Dear Wendy (2005) User Reviews

There's a lot going on inside these characters.

[alexei-15 · 9/10 · 4 November 2005]

"Dear Wendy" comes from the talents that brought us "Festen" and "It's All About Love" (both written and directed by Thomas Vinteberg), "Dogville," "Dancer in the Dark" and "Breaking the Waves" (written and directed by Lars Von Trier). They have collaborated on Dear Wendy, with Vinteberg at the helm and penned by Trier.

This is my favorite kind of movie; it begins with a "what if..." premise, which the storytellers follow with relentless commitment. In this case, the premise is "what if some misfit kids fell in love with their guns." Well, they'd give them names, they'd practice shooting and have a secret clubhouse, they'd study the famous gun-toting heroes of old, and the relationship they have with their weapons would become a mirror for their relationships with the world. All of which are pursued beautifully in the film.

Quite a few American movie critics read this film as a critique of American society, and they resent a European making a film about small-town America. An oft-vented complaint is that Trier has no business criticizing a country which he's never actually visited. I don't think, however, that this is ultimately a film about guns; the relationship these kids have with their guns is simply a unique window through which the filmmakers have chosen to show us the rich inner lives of the protagonists. They could have used a dysfunctional family (Festen), or movie musicals (Dancer In The Dark) or a tolling church bell (Breaking The Waves) to show us that world - but in this case it's guns.

Within the limits of the film medium - 10,000 words of dialog and around 140,000 frames of film - the choices of the filmmaker often revolve about what to leave OUT rather than what to put IN. This is a film that could be used as a textbook for economists. The script is tight - not a word out of place, although the narration feels conversational and casual. A film about child misfits and their guns could easily follow thematic red herrings all over the place in pursuit of social commentary, but "Dear Wendy" is utterly restrained - in spite of the "loaded" subject matter. On the cutting room floor are social commentary, cliché, and many of the cinematic crutches which Trier and Vinterberg rejected in their Dogme 95 days.

Any film lover who cares to see a film utterly committed to its premise, a film made with economy and efficiency, a film full of sweet irony, a film of deceptive simplicity, would do well to check out "Dear Wendy."

The most under appreciated player in the league!

[mortween · 9/10 · 4 June 2005]

This flick, with its subtle views on America's obsession with weapons, is likely not going to be a crowd pleaser. One of the main reasons for this is the films use of highly symbolic mise-en-scene takes several viewings to fully appreciate. Another reason for the let down is that some might be inclined to want more action for a movie that centralizes on guns.

However, this movie is brilliant. The shot composition, the editing, the acting-this movie is very well pieced together. Also, as for the meaning of the movie, it goes in a direction that is a really provocative and fresh. I would highly recommend that you give this movie a chance, and keep an open mind. I have never been a fan of the director of this film or the writer, but I was deeply pleased by this film.

Criticism maybe, hardly anti-American.

[oktjabr · 6/10 · 18 September 2005]

I liked "Dear Wendy". It was well photographed, had good cast and the rocking soundtrack provided the light icing on a film that is both sad and happy from the inside.

It is a bit puzzling that this film has been seen as anti-American propaganda. It does criticise the American values - but so do many American films that are hardly described as anti-American. The message is even softened by placing the film in surreal, small mining town that is so detached geographically that you can almost feel the fiction. In some sense it bears resemblance to the village set on Brechtian stage in "Dogville" (compare for example the "stageness" of main street) by Lars von Trier, whose touch can be seen in "Dear Wendy", too.

It can be also seen as an anti-gun lecture - but that is just one perspective to it and in my opinion also possible to ignore.

The only turnoff is the somewhat annoying narration by the main character, that explains too much and leaves less for the viewer to ponder. I might be also giving one star too much, because the end scene, where the film picks up the pace left such a strong impression on me, and not just because of being so well shot action.

Lush and surprising

[nm-20 · 9/10 · 31 January 2005]

I went into this film extremely hesitant. I don't know Vinterberg well, but I do know there isn't much about Lars that I like at all. Top that with a subject matter that I'm rather sensitive about as well. But the film was beautifully filmed and the performances were enjoyable. I enjoyed all of it. I disagree with critics who say the film attacked America or had a heavy-hitting message in it. I think it's subtler than that. For me it was the big surprise of Sundance 05. Rich and fun. In the script, the characters were twice as old as those in the film, and I think Vinterberg made a wise choice in changing that. What is powerful in a teenager can look dorky in a 30-something.

