MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

David O'Brien Kay Pollack's AS IT IS IN HEAVEN (in 2004) was an honest tribute to the redemptive power of music. Audiences responded and the film did strong box office. But HEAVEN ON EARTH is more like HELL IN THE CINEMA. It is endless emotional slapstick, the worst kind of manipulative soapy from a director so insecure and in need of a follow- up that he shovels story on top of story and revives characters to drain them of credibility and purpose until you want to shout at the screen. The structure is a mess, the ending is a sad attempt to force a bucket of syrupy feelgood and every emotional scene is milked until it is close to happy-happy porn. If you got enjoyment from AS IT IS stay well clear of H on E. The closing moments are sheer farce . .even Christ can't stay nailed to the cross for this film.

robert-nyman I admit that I had a lot of expectation for this one because i am big fan of the first one. Well, there is always a risk when you make a sequel to a successful movie. Usually you should not try to follow up the success, there is a lot more examples of bad sequels that there is good ones. Unfortunately Kay Pollack fails very big with this one. The story is much to simple when you compare it to the first movie. You also see a lot of bad acting of many of the people who did a decent job in the first one. A big disadvantage is of course that we with this movie do not enjoy a great song like the one we had i the first movie. So, if you like "Så som i himmelen" i am afraid that you are in for a big disappointment with this one.

southerington With Kay Pollak's last film, "As it is in heaven" (Så som i himmelen), it seemed that there were two camps and two camps only - people either loved it or hated it, with nothing in between. The same thing seems true of this sequel, among both critics and general audiences. For my own part, I belong to the camp that loved it! Both Frida Hallgren and Niklas Falk give absolutely masterful character portrayals, and they both deserve major acting awards as far as I'm concerned. I found the story gripping and deeply moving, and shed my first tears (far from the last) at a very early stage. Lena's struggles with a repressive village environment and her own self-esteem, and Stig's struggles with an old-fashioned church leadership stuck in its old ways as well as his own inner demons and failed marriage, provide a perfect mirror of easily recognizable struggles in just about anyone's daily life. The issues of loss and tragedy are also very easy to identify with on a personal level.For me, the film evoked both laughter and tears, and left me with a feeling of hope and joy. I disagree completely with those critics, both professional and amateur, who feel that Kay Pollak has failed to make a sequel as masterful as its predecessor - I absolutely loved both films, found both the acting and the direction superb, and it has stayed with me since seeing it for the first time (yes, I will see it again) a couple of weeks ago.

Lucas Hammar While all the actors were excellent at playing their characters, Kay Pollak wasn't able to recreate the amazing experience from the previous film "As It Is in Heaven".This sequel is not even close to be as good as the previous film. The plot is too cliché and not very original. It tries to get the same concept from the previous film but fails at doing it in a new and creative style. The plot takes place about one year after the ending in the previous film, which wasn't a very smart move because it's eleven years ago since the previous film was made and it's different times now for these kind of movies to work in.The only thing Kay Pollak was good at was the directing of the actors. They did an excellent job at replaying their characters from the previous film, especially Frida Hallgren, Niklas Falk, and Lennart Jähkel. That's the only credit I can give the movie; just the acting. Everything else was so uninteresting and unoriginal. I want to believe that Kay Pollak did the best he could. Unfortunately it wasn't good enough. Better luck next time I guess.