MovieChat Forums > Dancer in the Dark (2000) Discussion > Just awful

Just awful

posted 13 years ago by rob-asbell
37 replies | jump to latest

This is a terrible movie. As bad as "Can't Stop the Music."
I understand that people want to be cool and say they "love Bjork" because she is so cutting edge, but the truth is she's quirky, not talented.
The movie itself has a plot based on everybody being ignorant of her blindness and allowing her to work in a factory. Really?
It looks like it was filmed using an old Sony video camera and the acting and dialogue is terrible. It seems like they just filmed the first day of rehearsals.
And to make it worse, just when it gets really bad, Bjork breaks into one of her songs that sounds like the ramblings of a six-year-old. And THEN to take it to a whole new level of bad, people start dancing on trains and in factories.

This movie should be used to torture people or to induce vomiting in poisoning victims.

Somebody owes me 140 minutes of my life back.

[–] Thrillseeker303 12 years ago

You sound like me after I first saw this movie.
Now.. several viewings later. This has become one of my favorite films.
It grows on you.

Relax! @ www.bryanel.com

[–] Mohsen-Qassemi 11 years ago

I really loved the film until the murder-suicide scene. It infuriated me. Why on earth did she have to kill Bill? Wasn't no other way for von Trier to make the audience weep? Yes, I was on the verge of crying myself but the murder-suicide scene ruined the moment. She had to be executed so that she could be a "great mother" who sacrificed herself for her son. Was her son's eyesight less important than her promise to Bill not tell on him to his wife?

Furthermore, why did she have to smash the poor guy's face? she had already shot him.

Mohsen Qassemi

[–] debniak 11 years ago

I'll keep it simple:
I did not like this movie.
I was not entertained.
I have no desire to see it again.
I will not buy it for my collection.
The reasons are all totally subjective so there is no point in listing them.
I am not a film critic -- only a viewer who was not satisfied by his expenditure of time and money.
I enjoyed "Melancholia" which is why I gave this film a chance. Most likely I will avoid any other films both past and future by LvT. I am getting old and do not have time and money to waste.

[–] silent-shout 11 years ago

When someone says Björk doesn't have talent, you just can't take anything they say seriously.

You are a joke, my friend.

[–] FishyUrsula 11 years ago

For all of you complaining about horrible camera work, please, keep in mind that this film is still heavily influenced by Dogme 95 movement, which refused expensive special effects and post-production modifications and prescribed the usage of hand-held camera.

And please, if you are going to criticize a film, please do provide some valid arguments to support your statements - what's the point of posting a comment otherwise? You will just start a stupid fight where people say just the opposite from what you said, neither contributing to a quality discussion.

A: "The acting is terrible."
B: "You're stupid. The acting is superb."
A: "You clearly have no taste at all, the acting sucked."
B: "You are a moron, the acting was the best I've seen in years."

AND IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON WITHOUT GOING ANYWHERE.

You didn't like the film? I have no problem with that. But if you want to talk about how and why you didn't like it, why not do it properly, with arguments, so that we can all enjoy this conversation?

[–] badtothebono 11 years ago

as if people who love this film give or have "valid arguments to support" their statements. Your idea of a valid argument is to imply that it is fine that they used an annoying camera style, because they were copying someone else's annoying camera style.

Good one.

[–] FishyUrsula 11 years ago

as if people who love this film give or have "valid arguments to support" their statements

No, they don't, as I was trying to exemplify in the dialogue I made up: comments without any valid arguments only provoke more comments without any arguments and it goes nowhere; the conversation becomes just a nonsensical fight about who has taste in films and who hasn't. And it's stupid.

Your idea of a valid argument is to imply that it is fine that they used an annoying camera style, because they were copying someone else's annoying camera style.

I never said I liked the film or that this was fine. I was just trying to explain that the camera work is the way it is intentionally, as a lot of people didn't seem to know about Dogme 95 and their style and philosophy. Dogme 95 was started by Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg, so he wasn't copying anyone but himself. If you are interesed in the reasons for their style, google it. They have ten basic rules called the Vow of Chastity.

I really don't care, I just thought some people might want to know what's up with the camera work. It is only natural that not everyone likes certain film movements, but it is interesting to know what is the philosophy behind them. I mean, it's interesting to me, might not be to everyone.

[–] Errington_92 11 years ago

Admittedly I thought Dancer in the Dark was awkward in its early periods. However in its later stages the awkwardness becomes Dancer in the Dark's greatest asset. This was due to Selma's delusional mindset.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] badtothebono 10 years ago

But her lifetime supply of "attagirl"s went out the window with this.

[–] foton 10 years ago

ITA

[–] tillaurousseau-34175 9 years ago

You should go read a bit more about the director, and the Dogme (a cinema movement).

[–] oknar1977 8 years ago

well what can you expect from a person taht showed us cutting vagina with razor blade and spurting blood from semi errect penis..
i wish they bring back the Code. too much garbage is allowed