I mean that. I happen to have moved there recently and something this challenging, provocative and chillingly "mental" would never come our way. The review has me quite curious however.

i don't like violence and i especially do not enjoy stories of small children dying in freak accidents or otherwise. definitely will not spend money on this one.

so maybe they'll give this one a thumbs up.

Though I'll never know for sure, cos I ain't gonna see it. I can't stand his pseudo-philosophic psychobabble. I have never understood the appeal of his movies--they're not provocative, they're just dumb.

From the review it sounds derivative of Nicholas Roeg's Don't Look Now. I hesitate to evoke a masterpiece in connection with something as clearly self-absorbed and twitish as this. If it eroticized black people getting tortured, critics would not be breathlessly carrying on in their reviews about its merits. the reason no one walked out is that intelligent women have learned to give these things a wide berth. We don't rush to the theater to watch any type of porn and to refer to it as "torture porn" is redundant. Sex as degradation of women is what pornography is and will always be. In brilliant contrast, Roeg's film portrayed sex as ardent love between two adults in clear erotic terms. Obviously a difficult and yet not impossible film making task, worthy of true talent.

I often wonder if purveyors of violence, whether on the battlefield or on celluloid would enjoy being on the receiving end of what they promote? Best to cower under a Danish rock and give videophone interviews and never run the risk of setting foot on the mean streets of New York or any other place where actual humans still roam.

Ever since Dafoe gave his creepy depiction of Jesus as a freak of nature who had one sexual fantasy in his entire life, he's been a handy vehicle for those who wish to dabble in relgious symbolism, without really dealing with the deeper questions religious thought poses.Why pretend to deal with the mysteries of sex and religion when it's really only about your own disgusting littled perverted fantasies? This won't play in Peoria as the previous poster surmized because it's too cutting edge. It won't play because people in small towns know too much about real life to waste time on such art house drivel as this. They're facing an economic apocalypse right now and some Dane, secure in his social democracy, won't have much to teach them regarding fear.

Just reading the review made me cringe enough. I don't think I need to spend money on this when I could just pay someone $10 to run their fingernails down a blackboard for 90 minutes instead.

After his pretentious Dogme 95, I didn't think he'd go further into making things unwatchable.

Guess I was wrong. That one doesn't even sound like anything I'd sit through after losing a bet.

...They're facing an economic apocalypse right now and some Dane, secure in his social democracy, won't have much to teach them regarding fear.

One thing they could learn is that if they weren't so terrified at even a hint of "social democracy" perhaps they, too, could find a little security for themselves (hey, at least I'm still covered on the health care front, that's a little breathing room, at least!), so that when the economic apocalypse comes it wouldn't loom so largely as a dog eat dog, survival of the most selfish, scenario.

and by the way, von trier is a pretentious hack. it kills me that we've devolved to the point that to "surprise" in "serious" film, we have to spend a week gawking at some nightmarish gitmo bullshit that elevates stabbing your vagina with scissors into "art." you can watch if you want to, but i'd rather drill a hole in my leg w/ a power tool.

I thought it might sound as though I was against the Danish system for Americans in that post. I'm not. I agree with you that we would be better off with what too many of us fear. My point was that people in small towns are a lot more complex than they are given credit for. They are portrayed as stupid redneck Bible thumpers by the media. I just know there's often more sense and common decency in lesser known villes than is generally acknowledged.

The last of his film's I saw was Breaking the Waves, which is interesting and sticks with you. When Watson returns to the sailors on that ship. The deadened eyes of Udo Kier, oh he can look like a man without a soul!

He has perfect choices for actors, and he makes bold decisions that are seemingly nonchalant, but I am not sure how I feel about this Director.

AO's article here has me intrigued, but only if we are allowed to cover our eyes for that 1%.

I just read his original choice for the main character in Breaking the Waves was Helena Bonham Carter. What a complete change that would have made, without the doe eyed Emily Watson.

So tired, clearly I cannot form sentences or use grammar correctly but still wish to stay up all night watching movies. Thanks for the article.

I loved watching most of this movie, except the few minutes I just couldn't watch. Beautiful stuff.

There are a few movies I truly wish I had never seen. One was the 1988 film, The Vanishing, a movie praised by critics, which leads the audience (like lambs to the slaughter) to witness the terrifyingly perverse murder of a sympathetic character in excruciating detail. The film is well shot and well acted, but creating extreme and pointless discomfort and despair in the audience would seem the point of the film—a snuff film you are seduced into watching. Like I said, I wish I had never seen that film.

I also remember being stunned after sitting through a truly excremental piece of intellectual claptrap at the Yale Rep that concluded to polite (albeit unenthusiastic) applause. I attribute this unexpected audience reaction to the "If you can't understand it, it must be art" variation on the venerable Emperor's New Clothes story.

Based on your description, I've concluded this film manages to hit both criteria for work to be gratefully avoided, so thanks and no thanks.

Richard Geller

http://www.aSiteAboutSomething.com