The Idiots

Fight Club for idiots: Rebellious group, enig- and charismatic leader, a plan that goes too far. I love Trier as much as the next guy (maybe even more), but the movie fails at arguing why idiocy is worthwhile. An example: Suddenly the leader decides on having group sex. Now, I love pornography as much as the next guy (maybe even more), but what purpose is served? The Idiots feels like a bi-product of a failed social experiment, which in some ways, it is. And there's no reason for it being Dogma.

This movie invesitgates the nature of avant-garde movements and groups of people like hippies or bohemes who ciriticize the norms of society and performatively offer alternatives. But they're bound to failure, because by nature they're subversive and ephemeral and if they institutionalize themselves they'd end up becoming the things they ciriticize. By the way Karen as a character is a Trierian ascetic and prophetic guy, who tries to extract meaning from suffering like all characters of Trier.

Whatever "truth" is being searched for here does not exist, and attempting to search for a truth in a medium built on lies and manipulation is futile. Perhaps that's intentional, but that does not make this overly-edited mess any more enjoyable. It buries any positive aspects beneath annoying characters, terrible camerawork, and tedious attempts to provoke. Dogme 95 is a joke, and not a very funny one at that.

On freedom.

"I look for boundaries which restrict my range of activity and aesthetic freedom. Then I can concentrate all my energy in this small space." (Lars von Trier interview, signandsight.com, 17 November 2005) This film showed exactly how real questions can be brilliantly raised cinematically in this small space: how pursuit of absolutely unconstrained freedom becomes a competition of carelessness and regression and slips into authoritarianism, which manifests itself the clearest in sexual situations.

I never thought I'd say this, but here goes: "It's a good movie, but it's not much fun to watch." Ugh, I feel dirty. Anyway, if I can add some slightly more specific criticism, it's that it seems like there was a well-planned first & last scene, but little thought or attention to the narrative & pacing of anything in between. Even an entirely improvised work, or a non-fiction documentary, can create a strong narrative arc through editing. Still, it's kind of a sophisticated man's Fight Club

i liked the idea that von trier's filming style and cinematography were his own method of "spazzing" as was the impersonal feeling of the entire thing. but it wasn't really my favorite, especially compared to the others of the "golden heart trilogy."

Lars Von Trier's dark comedy presages Sacha Baron Cohen's later transgressive works, but with a tragic, poignant edge that puts it in its own class. The episodes of the titular "idiots" feigning mental disability in public are often amusing, but the story takes a dark turn in the final third, leading to a final scene which is both poignant and remarkably tense. There are some odd "interview" scenes that don't quite work, and the film meanders a bit, but it remains an intriguing, compelling work.

I liked the performance by Albinus and his role and little else. The only two Dogme 95 movies that did it for me were 'Forbrydelser' ('In Your Hands') and 'Festen' ('The Celebration').

Jeg synes det er en sær og undelig uvedkommende film - og alligevel ser jeg den hver gang jeg har muligheden..fatter det ikke...

Disarming.

Pretty idiotic, which was the point I guess. Von Trier can do better though.

the best one from von Trier. it kind of foresees the way von Trier himself chose to follow.

I kind of hated this movie. I dislike the concept of Dogme 95 in general, but that's not why this movie fails. I just hated all of these characters and everything they did. I know the movie is against it as well, but it's just not enjoyable watching them do it for two hours. The ending revelation saves it slightly, but still just a bad film. Von Trier has made some of my favorites and movies I love, but not this one.

The ending bumped this up quite a bit for me.

this feels like a forbidden film, the dialogue is wickedly manipulating and the scenes are completely absurd. somehow it's alluring despite its toxic premise

it targets something but fails.

Jackass + the office + dogma 95 = The Idiots This came out before both of those. Its hard to watch and it has a very sad ending. Really makes you think. Just remember its a MOVIE don't get mad at the actors or director.

