User Reviews (764)

Add a Review

  • Yesterday I had the chance to see Melancholia. I was a bit anxious given the mixed reception here (either euphoric or very negative).

    It seems the media are talking more about the disaster-press-conference-from-hell Lars gave in Cannes. Which is a shame.

    Like always, Lars von Trier does not want to appeal to the general public, but in stead wants to present the viewer something unique and honest.

    It was influenced by his own "melancholia", of which he suffered when working on this project.

    I, for one saw solid acting and great directing from a person who carefully observes and understands human interaction. For me it works.

    This movie is by no means perfect but it was thought provoking, and heart touching and that's exactly what a decent movie should try to achieve.

    Thank you for reading my opinion.
  • orchard617 October 2013
    Melancholia is a 2011 film written and directed by the controversial Lars Von Trier and follows two sisters as the end of the world draws near. The film is actually more about the current lives of the two sisters than it is the end of the world; yet the impending doom does heavily influence a series of events. Presently, the film has received mostly positive reviews and was praised for the imagery used throughout the film.

    To truly appreciate all that Melancholia has to offer the film must be analyzed by taking a look at its two separate acts. The feel of the first act is much different than the feel and plot of the second act. The first act is titled "Justine", as it focuses on the character Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and her severe depression on her wedding day. The first act doesn't have much to do with the fact that all life on Earth is going to be wiped out. In fact, it doesn't really focus on the impending planet collision at all; it is simply about Justine as a character and all those around her at the time of the wedding. It is clear the Justine suffers from some type of mental illness but it is not made clear exactly what is wrong with her. She does very odd things throughout her entire wedding day including cheating on her husband. She spends a majority of the time away from her party, hiding out either on the golf course located outside or with her nephew, which seems to be the only things she derives joy from. Justine can be a very annoying character to watch as she seems to want to do nothing but ruin her own party, yet the camera shots of her off on her own either on the golf course or in the backyard are some of the best in the film.

    The second act of the film titled "Claire" focuses mainly on Justine's sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), and the impending impact of the planets. The first act can be slightly more interesting because as a viewer it is not really explained why Justine is doing all of the things she does, a lot of mystery surrounds her character. The second act picks up slightly after the events of the first, but follows Claire this time. She is worried about the collision yet her husband assures her it will miss Earth and they will be able to gaze upon it with their telescope. Throughout the second act Claire must deal with her Justine's depression as well as her own husband and child, all while constantly worrying about the collision. The second half of the film is much more intense than the first, and the editing reflects that, especially towards the climax. The use of shaky shots gives the viewer a sense of uneasiness and uncertainty as to how it will end.

    Perhaps Melancholia's greatest achievement is its cinematography and beautiful sequence of unique shots, most notably in the opening sequence. The first opening sequence takes place entirely in slow- motion, showing many of the main characters, and is one of the highlights of the entire film. The camera work and settings used in this film are really something to talk about. The setting of a mansion is both isolating and elegant, and these two things are reflected within the carefully planned camera work.

    My biggest gripe with the film would definitely be its pacing. It will be really engaging one minute and then slow down to a dead halt the next. However, when the film does have its shining moments, they are extremely memorable.
  • I didn't really want to go but I did. I got dressed up, went to a nice dinner, sat nicely for a couple hours, clapped when others clapped, and in the end, I felt nothing.

    Don't get me wrong, I had an appreciation for what I witnessed. The skill to execute what they did and the years of practice to achieve those skills is amazing. But still nothing.

    That is how I felt after watching this movie. I was appreciative of what it took to accomplish the movie but I felt nothing towards it. I guess I should reiterate my point because IMDb wants 600 characters but I thought my review was quite good with 112 to spare.
  • soundstormmusic7 October 2022
    I don't like this film, nor do I love it. I won't watch it again. But it is a 10/10 movie for making me feel things so intense I haven't felt in a long time.

    This movie is about depression, and it's portrayed in a beautiful way. Sometimes it's achingly slow, other times a ton of things happen all at once. But the dread remains.

