Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Bene Cumb I can't say I am unfamiliar with what Lars von Trier has created, but I have ambiguous feelings regarding his works. Well, the choice of actors is always wonderful, but the main ideas and progress of events are not always for my liking (the "Land of Opportunities" Trilogy, above all). Nevertheless, I try to know the score and will probably see all his works - with certain intervals.Riget was the works I had heard a lot of good things about, but somehow I did not find the time or opportunity to watch it - as I decided to see all episodes in succession. Despite of not too keen on series with supernatural elements, I became caught by the script and performances almost at once, often with wow! effect, giggling and appreciating fresh and brave approaches, including twisted humour, muted sepia colour scheme, 2 dishwashers with Down Syndrome who discuss the strange events in the hospital, von Trier himself narrating in the end of each episode... All the leading actors are at least good, and most of those young(er) then have become internationally known in Scandinavian Noir productions.True, not all episodes are even, seamless and sometimes the sci-fi element prevailed too much, plus the format and quality made the experience aggravated, but still: Riget was so ahead of time, witty and bold, with elements many considered "gaffe" today, I would easily give 9 points.

Rectangular_businessman This was originally made for Danish television, so don't let the length scare you off. Each episode runs 60-75 minutes, and they have pretty fast pacing with a large cast of characters. There were two series of four episodes made. Compared to a show like Lost, the reveals of the mysteries come very quickly. It's a mishmash of several genres, including hospitals shows, soaps opera, and horror (it uses the television medium in much the same way that Twin Peaks at its best did). They make good use of the grainy look of the series with spooky imagery. There's also a lot of dark humor. One of the major story lines of the first series is a doctor learning that a patient with a rare illness isn't willing to donate his liver to science, but is an organ donor. So the doctor decides to have the diseased liver transplanted into himself. There's also a Greek chorus made up of dishwashers with Down Syndrome.The second series is generally worse, but it's even more more insane and absurd, and at least it never gets boring. Unfortunately several major cast members died before a planned third series could be made (I guess that's what you get for casting a bunch of elderly actors) so the show doesn't end with much closure.

T Y The only thing this series demonstrates is: - Lars von Trier wanted to dabble in something like Twin Peaks - Lars von Trier is capable of making lousy TV too.The television format has a way of liberating everyone's inner hack. The 'running series' presents difficulties that are always solved conventionally. Namely, execs & advertisers live in horror that a narrative payoff will come too quickly, which produces two horrible cop-outs: a teaser before every commercial (which threatens that something is about to happen), followed by the complete dissipation of that potential after the commercials are over; and the chronically-delayed promise that something of interest will occur over every ten or twenty episodes. That payout is simply too low.Although cable isn't hampered by commercials, there is still a deep fear of giving anything away and losing viewers. This fosters and grows viewers that clear time from their lives to receive each new worthless update. I have found each new "series of excellence" (or so I'm told by critics and friends - Soparanos, Lost, Deadwood, Six Feet Under) to be just as crappy as regular mediocre TV; ruined by the format itself. I watch these shows and all I see is the meandering which occurs as storyteller strings you along with delays and non-committals, etc.. Then, in disappointment, I picture the conventional minds that would tune in again and again.Do I have stronger eyes than most people? How on earth could von Trier make this crap after Zentropa? If I see one more "Ghost Needs Closure" movie, I'm going to help the creators become ghosts themselves.

MrVibrating Von Trier's Riget is his playground. It's fun watching and you can sense it was fun making. The cast all give top-notch performances, which is rare if there is only money involved. The directing is inspired and ambitious and best of all, it works, hand camera and all.Riget is also a tour-de-force for Ernst-Hugo, a man who left my home town in his youth never to return. His cynical, out-of-his depth, partly incompetent and totally danophobic Swede Stig-Helmer is one of the funniest and best-played characters I've ever seen. He dominates every scene he's in, and his monologues on top of the hospital are priceless.The rest of the cast do their best to overshine Jähregård, and they're not far behind. Krogshöj, Stig-Helmers nemesis, is really memorable, with a really unsettling gaze. Fru Drusse, played by Kirsten Rolffes, is another great character, utterly believable and also very funny. Then there's Bulder, Rigmor, the incompetent hospital director Moesgaard and his love-sick medical-student son, the mongoloid dish-washers, the elderly gentlemen of the secret society, and so on and so on.The plot is a simple ghost hunt thing, nothing special. It's the quirks and the characters that move Riget forward. In four hours time, not a lot has happened on a larger scale, but you will still be sorting through all the details.Riget is the concrete evidence that the Danish movie culture is superior to the Swedish. One can only hope we will ever produce something as great as this.