The House That Jack Built Trailer

www.thewrap.com/house-that-jack-built-lars-von-trier-cannes-first-reactions-vomitive-torturous/

This kind of article is basically an advertisement for those who would see this kind of film anyway.

Well, Cannes audiences are notoriously demonstrative. They don't just yawn and roll their eyes at movies they don't like, they stand up and loudly boo, and they don't just react and enjoy a film, they give them minutes long standing ovations afterward.

Also, Lars Von Trier is who he is and has a history of pissing people off at Cannes, so there's a good chance that some of these walk out folks went there with the intention of making a scene no matter the content of the film itself.

And then there is also the possibility that the movie did actually affect people that much. 

Those of us not at the festival will have to wait and see. 

Has it?

I know it's been called 'vomitous' which is an actual word... If these idiots have been using pseudo-intellectual, misused, made up words that's even funnier.

Edit: a 'vomitive' is evidently a medicine that induces vomit, so I suppose it is apt, though I still think that critic was trying for the adjective .

Lol based on that reception I really want to see it.

Do you get what he was trying to do? I'm not entirely sure that I do.

Looking back over this thread now that it has been resurrected, I see comments I (and others) made over a year ago, and now that I've seen the film it's interesting how it was just exactly what we were all expecting.

The lame attempts at artful juxtaposition, the overt attempts to be shocking, the skill as a filmmaker but hampered by confused messaging. It's all pure Lars Von Trier.

All in all, I come away not knowing what to make of it, as with many of his films. I was indeed disturbed and didn't get through it upon the first viewing. I had to take a break. It was indeed disturbingly violent, but mostly I stopped because of the nihilism of it all. There was nothing but unpleasantness and ugliness. When I came back to it, I saw the humor a bit more. Especially after the point where I had paused it. It was so ludicrously over the top nihilistic and graphic that it just couldn't be taken seriously anymore, and it became more and more clear that Von Trier was sort of making fun of the perception of his work and himself personally... especially by people who go to the Cannes film festival. But I came to that assessment well before he had to lay it on way too thickly by splicing in a montage of his own films as an example of the awful things in the world.

And then it takes takes another crazy turn. I'm not sure of anyone cares if it's spoiled, but the last half hour or so both explains the first portion of the movie, and also feels like a wild departure. It's weird. At that stage it was clearly more metatextual, satirical, and silly, but also played pretty straight with some cool effects and sets that sell the thing.

All in all, it's weird. It's interesting. It's gross and disturbing. It's well directed, and the performances are largely very strong. I thought about it for some time afterwards, but I don't know that I care to give it a whole lot more of my attention.

One thing that is sort of funny, and probably completely intentional, is that the movie is something completely different after the point at which people would have walked out, so that none of those people would have any way to review the film accurately.

Von Trier may or may not be a great artist, but I do believe that he is a great prankster.

My pleasure.

So that's how you took the ending too?