so! this is the first Lars von Trier film I didn't love. which is a bummer. <i>Antichrist, Nymphomaniac (part 1</i> and <i>2) </i>and M<i>elancholia</i> are all on <a href="https://boxd.it/ezAL0">my favourite movies</a> list, making von Trier the only director to have that many repeats. to say i had high hopes would be an understatement. I'm trying to understand why this didn't vibe with me and I think it's not one main thing but several reasons. obviously the main character, jack, isn't very relatable, which isn't an issue per se but certainly would make sense as why it wouldn't do the same for me as the previous three. but I also think he isn't dwelled deep enough into. <i>Nymphomaniac</i> was a thorough investigation and deconstruction of the nymphomaniac as a person - this movie has the same structure as <i>Nymphomaniac</i> but writes off psychopathy as a thorough evil one is born with. where <i>Antichrist</i> tries to understand evil, this one just copes with it existing and almost, in a way, excuses it as inevitable. the psychopath just is. I also have to add that the genocide footage felt over-the-top for me and certainly is what disturbed me the most - I see comments talking about the footage of the fictional killing of the young boy in the film, but the actual footage of Pol Pot's killing fields are immensely more disturbing to me. those were real children brutalized to death, and to use them for this? I don't know. it's an odd choice. I understand showing Hitler (and the Holocaust, although I think it's too far) for the point he is making (and in a way, to explain his controversial statement at the Cannes...), but he also made unnecessary anti-Communist commentary by equating Hitler to Mao in the same scenes. I watch a lot of American movies, so of course I turn a blind eye to a lot of the anti-Communism and red scare stuff in movies, but it didn't help when I already struggled to love this. Overall I think it borrows too much from <i>Nymphomaniac</i> whilst being overall a lesser film that doesn't say enough, and what it says isn't necessarily very agreeable. Which is fine, but it makes it hard to justify the content. He's upset about his life and perception as an artist so he shows extremes. I have no problem with him doing so in his earlier movies, because the point wasn't to say something about him. <i>Antichrist</i> should've been enough on this topic. Oh well <b>part of:</b> <i><a href="https://boxd.it/2VQVG">top 250 horror</a> directors to finish: lars von trier</i>

tag yourself im incident 1 cos i cant stfu what a snoozer tho

It was a good movie until near the end until all the bullshit unrealistic stuff started being displayed, completely ruining the vibe of the movie.