Dogville

User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 185 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 19 out of 185

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. PeterPan
    Feb 14, 2006
    0
    First of all, I would not call this a film. It is, as others already mentioned, an experiment and IMHO, an insult to real cinematography. Some of you might think that Lars von Trier is a genius and consider the so called Dogma 95 an utlimate achievement in style. I don't. I would rather consider it snobbish pseudo-elitist garbage that serves mainly one purpose: giving a group of First of all, I would not call this a film. It is, as others already mentioned, an experiment and IMHO, an insult to real cinematography. Some of you might think that Lars von Trier is a genius and consider the so called Dogma 95 an utlimate achievement in style. I don't. I would rather consider it snobbish pseudo-elitist garbage that serves mainly one purpose: giving a group of opinionated "intelectuals" a self-validation tool which has to prove their mental superiority i.e. "You morons, don't get real art and never will. Go watch 'Rocky VI' instead. Leave art to us to judge upon." I recommend reading "Emperor's new clothes". You know, it's not really about tailors and clothes. Expand
  2. TommiR.
    Dec 30, 2005
    3
    Call me stupid, but I was bored from the first minute. I like theatre, but this type of shows I avoid at all costs.
  3. LukeP.
    May 1, 2006
    0
    The title says it all.
  4. ShawnA.
    Apr 2, 2004
    0
    Complete crap, the acting is stiff, Lars Von Trier is attempting to make a point of something but seems to have nothing at all to say. It's so obviously anti-american. I'm not just against it because of that, I'm against it because it's horrible.
  5. EricW.
    Sep 13, 2004
    1
    This movie sucked. The purported formalist experimentationalism of the set design, etc. quickly fades into the background as the film becomes little more than yet another occasion for von Trier to work out his issues with women (and humanity in general) at our expense. Of course, it could be said that that's all art ever amounts too; but one goal is at least to be interesting. Yet This movie sucked. The purported formalist experimentationalism of the set design, etc. quickly fades into the background as the film becomes little more than yet another occasion for von Trier to work out his issues with women (and humanity in general) at our expense. Of course, it could be said that that's all art ever amounts too; but one goal is at least to be interesting. Yet this bleak little number fails to manage that. In fact, it's a total yawn; if it weren't for all the media hype, I surely wouldn't have bothered sitting through the whole thing. A mixture of curiosity and laziness (no remote control) kept me watching... What I got out of this were a bunch of tired anti-American cliches, which could be thought-provoking to only the most naiive viewer. It's the worst specimen of misanthropic naval-gazing I've seen in a while. Boring, silly, self-indulgent. In short: tiring and tiresome. The truth of von Trier's inchoherent vision is crystallized by the ridiculous montage that closes the film. What was the point of that? Collapse
  6. CameronH.
    Apr 28, 2005
    0
    An experiment that went wrong. An engaging premise that becomes to painful to sit through.
  7. MaryT.
    May 23, 2008
    1
    Walked away disappointed..Was not worth my 3 hours of positive productive things I could have done. Nicole Kidman did a good job, but that is about it.
  8. MarcK.
    Dec 18, 2004
    2
    I understand that reaction to this movie is polarized...you either loved it or hated it. My reaction was the latter. This pretentious piece of crap is one of the worst films 0f 2004. The first hour was excruciatingly dull to watch, and I don't know what possessed me NOT to hit the eject on my DVD player. After the interesting "Breaking the Waves" and the incredibly depressing "Dancer I understand that reaction to this movie is polarized...you either loved it or hated it. My reaction was the latter. This pretentious piece of crap is one of the worst films 0f 2004. The first hour was excruciatingly dull to watch, and I don't know what possessed me NOT to hit the eject on my DVD player. After the interesting "Breaking the Waves" and the incredibly depressing "Dancer in the Dark", Von Trier breaks no new ground with this movie. And what was the deal with them ALWAYS opening up the "pretend" doors? OK, we get it already. It is my hope that people stop funding his movies, or at the very least, that someone starts medicating him. Expand
  9. StevenS.
    Feb 12, 2007
    0
    Horrible, Boring, Unwatchable. Why did Nicole Kidman and the other stars agree to do this one ?
  10. KevinR
    Feb 26, 2009
    0
    Awful, just absolutely awful. Pretentious, pompous, contrived...packed with leaden "symbolism" and self-important "philosophising." Stay far away.
Metascore
59

Mixed or average reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 39
  2. Negative: 10 out of 39
  1. The New Yorker
    Reviewed by: David Denby
    10
    What Lars von Trier has achieved is avant-gardism for idiots. From beginning to end, Dogville is obtuse and dislikable, a whimsical joke wearing cement shoes. [29 March 2004, p. 103]
  2. Reviewed by: Alan Morrison
    80
    Argue that von Trier’s latest is theatre and not cinema. But at least acknowledge that Dogville, in a didactic and politicised stage tradition, is a great play that shows a deep understanding of human beings as they really are.
  3. Reviewed by: Phil Hall
    30
    If Dogville has a reason for importance, it is the astonishing all-star ensemble who try very hard to put life into their cardboard characters and make this silly film work.