The House That Jack Built (2018)'s comments

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

sourcreampudding

Lars has a lot of problems, doesn't he?

5 years 1 month ago

Is it possible to appreciate and admire a tedious film? It's quite the effort to paint the Mona Lisa, but if the painter uses his own feces as paint, I'd have questions. Likewise with this film. Lars von Trier makes an impressive film. But I'd appreciate it if he concentrates a little bit more on telling stories and a little bit less on himself.

5 years 3 months ago

Shidan

What a pretentious film, trying to represent and explain the human condition through a serial killer. I was so bored and annoyed having to listen every thought in the mind of Jack (and even more likely in the mind of Lars), even using the old man as a character with opposite ideas, many of the lines being empty and having nothing to do with the plot. This film fails at the most fundamental thing in cinematography "show, don't tell".
It even uses many external pieces of art to somewhat justify what the narrator is saying at the moment, I wanted to watch a movie, not to listen to the (mostly) incoherent thoughts of the director (I have watched many youtube videos talking about art more interesting and useful). Lars Von Tier even uses scenes from his previous works, at least that is more understandable, but I think this fragments are used completely out of context.

1 year 5 months ago

Siskoid

For Lars von Trier, The House That Jack Built is pretty straightforward, and doesn't reward the audience in the same way his dark masterpieces (Antichrist and Melancholia) did. Or at least not THIS member of the audience. The film is a collection of vignettes as confessed by a serial killer (creepy Matt Dillon, but to what confessor, I won't say). They all inspire dread, though they are also laced with black comedy, and enough storytelling verve (the Bob Dylan video-like interstitials, for example) to keep you interested despite the unconventional structure. The third act reveal twist sends us into something that I find more silly than bold, I'm afraid. Where we mostly recognize von Trier is in his discussion of destruction/killing as art, which inhabits and enlightens the protagonist, but also the film maker (there's even a shot of Melancholia hidden in there). Only a director with his reputation could discuss the destructive power of art, or the artistic power of destruction, with a psychotic killer as his avatar. It's well made, I don't dislike it at all, but it didn't make me apprehensive the way his other works have.

4 years 6 months ago

badge

Trier usually bores the pants off me, but this was more watchable than I thought it would be, mainly because of Matt Dillon's performance. Zentropa is still the only film of his I actually like, the rest are one-viewing only.

5 years 1 month ago

Bobby Peru

One of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. I loved it!

4 years 1 month ago

wakep

Pretentious. It seemed to me that Lars only thought of grotesque and controversy scenarios and invented a character around them. Sadly it is what is expected of him every year to cope media articles during film festivals.
All the monologues and expositions were empty to me, explaining reasons to justify that you are watching a "piece of art" and not some random Robert Rodriguez Movie. The movie wasn't cohesive or built an interesting character, which I thought this movie was about.
Don't get me wrong, the most interesting parts were actually the murders, but the rest of the movie seemed like a forced wrapping.
I liked their first films and all the dogma movement, though.

5 years 1 month ago