MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

andremangabeira Actually, who am I to call the movie as "plotless" once I have no idea of what was the director's purpose. For that reason, I decided to dig up some information about the concept and I came across with an interview where Bas Devos describe the particular style of filmmaking:"I am attracted to something on the border of the narrative—where the story ends, but the image and sound linger. This almost "dangerous" moment, where seemingly nothing happens, but the audience connects to the world as seen or heard by the filmmaker. I suppose that's the moment when the most interesting questions arise."As the movie goes on, you start to realize that there will be no 'big twist' or some abrupt kind of turn on the story and then you go into the mindset of the project, which is focused more in suggestions and innovation than in traditional, for sure.Nonetheless, keep your mind open (all the time).

relate-47835 Thus movie was strange. So, while in USA we are inundated with silly, superficial movies, films from Flanders (gotta go check a map ?) must inform us of our limitations. This was more of a long-slow-still-unspoken (even with seldom-displayed subtitles in English)so that I often was confused. Not a common or comfortable state of mind.There was so little dialogue in Violent-Violet that it pointed out how vociferous & vocal we always are in USA . Americans, by comparison, are all-ways burbling, blurting, grimacing and doing some gestural antics... while apparently in Flanders they don't do all that.That this film was deep, slow, still, photographed mostly with-in shadows, the mood elicited emotional difficulties, but it was still difficult to decipher what and who was who/why/how and what was happening there. The big color blasts and arty-filled screen created the dynamics that the plot, acting and non-dialogue didn't do.But even then, some scenes had me distracted - thinking "who is that ?" and "what are they doing ?" and "what is happening there?",-like in 1 set of scenes of a man (unclear who he was to story's content) that hinted at a possible secreted-gay clue, maybe ? Or maybe not ? This distraction was not helpful to continuity or being able to follow along and even enjoy the film.Main theme noted was not 'grief' as advertised, but that young guys in groups – like some of these - who ride low bikes (like "low-riders" but more into learning bike tricks than drunk/drugged and haranguing other people). The male victims can be killed by unknown other males - or even be helpless victims of any crime - and then affected, repressed, confused for long after any traumatic event.And male-like behaviors require that all remains mostly 'unspoken' - and thus not examined nor well understood. Dangers are not admitted, but happen to young males everywhere, in any culture/country : like in this film where 1 got killed - by someone in another gang (motives unknown, so story was not clear).And how another 1 young guy - who witnessed his friend be stomped to death - kept quiet. He did not display grief, but rather was unable to express himself, though he was offered the chance more than once.To display and remind us all of how dangerous it is for young males in ANY society to be damaged by other males -- for reasons often unexpected or unknown -- is important and relevant. A story that is ignored in the usual push to try to make males be strong "heroes" of every man-child born. It happens. But still this is not very human/ humane.Violet was very arty and displayed great photography - with big color changes and unexpected stills... darkness prevailing, shadows dramatizing most scenes, totaling a strange viewing experience... it was more like an art installation-exhibit, but put onto film in a darkened theater.Well worth the ticket price though, for sure ! Even if I did not fully understand nor have all facts or the stories resolved. The experience, the process of viewing what is unknown but often arty is good.Reading reviews Before spoils the unexpected and experience, with expectations and others' spun views. And Violet reminds us that we just don't hardly do ART in USA films.As Distributors pick the best of foreign films for public's viewing, the movie corporation is Selective for the showing of those who come, pay, leave, & maybe wonder what they had just experienced ? This one thus offers good & unusual film viewing experiences. The film title was very misleading and seemed not pertinent to the story or viewing, unless one treasures songs over other art forms. Probably very few even knew or had heard of that song or noticed it while viewing a violent-themed film.

laika-spoetnik Violet is the debut feature of the Flemish director Bas Devos.Violet deals, mainly in a visual way, with the grief and guilt feelings of a teenager (Jesse - César De Sutter) who -rather passively- witnesses the violent death of his friend and BMX mate Jonas in a shopping mall.The movie leans heavily on visuals. Even the title Violet is associatively related to violent and to violet, a color at the higher end of the visible spectrum (and also the soundtrack by the black metal band Deafheaven).Dialogues are sparse, and when they take place hardly decipherable. Which I found quite annoying. The acting was moderate.In an interview, Bas Devos said he found it more important how the images affect you than what they exactly show. However, in my case the images hardly had an impact: they were isolated pictures, mere beautiful images, nice long takes of the neighborhood at dawn resp. sunset. Even the excellent and original shots of BMX-rides didn't truly add to the story.Indeed, the Flemish Nicolas Karakatsanis (known from the Drop, the Welp and Rundskop) is an expert in atmospheric cinematography. But only at times the visuals enhanced the story.For instance at the start of the movie, we see shots of a desolated shopping mall (mostly in dead silence) with two groups of boys who will later appear to be the offenders and their victims. We watch them from different angles, even when they meet. Later it becomes clear we are looking at a CCTV footage. Then the footage is re-winded…, the sounds return and we see the mall and the boys -one dead- in "real life".Also the loud "background noises" from birds in the morning, traffic and children's voices added to the alienating effect.Thus in conclusion, a nice debut feature with excellent camera work, but too experimental for the average audience, even art-house fans like me.

daedelson I was not prepared for this movie. I didn't know the story and, frankly, from the poster I thought it was about a teenage girl growing up. I'd like to think I went to this movie open minded, not expecting anything.And then it started. And it was slow. And it was made by someone who must love riding bmx bikes. Countless minutes of bmx bike footage. In the woods. In the venue. On the street.Both dialog and acting were, frankly, poor. It seemed like the words and dialects were forced upon the young actors.So I guess the movie was about atmosphere. I can enjoy atmosphere. For about the length of a short movie. For longer features, I need at least a bit of story. A bit of background. A bit of tension.I don't mind slow movies. I do mind movies that don't move at all. And this feature didn't seem to go anywhere.