Von Trier is at it again: he's on America's case about hypocrisy, violence and injustice

[roland-104 · 8/10 · 15 December 2005]

All of this recent fuss about David Cronenberg's film, "A History of Violence." What rot. You want a good film about violence and the gun culture in America? Check out this little gem from the co-founders of Denmark's Dogme 95 movement: Thomas Vinterberg ("The Celebration"), who directed this film, and Lars von Trier, who wrote the screenplay.

Von Trier drives many American film critics absolutely bonkers because he has the temerity to make films about the "American Character," even though he apparently has never set either of his personal feet on U.S. soil. First came "Dancer in the Dark," set in central Washington State, then "Dogville," set somewhere in the Colorado Rockies. (The actual locations were European, as is the case in Dear Wendy.) These earlier films may have had their problems, but they nonetheless stung with their unflattering depictions of American hypocrisy, greed, violence and injustice.

The worst thing you can say about von Trier's depictions is that they are derivative, hardly novel or unique. Think of Nathaniel Hawthorne, or Theodore Dreiser, or Ralph Ellison, or Don DeLillo , or David Foster Wallace, or any number of other authors. Pick from almost any generation of American writers and you'll find these same themes sounded. Because – like it or not - they are valid. And it should come as no surprise that some intelligent foreigner who reads deeply about America might be capable of writing a credible screenplay about our national foibles.

"Dear Wendy" is set in an unnamed mining town sometime before the present day, probably the 1960s, judging from the musical soundtrack. The town is obviously a false set, not a natural location (odd since this violates of one of Dogme 95's central tenets, to always use natural locations). A miner's son, Dick Dandelion (Jamie Bell, who has carved out a niche, it seems, playing miner's sons, beginning with his splendid performance in Billy Elliot) is a misfit, too fragile and disinterested to spend his life down the mines. Out of sorts, aimless, Dick one day buys a toy gun as a gift for a buddy. But he learns from his fellow misfit friend Stevie (Mark Webber) that this gun is actually a small but real bullet shooting weapon. Stevie, as it happens, has an obsessive passion for guns, gun history and the workings of guns.

These two hit upon a plan: why not start a little club, a cult of losers and outcast young people, the town's stray kids, and bring a little honor, pride and some decent principles of conduct into their lives. No one else is going to give them a break, so it's self-help time. The club will have a secret headquarters for meetings, indoctrination and just hanging out. The unifying themes will be the possession and adulation of firearms juxtaposed with pacifism (is this an amusingly ironic riff on our culture or what ?!) Members will learn to love their guns, to name them, to vivify imagined relationships to their guns. But they will also be honor bound never to use them to commit violent acts against others, not to mention each other.

The group is named The Dandies, presumably after Dick's surname, and grows to include Susan (Alison Pill), Huey (Chris Owen), Freddie (Michael Angarano), and Sebastian (Danso Gordon). An aging black woman, Clarabelle (Novella Nelson), eventually becomes a sort of honorary member, or, more precisely, someone whom The Dandies find need to protect from harm, once the going gets rough.

And the going does get rough. We know that it will only be a matter of time before the idyllic fantasy life shared by this noble little band is somehow shattered by violence. This force arrives in the form of Sheriff Krugsby (Bill Pullman) and a legion of police sharpshooters. It's the gunfight at the Not Very OK Corral. Without getting into further particulars, I will say that the final shootout between The Dandies and Pullman's legion is conducted with an awesome display of police firepower that absolutely resembles the massive use of high tech weaponry that we are accustomed to witnessing when America goes to war, whether abroad or in quelling domestic uprisings (think of Fallujah and Waco).

All the actors I have named deliver good turns. I was especially impressed by Bill Pullman, Jamie Bell and Mark Webber. The sound track features several songs by the 60s British pop/rock band, The Zombies, including their great hits, "She's Not There" and "Time of the Season." More than anything, to me this film feels a lot like a couple of Gus Van Sant's movies. The Dandies adopt period costumes as well as arcane, stylized manners like the street people in "My Own Private Idaho," and the notion of outcast young people bearing weapons, of course, permeates "Elephant," in a similarly lyrical manner.

