Dogville Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x544 | 8136.44 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x524 | 1916.87 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x432 | 1223.13 MiB | divx | |
|
320x234 | 494.13 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
A quiet little town not far from here.
The beautiful fugitive, Grace (Nicole Kidman), arrives in the isolated township of Dogville on the run from a team of gangsters. With some encouragement from Tom (Paul Bettany), the self-appointed town spokesman, the little community agrees to hide her and in return, Grace agrees to work for them. However, when a search sets in, the people of Dogville demand a better deal in exchange for the risk of harbouring poor Grace and she learns the hard way that in this town, goodness is relative. But Grace has a secret and it is a dangerous one. Dogville may regret it ever began to bare its teeth...
| Nicole Kidman | Grace Margaret Mulligan |
| Harriet Andersson | Gloria |
| Lauren Bacall | Ma Ginger |
| Jean-Marc Barr | The Man with the Big Hat |
| Paul Bettany | Tom Edison |
| Blair Brown | Mrs. Henson |
| James Caan | The Big Man |
| Patricia Clarkson | Vera |
| Jeremy Davies | Bill Henson |
| Ben Gazzara | Jack McKay |
| Philip Baker Hall | Tom Edison Sr. |
| Thom Hoffman | Gangster |
| Siobhan Fallon | Martha |
| John Hurt | Narrator |
| Zeljko Ivanek | Ben |
| Lars von Trier |
7.90 out of 10 (28127 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Unwatchable and, apparently, overrated.
posted on 28 Aug 2009I found this overlong film completely unwatchable. The lack of sets may work on stage, but it's utterly unbearable on film. I could only handle about 20 minutes before scanning ahead and quickly realizing that the scenery NEVER changes. Eject.It appears that a lot of people liked this film, but I can't understand how they sat through 3 hours of an unchanging set. It became distracting to the point where any merit the film may have had was masked by the fact that the visual elements were the equivalent of staring at a dot for three straight hours; it's like making a movie by filming pages of a book; why bother?Dogville should only exist as a play; it'd be much easier to avoid.2/10, because 1/10 is probably ignored.
Bible
posted on 22 Aug 2009Ok, I could not read all reviews of Dogville here at IMDB to see if anyone else had the same impression about the film as me.I see Dogville (which I loved it) as an extract from the Bible. (*potential spoiler below*)Just like the character of Nicole Kidman was an angel (not because she was so kind, please) sent from Heaven to Earth to assess humankind. She is sent to this small town, having contact locals and being exposed to all sort of humiliation.And in the end, after her dreadful passage into this world, the rage of God is there, merciless, to punish all mankind.It sounds scary...
how little one needs to show so much
posted on 20 Aug 2009In my opinion this is one of the greatest achievements in film of all times. It starts with such discretion but in the end almost no one is spared of feeling guilty. Lars Von Trier doesn't need a lot of decoration to make his point. Good and honest people get raped, people who live as dogs don't. But what do they get? Not much I guess. ps: keep an eye on the light effects!
A film for Europeans that love to hate America
posted on 14 Aug 2009This has two parts…the first half is creative and intriguing. The second half is ridiculous and cliché. The movie is about 1.5 hours too long. It is a view of America from the eyes of a Dane (the Writer/Director). It has nothing to do with America…only clichés of America…right down to the mob and America's sexually repressed citizens. The movie made only $1.5 million in the U.S. and 5 times that amount in the U.S. bashing continent of Europe. It won every European film award and wasn't nominated for an Oscar or Golden Globe. This is a hateful, Euro-trash look at America. The concept was exciting and original. The story deteriorated into the usual sexually deviant, violence loving European monologue on America. While in reality…the America portrayed in this movie only exists in the minds of a culture that loves to hate America.
I saw Christ-figure symbolism throughout the film.
posted on 06 Aug 2009I was surprised not to see more references to the Christian symbolism in this film. "Grace" has been offered as a redeeming factor to the struggling villagers in the story. She tries to integrate into their society and mentions the importance of forgiveness several times during her trials. When she meets with her father in the limo, she confronts his Old Testament vengeful-wrath approach with arguments of understanding and forgiveness. We have Moses the dog and parting clouds rather than a parting sea. Of course this story does not follow the complete Bible line and the daughter is surely not the Son of the New Testament. The length almost lost me until the scene in the limo which brought some meaning to the many earlier dreary events.
