Skip to main content

No one throws away more than fourteen euros worth of sandwich and juice like that.

Riders of Justice
aka Retfærdighedens Ryttere

(SPOILERS) Anders Thomas Jensen’s ruminative comedy-thriller (or should that be thriller-comedy? Neither option does it justice) is one of those perfectly pitched pictures that gauges its tonal shifts with deceptive ease. The kind of movie that might have been no more than a slickly well-oiled genre vehicle, satisfyingly cathartic in its action beats and laugh out loud in its eccentric character foibles, were it not for the genuinely affecting meditation on loss and forgiveness at its core. To that extent, Riders of Justice put me in mind of the work of Martin McDonagh.

At the heart of the picture is a philosophical meditation, one that elicits tangible effects upon its characters, rather than simply operating as a prop or casual banner. By this measure, it is statistician Otto (Nikolaj Lie Kass), rather than soldier Markus (Mads Mikkelsen), who is Riders of Justice’s crucial enabler, and also key to its most moving moments.

Otto gives up his seat on a train for Emma (Anne Birgitte Lind) and her daughter Mathilde (Andrea Heick Gadeberg); moments later, another train crashes into the carriage, resulting in Emma’s death. Otto, who does not believe in coincidences – not out of some high-flown regard for synchronicity, but because, to his mind, any event is entirely explicable, given sufficient data – becomes convinced the crash was no accident, and after the police dismiss his findings, he enlists oddball cohorts Lennart (Lars Brygmann) and Emmenthaler (Nicolas Bro) to prove this, taking his evidence to Markus, Emma’s husband and Mathilde’s father.

Mathilde is on a similarly deductive path, except that she traces the chain of events back to the theft of her bike (we see this bike ultimately given to another girl as a Christmas present). In an inspired scene, Otto discovers the Post-it notes on her bedroom wall depicting this sequence and sagely tells her “It’s a waste of time”; “I know” she replies. He clarifies this isn’t because there’s no reason involved, as her dad attempted to persuade her, but because “There’s a centillion reasons. But they won’t help you”.

This mathematical precision, statistical certainty – or odds suggesting close enough to one – is itself called into question by the picture’s twist, that the key party linking the train to a Riders of Justice conspiracy (the Riders being a biker gang), identified through facial recognition software, was only someone who looked very like him; the crash was indeed an accident. Rigid formulae and zeroes and ones can only guide one so far, and we can see how Otto’s world – despite his sensitivity and self-awareness – offers a retreat from the pain of his own mistakes, whereby he was responsible for the death of his wife and daughter. We witness similar remove in the fragile emotional states of Lennart (sexually abused as a child) and Emmenthaler (a victim of bullying).

And so too, this links in to Markus’ different mode of detachment, as a man trained to kill who must compartmentalise yet is not very good at it. His unwillingness to “get help” regarding his grief and anger issues is, on one level, entirely understandable (particularly when someone as challenged as Lennart can pass himself off as a therapist), but we also see his destructive influence, polluting his daughter’s mechanisms for dealing with the tragedy. She notes her grandfather believed in God; “…but he wasn’t that smart” Markus tells her. There’s no point in dwelling on where Emma is, or worrying that she may be alone: “She’s nothing now. She’s gone”. Eventually, sparked by the realisation his revenge quest has been for naught, Markus too reaches crisis point, and Otto coaxes him to realisation that his relationship with his daughter is still there to be mended: “It costs time. But you have time. So use it”.

Jensen isn’t banging a drum for a comprehensive metaphysical conception of existence, but he’s clearly of the view, accentuated by the picture’s embrace of festive trappings and a soundtrack infused with soaring choirs, that Markus’ frosty worldview most likely won’t be enough to get one through the hard times. One might see the surrogate family assembled at the conclusion as a little trite, were one to related it to the likes of Vin Diesel’s Furious fam, but it’s rather a case of bolstering the core, damaged unit than replacing it.

And the meaningfulness of Otto’s explanation of cause carries further, into the validity of the mistaken path the picture depicts; if Otto had not made the error, Markus might never have reconciled with his daughter, male prostitute Bodashka (Gustav Lindh) would surely have been subjected to further abuse (and likely, at some point, death) and the Riders of Justice would doubtless have continued riding around, perpetrating main and varied crimes.

Riders of Justice is also often very funny, be it Markus’ simmering irritation with the instructions all and sundry are relaying to him (to the extent of breaking Otto’s nose and throwing him out of the car at one point), the incessant bickering between Lennart and Emmenthaler, or Lennart’s idiosyncratic attempts to help Mathilde (“You’re a chubby little salami”) and Bodashka’s “meaningful” “old Ukrainian legend about coincidences”. There’s no weak spot in the ensemble of performers, but Brygmann and Bro clearly relish revelling in the most off-the-wall roles.

If this were a Hollywood movie – as any remake doubtless will be – Riders of Justice would inevitably have pitched headlong into vapid sentiment. And if it were more indie in sensibility, it would surely have resisted an upbeat ending; Jensen, who has steered clear of Hollywood, although he had his fingers singed as a credited writer on the botched The Dark Tower, knows not to turn a tragedy into a tragic movie. Another picture would have concluded with Markus dying; Jensen clearly knows this, cutting from his bleeding out to being sat festively in a horrific Christmas jumper with his new oddball comrades. Riders of Justice didn’t receive quite the same fanfare as Mikkelsen’s other Danish film of 2020 (Another Round), but it deserves every bit of the praise that has come its way.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.