I think "Dear Wendy" is a powerful film, brimming with poetic truth about us. Yes, it is polemical, one sided, provocative. It may be only half the truth, ignoring our national virtues. And the slant may be familiar. But Vinterberg and von Trier have teamed up to make a decent movie about our seemier side. (In English). My rating: 8/10 (B+). (Seen on 12/11/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.

You will be thinking about this movie long after you leave the theatre...

[stormycin · 8/10 · 17 July 2005]

I saw this movie in France with a large group of friends, something I highly recommend. We all seemed to have a different take on the film and each of us was able to draw something unique from it. Some loved it; some hated it. One of us focused on the powerful characters, another on the coming-of-age aspect, another on the gun control issues, etc. I saw it as a commentary on the power of fear in light of current world events and about how allowing that fear to control your life can ultimately bring about the very tragedy of which you are most afraid.

Dear Wendy certainly lends itself well to conversations that surpass the standard post-movie fare. I am looking forward to it coming stateside so I can see it again with other friends and see what reactions the film provokes in them ...

Pacifist Dandies with guns

[D_la · 8/10 · 23 August 2005]

Up for the award for weirdest film I've seen in quite a while. You don't believe me? Okay, the plot revolves around Dick, who seems to have no friends at all and who lives in a small, nameless town in America that is totally centred on working in the mine. He buys a toy gun as a present for someone he doesn't like, but doesn't give it to him. Eventually he discovers that the gun isn't a toy at all, its real. He falls pretty much in love with this gun, names it Wendy, and forms a type of gang; The Dandies, who are pacifists although they do love their weapons.

Obviously, things do not work out well.

The whole style of the film is strange. Virtually all of it is narration, which is then developed in a few conversations or, and for the most part, shown and illustrated through what we see occur. It is also rather on the surreal side. I don't mean melting watches or anything, just, well surreal.

And I really liked it. The detached position the audience is placed in by not being able to engage with any of the characters except through the letters Dick writes/narrates. And the very fact that we're never quite sure what the film is about. Is it anti-gun, or just anti the culture that seems to love guns and violence yet wants to hide it away? Or is it a praise of their idealism? And lets not forget the humour. If you can't laugh at this film I don't think you'll enjoy it.

Silly? Yes. Unrealistic? Yes. Entertaining? Absolutely!

[Vanihm · 8/10 · 18 February 2005]

Thomas Vinterberg has finally reemerged from the disaster that was "It's all about love", and with help from compatriot Lars Von Trier he has delivered a hugely original and entertaining film. The story evolves around Dick - a small town loser who feels confident by holding a gun. Seeing this, he creates a group "the Dandies" of fellow gun-fanatics. Violent as it may seem, the point of the group is pacifism - to obsess with guns, but NOT TO USE THEM. Yet when ex-criminal Sebastian joins the group tensions emerge, and Dicks ego and his gun-obsession becomes a deadly cocktail. The story is absolutely outrageous, but Vinterberg, realizing this, gives the film a warped, almost giddy, feel. This actually complements Von Trier's screenplay better than the latter's ultra-realistic style, and prevents the film from becoming moralizing. The only real drawback of the story is the slow start and the dialog, which at times has difficulty hiding the fact that it has, in fact, been translated from Danish into English. Nevertheless, a strong comeback for Vinterberg - let's hope he can do some more serious stuff as well.

Eyes? Happy. Brain? Sad.

[imwithspaz · 5/10 · 28 May 2006]

While the cinematography was very pleasing to the eyes and the young actors did a commendable job, the story itself leaves something to be desired. Though it starts out with an interesting concept, Dear Wendy winds its way into a ridiculous hole. The "twists" are random and unfounded, probably there for the sole reason of providing conflict. Also, the movie tends to be sluggish: watching for an hour feels like two or three. On the positive side, the young actors did a very good job (for the most part). At times dramatic pauses cause more laughter than thought, but that's difficult to avoid with the script. Eye-catching camera angles were used, along with some interesting techniques. To sum up, the director, cinematographer, and actors are probably usually amazing at their jobs; however, if they enjoy their careers they should stay away from writing like this.

