Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But with a movie like DANCER IN THE DARK, it's very easy to get the sense that those who didn't like it are simple-minded sour-pusses with artistic tunnel vision.
Plus, most people who hated it don't take the time to write a comment. Why waste another second of your life on this dreck?
I'd like to congratulate everyone who has the guts to trash this film. It is not entertaining. It is founded on characters who make ridiculous decisions to facilitate melodramatic story points. It plays to the weaknesses of every one of its participants.
Some of the comments can be paraphrased like this: "I like a film that causes such intense reactions, good and bad." If a film isn't good, why in the world would we indulge the amateur auteurs who created it? This means Lars Von Trier will be encouraged to make MORE horrible films!
Being forced to watch Bjork act is like being forced to listen to Anna Nicole Smith play the saxaphone. Why can't we let people who were trained to act do their job? Bjork vacillates between a caricature of her weird childish stage persona and a poster-child for OverActing 101 (especially the prison scenes).
Selma, as a character, is by turns stubborn, stupid, unreasonable and selfish. Not a very good candidate for a martyr. David Morse's Bill, the antagonist, goes from benevolent protector to psychopath on the thinnest of motivations. Peter Stormare practically drools to show how stupid he is when he is wooing Bjork. It's a condescending repulsive love story.
Part of me wants to not submit this comment, because in the end, the film isn't worth this much thought. But if everyone thought this way, the comments would be overwhelmingly positive. And I can't believe that that is representative of the audience reaction to this film.
Unless you have a high tolerance for arthouse highbrow crap, don't see this movie. It's a waste of your time.
1/10.
Plus, most people who hated it don't take the time to write a comment. Why waste another second of your life on this dreck?
I'd like to congratulate everyone who has the guts to trash this film. It is not entertaining. It is founded on characters who make ridiculous decisions to facilitate melodramatic story points. It plays to the weaknesses of every one of its participants.
Some of the comments can be paraphrased like this: "I like a film that causes such intense reactions, good and bad." If a film isn't good, why in the world would we indulge the amateur auteurs who created it? This means Lars Von Trier will be encouraged to make MORE horrible films!
Being forced to watch Bjork act is like being forced to listen to Anna Nicole Smith play the saxaphone. Why can't we let people who were trained to act do their job? Bjork vacillates between a caricature of her weird childish stage persona and a poster-child for OverActing 101 (especially the prison scenes).
Selma, as a character, is by turns stubborn, stupid, unreasonable and selfish. Not a very good candidate for a martyr. David Morse's Bill, the antagonist, goes from benevolent protector to psychopath on the thinnest of motivations. Peter Stormare practically drools to show how stupid he is when he is wooing Bjork. It's a condescending repulsive love story.
Part of me wants to not submit this comment, because in the end, the film isn't worth this much thought. But if everyone thought this way, the comments would be overwhelmingly positive. And I can't believe that that is representative of the audience reaction to this film.
Unless you have a high tolerance for arthouse highbrow crap, don't see this movie. It's a waste of your time.
1/10.