Wonderfully offbeat film!

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Reading the description of the film made me very anxious about how it will be - only very few directors will be able to handle it the right way. Thankfully, Ruben Ostlund did. It is a very dangerous subject that I think Ostlund was very, very smart and sensitive about. I applaud his approach of static cameras and un-zoomed faces, successfully and interestingly avoiding certain biases and avoiding exposing his own preconceived notions of whatever's happening on screen. It is then up to the audience to fill in the gaps and question their own prejudices.Based on real cases, this young group of North African boys never use violence. They do a certain skit and prolong it with intimidation and a tougher form of peer pressure. This is important to note because when we do see violence from older men 'defending' their relative it is shocking and a different level of disturbing.I particularly love the nuance he adds with the boy who decides to go home early, and the brief but absolutely necessary peek at one of the boys' home. Fantastic were the funny interjections about the cradle also. I'm not sure what to feel about the two white women being knights in shining armors at the end though. It feels a leap from the realism we've been shown all the time previous but of course not impossible either.

A very thought provoking bleak representation of modern life for many young males. The fly on the wall style filming takes away the emotion of the impact of the events on the group of boys. It is very brave and potentially controversial in its representation of different socio-economic and ethnic groups. For that reason the film maker needed to film it in an understated way. I think the penultimate scene is brilliant. Although the film is set in Sweden it could have been set in many cities in North Western Europe. The film lacks pace makes it a difficult film for Audiences to engage with. The apparent limited use of conventional editing camera angles and post production techniques reinforces its attempt at making it an honest representation.

A visually interesting and unusual movie. It is centered around rather a chilling story of bullying that is built very slowly thus making it thrilling and terrifying, since we are conditioned to expect some bloody climax; yet the horror happens only in the subtle way of exposing the violence which is in conforming. The main story is cut several times by visuals of a parallel yet empty story that pretends to add to meaning. Again both stories are expected {we are conditioned to expect} to join in some great climax yet it does happen just in quite a meaningless way. The movie is full of visual fluff that is there to amplify any interpretation one can see. Some parts are missing, again to punish expectations. Like when the boy gets to the treetop and an interesting discussion develops. All is cut: somehow he is back down, yet why? To conform with his comrades who had let him down before? Conforming or conditioning that makes people insensitive to what is and so react predictably is also exposed in reactions of shopkeeper, passengers, disturbed ladies at the end. Street-smarts count on predictability of petty minds; bullying may continue. Should have been shorter.

The film shows a group of bullies and their relationship with their victims, and how the group works during different circumstances. The movie is based on actual events in Gothenburg, where kids used a scheme wherein they accused their targets of having stolen mobile phones. Through coercion and psychological violence they then make the victims to hand over the cell phone to get out of the uncomfortable situation that arises. During the movie, the power relationship between the groups, the bullies and the victims, often changes and the bullies ask their victims for help, which they also get, as the victims play along in the social setup that has been created. The interactions with adults that the groups have are unsettling. The adults often refuse to interfere, perhaps due to insecurity about where the line goes, or whether they are assumed to interfere. Some adults also seem to downplay what is happening in front of them, almost acting as if children cannot abuse other children, and what they witness is child's play.Ultimately, the adults and the children seem to be from different worlds altogether, worlds that are not meant to meet.The end has several interesting twists. One of them is when, several months later, one parent of the robbed children finds one of the perpetrators, and decides to confront him. This is done in a similar bully-like way as the bullies were using in the first place. During the movie I felt very angry and upset, and I was picturing several ways I would deal with the bullies. But this last scene shows the futility of acting in such short-sighted ways; the reasons for acting like bullies are reinforced as he views himself even more of an outsider, and the abusive parents are later confronted by onlookers.Trying to explain their frustration and the situation to the confronting onlookers, I feel as if the parents are not only talking for themselves, but also for my own viewpoints.The absurdity of using bullying to stop bullying is exposed, and I laugh at my own simple and reductionist reactions I had just a few minutes ago. This was an great movie, one of the best, most developed depictions of human behavior, domination and submission in social interaction. If I ever become a parent, I would definitely show this movie to my children as they are about to enter school, to discuss how to deal with bullies and to talk about how bullying arises.