Good start, but then it gets ruined

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Despite some of the previous comments this is still a remarkable period piece - yes the acting is wooden at times, but the fact that the actors physically actually grows up during the movie due to the 3 year span in filming, more than makes up for it in my opinion. The two other popular danish movies which takes place at the same period Zappa (1983) followed by Twist and Shout (1984) are arguably better and packs far more emotional punch with better acting. Yes some of the drama in this should have been written differently (an analysis of Hamlet leads to a total meltdown in a character - seriously...), two pregnancy stories is too much and the voice-over is just a bad bad idea which is totally unnecessary. Several characters reading The Catcher In The Rye in the third act, without using it for anything other than a clue to a feeling is also a bit off. Still a lot of the sentiments depicted are everlasting and as a coming of age movie this is far superior to most of its kind produced in America.

I've seen this film at the Lübeck film festival, with English subtitles. I have never seen a film of this director before. I'm saying this because former commentators have talked about language and the director repeating himself - I wouldn't know about that.What I've seen was an interesting love story of adolescents, with all the insecurities and incongruities I remember from my own life at that age. The characters were interesting, their interaction believable. The story was well-constructed - a lot of things you learned in passing during the first half-hour turned out to have some impact later on. It is not easy to knit real life memories so closely together that they will carry over a two hour movie. What really made the movie come to life was the decision to extend shooting over a three-year-period, so the actors would actually get older during the movie. This cannot have been easy, especially as the film is a period piece. But it lends a special credibility to the story which I admire.

I couldn't agree more with Jimpansy. Avoid like the plague. Why doesn't Malmroos see a shrink and get on with his life instead of inflicting his banal teenage traumas on the rest of us. The worst thing about having paid money to see this (all other movies were sold out, and the people I were with wanted to see something) is that it will encourage Malmroos in his delusion that anybody cares, and to keep making more movies. (Actually the same movie over and over). I don't normally post comments, but felt that a warning was in order. No matter how much I try, I honestly can't think of anything positive to say about this movie. And I do like slow movies such as"The weeping camel" and human drama like Ken Loach. Malmroos should start doing something of use for the world such as cleaning or looking after old people.

If you've seen one Malmros movie, you've seen them all. Maybe. Or maybe not! Many of Malmros' movies takes place in his own life, so does this movie. It is often the same story - the one about being unhappily in love. The Malmros movie 'Kundskabens træ' depicted the children (and has now made cult status), and now with the movie 'Kærestesorger', we see the teenagers. It is quite a work that underlies this movie. It took Malmros three years to make this movie. This is because we, as a viewer, have to get the feeling that the characters undergo a development - and they really do! A lot happens in three years when you are 15 years old.The language can seem a bit strange and you can get the feeling that the actors cannot act. But the movie is supposed to depict the 60's. The language was different then. And actually, the language - and how the actors talk is not far from the language in 'Kundskabens træ'. This means that not only did the actors had to act, but also work a lot on how they talked. The actors are not professionals, but they are really good! The movie can seem boring to some (it goes on for over two hours), but we have to get the feeling that three years have passed, at the end of the movie. It is not supposed to be a funny movie, but the dialogue is sometimes hilarious.If you are curious to see what it was like to be a teenager in the 60's, you should definitely see this movie.