Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

*Spoiler/plot- 2003, In the 1950's, a Swedish Govt. researcher strikes up an unlikely friendship with a cranky Isolated Norwegian farmer despite the age-old cultural animosity between the two neighboring Scandinavian nations. The Swedish efficiency expert is under strict Govt. orders NOT to engage with his study subject. This study is to improve the subject's kitchen use and meal cooking times. But the sly old farmer much prefers to amuse himself by impeding the timid researcher's work in the most amusing ways. Soon, in the struggle between a neutral observation and the innate need for human interaction in very close & personal surroundings, the kitchen becomes a battleground of matching whit and grows into a charming alliance.*Special Stars- Joachim Calmeyer, Tomas Nordstrom, Reine Brynolfson, Bjorn Floberg *Theme- The cold brutal winters in Norway make people warm and friendly.*Trivia/location/goofs- Swedish language, subtitles. Made into the film festival: Cannes Selection of 2003.*Emotion- An enjoyable film of personal relationships and real acting 'chops'. The quirky script here makes this film's plot warm and witty with an interesting look into the life of Europeans in the 1950's.

What a thoughtful film. From the opening caravans, the little bit of real Swedish kitchen history (so the director told the audience in TIFF), to the sombre ending note. the message was clear, the acting understated, the direction firm.Is it a comedy? or an observation that we find unlikely but heartbreakingly true that it is blinding our judgement ? A few years ago, in the midst of 35 films in 10 days, I first saw Bent Hammer's Water Easy Reach. It had the most distinct timing, flow, story, yet it was trying to say something not so obvious. It let me to this choice, and this is an masterpiece.But I can see some would argue that this has only a singular statement about the human condition. But that is exactly the boldness, the care the thought ?

First, let me mention the fact that, in spite of its title («Stories», in plural), there is only ONE Kitchen Story. As to whether Isak died or not at the end, I'm not so sure since, in one of the very last scenes, HIS PIPE is seen lying on the table next to the two cups. On the DVD cover, there is a reference to Tati. It claims that the film is «très drôle: rappelle Tati !» («Very funny: reminiscent of Tati!». The great Jacques Tati relied mainly on mime and silent deadpan attitudes to achieve his comical effects and to offer his critically satiric views of his 1950’s French «modern» society. Of course «Kitchen» does take place during the 1950’s and it does offer some (rather faint) satirical references to the absurdities of bureaucracy and there are some long moments were no words are uttered -– but they are not really funny. Are all these small details enough to make «Kitchen» a «Tatiesque» movie ? This being said, I have to admit that «Kitchen» does deal with the sometimes false objectivity of scientific research versus the «truth» of human subjective emotions. Generally speaking, the movie was agonizingly slow, with nothing much happening -- with barely any «dramatic impulse» : the involving parts were the set up during the first 15 minutes or so, and during the last half hour or so. Indeed, the last segment was -- FINALLY !!! -- interesting and moving. It might seem that it was a short subject, of less than an hour, unduly stretched to some 90 minutes. Now, about the set-up (a «scientific» observation on the behavior of single males in their kitchen): at first it seemed very promising –- with the charting out of the comings and goings of bachelors in their kitchen as a means to determine what new inventions would be most useful to come up with. But very quickly this premise turned out to be just a prologue, an «excuse» to introduce the real subject which was only fully developed towards the end and which was about loneliness and the invaluable bond of friendship. Pity ! I honestly wanted to like that movie. Yes, it seemed so promising when I heard about some of its unusual little «anecdotes» -- which were indeed there and which I enjoyed -– such as the burning of a man’s nose hair (instead of using scissors to cut it off), the «investment» of having a huge quantity of «valuable» black pepper stacked away in a barn, the role reversals (the observant becoming the observed), a man’s mouth emitting sounds from a radio program. And there is also a sick horse becoming the catalyst of half-hidden human despair, the relative importance of right or left side car driving in Sweden and Norway (a reflection of the importance for each of these very close neighboring countries to affirm its individuality ?). Am I the sole person who did not fully enjoy that film ? Does this necessarily mean that I'm wrong ? Perhaps it’s almost generally praised «fine points» were, in fact, «too subtle» for me ? Perhaps... Could my individual views on this movie ironically reflect the very essence of the film itself -- which would be the vital necessity to have the right to differ, to affirm one’s individuality and not to follow blindly society’s trends and opinions ? Each one of us has the right to have different personal views and not to be a slave of the demands of one’s bread-winning «dictatorial» demands: often, we do have other alternatives that would allow each one of us to be useful to our society while respecting one’s inner principles. In short, being true to oneself -– the way that in that film Folke (Isak’s «scientific observer») ends up by giving up his job while preferring to stay in his new friend Isak’s house and help his out with the tasks of his farm ... And so, «Vive la différence», as the French say !

This film explores how simply friendships can start between two outwardly different people, through a post WWII Swedish kitchen research project. It has wonderful actors who thankfully never hammed it up, and effective cinematography that moved the plot instead of dazzled (again, thankfully). The period Scandinavian jazz and pop score was fresh and never overpowered the story's quiet energy.There are a few possible mysteries by the movie's end. The final moments could be seen as vague. Did an illness, suicide, or natural death occur? Why would the jealous Grant befriend Folke by the very last scene, or did he? Also, there was one conversation about bear meat that reminded me of the oysters/snails conversation in Spartacus - but maybe I'm reading too much into it!The best short fiction shows the characters' inner worlds through carefully chosen details and dialogue. Without being talky or ever getting soapy, Kitchen Stories made me feel like I was in that tiny dwelling with Isak and Folke, researching a growing friendship rather than appliance use.