Without a doubt, the most interesting aspect of this film is the fact that it was shot in the space of three years, specifically so we can watch the characters as well as the actors grow on film, and Malmros makes a point in showing the female lead grow LITERALLY. In terms of the pathological side, this technique, something I've always wanted to see on film, happens to work well on some of the character's/actors better than others. The male lead was probably more convincing in his development overall.That being said, what new does this director bring to the screen aside from this one point of interest? Virtually nothing, as this is yet again ANOTHER period piece from a man seemingly inescapably trapped in the past, which he can never get back. A film almost identical to his prior, and probably more successful film "Kundskabens Trae" merely for it's own ambiguity, both films end almost identically. However, In attempting to establish a more focused storyline here, in my opinion he succeeds LESS at capturing what his other film did; a glance at life in the past, which here, 40 as opposed to 20 years later seems rather like a painful step back, and the entire film falls into melodrama as with the sub plot involving the female lead's father, or how the male lead reads the secrets in his girlfriend's diary.It is a bleak and depressing film in that there is no real conflict but simply subtle aggravation revolving around an unconsummated unfulfilled romance where the 2 character's bounce back and forth, treating the relationship that the film focuses on, more superficially than is needed to be a worthy basis for a film in my opinion. It would seem that all the characters have bleak uninteresting academically oriented lives, and while aspects of youthful naivety are there, they are not well rounded. All you really get comes from the main character, and he entirely consists of two simple notions "I like to study hard, and I am involved in quasi relationship that I don't know how to interpret".The bottom line is at this stage in his career as a director, the ambiance and FEEL of the period he is working in does not seem authentic or encapsulating anymore, but more like a cry of help. On one hand you could argue, at least he is showing us what he knows, rather than embarrassingly attempting to show us what he thinks the youth of today are like, as with directors like Larry Clark, and largely failing, but what I will say, is that any artist has to grow and see and express new things from new angles, whereas this man seems to be stuck in the narcissistic deconstruction of his own life in every one of his films, and here it becomes a bad thing, as some scenes are becoming more stagy, The director needs to take his experiences and apply them to today, not simply re-hash them, but like many directors, he seems to be one who has only one message to deliver, the first time successfully, followed by a series of hickups. It is really not that it is a horrible film, there is simply very little of note about it.

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.

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.

For the last couple of decades Niels Malmros has made various versions of the same story. This is not an exception. It is however way worse than the previous ones.Acting was ridiculously poor. Especially The girl lead was truly awful. Every piece of dialogue seemed staged and theatrical. No lines were that of 15-16-17 year old students, but rather a elderly mans perception of how they are supposed to talk.The movie is boring to the extreme. In order to counteract this - obviously the boredom issue was apparent even to the instructor - unfunny jokes are put into the script every once in a while. These made me cringe.I do however enjoy poor movies, and this one is memorable. Enjoyable to some extent, but not intentionally so.