A Disappointing Continuation

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

This is a wonderful drama, originally a play but successfully transformed to cinema. By that I mean that the superb writing is supplemented by images which carry the load.It is the story of four men who in college had a band called Cloaca. We encounter them 20 years later, each with problems we identify. This all rings true, so true and so closely written that I would probably like it even it were a filmed play.That's because of the way it is constructed. Each of the men and all of the possible pairings by turns take the role of being outside the play, on the side of the viewer, commenting on the others. This fold is made explicit by two devices. One involves paintings from an artist whose passion is remarked upon and who clearly reflects on the pictures we see. This is one case where the structure is more apt for film than stage.The other device is more visual (as we never see the paintings). One of the men is a playwright/director who is putting on a play that manipulates this notion of the chorus in the action. He is having sex with a girl in the play who has a central role in that play, and who also happens to be the daughter of one of the other men. Her role in the play is one of the most striking scenes in film: she is covered in some sort of mud and is hosed down to become nude. Its really quite beautiful, interspersed with shots of her disapproving father in the audience being struck by that beauty. Now this fold would have worked better in the stage production I suppose.There's no question but that this is a guy movie, and proudly not silly. There is no compromise in the dramatic arc to land you in a happy ending. It seems true, and real, and a genuine voyage into what men actually deal with.A subtle point: all of these men have noble moments but are all damaged in ways that allow them to damage. This is common. But this business about weaving the drama by having subgroups of two among the four take control, well I find that fascinating. Women simply do not do this in my experience, and never in film. Its a turbulent, shifting set of alliances based on direct relaxing of dominance to form partnerships, which then jointly dominate. The result is an essay on the nature of dominant control of the situation, heightened by the fact that we are there only to experience what they control. A "cloaca" is a single orifice that serves sexual and all elimination needs.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Any man should recognize himself in one of the four male characters in this picture. The way these men try (!) to open up to each other demonstrates the difficulties men always had and will have to deal with emotions, friendship, loyalty and relationships. With some (hilarious) subtle jokes, intertwined in strong dialogs and acting, these topics are clearly not men's favorite. Yet, this picture demonstrates that men are eager to to be sensing creatures, even if nature did not make them that way. Women should see this movie instead of any Oprah-like show about understanding the opposite sex. At least one woman has these insights and she wrote this wonderful story!

The story about four men in their mid-life crisis is well written and does not loose focus at any moment. Convincing actors. I did not like the scene with the prostitute. All scenes are realistic and seem to come out of really every-day life. The psychology of the friends is well described by strong dialogue.

The play "Cloaca" was, in the year 2002, one of the most succesful plays of that year. And because of the fact that in Holland, we don't have lots of issues we want to film, 'they' decided to make a movie of "Cloaca", with the same (great) actors as in th play. 'They' succeeded. The movie is one of the best Dutch movies ever, if not THE best, I'm still thinking of calling it that. The story is about a group of men, who are all 40 years old. Back when they were students, they were best friends, but after several years, the relation between these men went down hill. One of the guys, Pieter (Pierre Bokma), has a problem, and to solve this problem he needs the help of his friends, in special the help of Tom (Peter Blok) while he is a lawyer. But Tom en his two other friends Joep (Gijs Scholten van Aschat), who is running for minister, and Maarten (Jaap Spijkers), a director, have enough problems for themselves. And the only thing they can focuse on, is there own problem. This delivers some great scenes, like the one in which Maarten is trying to tell Joep that he had sex with his 18 year old daughter, when they were preparing Maarten's latest play. When Joep enters the room, he tells Maarten how wonderful he liked the play, gives Maarten a hug and gives him no chance to tell his story.This is typical for this movie; no one listens to the other, and this is brilliantly played by the best actors we have in Holland. Gijs Scholten van Aschat (who had the chance to play the raper in Lars von Triers "Dogville", but didn't do it because he wanted to make "Cloaca") plays Joep on a wonderfull way, and also the other die hard theater actors Pierre Bokma, Peter Blok and Jaap Spijkers give a fantastic performance. If you like good acting: GO SEE THIS ONE!!!