Worst movie ever?
I seriously think this is one of the worst movies I have ever watched.
How can anyone think it is a good movie?
I just don´t get it.
I seriously think this is one of the worst movies I have ever watched.
How can anyone think it is a good movie?
I just don´t get it.
Oh yes, me too -
I only watched it through to the end because i had paid £2.50 for it in a charity shop and I watch my pennies.
It just doesn't work.
Sometimes a stage play can work as a film and be original and exciting but not this, which wasn't even a stage play.
It could have worked if it had been done with any skill and feeling, which it wasn't.
The voiceover goes on and on and is a terrible piece of writing in itself.
John Hurt's voice was irritating.
The rest of the dialogue is terrible -
it is banal, tedious beyond belief -
a group of 15 year olds could do better.
Too too wordy -
I waited for the revelation at the end and it was just embarrassing.
This director CANNOT write - he cannot even construct a pleasing sentence.
(or direct - I felt it was very very sloppy).
I felt sorry for the actors.
The rape scenes were upsetting for more than their subject matter - the whole handling of it was upsetting and this was not justified by the ending.
I felt the director was getting off on it.
I watched the film in fifteen minute stages because my brain was going numb.
Terrible terrible terrible.
PS I rather stupidly posted my comment before reading the rest of the thread, assuming it would be full of people who agreed what a bad film this is.
Now I have read the whole thread and I still think it is a bad film.
It tries too hard, it finds it impossible to leave anything out, which is a patronising way of creating a film because it leaves nothing to the viewer.
The writing has absolutely no sophistication: it just thinks it does.
I agree it was a good idea but it is badly executed.
And I love theatre.
I have to disagree with you on the "whys" it was the worst movie ever.
While it could have been made using more conventional techniques I don't think it would have had the same impact. The starkness of the set drawn out on the stage set my imagination working on what it would look like in reality. I've seen many a small towns and even lived in one for 17 years and many of the things that happened and the thoughts of the residents were close to what I experienced in a "small Southern town".
At the end of the film which I watched alone in my living room I had to just sit there and wonder about what I just watched and the "if's" and "how" that could happen in reality. I rarely do that for most films and I watch a lot of them. Usually I just watch for entertainment purposes not expecting to get much in the way of deep thought like philosophical views or anything other than watch it and more or less forget about it in a few days. But this film always tends to come back to me at times when reading the news of evil doings such as the pain and suffering afflicted by crazies that friends and neighbors state, "We always though he was a great guy, so friendly and nice."
The truth is that human nature and our interaction with others is more strange than many might think especially when under pressure. It shows that "group think" can be very dangerous. It appears from the ratings and the comments in this thread that the majority didn't like this film. However, I would put it in the top 25 of movies I've seen and that's out of thousands in the 70 years of my life.
I can't help but wonder if it was the plot that was disliked or was it just the way it was presented?
*************************************************
My favorite: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
I had a similar viewing experience (alone in the living room) and a similar response -- i found the movie very moving, surprisingly watchable, and deeply unsettling. It's been nearly a decade since I saw it, and like you, it still comes to mind when I see in the real world a glimpse of what was depicted of the people of Dogville. Far from the 'worst movie ever', in my opinion.
shareThat's because you have A.D.D.
sharei guess you haven't seen "melancholia" yet... maybe that will change your mind about which one is the worst movie ever...
shareI'd just like to say right now that this topic actually perfectly portrays the "Dogville effect". Innocent, yet naive people suddenly turn out to be closed-minded and feel very attacked by people simply disagreeing with them. Better to just burn this one down.
shareI'd just like to say right now that this topic actually perfectly portrays the "Dogville effect". Innocent, yet naive people suddenly turn out to be closed-minded and feel very attacked by people simply disagreeing with them. Better to just burn this one down.
sharetroglodyte.
shareI saw a little bit of Dogville on television but I was too tired to watch it (was like 2am). I found it very engaging though. I wasn't sure if I wanted to spend the time to watch it but after reading this thread I definitely will. I am shocked at how immature the OP is for someone who claims to be a 39 year old teacher. We don't need to know how old someone is or their profession to decide how mature they are (or are supposed to be). I wonder how old I am and what my job is? If I can figure that out I'll know if my comments are relevant or not.
