akshizzy There's a few redeeming factors in this movie, mainly Bjork's musical numbers, although they can't seem to make up for the rest of the film. Lars Von Trier attempts to have poorly shot scenes to make some sort of artistic statement, regardless of if that statement means anything to you or not, you're still watching a poorly shot film. Bjork's musical talent simply does not do enough to carry almost two and a half hours of cinematic misery. This goes beyond simply being a sad story or a film that is difficult to watch, there's simply nothing engaging. I'm glad people something in Dancer and Lars Von Trier's other work, but I can't seem to find this film to be anything other than pretentious.

catalina I only saw this movie once, while I was in high school. I watched it over the course of a whole weekend, as I had to stop each 15 minutes for crying. It is the most heartbreaking movie about the injustice there is in the world, about the beauty of emotional and good hearted people. It portrays love, but in a way that it has no power, if not for the beauty it brings for a moment in time. It still remains the saddest movie I have seen in my life. Bjork is delivering such beautiful acting.

Kirpianuscus her performance. her dance. her manner to use the details of the role for give a delicate, cruel, dramatic story about innocence, about clash with a strange universe and the end of dream. a film far to be comfortable. not only for the clear mark of director but for a rare form of honesty who has the gift to ignore the genres. story of a woman from East who hopes become happy . and the way for define the new world. one of films who are not exactly dark or bitter or dramatic or cruel. but only a question to the viewer. about choices and decisions. about status of the other. about dreams and about limits of gestures. about loneness and about value of life. about beauty. and about truth. about importance of refuges. a film for powerful memories. and not real comfortable answers.

epicmilk15 Okay is not a good word to describe this movie. It is not bland or mediocre; rather it dips into both Oscar and Razzy territory... a lot. Lets start off with the positives:Interesting camera style, which at first feels artsy-fartsy, but works surprisingly well (except for in above shots), and immerses you into this world as if you were an unnamed characterAMAZING acting from all of the supporting cast. Bjork's performance was inconsistent (I'll talk about that later), but everyone else in this film was very, very good I can actually follow what's going on! While I love movies like 2001 (very few artsy movies are actually good, but some are), they can be very, very, VERY abstract (sort of their draw too, I guess), but this one was easily followable, without shoving everything in the audiences face. Now for the shitstorm:The plot holes and technical inconsistencies. Maybe you can chock this up to my CinemaSins nature, but I can't stand plot holes and inconsistencies, especially when they are obvious. And this one has a lot. For example, when Bill first shows off his gun, it is a revolver, and when we see it again in the film later, it is an M1911. While both would make sense for a police officer of the time (which Bill is), he is explicitly mentioned as having only 1 gun, his standard issue police firearm, which is also a major plot point of the film. There are also tons of inconsistencies (this is DEFINITELY NOT THE 1960s, despite the film claiming it as so), like the model of train and SEVERAL background issues. If you nitpick a lot, then this film will give you headaches and nightmaresThe writing. I may have said that the acting was superb, but the writing isn't. While the plot itself was very good, it was just handled very poorly. A good script has a plot that revolves around the characters, and fits with those characters. When a character does something in a good script, it feels like THAT CHARACTER performed said action out of a reason befitting of them (I.E. The joker's seemingly random actions in the Dark Knight fit with his character very well). These characters feel like they do thing for the convenience of the plot, which breaks the immersion set up with the great acting and camera style. Selma's stupidity. Okay, this one goes into the last issue I mentioned. Selma's IQ is very low (not saying Bjork's necessarily is, but Selma the character is about as bright as nylon is flammable). She is SO STUPID!! This is HIGHLY immersion breaking, and she is a disillusion and (unintentionally) irresponsible mother at best, and and a (this segment has been censored due to explicit use of profanity and offensive language. We apologize for the inconvenience, and will now resume the review. Thank you!) at worst. The verdict:Good acting and well-done camera angels lead to superb immersion. Songs that are varied in how good or bad they are. A terrible script that breaks most of the immersion set up by point one. Blatant inconsistencies that break the remainder of immersion left after number three. A lot of unbelievable circumstances that the plot forces these characters into against any sort of believablity. Final word: A motherload of potential, thanks to great acting and superb camera-work, wasted almost entirely by an atrocious script and so many plot holes that it puts the moon to shame. A good, but forgettable soundtrack to boot. Ultimately: wasted potential; this story needs to be revisited by a writer who knows what the hell he's doing. -5.5/10-