Comparing movies to their literary origins is almost cliché and, some may say, inherently unfair. In this case, however, it does make at least some sense I think.

Erling Jepsen has made it his trademark to write absurd stories with a generous dollop of humour - Franz Kafka meets Dario Fo, as it were. "Erna i krig" (the book) is certainly no exception to this, which is exactly why I think the movie needs to suffer this unfair comment.

The book treats World War I, the identity crisis of post-Prussia-war (1864) Sønderjylland and social dysfunction in general, as one big absurd theatre linked by one unlikely event after another.

This is my main criticism of this movie. These wonderful impossibilities that drove the original story are completely absent. What is left is just a handful of depressing fates in a war long forgotten. A few sausage bribes and funny syllogisms are simply not enough. Add to that, that only a few minor links in Erling Jepsen's original chain of events made it into the movie and an almost cheapish ensemble-like crop of the original cast. All the characteristics that made the story work and (believe it or not) believable have been largely omitted.

Disregarding the book, it was a neat little movie, though. Particularly Ulrich Thomsen fit the Erling Jepsen universe of dysfunctional characters oozing insecurity. Everybody else was largely extras - even Trine Dyrholm.