Terrible


Amateur, pretentious, idiotic. Don't listen to what any artsy-fartsy clowns tell you--this movie is a bomb. Hopefully this will save some helpless souls from the soul-sucking torture of watching this poopfest. (expect the black dudes speech, that was hilarious)

reply

Well, lets erase that and say its basically a movie for people who are either a fan of Lars Von Trier, avant-garde or very unusual horror movies.

reply

I wouldn't call it terrible, but it's not good. It's the only von Trier movie I don't like, maybe I just don't get the message or something, but I think it's a pretty dissapointing movie from a genius filmmaker.

#15

reply

Yeah, I can see what you mean. Definitely his most unconventional movie. Like a fake documentary about himself and another guy making a movie about epidemia.
The lack of music, any following storyline(it seems a bit random and loose) and a lot of dialogue which will make a lot of people jump off. Personally I wonder if Trier intentionally wanted the dialogue to be pseudo-intellectual and not making sense. I mean, he's talking about red stripes in toothpaste tubes in a way you'd imagine philosophers talk about complicated topics.

I still think its a very interesting movie, and I liked it. Cool concept, and some parts were really good. But still, it took me 4 days to see it from start to finish.. and I guess that says something.

reply

I love the scene where they paint the storyline on the wall...


#61: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000005/board/nest/51306920?d=51306920#51306920

reply

Yeah me too and I believe that could be a fantastic movie if they made it-DOCTOR IDEALISM and VIRUS
seen some rabbits on Murholland dr?

LET ME BE THE ONE THAT SHINES WITH U-OASIS

reply

i have to say that after 1 hour and 20 minutes i got really bored, coz i expected something else.
but the end was ... the greatest and unexpected i think i've ever seen.

i'm not trying to think at what was in Trier's mind, coz he's the only one who really knows(and i know this is dull to say).
i mean about the very normal and usual things that happen in most of the movie and are some kind of boring, but i dunno why, the end of the movie made me laugh almost like a mad man (even if there was nothing to laugh about)

actually thinking about the end of the movie make me laugh even now.

i think the film was worthy to view just because of the last 10 minutes.
and i guess that maybe this was the part painted "drama" on the wall.

maybe he just said right there when he painted the wall that this movie will be boring until the end when something will hapen.

or maybe not.

anyway, i can only think about the end of the movie and lough.

i dunno what to say about the message... i'm not that much of an art sensitiv person.

anyway, i like the way he made the film (regarding the story, not visual effects), the way the story from "real" life crosses with the "movie" life, like:
in the begining there was a story about making a script
then parts of the script were put on the screen.

well... nothing new until here.

then he paints on the wall the action of the script... which actually somehow crosses with the movie we see (not the script)

then there was the script not on the screen, but told by someone who is watching the movie just like on TV (the hipnotized girl) just like a pal of your's tells you what movie he just seen.

and then, the final part where things happen just like in the normal movies(they die of the desease - again nothing new, but for me unexpected)

i hope something here in this post makes any sense.

reply

what's the problem with you people? the scenes of the film within the film were genius and absolutely beautiful! just the parts with von trier and the black guy in the water were simply wonderful and haunting. the ending was brilliant. the first time we get into the film within the film... that tracking shot was astounding! i may understand people bashing this for amateur-quality or pretentiousness but you gott admit the 35mm-parts were not less brilliant than the amazingly composed shots of "element of crime".

it was a great movie that did not bore me for one second.

Where are you, Mount Everest? Give me some Everest.

reply

<<
what's the problem with you people? the scenes of the film within the film were genius and absolutely beautiful! just the parts with von trier and the black guy in the water were simply wonderful and haunting. the ending was brilliant. the first time we get into the film within the film... that tracking shot was astounding! i may understand people bashing this for amateur-quality or pretentiousness but you gott admit the 35mm-parts were not less brilliant than the amazingly composed shots of "element of crime".

it was a great movie that did not bore me for one second.
>>


Nothing's wrong with us but frustration, cause we all expected much more from Von Trier. And yes it was pretentious, take a look back to Day Five, Dinner scene, where the director disappointed with the script that after a long-time-work he supposed to have to start making a new film. We viewers are somehow like that film director who can not get the point and let's say deep-concept of the story (remember it's just 12 pages) so we need to be hypnotized, forget about our limited opinions to realize the "Ultimate Trauma". Not pretentious?

reply

It is fantastic with the understanding it is Von Trier and one of his earlier pieces. Think of what he has done so capably and easily in the other films earlier or later (Element of Crime in particular holds up well for me) and then watch this. It is obvious he is carefully and decidedly creating an avant-garde piece. It's meant to be esoteric.

reply

I'm not really a fan of Trier, but usually I can watch/like to watch his films. His latest movies have been in my opinion "pretty good" or something like that, but not so astonishing. The Element of Crime and Riget-series are my favourites from him.
This was disappointing... and mostly beacause it has potential. Some great scenes, but too scattered as a whole. And it is trying to be too "clever".
Maybe it just looked good on the paper...

reply

I have not seen the whole movie yet,but the only reason I still have this movie is because I saw the part where the guy is hanging from the chopper with the red cross flag. Great Sequence!

reply

It really was! The reason why I have considered the movie over and over again! But it's not enough... There's still a few quite good scenes more though.

reply

There's some brilliant scenes in it but as a whole it falls flat. shoulda cut 15 minutes or so outa it, but at something like 106 minutes its much more short than most trier films.

reply

And the guy you are referring to is Lars Von Trier himself. Have you noticed that before?

reply

kakihara83, coincidentally this is the 2nd of your comments I bump into today (the first was on the "Scenes from a Marriage" boards). Anyway, I completely agree with the OP: this movie is horrible (and this is coming from someone who has "Breaking the Waves" and "Dogville").

"I did cramps the way Meryl Streep did accents" - Calliope (Middlesex)

reply

This actually might be my favorite Von Trier film, and I've seen them all except for his newest one.

And I still don't think it's very good...

reply

[deleted]