She's Not There

[RainDogJr · 9/10 · 31 August 2008]

I found this film like a year ago or so and mostly I wanted to watch it just because Lars von Trier wrote it. I'm not his biggest fan (and I hate the way he treats actresses) but by then I had just watched Manderlay (a film that I loved) and Dear Wendy looked extremely interesting, even with the title that it has in my country (it is called "Calles Peligrosas", that means something like "Dangerous Streets", and for a fact the terrific Martin Scorsese 1973 film Mean Streets has the exact same title in my country!). Anyway, like a year ago I saw it and I really liked it, yesterday I saw it again and I still liked it a lot, I think even more. First of all it is quite entertaining and even exiting since it features the creation of something new that for their creators is the way to spend their days and with that the way to live. Is like a very known subject, the fact that some persons in the same "situation" find in their club a new world that nobody else will understand. However this is a work of Lars von Trier and yes it can be seen as the bastard project of his "USA: Land of Opportunity" trilogy.

Here we have Dick (Jamie Bell) as the main character. In the town where he lives if you don't work at the mine you will be seeing as a loser. Dick is alone but soon he will find a friend, a friend that will make closer his relationship with Stevie (Mark Webber) and later with some others that, like him, feel that they are losers. That mentioned friend is a gun and Dick will call it Wendy. Dick bought it thinking that it was a toy gun and not even for him, he is a pacifist, but as a present for a boy who was not his fried at all. Call it destiny or whatever but that gun never left Dick and eventually he found that was not a toy, it was one of the things that make the world an evil place, one of those that he hated. Everything started mostly just like a game for two friends, a secret game that soon became like the thing they were waiting all the day for. They became experts on the subject and with the "power" of knowing that they were carrying a gun they felt happiness and since they were so damn generous and were concern about others like them they decided to share their experiences with other three persons (Chris Owen, Alison Pill and Michael Angarano) to be now The Dandies. Pacifists in love with guns, well that's what this film shows, a bunch of young and intelligent persons that became even brilliant in what they were doing, these persons were living in their own little world with their own rules and rituals and since they were pacifists everything seems to be just a game and seems that these kids knew what they were doing. Eventually they will be part again of the world with the character Sebastian (Danso Gordon). Sebastian killed a person and needs to have like a guard so the office Krugsby (Bill Pullman) give that "mission" to Dick. Is quite interesting since Sebastian is an unarmed criminal who wants a cure. Dick and pals are armed decent persons and here we have the classic fight in order to be the leader with both Dick and Sebastian but finally the important issue is the fact that in the end there's a fight with everyone armed. The Dandies wanted a good thing but they were armed and violence makes only more violence. Sure in their world they had their own believes and sure they were pacifist but everything was turned around the guns so is the time of the season for loving...

A very strange photography and great performances; I hated Billy Eliot but here Bell is great as the main role as that lonely kid that began having even an obsession, a madness that after all ended in the only possible way he would like to and that resume everything, what a gun could made in him, in his mind. Dear Wendy is definitely an overlooked little gem that I would like to recommend. And the Zombies all around with She's Not There and Time of the Seasons obviously. Fantastic!

Well no one told me about her the way she lied Well no one told me about her how many people cried But it's too late to say you're sorry How would I know why should I care Please don't bother trying' to find her She's not there

Well let me tell you 'bout the way she looked The way she'd act and the colour of her hair Her voice was soft and cool Her eyes were clear and bright But she's not there

Well no one told me about her, what could I do Well no one told me about her, though they all knew But it's too late to say you're sorry How would I know, why should I care Please don't bother trying' to find her She's not there

We all got it in us

[writelasse · 7/10 · 5 February 2005]

Dear Wendy is an ironic movie about a group of youths who discovers their fascination for firearms. Although non violent and self declared pacifists they discover that "packing a gun" and organizing themselves in a underground group called "The Dandies" gives them moral strength and self esteem in everyday life. They swear never to use or show their weapons outside the abandoned mine they are using as a shooting range, but of course, it all goes wrong in the end.

Persiflaging American gun culture, small towns and westerns, the movie contains several themes. Obviously it is about how we all have, a sometimes even erotic, fascination for guns in us regardless of how left winged and peaceful we are. Just see the video clips of the actors trying out the guns (and the fascination in their eyes) on the official site dearwendy.dk. It is also about the personal relationship many Americans have about the use of guns, and the sexual meaning of guns. The Dandies are taking this to the extreme by naming their guns, calling them "partners", writing poems and love letters to them, and using the metaphor "love making" for the absolute forbidden thing: Using the gun against another human.