Peixes

Portraying late capitalism depravity is a precise and subtle art, and compared to the gold standard of Trash Humpers, von Trier uses insanity as an intentional rebellion against the system rather than recognize the beauty inherent in acting unhinged in an unhinged society. Maybe a more accessible approach for some but didn't stick with me the way Korine's did.

Raw and beautiful. We all play theatre so finding your inner idiot - the role which can make fun of all roles and show the absurdity of the games we play - seems like a perfect way to escape for a while. Of course problems don't end here and there are limits to this game. While I loved the premise of it all, the plot was a bit thin and I would have appreciated some more defined characters.

Okay, so Dogme was a meaningless attention-grab, and this is one of the ugliest movies I've ever seen, but Trier still manages to make a solid movie out of it with a handful of really fresh scenes. 10 points off for the pretentious certificate at the start, but 10 points added for actually showing sex when people are having sex.

trier her zamanki gibi orijinal ve yaratici fakat diger isleriyle kiyaslanamaz bile, fikirler havada kalmis gibi veya belki de bi yere gitmiyormuslar gibi gibi gibi..

Fk this movie.

Dogma 95 from Lars von Trier (or can we say that?). Cringeworthy at times but I thought it worked well.

There's no denying von Trier's ability to create powerful scenes that provoke myriad of emotions and ideas. In this case the story just seems like a mess with no consistency or strong through line. The premise is flimsy & the characters are more annoying than interesting. The explicit material seems kinda desperate because it's not really used to much effect in the story. It's almost like von Trier lost faith in his own ideas at some point. Kinda funny/disturbing provocation experiment though.

Had a laugh and the style seemed to have an appeal with the dark humour and through the film's frivolous premise. Not impressing as a movie, so to speak, but fascinating as an experience.

One of the most audacious movies I've ever seen, honestly.

Has a lot to say, and in Trier's polemic style it even pulls off not just being a filmic essay on whatever he wants to think about - there's a density and a complexity to the themes and the characters, and the much-noted Dogme style genuinely does help focus on these. It feels almost too real, shockingly funny, and uncomfortably confrontational. There's a heart Trier has in this film I don't see in some of his other stuff - the subject matter being so bold just highlights this skill more.

dogma95in etkisini gerçekten bu filmde anlamış olabilirim. kamera görüntü çok ama çok etkilyecisi ancak konuyu ele alış biçimini yeterli bulmadım

Kind of Von Trier at his worst, just incredibly mean-spirited and hateful and still pretty boring, so there really isn't anything to recommend here. A couple scenes are sufficiently uncomfortable in an interesting way, and the Dogme aesthetic is used nicely, but it's the worst of his movies that I have seen so far.

Lars von Trier throws a bunch of ideas and character points at a wall and hopes they stick. None do. Threads are often interesting but they fray. It all seems a little aimless but instead of feeling audacious or a statement, it seems sloppy and lazy. The one theme that keeps bubbling to the surface is that the universal truth being sought is simply a feeling of real intimacy and belonging. Even when rejecting humanity, we attempt to embrace it.

A compelling, occasionally darkly comic and thematically intriguing von Trier film. While "Idioterne" does not pack the sharpness or the emotional power of "Dogville", there's nevertheless plenty of strong performances, affecting moments and fascinating inquiries (though, fortunately, nothing in the way of clear-cut answers) that make it worthwhile.

Meaningless and uneventful, "The Idiots" is a bold experiment but mostly a failed one. The technical characteristics of the film are non-existent, while the social commentary is truly superficial. It doesn't work very well as a farce and fails to rise above it although it tries hard to do so. It's a film totally detached from social reality or from a sincere shot at a change for the better.

This film dares you to hate it, with its unlikeable characters, their questionable motives, vomit-inducing cinematography, frequent glaring technical errors, and the overall underlying meaning to all this, whatever it was you gain from this odd storyline. This is a unique experience and a film worth watching and questioning.

refreshing piece of move that hit me deeply every now and then. von trier as usual displays a great skill in writing a script, and the dogme helps the movie by making it feel as if you are a spectator, viewing an actual happening. the ending scene in the apartment was strikingly uncomfortable and sad, as was everything with karen. von trier is one of the few directors these days that still push the envelope. having that said, it wasnt by any means close to being something of the best ive seen.