It hurts! But heart beats faster!
posted on 02 Aug 2009It is a shock! It might raise your heart from the dead. IMHO it would be a much better movie if the ending was not so tragic. Grace is becoming as dead as the others which does not give to much encouragement to my heart, nor good example. The truth is though that it's really hard to remain human in the society we live in. But I wish Lars gave some more hope to the audience
Uninteresting and unconvincing. Do yourself a favour and see something else...
posted on 02 Aug 2009Lars von Trier thinks a film doesn't need sets, music, sound effects and cinematography. Instead he tries to tell a story with handheld cameras following a dozen of actors and guess what??? It just doesn't work. His style should get you closer to the performers and make their emotions clearer, but the actors fail and the script is largely uninteresting.5/10
Pseudo-intellectual trash
posted on 31 Jul 2009Watching this movie is like eating a bread as its separate ingredients before they are mixed or baked. It's only because the director's name is Trier that he can get away with this. Making a movie in a studio without a set may be a different idea, but it's not a good one. Intellectually refreshing, perhaps, but very boring, and the whole thing drags out for too long time. The actors don't seem comfortable doing this either, and the dialogue and acting have an artificial 'feel' throughout. As for the plot, it's nothing special at all. Throughout the movie, I waited for something to make it a worthwhile exercise, and for a long time after having seen it, I continued searching for that 'yes, got the idea!' feeling, but it never came. To be fair, I avoided posting an opinion for several months. But it's the Emperor's New Clothes (which is written by a Dane, Hans Christian Andersen - Trier is Danish too). Trier is not stupid and he must have had a purpose making this. I can see two potential purposes: 1. The irony of the Emperor's New Clothes also being written by a Dane. 2. Trier being amused by pseudo-intellectuals praising this trash to the sky, well knowing that it really isn't good, and waiting to see if people can figure out the Emperor's New Clothes connection.
Magnum opus
posted on 25 Jul 2009A true masterpiece. Minimalistic, totally theatric, but definitely more filmic than the majority of the films shot presently. Full of symbolisms, poetic music, acting filled with sensitivity. Not the fastest film on earth, but certainly more intense and vivid than some so-called art film for cinephiles. Inappropriate for social (and socially) myopics.
Too critical of Humanity for Humanity to Praise?
posted on 23 Jul 2009That was my expectation when I started to read the reviews here. So I was startled to see such a high overall rating for a film that moves at the pace of an arthritic slug and which ultimately paints such a bleak picture of human nature. Did we learn something here about exploiting the apparently downtrodden and innocent? Or was it like bad sex you still got off on, ultimately satisfying enough that you kind of forgot all that you had to go through to get there?After you get over being fascinated by and adjusted to the innovative minimalist set (ultimately part of the problem, since there is little variety on screen), this IS frequently an excruciatingly plodding, yes boring film. The townspeople's attitudes and behavior must evolve, but do they have to evolve at what seems at times like the same rate that species evolve new physical characteristics? Arggh! I appreciate deliberate plot development, and my perceptual system has a hard time with the now common flash-cut music videos and movie promos (when they start giving me a headache - usually after about twenty seconds - I just shut my eyes), but here I'm on the side of those spoiled by fast-moving action films and video games, whom I imagine find most of this film little short of sheer torture! It does finally pay off with a meaningful ending, sort of like most of the original Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents shows. You find yourself periodically muttering to the director, as if he's there beside you holding your popcorn, "why are you doing this to me?" until, after what seems like an eternity and a half...A Scandinavian shut-in during the long cold northern European winter might find this movie better than spending the time listening to the wind whistle over the semi-perma-frost. The rest of us, with the possible exception of a few drama majors, would be better off working out on the treadmill and making arrangements for that overdue root canal.
