qariq I've read everyone's comments about this movie and most of them make sense, even the ones I disagree with. But I cannot believe that no one saw what I thought to be the most important point or fulcrum upon which this flick rests.I'm not sure what "Borderline" is, but I can guess. And judging by the fact that Reza's behavior is thus described I think I get it. That part of her personality and the destructive impact on the relationship form the skeleton of this story.This movie was made 8 years ago when the explosion in breast augmentation was really gathering steam. Big boobs were all the rage; and it has only grown (Please, no pun intended). We never see Eric particularly interested in the breasts of the women he chats with, but that's ALL Reza sees.I think the quality (genius is too strong a word) the filmmakers bring to this movie is the muted way they don't emphasize the breasts. We never see the camera linger over a cleavage or tight sweater, but we do see Reza getting real crazy whenever larger (but never monster) breasts are anywhere near Eric.So Reza's "Borderline" behavior is really focused on her breasts. By the time we get to the scene where she accuses Eric of flirting with the "black girl on the tube", whether there was a girl there or not, we know that she had substantial boobs. Guys' eyes wander all the time and we often forget what we've seen as soon as we've seen it. But Reza cannot forget. Even if Eric didn't notice the girl, the fact that a large breasted woman was on the tube car was enough for Reza.Finally, the post-surgery Reza was Reza at her most pitiful. Now she has what she wants. Now there is no worry about other women better endowed. Reza has got 'em. And she degrades herself with Rocco. What better testament to the futility of vanity rewarded.To those who criticized the "river in France" bits; I agree. And in the end who cares if Silke loves Eric? All the power in the story was sucked out by this unrelated plot mechanism.A thoughtful movie. I liked it.

hanaew this movie was so incredibly bad. i haven't read the book, but i assume it was probably very good, as giphart usually is a great writer... but this movie... there was not one single highlight. the storyline was badly laid out, none of the characters had any depth whatsoever. all reza was, was insanity and sex. she shows some emotion but there isn't any depth to the emotion...there seems to be no connections between events, it's all so jaggedly put together. maybe some good acting could have balanced out the bad storyline, but unfortunately the actors were horrible as well. antonie kamerling's narration sounded like he was doing an imitation of bert (bert & ernie) from sesame street!! angela schijf had her alright moments, but overall she was just over-acting. which can be said also for beau whatever-his-last-name-is. every so often the audience was confronted with 'symbolic' changes in the scenery ( ie lack of color after the relationship with reza is over, the dead guinea pig) that are so painfully obvious. this movie is trying to be artsy and intelligent when it simply isnt capable of being so. they could have done something great with the story... too bad they f*ck*d it up so thoroughly!!

tsaar Yesterday was one of those days we decided to go to the movies. We picked "Ik ook van Jou" more or less at random, but we were interested to see the state of current Dutch filmmaking.The film is based on a book by Ronald Giphart, and I must confess straight away that he is not exactly one of my favorites. The film features actors that are best known in the netherlands for their appearances in soap-operas and/or afternoon talk shows. At least one of them (Kamerling) has done some fairly decent stuff after leaving the soap world. So we decided to give this movie the benefit of the doubt.And what a mistake that was. This movie fails on all fronts. Bad acting (the best performance is actually by a guinea pig, which very convincingly pretends to be dead). Flat, uninteresting story with unexplained and uninteresting sidelines (Why france? Why tell the story to a girl from Uganda?) Mistakes (black people dont have to use sunscreen, as far as I know, and heating systems in the Netherlands do not produce clouds of steam like in New York, even if this looks great on film, people do not wear T-shirts outside on new years eve in northern Europe). There's one funny moment which involves two little dogs, and that's it.So that's what I think, but more importantly, it seemed that none of the people leaving the movie theater afterwards had enjoyed it. I overheard one of them saying that he was extremely disappointed, because he liked the book so much. I did not read the book, but my advice would have to be: read the book, don't see the film.

scorp10n One of the movies i just DIDN'T want to see. I got it in the sneak-preview, but damn, the acting was very bad! At the end of the movie (i still am surprised i watched the whole movie..) i wondered why i watched the movie.Also here in the netherlands, the writer of this movie (it's filmed from a book of Giphart) thought it was very bad, and was disappointed that his movie came out like this. Next time he wants a role in choosing people for the cast.