Not remotely funny. The film is just bizarre. Should have been ten minutes long, but instead they drag it out into over 90 minutes. The concept is interesting, but that's about it. As a film it's awful.

If Jackass had a narrative, this would be it.

What's interesting about LVT's film is that, through its progression, its own internal contradictions come to the surface, creating more questions than answers for the viewer upon its conclusion. This 'commune' merely wants to live carefree, away from those who shun such a mentality. But for what reason? As a rebellion against contemporary society? Or as a way to deal with their own internal pain? And when the two intersect, what is made of those who cannot adapt, and must "return to reality"?

What is in many respects the most difficult film in the Golden Heart Trilogy. The Idiots is a slow building tragedy that may be the most collectively shared nightmare of Von Trier's work. The dissolution of the spaz commune builds in ways that are uniquely tragic in a classic Von Trier fashion.

A film that's bound to push buttons, from the subject matter or the sexual content or the Dogme 95 style. But the movie is more thought-provoking than provocative in the usual sense. Von Trier isn't offering easy answers. Nor should he. The performers are quite good. The film is spiced with moments of humor and ends on a surprisingly touching note. Outside of the self-consciously shabby aesthetic my main complaint is he really didn't explore the implications of the sexuality of the group.

The final scene rightly receives the bulk of the applause. It's too bad that the rest of the movie is such a mind-numbing exercise in pointless provocation. Presumably some believe the film to be about freedom, but freedom to do whatever you want (such as acting like a disabled person or participating in an orgy) is not freedom at all, but rather bondage to one's own passions. Von Trier never establishes what this rebellion is about, removing any potential the idea might have had.

von Trier pushes buttons and for the most part succeeds in balancing provocativeness, insight and black humour. The dogme style helps the film in a lot of places, though at times the amateurishness of the filmmaking seems forced and undermines the naturalistic style. I kind of feel bad for enjoying it as much as I did, but that uneasy feeling is part of the charm.

Although uncomfortable to watch and not at all likeable.the film is memorable and thought provoking.

It's a vulgar, brutal observation of modern society, with everything that is hypocrite about its people.

Outstanding acting, just amazingly good. It's so real to watch. The direction and filming style just smacks of realism - especially the engrossing final scene. The story is intriguing and engaging but it felt like it doesn't fully explore its own ideas and never reaches any sort of conclusion. Thats not a big negative though, it makes it more like a glimpse into their world that we then leave rather than a story with a beginning and end.

I felt irritated by the cinematography and the unnecessary vulgarity as a dogmafilm. Okay, that is what it is, but as a film without a plot that cought me, it went on my nerves in stead of inspiring my view or spicing it up. Having said that, it certainly is an important and - I admit - deservedly popular film, exploring limitations and based on an exciting idea. But that's Trier in a nutshell, right? This one wasn't my kinda film, and I won't succumb to Trier-ass-licking in spite of my faculty!

Somehow I think Von Trier's title is not only a description of the despicable, terrible, and unwatchable characters in the movie, but also a tongue-in-cheek stab at his own abilities. So...good for you guy, you got an extra 25 points for knowing you suck.

For me - the best movie of Lars von Trier

haha

Dogma film about a group of people pretending to be retarded, with ensuing chaos as a result, that and an orgy.

Very Nice Movie

The premise is interesting and remains interesting throughout. The acting is, as usual for von Trier, outstanding. There are also several scenes in this that I expect I will never forget. On the other hand, I had a hard time watching this because none of the characters are very likable until the last stretch, and by that point everything is so messed up and heartbreaking that there's just not much joy to be had in watching this film. And ultimately, I felt I must have missed the point.

Dogme#2, Trier... Even it has some criticism by "spassing", Trier did not strengthen it or "spassed" over the audience.