User Reviews

Oftebro is a great actor. The setting (the Danish slave colonies) is interesting. They are willing to experiment with music. But sadly, the movie is quite bad.

With heavy handed symbolism (flags, horned skulls, etc), good-or-evil characters, a messy storyline and ill fitting soundtrack, Guldkysten will sadly become another failed Scandinavian epic movie. A movie about a slaving colony with a protagonist ahead of his time (sharing the viewer's opinions on slavery) standing up against evil old fashioned slavers - we ought to be past these kind of stories by now. While I did enjoy the more experimental music, I had a hard time relating it to whatever was going on in the story. The movie is at its best when its characters borders on the insane, and the last quarter of the movie is by far the best one.

Oh well. Onwards and upwards, Scandinavian movie makers!

No one enters the tropics unpunished. Joseph Wulff, a young and talented entrepreneur, naturalist and all around progressive type, is eager to put this tired old saying to bed. Armed with a coffee plantation patent from the King of Denmark, Wulff is determined to beat the odds in an 1836 Danish colonial outpost in West Africa. However, his companions have other ideas in mind. Wulff soon learns that even while Denmark was the first European country to ban the slave trade, evil and human cruelty still flourish as strong as ever.

The film is stylish, sensory and resplendent. I was immersed in the ocean swells, tropical light, exotic dances and forest flowers. The story is loosely based on an actual character and Wulff is admirable. He empowers others, sustains the natural world, promotes the good of the community and romances his new bride, Flitsbue, from afar. "Plants are a part of you," maintains Wulff "fruits belong to all." Despite a great theme and an intriguing main character, the film is hampered by unrealistic acting. It is hard to imagine the actors straying far from a tin of Danish butter cookies much less entering the African frontier. Outside of the beautiful imagery and storyline, the film lacks depth and substance. Seen at the 2016 Miami International Film Festival.

Method acting? Check! Two actors actually urinating on a third. Actor starving himself half to death? Check! Jakob Oftebro lived on an almond a day. Provoking? Check. At least some Danish nationalists will raise eyebrows at characters singing royal hymns while group raping African slave women.

I could go on with the bullet points that many critics will check off before arriving at a higher than average review. But these common features are far from enough to entice me.

This movie was, however, close to capturing me. By its sometimes dreamlike filming; the naturalist main character's musings; the imminent conflict between the scientist and the religious fundamentalists pushed aside by their common basic decency opposing the brutality of slavery; the long overdue treatment of that historical period and place.

But then there is the very special and in my opinion horrible techno music soundtrack which at the very least is completely alien to the time and setting. There is the slow, abrupt progress of the story. The lack of belief in most of the actors. The apparent difference between historical facts and this fiction; i.e. the main character being a pure hero while the historical person was actually a slave owner.

And at the end of the day: How much do the descendants of the victims of slavery care for a movie about it, that portrays a white man as the sole hero and liberator of slaves?

Didn't like it. Hated the music.

I saw this film yesterday with my family. It was s-l-o-w, boring for about 90% of the time, largely pointless and way too long. On top of this, my entire family agreed with me that there is more than one plot hole which really topped it all off. Disappointing to say the least! Oh yeah, and the music is the most inappropriate I have ever experienced. It is so totally out of touch with the film and the age of slavery - some strange pounding techno. At times it goes into much more soothing and pleasant style, which I really likes, but I totally stopped concentrating on the film at least 5 times, because I was wondering what the hell that style of music was doing in that scene?!

The only good thing I can say about it is that it's really really beautiful and it makes an effort to show the geography and nature of Africa. Jakob Oftebro is a terrific actor but he can't save this film.

I was actually surprised I only fell asleep once, and after the film I was relieved to find out that mom, dad and brother felt the exact same way. This film is slow, boring and totally without a flow. Several of the characters are really poorly worked through and very unimpressive. On top of all this, there was plenty of that pointless thing I really hate: hand held camera! 98% of the footage is shaky because it is not filmed on a tripod or steady-cam, and I just absolutely abhor it!! I see no excuse for all that shaky footage when it doesn't seem to serve any purpose - here it is being used through even the most peaceful and tranquil scenes, so it is obviously just there to make the director appear more intellectual. Failing miserably, I must add.

I highly recommend giving this one a miss. It's the poorest film I have seen in years.