The setting is director Thomas Vinterbergs idea of a run down mine city somewhere in midwestern USA. It is not a realistic American town but more like the setting of a play in a theater with all the clichés: A coffee drinking sheriff, a general store, macho-like mine people, etc.

The movie ends with a spaghetti western-like bullit spraying showdown, accompanied by the tones of "Glory, glory Halleluja" (Don't take the movie too serious or get offended, you Americans out there, it is meant ironic. :-) ) The movie challenges you. First of all you also get fascinated by the guns. But you also sense that it is somehow wrong. You want to identify with the Dandies, but also you know how insane and appalling the whole thing is (A feeling you never get by watching an ordinary Hollywood-blockbuster). So you leave the movie theater with mixed emotions and by questioning your own moral believes vs. the instincts and fascination for the "evil" the weapons represent, instincts who by definition lies inside you as a human.

Vinterberg aims at something, but doesn't really hit anything

[d-trick-b · 3/10 · 13 January 2008]

There is something very fundamental that shouldn't go wrong in a film, and that is the so-called "suspension of disbelief". When you sit watching a film and can't keep yourself from thinking that it's all just a film with actors saying their lines on a film set, then it's obviously gone wrong. And that's the very thing that happens to "Dear Wendy". It's a cleverly thought-out, well conceived plan, but it doesn't come to life. The characters feel two-dimensional all the way through, I didn't care for any of them, so I just kept watching from the outside, which felt a bit like looking at fish in an aquarium. Furthermore, the story is painfully predictable - once people take a gun in their hands, it's always an easy guess to tell what will happen in the end, and so it does. Cinematography and everything is good as usual, but cinematography and everything never made a boring film good. "Festen" was such a great, deep, human film - where did the guy go who made it?

Not about guns at all

[sarastro7 · 9/10 · 18 February 2005]

I went to see Dear Wendy thinking that it was some kind of statement about guns. It's not. As someone said, it's a lot more subtle than that.

I tend to like Dogme films. I give high ratings to movies like Dancer In The Dark (10) and The King Is Alive (9), because they are shock-full of mind-wringing symbolism. It's "Art" with a capital "A". Such movies (as well as their counterparts in other media, like literature) really all have the same basic plot: chronicling the human condition and all the biggest and most abstract questions in life. Where they're different is in the WAY they do it. Which symbols and metaphors they use; which story they pretend to tell while really saying something else on a deeper, non-literal level.

There is a long artistic tradition of turning things upside-down. Using a reverse perspective as a new twist on an old tale. That's what we have in Dear Wendy, too, where the Dandies represent artists, and the guns represent the object of artists: truth and beauty. And the guns, ultimately, are used against the established authorities to bring about a social transformation. Hence the amazing "Glory Glory, Hallelujah" finale, which is not ironic at all; it heralds the success of the mission of art and artists: the transformation of society. But this can be understood only by transposing the symbolism to the real world; it is symbolized in the movie's universe only by the completion of the mission to get Clarabelle through the police-infested square to have coffee in Cynthia's apartment. But that is the concentrated symbol of the Dandies' success and ability; the one great task that they needed to perform, and the completion of which made the artists themselves redundant; no longer needed. Because when the mission of art has succeeded, art in the classic sense is vindicated, and humanity will finally have stepped out of its petty squabble-filled infancy and on to bigger and better things. That's what art is for, and that's the story this movie tells, in highly stylized and metaphorical terms.

Dear Wendy is a good art movie, but must be judged against other good art movies, and as such I give it an 9 out of 10. I felt that, much of the time, the entertainment value wasn't great, and the acting was not on par with the positively stunning performances Von Trier usually gets out of his casts (see The Idiots, for example, and Breaking The Waves), or that Kristian Levring got from the cast of The King Is Alive. But then, I gather Dear Wendy is not officially and technically a Dogme film, although it certainly does have the exact Dogme type of content. Director Vinterberg's contribution to the story was inspired, and demonstrated that he "got" the point of the script, but in its capacity as an artist's vision, I feel that the movie is much more a Von Trier movie than a Vinterberg movie.

