liking "boring" "deep" "drama" type movies but....This movie was actually boring. It touched on a few things like love, and depression/suicide. But on a very shallow level, just a slight touch. Not enough to feel the depression or love ourselves. I do not mind watching movies that have a slow pace, but they have to pay off with some substance, and this movie made me regret even watching it. I usually always say a movie was "ok" but this one was not. I will still watch Oslo 31 august, to visit Norway again, but Reprise was simply to boring and not impact-full enough.