Set in Danish Guinea (part of modern-day Ghana) in the 1830s, 'Gold Coast' follows idealistic Wulff Frederik Wulff (who according to the film's website is an amalgamation of three real-life individuals). Having devised a method for growing coffee in Africa, Wulff is despatched from Denmark to put his plan into action. Upon arrival, he finds a colony that apparently consists of precisely five people: two missionaries (or "lunatic missionaries", as Wulff puts it), the drink-sodden governor, the governor's slimy deputy and a boorish merchant. Although he finds joy in the region's natural splendour, Wulff's enthusiasm and naïvety is gradually worn down by the antics of the colonists, by his own doubts that the native peoples understand his agricultural methods, by attacks on his plantations by the local Ashanti tribe, and by a slave trade he thought his country had outlawed.

This is not a flawless film. What I assume is a small budget shows: surely there were more than just a few people in Danish Guinea? A bigger budget might have paid for a few more extras! Also, apart from Wulff himself, the other characters - some of whom, such as the governor and his deputy, were real people - are portrayed in one-dimensional terms which suggest lazy scripting.

However, those flaws aside, this is a good film. Seeing the grubby colonial buildings and slightly tatty costumes the viewer really gets an impression of a colony on its uppers (barely a decade after the events in this film, Denmark sold its Gold Coast settlements to the UK). As Wulff, lead actor Jakob Oftebro - hitherto mainly a pretty face in supporting casts - proves his acting chops, not only with an alarming weight loss but also with his portrayal of Wulff's realisation that everything in the garden isn't rosy and his subsequent descent into madness. Other actors are hampered by the limited character development in their roles, but don't let that put you off seeing this film.

The movie does not have great resources and not even excellent actors but it is made following the cruel and inhuman reality of what has been the history in certain unfortunate places and there is always the usual story of evil black and white men going against justice and law for personal enrichment.

The scenography of Ghana is very beautiful because nature is very beautiful and man is the one who destroys it.

I had the pleasure of seeing this movie at the Scandinavian Film Festival in Melbourne and was not disappointed.

As other reviewers have noted, it is a beautiful production; the setting and cinematography are glorious.

I won't waste time with plot (I was engrossed in it), as it has been covered, I would like to add my voice to balance out some negative points raised by others.

The music, a deeply sombre, melancholic, electronic score is a striking juxtaposition to the colonial African setting. It is so out of place that is absolutely works. There is a particular scene at a tribal party. It is disorienting both for the characters and the viewer, however the (oft-times used in a disorienting fashion) authentic, rhythmic tribal music is replaced with the frenzied electronic score. It is fantastic film-making.

The film is well, albeit slowly, paced. Some scenes do outstay their welcome, particularly the prison scenes on, but this film reaches an aching crescendo that is totally rewarding.

It is, at times, gory, explicit, disgusting, and real, but that is true to form for the brutal time and place in which it is set.

It offers a rich symbolism, and spiritual side as well, via the character's dream-like progression through the film. It is utterly fascinating.

The acting is first rate.

The direction, music and ethereal nature of the film reminds me somewhat of Nicolas Winding Refn's work, particularly Drive and Only God Forgives. Which a touch of Donnie Darko's existential spiritualism. But still it's own thing, completely.

It is absolutely not for everyone, but I was completely taken with it.

This is not a real review, it should be understood more as a collection of impressions on the film.

Who knows what to say about this film, well surely one word that describes it well is boring, but not boring in the classic sense of the word because many interesting things happen in the film, but boring because the film alternates parts where literally everything happens in a very confusing and films where absolutely nothing happens and where the spectator's attention span is lowered to truly minimal levels. This is not to say that the film is insufficient, for goodness sake it is very interesting, but if it had been even more entertaining it would have been better.

'Guldkysten' exposes the viewer to life at a Danish fort on West Africa's Gold Coast (now Ghana) in 1836, focusing on a young Danish officer who goes out to start a coffee plantation as an alternative to taking slaves. The slave trade had officially stopped but was covertly continuing, which he discovers during his stay. The film then focuses on his reaction to that, and how those around him respond in turn.

The plot is vaguely based on the life of a real person, but was poorly received by some critics for mixing a historical character with a lot of fiction. This was apparently because the main female character became ill during filming, and so the plot had to be radically altered.

I personally think the result is a sensual masterpiece in creating the powerful and conflicting emotions you would have had if you had been on the Gold Coast in 1836 – the elegance of the early 19th Century costumes contrasting with the utter depravity of many of those living on the fort; the beauty of West Africa's landscape and nature against the spectre of disease that killed so many who dared to visit; and of course the conflict between the ideals of Christianity and the Enlightenment against the base exploitation of slavery.

One of the most visually spectacular and haunting films I have ever seen. I have only given 9 stars because I thought Wulff's descent into madness was over-exaggerated. He could have become very withdrawn instead, which I think would have been more realistic.

All in all, a much needed film to bring home to today's audience an experience of one of the darker sides of Denmark's past.