On second thoughts it is intriguing and captivating

[blangkjer · 8/10 · 6 February 2005]

I was pretty disappointed with Lars von Trier (the writer of this movie) after having seen "Dogville". It was so incredibly slow paced, it was almost a relief when they started shooting everyone at the end - finally something happened! So when I went to see "Dear Wendy", it was like I already knew that the emperor had no clothes on.

The movie is kind of confusing for the audience but toward the end it dawned on me that it is in fact a very dark comedy (more than anything it was the testicle thing that gave it away). I wonder if the actors and the director really knew that? There has been so much talk about the serious "message" (anti-gun/anti-American) of the movie that it makes me wonder.

I've read several times that the original script by Lars von Trier was about a bunch of thirty-somethings. If they had stuck to that concept, it would have been a lot like Trier's earlier movie "The Idiots" only with guns. That explains a lot. The movie might have worked better in some respects. Instead we get a very cute bunch of naive teenagers, which I guess is nice also.

Visually and soundtrack-wise the movie is very interesting. Kind of like a spaghetti western. Like the best of the artsy/dogma/foreign film/Trier genre it is intriguing and captivating and you never get it the first time. It's worth watching again.

Is it not about us?

[tuwelcook · 8/10 · 13 May 2005]

Well I must say that I truly was fascinated by this story. Loved it as it actually, from my point of view, tell's the story of how we in the western culture kinda looking for an identity and sometimes gets lost in that process. A common goal, idea or philosophy does it matter? or is it that strength one can get by the finding some kind of identity and stick to it, the acknowledgment by your fellow man etc etc. I think this story could have been told with other means too...that the subject used, guns, was maybe just a way to get the point a bit dramatized, but also the possibility to show the severe consequence off not being true to what made one strong, loosing the integrity so to speak. The spirit and joy which arose from the groups common agreement was a joy to see and feel and I think that it someway was very reassuring of hope and a better tomorrow.

Literature: a tribute in irony

[diand_ · 7/10 · 22 May 2005]

First of all Dear Wendy is a tribute to Kubrick: We have the gang from A clockwork Orange, the gun named Lyndon (and the ancient guns) from Barry Lyndon. And there are more subtle references: a chart from one of the bullets reads Full Metal Jacket, etc.

Although directed by his friend Vinterberg the story is written by von Trier and bears all the marks of a von Trier-movie, but this time it is deeply drawn up in irony. A typical Von Trier-story always watches like literature: idealist gains strength from his beliefs but is confronted by the real world (in this case an ex-con), his beliefs are shaken and self-imposed rules are broken. And enter the tragedy.

The US-setting fits the teasing we are now familiar with from von Trier but the wider meaning is much more universal and it raises several interesting questions. Can a society be free of gun violence when people have guns readily available (US vs Switzerland)? Is gun culture and adoration a wider problem than guns themselves? Or do people need guns in order to rise against any form of eventual dictatorship? What does pacifism mean?

This is a very refreshing movie from Vinterberg-von Trier. It is an interesting study in irony and gun culture with good camera-work from Anthony Dod Mantle and interesting special effects. Would certainly have made a splash and controversy at Cannes.

Pretty Propaganda

[Helbig · 5/10 · 1 August 2006]

"Dear Wendy" is about a group of young losers, who develop strength and backbone from carrying and firing guns. However their proclaimed pacifistic approach to gun control isn't shared with the rest of the small mining community…

From the beginning the movie's message is quite clear. Written by USA critic Lars Von Trier, the movie conveys a negative opinion of American gun laws. Regrettably this message precedes the credibility of the movie's plot and characters. No matter how hard the actors struggle, they remain mere stage props.

None of the actors are major stars. Best known is probably Bill Pullman who some will remember from "Independence Day" and "Lost Highway". However all roles are cast fittingly and the performances are satisfactory.

Another point of criticism is the constant voice-over that explains everything you're watching. The voice-over is reasonably justified; still the best scenes in the movie are the few that are allowed to stand on their own.

The splendid pale pictures are done by Anthony Dod Mantle, who worked on both Thomas Vinterberg and Lars Von Trier's latest movies ("It's All About Love" and "Dogville"). Sadly this excellent cinematography is the best part of the movie.

