Very Disappointing


i'm a fan of the later von trier films such as dancer in the dark, dogville, and manderlay, but this film (although visually absolutly stunning) was even more pretentious than dogville. The dialouge was sloppy and there was nudity for no reason, just thrown in there. It's as if trier watched a tarkovsky film and decided that he wanted something to do for the afternoon and made this. It's incredible how beautiful it is though. so i guess the review is mixed.

reply

I totally agree, saw it in a tv screening (may not do it complete justice...) and it looked and sounded impossibly pretentious and, worse, not exciting. Fisher's monologues sound stoned all the way through: I laughed out loud when he says "We *beep* Kim's pills work: I use the impact of the pills to try and enter the mind of Harry Grey" and later I submitted this quote to imdb (see "memorable quotes"). But I know film critics in the 80s went gaga over it.

reply

agreed about the critics thing, you hit the nail on the head with that one.

reply

I like the atmosphere and the fact that it is slow paced. I once saw a “behind the movies” about Swordfish. Someone from the crew said. “We wanted to make something no one had seen before, so when we made the get-a-way scene with a bus, and then had a helicopter pick up the bus and then make the get-a-way airborne! No one has seen that before!!!” Doh!

I had to see this movie a couple of times before I really enjoyed it. First time I saw it I was to busy trying to make sense of it. But I couldn't decide whether I liked it or not.

The second time I saw it I knew what would happen, so somehow I was able to just watch the pictures, enjoy the darkness, the weird dialogue, the crazy world unfold...

I really think this is a brilliant movie.

But I must agree with you, a naked woman! Without cloth! Who could possibly enjoy seeing a naked woman???

reply

Quite right, razorsamson. I didn't like this movie the first time I saw it. But then I found myself wanting to see it again, and again. My favorite Trier movie was Europa/Zentropa. I can't stand his dramatic movies like Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, or Dogville. They are generic. Anyone could have made them. I'd rather see something artistic, experimental, and original.

Also, it's stupid to say there was no point to the nudity. There's never a need for showing nudity. On the other hand, there's no good reason not to show it. I would rather have some beautiful nude bodies to look at occasionally. Greenaway sees the value of nudity and is casual about it in his movies. Americans have a lot to learn from foreign directors. More sex, less violence.

reply

"More sex, less violence." Hey Maturity, there's a whole bunch of old hippies out here who are so glad to hear you say that! Make love, not war. Pass it on.

reply

Strausszek -
>>I totally agree, saw it in a tv screening (may not do it complete justice...) and it looked and sounded impossibly pretentious and, worse, not exciting. Fisher's monologues sound stoned all the way through:<<

Your use of the word "pretentious" is pretentious. The movie was not. You can't tell much from a TV screening. You need to rent the Criterion DVD or the Europe Trilogy if you're outside the USA. This movie wasn't trying to be exciting like some action movie. It's an art film, intelligent, deep, and symbolic. Read more about post-structuralism for background. Who cares if he sounds stoned? The guy telling the story was under hypnosis and sad. How did you expect him to sound?

>>I laughed out loud when he says "We *beep* Kim's pills work: I use the impact of the pills to try and enter the mind of Harry Grey" and later I submitted this quote to imdb<<

Seeing how you got the quote totally wrong, that shows your credibility. Here's the correct quote: "We're having sex. Kim's drug works. I feel fine." Then, the Therapist says- "But this isn't what you are after. Let me get one thing clear. You're trying to reconstruct Harry Grey's headaches by means of the side-effects of these pills." Also, maybe the film was meant to be funny at times.

reply

"You can't tell much from a TV screening"

huh

reply

TV screenings are often pan-and-scan, edited, censored, have commercials, sped up, etc.

reply

[deleted]

I hate it of all my heart.

Comment my first movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKyFSlCZcDE

reply

Give von Trier a break, it's not like he made some short Western film with terrible acting and someone else's copyrighted music (just joking)



Last film watched:
Notre Musique by Jean-Luc Godard - 6/10

reply

Normally I love Trier's films, but I hate this one.

And your joke: Not funny

Comment my first movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKyFSlCZcDE

reply

Yeah, I pushed it. Your short is actually better than most non-professional shorts I've watched. Keep going.