Left me just short of satiated
posted on 19 Jul 2009I must say, I was waiting to see this film more than any other for
the past year. I saw it Saturday night, and I can't say yet that I've totally formed my reaction to it. To a certain extent, like McBuff said, it lacked an emotional impact, such as Dancer in the Dark, which leaves you sobbing no matter how many times you've seen it. I've nothing against so-called cold movies, like Kubrick's were often described, but they never sear into your memory as much as the more emotional ones. Also, I agree that the credits sequence, with the Bowie song and the images - those left more of an emotional impact than anything before it. Had the whole film felt like that, well, I'm sure von Trier is capable of doing such a thing. But I also wonder, and maybe he's explained this, why he tacked on these photos and song? I was never bored, and the lack of a traditional set/props while the film still holds your attention is testament to von Trier's story and the amazing performances of the actors. I think it's the most stripped-down performance one could see, in terms of how exposed a story and an actor are. At a play, the fact you are seeing real live people is itself a distraction. In this situation, you are more removed and more able to make a judgment based on "just the facts," if you will. That being said, I thought the movie was hysterical, acting amazing, I loved the set experimentation - it all worked for me. The narration thing was worn well too, helping to create a fairy tale feeling. Hurt's dialogue was funny, it wasn't intrusive or cheap like it would be used in a Hollywood movie. But I was left feeling slightly disappointed. The ending didn't leave me all that surprised, and seeing an ending coming is always a letdown. And finally, other users said this too, if you are looking for a film that's saying, Hey, look how evil or bad all of us are and redemption doesn't seem to exist, there are better films out there that have tackled this subject before.
A brilliant film
posted on 19 Jul 2009I watched this film after much of the controversy about it at Cannes had passed. The buzz in the U.S. press was that the film was slanted and reflected Lars Von Trier's ignorance of American society. Such arguments are specious on their face--there are examples of great literature and film making where the creator never set foot in the setting, as any reader of Shakespeare well knows. So discounting the self-appointed guardians of America, what exactly is this film about, what are the film's merits and why does it evoke such strong feelings from its audience, especially American ones? What Von Trier has done is take several American icons: the gangster, the small town, the woman in distress, the ideal of the common person, the local sage and the wise elder gentleman doctor, and has turned them on their head to create a timeless play about human motivation, greed and the corrupting influence of power. The people of Dogville are on the surface simple and decent people. Grace's arrival and her helplessness is the catalyst that, step by step, tempts the people of Dogville to inflict upon her greater and greater humiliations to feed their now unrestrained desires. So complete is her humiliation that the twist at the end leaves the viewer very little sympathy for the fate of Dogville's citizens. It is a powerful message and the judgment of the characters is one that takes no prisoners. That there are more than a few examples of this behavior in contemporary American society (and in the American past) and that it confronts these issues directly is the reason for the controversy surrounding it and--apart from the brilliant acting, especially by Ms. Kidman and Paul Bettany--what makes it great art. Von Trier has made a movie that is part of the quintessential American proletarian artistic tradition and its setting in 1930s America is part of the film's genius. That he is not an American and that this movie did not originate in Hollywood should give us all pause. There is a scene in which Grace confronts the people of Dogville with a critique of their bad behavior. Their response is to either deny the truth of what she has said or to blame Grace herself for tempting them. This movie, without being preachy or dogmatic, attempts to provide its own critique and received much the same reaction as the movie's protagonist. I would not be surprised if this was Von Trier's original intent. Dogville is a disturbing and powerful film.
exploration of character development and actor choices
posted on 15 Jul 2009It was a well done movie with every inclusive minute as important as the next. Each chapter displayed character breakdown and motivations so that each town member transfers from the two dimensional world of naivety and innocence to the three dimensional world of human dynamics which include greed, lust, anger, rape, and violence. These character developments work for and against Grace, the main character, for the absolutely surprising and phenomenal ending. Lars Von Trier instigates the idea in this movie that natural tendencies of human beings do not preclude forgiveness. I think that the set of this movie brings forth these character studies as it is so aesthetically limited. Of course, the story is as well acted as it is written. One might not suspect at first that Nicole Kidman is the best choice for this role but her subtlety and beautifully innocent face and form provide exactly what the character "Grace" implies. It proves, once again, that her more indie-type explorations in film are satisfying. Her beauty does not absolutely limit her acting capabilities. And for a first time "American" accent, Paul Bettany does very well. Throughout the entirety of this film, one could hardly suspect his European (or United Kingdom) background. This is not a movie for people who do not wish to spend time contemplating or analyzing a movie. This piece of film making would fall victim to severe criticism if it wasn't viewed in this fashion.