"Dear Wendy" touches an interesting and relevant topic. Still that doesn't make the movie an artistic success. It's more like pretty propaganda.

dear oh dear Wendy.

[come2whereimfrom · 4/10 · 2 October 2005]

Dear Wendy. Wendy we learn is a revolver, found by a pacifist (dick, played by Jamie bell) and never supposed to be used. Dick then finds the gun gives him a new found confidence, just the feel of the piece in his pocket he no longer feels an outcast, he feels strong. Deciding that many more of the town's freaks and losers could benefit from this pacifistic confidence he forms a gun club called the 'dandies'. Rules are simple in the club each member has a gun they name but don't use and they dress up like Adam ant's prince charming and dance around the town all confident in their ability to hide behind the weapons. Guardians of steel protecting the weak. Then it just goes weird. They had set it up to do so much, get across so many messages about the west's love of guns and violence. Unfortunately it doesn't deal with any of these themes and decides to ramble off into a bizarre shoot out involving a coffee delivery. Yes you heard me right the pacifists end up in a shoot out! Who would have guessed that one? A very poor film from writer Lars Von trier and director Thomas Vinterberg, with these two's back catalogue I would have expected more. Sadly this film is a real let down.

Can't believe I wasted time watching this

[timber01 · 1/10 · 31 October 2008]

This was easily one of the worst movies I've ever had the misfortune of watching. The movie did have promise and could (should) have been much better but it just failed in every attempt. The acting was horrid, the story line was crap and it just dragged out forever (or so it felt). I know a lot of people will read this and automatically respond " well he just didn't get it"...no, I got it perfectly fine, but that doesn't change it into a good movie, in fact it just underlines how bad this movie is, that with so many ideals, points and views about guns and kids this movie just fails to deliver them in any type of way that makes it worth watching.

Soars for to the threshold of self discovery, and falls flat

[nathanialwest · 5/10 · 5 September 2007]

I saw this movie with my art major girlfriend, who loved the film, and visually, I can't disagree. The soundtrack is also eerie, and holds to the dusty ambiance that seems to cover every shot, but ultimately, it never really succeeded in terms of breaking the characters out of their archetypes and enlivening them with unique and humanizing dialog.

The whole time I saw this movie, I thought I'd seen it before. And I had, and in an equally as disappointing form: "The Beach." The fact that Dick begins the movie writing a letter that turns out to be to his gun is a stunningly creative introduction, but when the movie turns from that obsession and begins concentrating on the secret society of the group and their rebellion, via their guns, it all goes sour. The first cut of the film that comes from their later action sequence is completely unnecessary; anyone can see the conflict coming from a mile away. The "perversion" of the group's innocence by Sebastian's reality-tempered attitudes are all too typically applied to a young black man, and the only one in the county, and hence, the plot goes crashing to the ground as yet another inescapable fall from paradise.

Whatever Kubrick-reaching attempts of psychedelic grandeur that the director tries to conjure up never manage to hit home through the potentially interesting lens of the group's fascination with guns, nor do they provide an experience that has not been seen 100 times before, because of the focus on trippy nouveau montages instead of the characters' individual depth.

Ultimately, the attraction of the gun to Dick is that he feels more powerful, more self-assured carrying it. This is the same rationale that people use to sell penis-enhancing chemicals, and I don't buy either.

pretty poor show

[toc_bat · 4/10 · 24 November 2006]

Two nights ago we went to see Dear Wendy, it was such a stupid film, so blatantly obvious was its moral, so forced down my throat and eyes and ears. The characters were so exaggerated and unbelievable, their final action is so ridiculous, I do not believe those characters I had spent one and a half hours with capable of it. Yes it was shot well, yes it looked good and was interesting visually, and again the reviewers managed to see so much more, am i so blind? Made by the same guy who did Dogville, and yet Dogville was so much more subtle in the delivery of its message, so much more believable and possible and hence empathicable, or hence to have empathy with. The option was to go to the next town and see The worlds fastest Indian, which I have seen already and think is very beautiful and moving film, and really wanted to see it as I was down and needed a comforting experience but we would have had to bus it and had not enough time. Dear Wendy actually made me so much more depressed, it really got me down.

