Sadly Over-hyped

Overrated and overhyped

Excellent but underrated film

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Some of the best acting you'll ever see. Let's call this one a "hardcore dramedy" - there are scenes that had me roaring with laughter, others are sad and tender (and there are even some hardcore porn shots). A unique masterpiece by the crazy Danish maestro Lars von Trier. 9 stars out of 10.In case you're interested in more underrated masterpieces, here's some of my favorites:imdb.com/list/ls070242495

"The Idiots" is an absolutely interesting film to watch, not because of its obedience of the so called Dogme 95 manifesto but because it raises a lot of questions and challenges us with its not so much hidden political agenda to rethink the authenticity of our predefined social and moral codes. This is a study of how we choose to explore our inner idiots and external social tensions that follow these choices.The film follows a group of young people living together and impersonating mentally retarded people as an attempt to find their inner idiots and thus achieving true happiness, they do so in public places and when they're home and around each other and there are moments that they do actually seem genuinely happy but new circumstances appear that confronts them and us as viewers to serious questions about the morality of their acts and weather they deserve happiness under these terms or not. "The Idiots" is really about something. It introduces characters that we get to know and it has them ask bold questions and make an effort to find out the answers, even if there turns out to be none. What Von Trier does not only in "The idiots" but in some of his other films as well is to create these well thought, harmonious sets in the first half of the film only to dismantle and fall them apart in the second half where reality shows up and hidden brutal layers of their respective worlds can't help to leak in. The movie starts as what we think is a satire of bourgeoisie and middle class values by a group of bohemians but it goes on to being a satire of both groups, although it shows more compassion towards the latter, no matter how unconventional their methods are to reach some sort of peace and happiness. Everything falls apart only when they try to apply to their group the same despicable middle class principles that they were escaping from in the first place, by trying to assign winners and losers, who is a good spasser and who is not, who is more serious about this and who isn't, basically by asking all the wrong questions. On the other hand, this is only Stoffer's and maybe partly Axel's part of the story and his point of view and his take on this experience, he is the one hating the bourgeoisie, we don't really hear about the other's motivations until nearly the end of the film. The artist is there because he thinks it will help him become a better artist, the doctor is there to experiment, Josephine is using as a substitute to her medications, other's might be just playing around and Karen as it turns out by hiding out in the idiots world is trying to cope with the harsh reality of her life, the loss of her child. I think this lack of consensus is crucial towards understanding this film and characters and their final separation. The film can also be viewed as a social critic on the society's hypocratic behavior towards the mentally retarded, well maybe not in a traditional sense. The idiots are always taken care of and never disrespected by the people. Denmark is a state that takes care of everyone and this is visible through the entire movie but there's one thing that is hard to ignore and that is this sense of awkwardness and discomfort and embarrassment that they cause for the normal society anywhere they go, even there are is someone coming and offering them money to move to somewhere else, the couple who come to buy the house is obviously distraught and wants to get out of the situation as fast as possible, so is everybody else, the only person that they encounter and shows them love and compassion and not just pity is Karen who goes with them and joins them.

Lars Von Trier is the king of controversy. He deliberately adds scenes that aren't needed at all just to create shock from the public, he did it in "Antichrist" by placing a pornographic 3 second shock of graphic sex. Here he's decided to do it again by adding idiotic images like a fully erect penis and a pornographic sex scene. They may not be very long shots but they are simply disgusting and not needed. This film has confirmed to me that Lars Von Trier, how ever good a film-maker he is, is a pervert! He's recently even stated that whilst working on his latest film "Melencholia" he'd love to see Kirsten Dunst in a 10 minute porn movie! That's before saying that he's a fan of Nazis (as a joke, yeah real funny Lars!).But here we're getting off the point of the film. What was the point anyway? I must've completely missed the brilliance of "The Idiots" because to me it seemed like an even more pointless "Jackass", watching pathetic idiots acting like mentally ill people by "spazzing" in public to find their inner idiot. There is little and almost no plot at all. It's a character piece, focusing on really unlikable people who have little interesting about them.The shaky camera seems entirely unnecessary with the boom mic and camera reflection clearly visible in some shots. The directing simply has no directing. Some intellectuals might consider it "sponataneous" and "different" but it's pointless and off-putting. The screenplay is also a complete mess. Maybe something got lost in translation but I couldn't particularly understand what was going on and what the point was of there actions.I also would not recommend watching this with other people because watching it by yourself is awkward enough. The final scene is really intense and not the good intense like "Black Swan" but really awkward and uncomfortable intense. It's horrible to watch and quite upsetting and I don't know why anyone would want their audience to feel that way. The reason for the extra mark was just for the power of the last scene and how the whole experience of seeing the film will take a while for me to forget.Intellectuals will only like "The Idiots", they will see things I can't see because to me it's a confusing, boring and senseless piece of film making with some disgusting imagery and perverted writing. Stay clear of "The Idiots" like you'd stay clear of an idiot.

