Good concept, poorly executed.

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

I have always had this ability to feel movies as they were real. To embrace the environment, empathize with the characters, put myself in there... For that reason I am very careful with my movies and film projection is still very big deal to me. Sometimes it is very hard to get in it due to the film's quality or genre but sometimes it takes no effort at all but can crush my very core. And that is what happened to me while watching Dancer in the Dark. I was eleven when I saw it... I have never seen it since... It has been eighteen years and yet I vividly remember so many scenes, the atmosphere, the feeling it gave me... This film was so heavy on my mind I couldn't go on living my life as before. It took all of my hope, my will to live, to have fun, to fall in love... It took me probably two years to get from beneath this terrible dark cloud of despair but I feel it really changed me as a human being. Made me feel more for people in need and even though this whole experience may seem very dark and unwanted, I am glad it happened to me and ultimately - this is what art is about. Art should be able to put you in deep emotional state and change your view on life, world, universe... And for that reasons, to me Dancer in the Dark might be one of the best films ever made.

Try as I might, I just couldn't warm up to this film. The directorial style of Lars von Trier, particularly during the early part of the movie, seemed to make it look intentionally amateurish. The presence of David Morse in the story didn't help either. His film roles have always struck me as being spineless and weak willed, and to that he added a streak of unbridled betrayal to the list. This was actually my first look at both von Trier and singer/actress Bjork. Wait, I take that back; she appeared in that goofy looking feather-like gown with the goose head at the 2001 Academy Awards. I'm surprised now that I was able to make that connection.It didn't help my perception of the picture that Bjork looked like she might have been about thirteen years old. Until it was mentioned that she was young Gene's (Vladica Kostic) mother, I honestly thought she was an older sister raising him. Even more shocking was when I went to her bio page here on IMDb and learned that she was born in 1965, so she was actually around thirty five when she filmed this movie. Her youthful appearance kept me constantly distracted over the course of the story.Artistically however, the mixed genre styles of the picture was what really turned me off to it. I get it that Selma (Bjork) was in effect creating her own reality by living in her musical fantasy world, but in the real world, things were working out quite tragically for her. It bothered me greatly that the eye surgeon who accepted Selma's payment for her son's eye operation would not have come forward during the trial to attest to her character. It's not like he wouldn't have known about such a sensational case in such a small community. And why would Selma lie about the use of the money when it came up during the trial? So a lot of the plot elements bothered me to a great degree to the point where much of the story didn't ring true.The one thing I'd point to as noteworthy was when Selma's friend Kathy (Catheriine Deneuve) made her way to the executioner's platform to tell Selma that her son had the operation on his eyes and for Selma to listen to her heart. But the thing is, did Gene really have the operation performed, or was Kathy easing Selma's transition to the afterlife by giving her news that she would have welcomed whole heartedly? In that regard, I was reminded of the ending to the 1938 film "Angels With Dirty Faces", when Jimmy Cagney went to the gallows scared to die. One must decide as the viewer whether he went out like a 'yellow rat' at his friend Father Jerry's suggestion, or did he really face death with the cold heart he had always lived with? In Selma's case, I had to wonder whether Kathy's statement was the truth, or offered instead to ease her anguish at the point of death.

