gogoschka-1 Some of the best acting you'll ever see. Let's call this one a "hardcore dramedy" - there are scenes that had me roaring with laughter, others are sad and tender (and there are even some hardcore porn shots). A unique masterpiece by the crazy Danish maestro Lars von Trier. 9 stars out of 10.In case you're interested in more underrated masterpieces, here's some of my favorites:imdb.com/list/ls070242495

Jackson Booth-Millard From director Lars Von Trier (Dogville), I remember seeing this Danish film at least once or twice, but I didn't really know what to think of it, the critics think it is good. Basically it sees a group of young adults, all normal, regular and intelligent people spend time together in a small society to find their "inner idiot". This is to have some kind of entertainment in public pretending to be mentally retarded, taking advantage of the situation with those who fall into believing it. One of the newly recruited members of the group starts out going along with it, but slowly she becomes highly uncomfortable with the stupid activities they are getting themselves into, they are almost becoming what they are pretending to be, retarded. Starring Bodil Jørgensen as Karen, Jens Albinus as Stoffer, Anne Louise Hassing as Susanne, Troels Lyby as Henrik, Nikolaj Lie Kaas as Jeppe, Louise Mieritz as Josephine, Henrik Prip as Ped and Luis Mesonero as Miguel. To be honest the only bit of the film I can ever remember is the part when they are all taking their clothes off, running about naked, and having a near orgy, but I do also remember it having an interesting documentary style, it is a weird comedy drama. Worth watching, at least once, in my opinion!

CogansTrader At the close of Cannes 2011; Lars Von Trier's reputation as one of the most gifted yet controversial film makers around was firmly intact hitting new levels of outrageousness; however, it wasn't the first time he has managed to get the crowd at arguably the world's most prestigious film festival talking. In 1998 The Idiots aka Dogme #2 made its debut causing mass controversy; mass criticism; and mass discussion. Naturally for a film which caused such a stir it's an unusual watch. It's a strange sensation to be made to feel uncomfortable yet totally engrossed in a film and stranger still, feeling guilty for enjoying it. The term "guilty pleasure" is usually used to hide embarrassment e.g. captain of the school sports team loves a chick flick; yet here the term really is applicable.Credit to the cast who participated largely unaware of what the script would demand of them. We are introduced to Karen (Bodil Jørgensen, playing the films and our conscience) who is then caught up in an anti- middle class gang who spend their time in public 'spassing' out; in other words, pretending to be disabled (PC alarm bells ringing from the off then) in order to release their inner "idiots". Rule three of Dogme 95; a hand-held camera, works particularly well; from the off we are thrown right into the heart of the group, we might as well be made to feel as if we are documenting it.The film certainly makes an interesting comment on how social behaviour can restrict us and, for lack of a better word, the "licence" given to those struggling with mental illnesses to behave more outlandishly. The character's main release is to pose as those without social confinements in public; however the gang eventually do away with only doing it in view of the public eye; is it a hobby or an addiction? Certainly different members of the group enter into it with different motifs and levels of seriousness.The Dogme 95 movement on the whole polarised audiences so to say that The Idiots; one of the most famous of all Dogme films, will not be to everyone's tastes is an understatement. The actual subject matter will be off putting to some; a topic such as this being played for laughs in certain parts makes for uncomfortable viewing; even more so due to the fact that it is funny. The film also asks the question of how disabled citizens are treated by society; nearly fifteen years on and it isn't hard to imagine people still being perturbed at the thought of allowing mentally disabled yet completely harmless people to walk around their garden. Throughout the film Von Trier gives us uncomfortable laughs; mocks the middle class attitude to the disabled; and manages to throw in a shockingly graphic orgy. All of this building up to a real emotional sucker punch of a climax. It isn't until the closing scenes that the film stops trying to provoke the audience's brain and instead aims straight for the heart. If nothing else, The Idiots will get you talking; as if Von Trier would have it any other way. 8/10

Ruth Noakes I watched this a long time ago but never reviewed it. The Idiots' is a film directed by Lars Von Trier in 1998, it was made in compliance with the Dogme '95 Manifesto; an avant-garde filmmaking movement started in 1995, and was his first film. 'The Idiot's' focuses upon the tale of a group of people who feign mental disabilities in pursuit of their 'inner idiot', their 'spassing out' is an attempt to release their inhibitions.The film was deemed shocking, despite many disability groups approving of the film and agreeing that it exposed underlying social prejudices against disability. Micro-elements contributed to the shocking effect which this film induced upon some audiences. Realism was used to suspend the audiences sense of disbelief, such was achieved through sound, which was mainly diegetic. The dialogue seems real, unrehearsed and alike to everyday conversation but for the content of the conversations between characters. In making the dialogue believable, and in casting the characters to be believable, the film seems more real, thereby engaging the audience attention, forcing them to relate to it. The shock value is inevitably heightened.My personal interpretation of the film is that it aims to educate the audience about society's general view and attitude towards disabled people. The female main character begins oblivious to the groups intentions and ways (like the audience) and as she is led into their world so is the audience. The film seems to be about seeking deeper meanings, and sharing different perspectives, whether it be sharing the perspectives of someone completely healthy, someone disabled, someone inside the group or outside of it. I think that initially the main character acts as a representation of the ignorance of a lot of people to disability, and is a tool within the film to educate the audience. The film does not seem to hold bias as to a certain perspective, but rather it is exploratory of different perspectives, whether they be shown through conflict between the characters, or contrast between general society and the group.I highly recommend this film, and suggest viewers put aside their judgements until the credits scroll.