Lars Von Trier's The Idiots paints an ambitious and grotesque idea and goes all the way with it. It is a film that is as much about the audience as it is about itself, which is a rare thing in motion pictures today. The only question left is whether or not it is worth your time to watch it or not. In my opinion if you want to see a film all about horrible people doing repulsive things in order to express themselves in a distanced and disabled state then you might get something out of this film. I felt that Lars Von Trier's attempts to tackle this type of subject matter are no doubt valiant and I definitely feel that it is something that few filmmakers seem to go out of their way to avoid doing. My problem is in his choice of presenting this idea. The film follows a group of middle aged folks who decide to lose their sense of dignity and become uninhibited in virtually all of their activities.I already have a problem with the film simply starting with the premise. The premise is based on the ideas surrounding self-expression of choice versus the exaggerated statement of attempted self-fulfillment. What bothers me is that these people don't do this simply out of convenience, rage, or insanity. Each and every one of these people do this by choice. Perhaps this was done on purpose in order to be offensive, which would be okay if the film justified itself through it's imagery and it's characters. Unfortunately, the film avoids doing that by not allowing the audience to accept the fact that these characters do not understand moral fiber and thus he betrays the own idea by not displaying his stance. In a different film I can see Lars Von Trier doing this, but what gets in the way here is the unreasonably strict Danish film law called "Dogme #95" that forces the director to purposefully betray even the most subtle form of conventional film making in order to purify the idea behind the film and the film's ability or inability to be absorbent based on it's view-ability. A good film can be made from this technique, but not a film like this with this sense of ambition and possible transgression. I think in order for a film of this caliber to work you need a sense of vision, which is what The Idiots lacks the most. It has no feeling of personality, entertainment value, scope, or creativity. The characters in it are creative in their interests behind what they are doing, but there isn't any sort of hope for any of them. They are all disgusting horrible people and you feel far too distanced from them to be able to get involved in their activities. Again, perhaps this was done intentionally, and again, it is not justified.I think what bothers me the most about The Idiots is belittling it is to it's audience. For how weak the film is, there is some genuine emotion on display here that is undeniable. The film does try to confront a lot of these emotions in a very original way, and I really like that. However, the film also demoralizes the potential rawness of these scenes by avoiding letting in any fluidity. The film suffers from too much plot, ironically, in it's pacing and it becomes uneven and not really fulfilling as a whole when it does in small fragments. The film does not feel disjointed and it has a head on it's shoulders, and ironically that's what gets in the way the most. The film gave me a headache. It could have easily been about a bunch of people running around acting and and engaging in freakish behavior and it could have had a lot more life to it had it been that way, but instead it strives for too much and as a result delivers little. For a film that contains extended sequences of unsimulated sex, that is saying A LOT. I can easily see many viewers getting more than I did out of the film, and I can understand that. I think my issues have a lot to do with director Lars Von Trier's presentation. Lars Von Trier is among one of the most challenging and twisted filmmakers today. His films require ambition and emotion behind the camera as well as in front of it. A lot of great films require this. However, because of the limiting factors behind the film's technique, Lars Von Trier's attempt is cut short by the film's monumental inward destruction toward convention rather than invention. The Idiots is perhaps one of the worst examples of limitation behind the camera interfering with the potential life in front of the camera. The film has the making of an independent masterpiece. The film's dialogue is improvised, the film evokes a lot of anger in it's imagery, and the final five minutes are quietly affecting. Despite what I have been saying, I do not fault Lars Von Trier for the result. Ultimately, I fault the idea of the film itself. Imagine, for a second, if this film wasn't filmed in Dogme #95. I don't think that anybody would have liked it. I think that Lars Von Trier's public film-making career would have been over. The end result, ironically, could have been far more offensive and troubling than it already is. At least with this style the film gives fans of low-budget cinema something to digest. It may not work, but at least it's very existence shows that Lars Von Trier is the real deal. I'm thankful for that.(For an extended version of this comment, as well as other comments like this, visit www.cuddercityfilmchronicles.blogspot.com).