Okay is not a good word to describe this movie. It is not bland or mediocre; rather it dips into both Oscar and Razzy territory... a lot. Lets start off with the positives:Interesting camera style, which at first feels artsy-fartsy, but works surprisingly well (except for in above shots), and immerses you into this world as if you were an unnamed characterAMAZING acting from all of the supporting cast. Bjork's performance was inconsistent (I'll talk about that later), but everyone else in this film was very, very good I can actually follow what's going on! While I love movies like 2001 (very few artsy movies are actually good, but some are), they can be very, very, VERY abstract (sort of their draw too, I guess), but this one was easily followable, without shoving everything in the audiences face. Now for the shitstorm:The plot holes and technical inconsistencies. Maybe you can chock this up to my CinemaSins nature, but I can't stand plot holes and inconsistencies, especially when they are obvious. And this one has a lot. For example, when Bill first shows off his gun, it is a revolver, and when we see it again in the film later, it is an M1911. While both would make sense for a police officer of the time (which Bill is), he is explicitly mentioned as having only 1 gun, his standard issue police firearm, which is also a major plot point of the film. There are also tons of inconsistencies (this is DEFINITELY NOT THE 1960s, despite the film claiming it as so), like the model of train and SEVERAL background issues. If you nitpick a lot, then this film will give you headaches and nightmaresThe writing. I may have said that the acting was superb, but the writing isn't. While the plot itself was very good, it was just handled very poorly. A good script has a plot that revolves around the characters, and fits with those characters. When a character does something in a good script, it feels like THAT CHARACTER performed said action out of a reason befitting of them (I.E. The joker's seemingly random actions in the Dark Knight fit with his character very well). These characters feel like they do thing for the convenience of the plot, which breaks the immersion set up with the great acting and camera style. Selma's stupidity. Okay, this one goes into the last issue I mentioned. Selma's IQ is very low (not saying Bjork's necessarily is, but Selma the character is about as bright as nylon is flammable). She is SO STUPID!! This is HIGHLY immersion breaking, and she is a disillusion and (unintentionally) irresponsible mother at best, and and a (this segment has been censored due to explicit use of profanity and offensive language. We apologize for the inconvenience, and will now resume the review. Thank you!) at worst. The verdict:Good acting and well-done camera angels lead to superb immersion. Songs that are varied in how good or bad they are. A terrible script that breaks most of the immersion set up by point one. Blatant inconsistencies that break the remainder of immersion left after number three. A lot of unbelievable circumstances that the plot forces these characters into against any sort of believablity. Final word: A motherload of potential, thanks to great acting and superb camera-work, wasted almost entirely by an atrocious script and so many plot holes that it puts the moon to shame. A good, but forgettable soundtrack to boot. Ultimately: wasted potential; this story needs to be revisited by a writer who knows what the hell he's doing. -5.5/10-

My heart broke into three hundred different pieces while my mind was watching in awe. This is exactly how I felt after I finished Dancer in the Dark (2000).I can most definitely assure you that the twisted mind of Mr. Lars von Trier has no boundaries when it comes to cinematic genius. Written and Directed by von Trier himself, the film creates a genre of its own playing with both musical and drama along the way. I remember once reading an article somewhere on von Trier and how he expressed his desire to experiment with all the cinematic genres that ever existed... and, oh boy, he is doing it, and he is doing it in his own way. Breaking the Waves (1996) is an unconventional romance that taps on theology. Antichrist (2009) is horror manifested in psychological gore. Melancholia (2011) is a very narcissistic end-of-the-world sci-fi. Nymphomaniac (2013) is porn! There is no wonder then when he tries his hand at musicals.What I am getting at is that watching a von Trier film is similar to eating pickles dipped in ice cream, the only difference is that von Trier's dish actually tastes sublime. He knows how to convince you that pickles are not that salty and ice cream is not that sweet. You realize the discrepancy and the cruel irony only after you have eaten and enjoyed the meal. Proof? Try watching Dancer in The Dark a second time and compare it to any mainstream musical. What you will find is the most basic musical instruments, the dancing that does not even sync with the music, the abrupt shifts, the crude editing, the self-referential camera angles, and exaggerated sentimentality. Funny thing is that despite everything, you still enjoy the story and empathize with the characters wholeheartedly. The canny Dane not only experiments with the genre, he actually destroys it.. mocks it, and in the process, he mocks us as well.Although the film cannot be called a Dogme film, it certainly owes a lot of its stylistic choices to the Dogme rules, which does not strike me as a surprise since the late 1990s was high time for Dogme productions. Personally speaking, there are a lot of things I admire about Dogme films, one of them is the almost always brilliant casting. The cast of Dancer in the Dark seems to be from everywhere around the globe... Icelandic, Danish, French, American, English, German... etc. However, they fit in together harmoniously and not a single actor seems out of place. Despite the hostile tension between her and von Trier during filming, Bjork's performance turns to be a real knockout. I don't know whether she was perfect for the role or vice versa, all I can imagine is von Trier thinking of Bjork and then tailor-writing the role for her. No one, I really mean NO ONE, could have played the helpless blind Selma Jezkova as Bjork did.You might have noticed that I did not give a synopsis of the story. With von Trier's I would rather not to. Just be prepared to watch a musical like no other.. a musical where crimes are committed, innocence is murdered and dreams are crushed.Enjoy it. Break your heart. Then laugh at yourself.