Last film watched:
Notre Musique by Jean-Luc Godard - 6/10

reply

And it's my first one... ever. Never made anything with a camera before :-).

And I played the bad guy by the way...

Comment my first movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKyFSlCZcDE

reply

I think it's pretty good as an experimental piece. Lack of realism in dialogue doesn't mean it's sloppy. I'm not sure there was a "reason" for showing nudity, but even if there wasn't, so what? What wrong with it? Was there a reason for showing every other little aspect in the film?

The word "pretentious" is over-used. This film is not "pretentious", because of the simple fact that it achieves what it sets out to achieve. You may not like it or understand it, but that doesn't make it pretentious.


Last film watched:
Notre Musique by Jean-Luc Godard - 6/10

reply

I'm not sure there was a "reason" for showing nudity,
There most definitely was: "Kim's" tittytotts were MAGNIFICENT!!

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

I hated Trier's later films - Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, Dogville, Manderlay... I'd say he's a two-hit wonder. Zentropa/Europa is his best by far, followed by Element of Crime. I didn't like Element the first time I saw it. I later wanted to see it again, and again. It grows on you.

Trier has as much in common with Tarkovsky as Kubrick and Spielberg do. Element isn't copying Tarkovsky. It's based on post-structuralism. Trier's later films have been reduced to minimalist pretentiousness. I prefer his more experimental works. Anyone can make the type of films he's making now.

reply

Being an absolutely huge Tarkovsky fan myself and having watched only Trier's later works I was rather surprised when I began to watch this and saw the huge similarities.

I personally enjoyed it quite a lot but I agree that the overall lack of depth really drags it down from his usual standard. It's his first after all and I was extremely surprised it was as good as it was.

reply

With the nudity thing, I felt that it did nothing for the story. It took me out of the movie. All I kept thinking about was how the actor and all the crew were clothed, while the woman was naked. It made me uncomfortable.

reply

Since I want to try to get into von Trier movies, I decided to start with this and get it out of the way, so to speak. I must confess that this is the most boring movie I have ever seen. The narration sounded intentionally monotonous, the sexual content was uselessly explicit, and the pace was too slow to allow me to understand the plot on any level.
I am not one of those people that can't understand "brainy" movies, neither do I dismiss a film as "horrible" before it is over, but I have never more strongly disliked a movie in my life purely for the fact that it wasted my time. Sorry if I offend anyone, but this movie annoyed the crap out of me.

A tip for all forum posters (not just on IMDb): definitely =/= definately.

reply

Alot of people in this thread is apparently afraid of the human naked body as natural and beautifull as it is. Glad i wasnt raised in your families.

The reason she was naked was because people are usually naked when *beep*

reply

[deleted]

She sure was beautiful, though not entirely natural...

+1/2

And on the scale of gratuitous nudity this film must be between -10 and 1.

reply

Pretty sure them boobies weren't natural

reply

Alot of people in this thread is apparently afraid of the human naked body as natural and beautifull as it is. Glad i wasnt raised in your families.

The reason she was naked was because people are usually naked when having sex.

reply

I wouldn't say I'm afraid of the nude human body or sex or whatever, but I prefer when there's an identifiable reason for it. The sex depicted in "Dogville," for example, is integral to the story, and was treated with just the right amount of explicitness for the message to be gotten across.
I wasn't quite comfortable with the nudity in this because it didn't really contribute to the movie, in my opinion. I'm not criticizing Von Trier for having the main character have sex on screen, but it didn't prove anything, and as far as I can remember, his relations with her weren't an important factor in the story. Then again, I could barely focus on the movie at all, so she might very well have been the bad guy for all I know.
And as far as I know, being raised in a family that teaches certain values about the nude human form is not a crime or a curse. I haven't suffered from it.

A tip for all forum posters (not just on IMDb): definitely =/= definately.

reply

This film was so incredibly boring, the nudity only made me delay turning it off for only a few minutes.

BTW, I don't see why some people seem to have a problem with nudity on film.

reply

While this movie is definitely slow, I don't think it's boring at all. I like Von Trier's work generally but if you wanna see boring, watch Epidemic!!

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply