Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I do not understand why all these critics praised it. It was horrid.
Just watched and I really liked it. I've always been more interested in the very different reactions that people have to impending disaster--natural or otherwise. I loved the pacing of the film and the dark claustrophobic interiors. The saturated tones were gorgeous and I'm a huge fan of the music: Wagner's Tristan and Isolde. It had its flaws and Von Trier seems to be an utter asshole in his personal life and opinions but the film had a haunting beauty. I generally don't care about or like Kirsten Dunst and always confuse her with Claire Danes--so she didn't make much of an impression but the role of her sister--Claire, played by Charlotte Gainesborough? (she's a sea ringer for Patti Smith, on the cover of Horses, it's startling) is quite good as the long suffering, yet compassionate sister of the Kirstin Dunst character. Add in Charlotte Rampling, John Hurt, et al--what an amazing cast and movie.
All that said you really have to be in the right mood ofr the ponderous pacing of the film or it would seem pretentious and insufferable with all of the lingering shots and meaningful glances and jumpy editing.
19:42, thank you! I agree with you about everything you wrote. It's the best high quality depressing movie I've watched after Tarkovsky's Stalker. The pace, the music, the acting, the scene, the plot, conversations are just so perfect together and separately. I wish Von Trier was a better person who I could like more but he is clearly one of the best artful directors ever.
By the way, I liked Twilight - it's not bad for a "junk food" movie.