EDIT 6/17/14: Finally watched it. A fantastic film.
Dear DiabolicalCraker. You obviously haven´t read the whole thread. The only reason I tell my age and my profession, is that some of the fanatic Trier-fans imply that I either have a very low IQ or that I am not an adult.
So please make a little more effort, before you comment something next time ;)
Otherwise I can´t take your comments seriously. Sorry.
Actually a lot of these Trier-fans are very narrowminded, not able to understand or accept that some people just don´t share their taste.
A lot of these ignorants even feel that they have to end their message with the word "I sympathize for Lars Von Trier".
What does that have to do with anything???
I have never said anything about sympathizing with anyone or not doing so.
I am from Denmark, the same country as Lars Von Trier himself. And here in Denmark
there is a pattern, that either you just love his movies or you just can´t stand them.
I am actually a little in between, because, two of his movies I actually like. The rest I don´t.
Bottomline is, that this thread is full of diehard Trierfans who just can´t accept the fact, that I and many others think this movie sucks big time.
One of these very intellectual superhumans even told me:
"I´d smashed u with my pinkie" :)
But if you say Worst Movie Ever that doesn´t sound very mature, as of course this is not the worst movie ever, it´s a lame way to start a discussion. Besides, those "worst movie ever" comments are usually threads started by 13 year olds who want to step on some toes.
shareStick with the Transformers movies, if you think this was one of the worst movies you ever saw. You won't be challenged to think outside the box that way. And lots of stuff blows up real good.
shareOK, so I started this movie and watched about 1 minute and said to myself hmm, I'm not sure, three hours is a long time to sit through a film. Yes it has an 8.0 on the IMDB but I've been burned by the ratings here before. My track record is not good with Von Lars as I did not like Antichrist. So I came to this thread and read it and after wading through the incivility I still wasn't sure. I then thought what would Ebert think? I know, sometimes Roger misses but usually I agree with his assessment. Well here are some snippets...
Lars von Trier exhibits the imagination of an artist and the pedantry of a crank in "Dogville,"
Few people will enjoy seeing it once and, take it from one who knows, even fewer will want to see it a second time.
The idea reminds us of "Our Town," but von Trier's version could be titled "Our Hell."
His dislike of the United States (which he has never visited, since he is afraid of airplanes) is so palpable that it flies beyond criticism into the realm of derangement.
"Dogville" can be defended and even praised on pure ideological grounds, but most moviegoers, even those who are sophisticated and have open minds, are going to find it a very dry and unsatisfactory slog through conceits masquerading as ideas.
Here's a link to the whole review. I think I'll pass.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dogville-2004
I usually agree with Ebert as well, but I think he got this one wrong. He overstates the US thing, and I disagree on his summary of what moviegoers will think. It takes a little while to adjust to the soundstage, but it's possible to become immersed in the drama. The runtime is long, and I wouldn't say it was a three hour film that felt short, but it had a great ending and won't be a film you'll easily forget either way. I saw it some months ago; haven't seen it a second time, but I do intend to.
Is this your homework, Larry?
I'm the same as you taking reviews and critics before spending my rime watching a movie. I have to say Ebert got this wrong as well, which wouldn't be the first time. I disagree with his assessment.
I am actually watching it for the 2nd time as we speak. I just came here to view the budget for this movie, which I was surprised to see was 83 million. Must of been the actors contracts as the stage production couldn't have required much.
Definitely worth seeing once imo.
List of best tv series voted by IMDB users http://www.imdb.com/list/ubCYOSR-b6E/
You do realize it wasn't 83 million dollars, right? It was 83,000,000 DKK...less than 12 million now and even less back then.
Marion Cotillard, Keira Knightley and Olga Kurylenko are the most beautiful women on Earth.
I think exactly the opposite.
--
Every act of interest in life is carried out at your own expense.