Fantastic and Thought Provoking Film
posted on 15 Jul 2009Contains Spoiler My journey to Dogville proved to be a fulfilling one! I've seen a few films this year that constitute as `Oscar worthy'. Most notably Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Passion of the Christ (my least favorite of the Oscar Contenders).This film is most definitely not for anyone. People who enjoy the physical aspects of film more than the emotional will not find it as entertaining. While it is stunning, if not odd to look at, Dogville is rather devoid of sets. I actually found that rather beneficial to the film, though. The film's center was a town and it's people. And while it focused on Grace (brilliantly portrayed by Nicole Kidman), it was interesting to see the goings on of the town while influential situations took place around them-- mostly unbeknownst to them.The plot is surprisingly easy to follow, with dashes of humor and large doses of morality and drama. A beautiful young woman ventures into the town of Dogville, where the people mercifully take her in despite the fact that she is running from the mob. In return for their kindness, Grace begins performing odd jobs and the like for each of the few residents. She soon forms a romantic attachment to Paul Bettany's character, Tom Edison who is the chief moral character of the town. However, Grace's life in Dogville begins to crumble. The police often venture into Dogville looking for Grace; at first labeling her as missing and then as wanted for bank robberies that she did not commit. She is also raped by one member of the town. He continues to molest her and his wife, Vera, soon discovers this. She confronts Grace with other female citizens of the town and they seek punishment, not acknowledging that she is being raped. Her situation grows worse in Dogville and she attempts to escape with the help of Tom, however their co-conspirator in the escape betrays them both and simply returns Grace to Dogville. Also, Tom seems to be doubting Grace and in a way betrays her, as well. She continues to be abused while performing her forced labor until the dramatic and shocking conclusion.Sorry if my synopsis is less than informative, I've always been horrid at those!I would now like to focus on the performances. Paul Bettany was surprisingly good as Tom Edison. He portrayed his lustful respect and adoration for Grace beautifully and portrayed his inner conflicts well. I especially enjoyed Lauren Bacall's performance as a bitchy shop owner who's imperious ways divulged much of the entire town's persona. As usual, Patricia Clarkson delivered a fabulous performance though she had little time to do it. I loved how her character first appeared as kind and forgiving, but slowly manifested into a vindictive and jealous woman. And much to my relief, Kidman lives up to her fantastic reviews. She is able to display Grace's deep emotions without being too overly dramatic. In that sense, Grace seemed very real to me because she was devoid of dramatic and filled with truth. She also underwent a change, from being a virtuous and forgiving woman who did not realize her plight or the fact that she had been wronged to the woman who sought revenge. She delivers a beautiful, Oscar worthy performance. However, I could care less if she wins or is even nominated. In my opinion, her performance is so good that it doesn't need an Oscar to validate it. Of course, I'm sure a nomination or win is welcomed.As for being Anti-America, it depends how you look at it. For some, such as Ebert and Roeper, it is anti-American but I ask why? I think that some people only need a shred of doubt toward America to make it snowball into something it is not, and Dogville has that shred. While it may not portray America in a glamorous light, it's still true to life. There are bad people everywhere, not just in America. I know I'm making no sense, but I can't quite describe how I feel on that subject. Perhaps I should put it this way. Dogville is every and any town in every and any country, and it shows that each place in the world deserved that shred of doubt.All in all, I highly recommend the film! Mostly because it needn't focus on the special effects or elaborate costumes because it has such glorious performances. It is a character study, and a fascinating one at that!
