MovieChat Forums > Dear Wendy (2005) Discussion > Getting trashed by critics...

Getting trashed by critics...

posted 19 years ago by adster780
26 replies | jump to latest

...and frankly, I'm glad. I haven't seen it but I thought Dogville was pretty bad and this sounds like some even worse version of Dogville. And this is coming from someone who likes a lot of Von Trier/Vinterberg stuff (Breaking the Waves, the Idiots, the Celebration, Five Obstructions, Kingdom) I'm getting tired of Von Trier's simplistic view of a country he has never visited before. I mean, if I was gunna make a movie about Denmark, you would think that perhaps I would at least THINK about visiting there. Yeah so far the NYTimes, Village Voice, Roger Ebert and many more have trashed this and I'm hoping they trash that other upcoming Von Trier Dogville sequel. I'll pay attention to their movies again when they come with some fresher ideas other than "America is bad m'kay."

[–] dan_AKA 19 years ago

Dat is whacked out, d00d.

My heart is void. The void is a mirror.

[–] jasmineladjevardi 19 years ago

I actually saw the movie, and I thought it was quite original. With all Von Trier films, their is a blistful sadness that is weaved throughout all of his films. Dear Wendy took emotions that normally are seen as "sad" and turned them into almost a peacelike euphoria. I thought the casting was great and the story was very original. The movie is not anti-Americain, not anti-gun, not anti-anything. I would recomend you see it especially if you are a fan of Von Trier. People who listen to criticts too much can't hear their inner voice.

[–] adster780 19 years ago

Yeah but the question for you is did you like Dogville? Because I didn't. Actually I thought it was a film with some good ideas that were poorly executed (except for the acting which was fine) I think Von Trier and Vinterberg are on an anti American kick that is bugging me. And I'm not some right wing patriotic waving a flag around kinda guy either. I LOVED this 70s movie Stroszek which is also a European director criticizing America but I think Hertzog knew what he was talking about.

[–] ianfinerty 19 years ago

I liked this film but i do see your point. You can see this film as an anti-america film and whatnot but even if it is von trier having a go at the US, it is still casted well, acted well and filmed in quite an origional and fresh style. Over here in England it got relly good reviews.

[–] cobalow 19 years ago

I remember this happening to some other "odd" movies when theiy first came out, for some reason, when "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" first opened, all of the reviews at the top of google news search were pannIng it. See what a difference a year can make:)

[–] shweeny666 19 years ago

endless sunshine ?????

[–] cobalow 19 years ago

No, it;s "Eternal Sunshine" Why do people keep calling it "Endless Sunshine?" Jeez Weez.

[–] scarymoviefreak 19 years ago

dont critisize a movie because of the reviews. a lot of pretty good movies got bad reviews. and dont critisize a movie you havent seen. thats just retarded.

the green dragon

[–] ianfinerty 19 years ago

Donnie Darko got hugely mediocre reviews when it first came out and it has become a cult classic.

[–] Pink_Frankenstein 18 years ago

Even more retarted if one criticizes the film maker for never going to America and pans it without seeing it.

[–] Looking42 17 years ago

If anything "Dear Wendy" shows us that when people work for good ideals and spend time banding together and researching something that is going to be of benefit
to them it shows respect for one another. Something that this world needs a lot more of.

[–] PsychoDingo 13 years ago

Dear Wendy is nothing like Dogville.

You might as well say you don't want to watch Raiders of the Lost Ark because you didn't like A.I.

[–] modernebiologie 19 years ago

"The movie is not anti-Americain, not anti-gun, not anti-anything."

So glad you wrote that. How can anybody watch that movie and be offended by it`s non-existent anti-americanism. the movie doesn't take sides for anything. i thought it was about, well, movies and a certain history of imagery. it doesn`t comment on guns or violence as a political issue, it quotes and comments (what that comment would exactly be escapes me though) on guns in movies, the gang-thing in movies, etc.

[–] miplau 19 years ago

Michael Plaumann,

Unnhh.. that's what yo'll get for some very poor chauvanistic (originally French) outlook on oieces of art.

[–] KineticFanatic 19 years ago

this movie is NOT a movie about america in the first place. you can interprete a lot of things into it if you like, but for me it was mostly a film about how people getting out of their daily routine and fighting for the right to be the way they are (which brings even pacifists to use guns)... it's a universal topic and all you americans shouldn't think that non-americans spend all their time bashing america. i am from germany and i don't bich around cause lots of people all over the world still blame me for hitler (even though i was born in 1983)... in times like these when you have a president that fights a war that is not legal (as he had no permission by the UN)and gives a *beep* about the environment (kyoto) whilst he plays world police and feels like everyone should be like he wants them to be (which is pretty arrogant), you need to learn to handle some criticism.

Even if this would be an anti-american movie it would have a right to exist. But i am glad myself it isn't cause i don't mind america as long as they don't start invading germany for some made up reason.

So go watch that movie or just don't talk about it.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Francoesque-2 18 years ago

How anyone can be glad that a movie they haven't seen is being trashed is beyond me. I just watched Dead Wendy on DVD and liked it a lot. Von Tier has no need to visit America, as his issues are from American cultural imperialism. I don't think he has a problem with Americans, as such, but as a counter culture artist is responding to the dominant culture of our times, which is American.

