ben-mcpherson Although little appears to happen in this film, it is in fact a very well controlled piece about a postman who has opted out of engaging with the world. He accidentally saves the life of a suicidal woman, and through committing this unintentional good act becomes a better person - entirely against his will.The performances are flawless, and the direction unobtrusive, giving the illusion of effortlessness that is in fact very hard to achieve. Despite being a film of great moral complexity, Junk Mail wears its serious purpose very lightly, and is in fact very funny indeed.Certainly one of the best films to come out of Scandinavia in recent years, and one which shows a side of Oslo few outsiders ever witness.

Alice Liddel A postman is like a taxi-driver, a medium of connecting people and places. Like the taxi driver, the postman lives a vicarious life: he sees others living theirs, but has no part in it himself. Any inherent bias towards solitude thus becomes intensified. Unlike other people, who generally stay in their allotted social position - in work, home and play - the postman and taxi driver are mobile and fluid: they are urban creatures who can unite people, classes, places that normally would remain apart.If there is one genre that depends on connection, cross-class and -space mobility, it is the detective genre. A detective needs to be able to connect disparate clues and suspects into the single narrative of a crime. 'Junk mail' begins with a crime, filmed with some urgency, as a couple mug a security guard and steal a large amount of money. This is, to the audience, a random, inexplicable act - we don't know who any of these characters are, and why they are in this situation.The next sequence introduces the film's protagonist, the postman. Not only does he have the advantages outlined above, but he has that third, most vital prerequisite for a detective: he is a voyeur. He spies on people in shops. He opens their mail. He breaks into their houses and examines their things. By mixing his job and his personal perversions, he is able to explain that opening sequence, find the clues and piece them together.Normally, the detective is a moral force - he restores social order after the violation of a crime. But Roy is himself a criminal, and it is Line's shoplifting that attracts him to her. One way a detective solves a crime is by imagining himself as the criminal, e.g. Sherlock Holmes in disguise. Roy is the least appealing 'hero' of modern cinema, filthy in personal habits, anti-social, the kind of cynical, cowardly brute who violates those who, through their own sins, have no legal redress.But he is also a non-entity: a comic scene of humiliation at work reveals him to have no talent whatsoever. Not even his nominal, despised girlfriend can think of one positive attribute. When we first see him, he is being bullied by a superior. His illegalities are all about invading others' lives, or entering identities because he has none of his own. When he breaks into Line's apartment, he tries to imagine what it is like to be her, to the point where he unwittingly falls asleep on her bed. He even steals her tastes for his own when they first (consciously) meet. He is Chesterton's invisible man (also a postman) - unnoticed because he's always there.Like many recent alienated urban heroes ('Chopper', 'Bleeder', etc.), Roy is a child of Travis Bickle, and the look of the film has the lurid, sickly colour of 'Taxi Driver', the city as vomit, with Roy hurtling towards his own warped redemptive rescue. But there is a vision of Oslo as a dank, run-down bureaucracy similar to the Czech comedies of the 1960s, or, more obviously, Orwell (or 'Brazil'), that bespeaks a more social purpose - this is not the film the Norwegian tourist board will be distributing. The glum scene where Roy is awarded a watch for bravery having been attacked by thugs (his strap got caught in his panicked hurry to oblige) is comically reminiscent of Kaurismaki.

markguszak movie. I had high expectations for this one and was very let down. The movie is not funny, but it was billed as a comedy. This movie is not exciting, but it was billed as an adventure. This film was not good, although some critics gave it a thumb up. I guess that if you are Scandinavian you might enjoy it, because it is a Swedish film. That is all the praise I can give it, Thank You!

TucknDar A brilliant movie by Pal Sletaune! It's probably the "greyest" film I've ever seen. Disgusting in one way, but that only makes it greater. In my opinion the best Norwegian film ever, and it is absolutely worth watching. But like most movies, it is best in its original language, so people who doesn't speak Norwegian won't have the same experience, I guess... But it's still worth watching because of the depressing mood in it(!).