Don’t cut yourself on that edge, Lars

I watched it twice, by the way.

It's an arthouse film. You could call it Postmodern or whatever you'd, like. When it comes to Postmodern art you CAN critique it by conventional standards, but I don't think the artist would necessarily care if you did

What I mean to say is that Lars von Trier is not trying to stick to standard film or story conventions. You can call it pretentious, self-indulgent, or just BAD, but most modern film criticism fails to take into account the INTENTIONS of the artist, which is a very important component of Postmodern art

von Trier is clearly trying to make statements about humanity, about art, about morality, etc.

You thought it was disturbing and sad, but lacked suspense and intensity. What makes you think that von Trier was attempting to create suspense or intensity? Because it's a "Horror" film?

I would say the first incident does attempt to create suspense within the conversation between Matt Dillon and Uma Thurman. von Trier delays the killing for quite a bit, but teases the viewer several times before. He picks her up, drops her off to get her jack fixed, picks her up again, drops her off back at her car, then finally picks her up one last time. I would say that von Trier WAS attempting to build suspense, among other things with this sequence. If you felt that it lacked suspense then I would say that your criticism is valid (not that I am anyone to validate or invalidate your opinions)

But most of the other "incidents" seem to lack the necessary build-up to be analytically determined to be attempting to build suspense. I don't believe that creating Horror (at least by conventional methods) was the director's primary motive throughout most of the film. I would say that the most traditionally "Horror" incident would be the one you say was your favorite, the one with Jacqueline

In the incident with Jacqueline you do see a much more conventional approach to directing Horror, you have a female victim who recognizes she is in danger, is coerced back into feeling safe, then realizes that her initial instincts were correct when she discovers the cut telephone cord. Then she tries to flee and you have the "jump scare" moment where Jack pops up beside her as she stands by the front door. Much more conventionally "suspenseful" compared to most of the other incidents

I would say that it's only after this "shot" with Jack and the victim standing by the door that von Trier reverts back to the storytelling mode which he uses throughout the rest of the film. Mixing philosophical exposition with "shock" horror. You see Jack going on a monologue about how alone and w/o hope the victim is in spite of the fact that she is in a building surrounded by people

The film is basically a philosophical treatise more than it's a conventional film. The disturbing parts of it are both "exploitative" (in the film genre sense) and illustrations which contextualize the dialectical exchange between Jack and Verge

I may be sounding like I'm just trying to write a fucking essay on this movie and using a bunch of academic and critical jargon to obscure an actual point. But my point is simply this:

Every incident corresponds to a statement that von Trier is trying to make about some philosophical concept, whether it be art (aesthetics), morality (ethics), or whatever else. It's actually pretty on-the-nose. In the incident with the mother and two children he hits you over the head with the point that humans, in general, are capable of great evil as illustrated by Jack's monologue on the hunting traditions of the past.

In the second incident, you have Jack talk his way into a woman's home simply by promising her money. He gives a TERRIBLE and unconvincing performance as a police officer, but manages to get in by appealing to the person's greed.

The incident with Jacqueline he's making a point about how humans really don't care about each other. No one will come to her aid because everyone is too cynical or too self-absorbed or too apathetic to do anything

All of the philosophical points can be seen as fairly nihilistic. It's up to you to decide whether you agree with them or not. But the point is that that was clearly the main intention behind this film. It wasn't to make just a scary movie, but to equate Jack with humanity as a whole

I'm sure you can find some secluded niche with people who think likewise. But I suggest you try and find something else to do if you want to be a succes.