In this film, Von Trier's more schematic approach (narratively and technically) is well balanced by Vinterberg's more empathetic and character based style. This balances Lars's tendancy for polemics with well crafted characters, all acted to perfection by a young and mainly unknown cast.

People should at least try a film before they launch into it.

[–] maria-217 18 years ago

I think it is fantastic to see Vinterbeg and Von Trier work together, because their styles are so different from eachother! You people should really try to see some of the danish movies they have made on their own, and you would think it was impossible for them to work together!

By the way, I am tired of people talking about weather von trier knows enough about the US to make such a movie! first of all Von Trier has lived in USA when making Dancer in the Dark for example! Secondly, how many american directors who has made movies about Europe, are experts in this continent?

anyway, a lot of you should see the bonus material on the dvd, it would really answer a lot of your questions!

The dane

[–] Meritocracy 18 years ago

"first of all Von Trier has lived in USA when making Dancer in the Dark for example!"

Not to argue the point, but mearly for corrections sake, to quote Von Trier himself on the Making of Dancer in the Dark:

"Dancer in the Dark is set in America because that’s where musicals come from but also because it’s a place I’ve never been to and will probably never visit because I don’t go on airplanes. It’s a kind of mythological country for me. We shot in Sweden and places that could look like America, and that may be more interesting than actually going to America."

[–] lucasrocks 18 years ago

Why not get trashed with the critics, this would be far better than baggin a good film, as while they were drunk you could eat their livers, sounds like alot of fun for one little girl.

[–] andthemonkeyflipstheswitch 18 years ago

On a personal note, I was in the USA a little over 10 years back and I worked at a camp were I was given a day of instruction on how to train children on the use of BB Rifles. Now in Australia I had never used or even touched a real gun before so this was all quite fun at the time, but there was something I discovered both about myself and about some children who attended this camp throughout the 8 weeks. You can't train people to be psychologically ready to use a gun. I wont go into what happened but I REALLY connected with this movie because of it.

I didn't really care that it was set in America and therefore can't associate this film as being anti-american in any way. BUT, as a country, America needs to understand that Guns and People don't go hand in hand. This movie to me was about the psychology behind a person who encounters a gun without guidence. It wasn't neccessarily about being anti-guns, but it asks you to consider what the characters became, both good and bad, through having access to guns.

As a side note, if America had restrictions on guns similar to Australia, over 30,000 people (US Citizens) in the last decade would still be alive today, who are dead from gun related incidents. Assuming those people had at least three family members or good friends who miss them, that would be over 90,000 US citizens who didn't have casue to grieve in that period. I would be cautious of people who are pro-guns for that reason alone.

[–] j-imdb-3 18 years ago

1. Please do go into what happened - this sounds interesting.

2. A lot of those 30,000 people who are dead, we won't miss. Keep in mind, a lot of *beep* kill each other with guns, or whatever they have available. Of course many innocent people die too, and that is sad, but it's a tradeoff we choose to make. I don't have a number for you, but guns save a lot of lives and suffering too, by stopping crime one way or another. Heard of another one the other day, a meth freak or something broke into a guy's house and tried to rape his wife, got himself shot, and the woman is safe and relatively unharmed. I'm not crying that he's gone.

[–] surfscoter 18 years ago

All political banter aside, I actually really enjoyed this film -it was a fresh take on a battered subject, and the casting was pretty terrific. Bill Pullman in particular shone in his odd little supporting role. But as for my initial line, really, please, all banter aside, because despite Triers former jabs at the US, this movie, ironically enough when you consider this board, actually stems from his deep fascination with guns! Also, both he and Vinterberg have repeatedly stated that an anti-Amerian interpretation of this film would be a false and utterly unintended one -the core of it is just this weird extreme of the latent prediposition amongst teenagers towards rituals, their fascination with secret societies and codes and the bonds they form within them, born out of general uncertainty and feelings of being misplaced. The fact that it is set in the States, and that in this case it revolves around firearms, is just a story-telling device, although at first sight it does lend it self quite willingly as an anti-American statement. Those were my two cents and a few unfamiliar facts to boot, so watch it again and forget the spin!

[–] yorkshire_keith 18 years ago

The guy could have stopped him as easily with a bat and then his misunderstood teanage son couldn't have killed a couple of senior citzens across the street in a half assed statement of how hopeless life is or turned the gun on himself. There's really nothing to be gained from guns except the ability to make others want to kill you before you kill them (whether you do or not)
The film is OK, it says nothing new but it says it in a way I haven't heard it said before, and I thought the cast did very well,
Just FYI i didn't find it anti-american it just happened to be the setting. lot's of silly hormonal people have guns in lots of countries whether it's legal or not. Better still as it was made by non americans there wasn't a Fritz or a limey in it so I didn't know who the bad guy was from scene 2

[–] Prague_Czech_it_out 13 years ago

I enjoyed this movie as a comedy, don't know if that was what the director was going for, it sure did offer up a lot of laughs for me.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]