Best Film of 2005

[rolfssister · 14 August 2005]

Dear Wendy will stay in my memory for a long time to come. It strikes a perfect balance between making a specific, political message (critique of American gun laws, gun culture, the western and gangster movie genres) and a more mythic tale about adolescence in western cultures. Best of all, Dear Wendy is not a merely straightforward anti-gun statement, rather it's a mediation on the gun's doggedly sexy reputation in western cultures. Not only are the characters finding their dear guns nearly worthy of marriage (despite their pacifist views) but we the viewers (again, despite any of our own pacifist views) end up seduced as well... teamed with The Zombies soundtrack, perhaps anything could look sexy.

What a cool idea... but that's just the idea...

[zch2a · 5/10 · 16 November 2005]

So I saw the trailer for the film a while back and checked it out thinking it was a pretty neat idea for a film. I was let down, however by the supreme lack of intelligent conversation within the film itself. The idea for a film about the fetishism of guns and the failure of and ideal is something that could've been nice if well executed. I mean, the dandies with music by the zombies... that's just bad ass. However, the few stylized moments in the film are not well integrated into the structure of the film at all, first off. The narration by Jamie Bell is completely unconvincing, the story-line is ridiculously clichéd and pretty inconsequential in the end. It's an interesting discussion, but an unnecessarily facile one in this film. Von Trier's aggravation with the 'America' as represented by the second amendment right to bear arms is constantly present, as the film attempts to render such regard for power etc... a completely outdated and useless ideal, whether the straight-up naming of the pistols Lee and Grant or Bell's character being placed between a Confederate and American flag (both faded on the side of a barn), the discussion is heavy-handed and in the end fairly uninteresting. And when the film does try to pull off the cool, it's so rigid and (again) clichéd that it just comes off as film school jackassery. None of the characters are very well-developed, instead depending on the all-too overstated plot to carry the film. When viewed as a metaphor for the Dogme 95 film movement though, the film could possibly take on a different meaning. The good intentions of this new discipline (owning and caring for a gun), the vow of chastity, the pay-offs with the new discipline, but the eventual decay and ironic use of the very thing held so highly against them... Maybe that's shallow, but I think that it could possibly be more universally a statement on the hypocrisy of or cycle of the ideal taking over and turning on it's own principles in the end. I'm not sure that that makes the film any better but it's more interesting than the over-worn gun violence idea... to me at least.

Off-Target

[Ali_John_Catterall · 4/10 · 21 August 2005]

In 1996, Trainspotting the movie burst out of the trap and, before long, a thousand student digs were plastered in ubiquitous orange posters. It's telling Wendy's poster campaign (an iconic-looking line-up of cocky young outlaws) closely mirrors that film's, because the pair have much in common; heaps of style over not a lot of substance. And both, of course, concern youngsters shooting up; literally, in Wendy's case. In a hyper-real mining town Dick (Bell, flat as ballet pumps) forms the Dandies – dedicated to their pistols, but equally dedicated to pacifism. Obviously, it can't last. It looks good, sounds good (with the Zombies on the soundtrack), but as satire it's very heavy-handed – all too transparently revealing the pen of its screenwriter Lars Von Trier. Cute, but a bit of a misfire.

Unusual but good

[pandabat · 8/10 · 15 August 2005]

I had no idea what this movie was about when I went into it. I'd no clue at all and for a time, I felt the tedium drag at me as I waited for the movie to kick off and get past its introduction and into whatever meat it had in its sandwich, provided that there was meat there to begin with, which I began to doubt. Fortunately I was proved wrong and the kooky, off-kilter world of Electric Square and its mining town environs seems to spring up with life and potential. This film has an unusual style. It's casual and distant, barely affecting you or showing an interest, a bit like the teenage characters it is portraying, who, by the way, have set up a 'pacifist gun club' where the guns have names and are carried in public but never brandished. The confidence afforded by carrying the firearms brings, at least perceived, new social standing to the group but as is the nature of guns, it ultimately brings them from being outcasts to being outlaws and the final showdown with the sheriff's forces. It's all a bit unbelievable and fantastical but such are the teenage years. The cast is strong and not typical of the usual teenage casting of looks and shiny teeth. Goodbye to the Old West and hello to the New, created here with gusto and accompanied by an amazing Zombies-dominated soundtrack!