Such an amazing movie
posted on 15 Jul 2009When I saw Dancer in the Dark, I saw it just because Björk appeared there. However, the movie turned out to be one of the greatest I had ever seen; so when I heard about this new movie from Lars Von Trier, I thought that I just had to watch it. Specially after seeing the trailer because it seemed really clever and original to use that scenery.At that time I had heard some comments about the movie telling that it was "slow", "boring", but when I saw it, I didn't find it boring at all. As a matter of fact, it's one of the best movies that my eyes have seen (it is even better than Dancer in the Dark) and I think that everybody (mature enough, of course) should see it. It gives you a lot to think about, and the end it's the most surprising thing ever. I'm not going to ruin the end for those who haven't seen it, but I can tell it's going to shock you. Besides, the movie is filled with different emotions and even thought its duration is longer than two hours, the way that the movie is told makes it so impressive.So this is a 10.BTW: Nicole Kidman is an awesome actress
Such a complete waste of talent and film.
posted on 13 Jul 2009Probably the most painful time wasted in a theater since I saw Buckaroo Banzai in the 1980's.Such over the top narration. The direction and writing was pretensious and childish. How did this director assemble such a talented cast with such bull***t posing as a script.2/3rds of the audience walked out or fell asleep.I was nice to see Nichole Kidman play herself.The film could have been cut in half and provided the audience with a story that was held their attention.Please stop this director before he writes and directs again!
bloody well directed but utterly depressive and confusing
posted on 01 Jul 2009No doubt that L. v. Trier is a directing genius, he knows how to pull an audience into a movie, his way to set up the stage with only outlines of the buildings and streets of Dogville is highly innovative and effective. The performance of every one of the actors is top notch as well. BUT....I am really happy that I do not share Trier's philosophy, which seems to be: leave a group of pretty people somewhat isolated from society and justice and they will automatically turn into stupid beasts, every single one of them. Perfect direction and acting actually makes this message more intense and therefore even harder to bear.SPOILER ahead. At best this movie could have been a good tragedy, but it isn't, because it fails to offer a real catharsis, instead we get a fake one. The decision of Grace to kill all the villagers in the end is the weakest part of the plot and only adds to the impression that the director just wants to slam his negative outlook into the faces of the audience.10/10 for acting and sheer technical brilliance, 1/10 for poor, unreflected cynicism.
Impossibly Stupid
posted on 25 Jun 2009I'm tired of people saying I just don't " Get " it . I'm not cultured enough to appreciate this wonderful film . And the same people insisting that I go rent Titanic or Pearl Harbor because I can only appreciate these slick vacuous movies . You people are nothing but a bunch of poseurs . You love to impress your posing friends by appearing to like these wretched movies .The more foreign the better . I'm seriously thinking about changing my name to one that has a lot of tildes and umlauts and making a really awful film . One so bad that these holier - than - thou fakes will line up to give it their undivided approval .On yeah . Dogville . If you're expecting a movie that bears any resemblance to something entertaining then don't bother with this one . It has no scenery , no acting to speak of , it's horrible , it's wretched , it's mind - numbingly stupid . It's a horrible play that you wouldn't sit through under pain of death . This abomination that appears on the surface to be a movie with Nicole Kidman is simply not . I guarantee that if you corralled 200 people at random and put them in a theater with this movie showing 199 would say it sucked . The only reason that IMDb has this movie rated so high is the poseurs have ganged up on us and presented this movie as if it was a gem instead of the train wreck that it is .
Simply stunning
posted on 21 Jun 2009If you believe that movies should be first and foremost for entertainment, read no further. Why? Because "Dogville" is not an entertaining movie by any stretch of the imagination. It's a disturbing, emotional masterpiece. I know this word is overused but I can not give another definition for this film but a masterpiece. As you probably have read in the other reviews it looks like a play, the houses don't even have walls and are just chalk lines on the ground. Strangely enough, that is actually a plus for the movie as it allows the viewer to concentrate his entire attention to the story and the actors' performances. And the lack of walls intensifies the feeling of community which the Dogville residents have (in a sense that everyone is aware what the others are up to) which is very important for the idea of the movie.And talking about acting, here is where "Dogville" really shines. We have Nicole Kidman who lives up to her great reputation and delivers an awesome performance as Grace, an innocent and naive woman who hides from some gangsters in the little town of Dogville. Never overacting or taking all the attention upon her, she totally nails the part. Her face and especially her eyes give a perfect representation of the pure and all-forgiving woman Grace is meant to be. She is supported by a group of some very talented actors like Paul Bettany who is nearly perfect as the all-knowing but doing nothing, philosopher Tom. Anyway, there are a lot of good movies who rely just on the actors brilliance to mask the poor plot. Not the case here. It's a very symbolic and engaging tale, the film is nearly three hours long but I hardly noticed that when I watched it for the first time as it never drags. The ending is very controversial and has kept me thinking about it in the few days since I watched the movie. But not with being unclear - it's very clear and seemingly easy to understand but it's really open for interpretations from a moral point of view and can inspire a lot of interesting discussions and thoughts. It has also one of the most unforgettable and thought provoking dialogs I have ever seen on screen followed by one of the best scenes I have ever watched. You need to see it to believe me. From a purely cinematographic perspective, there is the audacity of Lars von Trier to shoot the movie with a hand-held camera. But nevertheless it has some truly breathtakingly beautiful moments despite the lack of proper sets - Grace laying in the back of the truck comes to mind. The important thing is that it totally works unless you care for the perfection of the vision more than for the idea and message of the film.I was really amazed to see a lot of people who attack the movie as being "anti-American". That's not the case, it has clearly a lot more to do with the decline of the human society as a whole than with attacking the American way of life. What makes this movie special apart from the philosophical questions it boldly raises is the level of emotion. I can only speak for myself but I have never hated movie characters more than some of those in "Dogville". They develop all the time and the fast and easy way in which a human being can lose its whole humanity and turn into something deserving nothing but hatred, given the right circumstances and victims, is both very disturbing and realistic.Just see this movie with an open mind. You will probably either love it or hate and judging by the very high rating it has on IMDb, chances are it would be the former.:)
disturbing, but not to be missed
posted on 30 Aug 2009Last year, I watched a German film on IFC, Das Experiment, about a journalist who volunteers for an experiment that divides people into "prisoners" and "guards", I guess to assess their willingness to conform. Quickly, the guards become abusive, and the whole film is very disturbing.When I read about Das Experiment, I was reminded of several studies that seem to indicate how quickly society breaks down, and how quickly individuals will commit atrocious acts, and the whole thing is very disappointing. I'm a cheerful, glass-is-half-full girl, and I'd like to think that people will (generally) do the right thing, even when no one is looking, and it is my fervent prayer that I will do the right thing, even when no one is looking.So, books like Lord of the Flies, and films like Das Experiment and Dogville disturb me. Grace was a wonderful woman, who brought a freshness to the small town, and should have been cherished. How quickly they turned, and at such a violent, base level. I'd argue that this is pure fiction, and how sad that the writer feels so cynical about our world. Yet, studies seem to show that this is how we behave, as a whole, when the opportunity allows us to take advantage or hurt another, weaker person.I accept his premise, and I thought he presented his story perfectly. I don't usually enjoy excessive narration (exception: Casino), but it really fit here, in clearly presenting what was going on. Each character was perfectly cast and portrayed, and I can't picture a different actor for any of the roles.As for the setting, I guess the grandeur of the Rockies may have distracted from the story, and a dirty, little town with dirty, little shacks may have distracted from the story, as well. It was best left to my imagination.It's not my feel-good Valentine's Day pick, but I think it's a really good film. I don't regret one minute of the three hours, and I wouldn't change a thing. OK, maybe the ending a teeny bit: I would've liked to see their faces when they realized that she was the gangster's daughter. One moment, they think they hit the lottery, the next it's "oh, sh#t". I wonder what James Caan was thinking when she said, "One family has children (pause pause pause) kill them first, make the mother watch." Geez! Was he thinking, "that's my girl!" or "uh-oh, what a monster." I'm giving it an 8/10, and a laurel and hearty recommendation to anyone who can stomach repeated, non-graphic rape scenes. Chuck's lucky it wasn't me, 'cause I'd have tried out those apple-pruning shears on his boys .