    The movie is divided in two parts; Justine and Claire. And their ways of dealing with life is really different. I won't spoil anything but do know that both sections intertwine but don't necessarily deal with each other very directly.

    Lars von Trier is a master at making movies that are both equally beautiful and destructive. I finished watching it two hours ago but the pain in my chest hasn't gone away. And that to me is quite the accomplishment. He knows how to portray pain in a way that is so accurate it's scary.
  • Melancholia is LVT's Wagnerian opera. Justine is a mythological creation. She is the white goddess, Diana bathing, la Belle Dame Sans Merci, Cassandra tormented by futurity. It ends in Gottedammerung, the destruction of the world.

    The Cannes jury was right to honour it. In 2, 10 or 100 years this will be manifestly THE film of 2011, capturing as it does this precise historical moment, on the cusp of epochs. More than just an economic crisis, or even the end of Western capitalism, or the American Century, or of Europe - though it is all that - it is the consummation in fire of all we have ever known. Leaders and experts sit mesmerised and powerless, making reassuring noises, or setting aside puny provisions; taking shelter in denial or custom. While Melancholia and Earth act out their dance of death; gravity, the most ineluctable force in the universe, does its work.

    Justine, being incapable of happiness, is therefore incapable of illusion. She has always known. Herself untouched by affect, by human assimilation or persuasion, she writes the killer tag lines which manipulate others. Having a damaged soul, she suffers from a disorder of perception - she sees things as they actually are. She knows precisely how many beans are in the jar -like those who called the top of the Dow Jones index, at 12807 exactly. On one level, she represents the spirit of financialisation, the final, hottest white dwarf phase of capitalism, quantifying, inhumane, ultra-competitive (seen also in Skaarsgard's brutal ad boss, and in the brother-in-law who paid for the wedding - "an arm and a leg, for most people" -he means it literally I think - chilling!) And, like the Sybil, Justine wants to die. She wills the destruction of herself and everything else. 'The Earth is evil.'

    LVT is the holy idiot of European cinema. Much as Justine destroys her stellar career, then hours later, in the garden, consciously and irrevocably obliterates her marriage and future happiness, so LVT - in the most perfect example of parallel process - in his acceptance speech at Cannes compulsively befouls himself, his credibility, future opportunities, his film and all associated with it. (Poor Dunst, beside him. Did she always know? I wonder.)

    Which brings me to Kirsten Dunst.Once the all-American teenage sweetie in some of my favourite films.(The US invented the teenager, much as the English Victorians invented childhood, and its richest and most creative seam of film and TV deal with this stage of life. In a way, America is the world's teenager; and all teenagers are Americans by proxy.) In fact, Dunst is German-American, with all the ancestral baggage that implies. (Read Sylvia Plath's 'Daddy' if you don't know what I mean). Beneath the apple-pie sunny exterior of her teen roles, there was always something remote and uncanny about her beauty. And now, with teen / young adult roles behind her, this strangeness, this well, German-ness, is exposed. In the riveting opening shots of 'Melancholia' she looks like Marlene Dietrich - unheimlich, fascinating. Like la Belle Dame Sans Merci, she takes possession of a man through his unconscious: like the groom in the film, he will follow her, exchanging all that is dear - home, family and hope of happiness - for bitterness and despair.

    In the scene in the limo, the earliest, lightest part of the story, she seems American, in accent, face, body, She becomes less American , more northern European, and ultimately less like a human being at all, as her story unwinds. Those who criticise the inconsistency in her accent are missing the point. The change is about the character, not her nationality, which is purposely vague. (In fact, in what country does the film take place? Would you ask that question of 'the Ring'?)

    I get the impression that just as Lars is working through some issues around his German-ness – hence the Wagnerianism -, so is Dunst, which must have made his Cannes performance doubly excruciating. (I hear she wants to be called 'Keersten' now, pronounced the German way.) For the girl who has been being other people superbly well from her childhood, it seems to me that Dunst the adult truly exposes something painfully real of herself in this film. ('Exposing' is the right word in every way.)

    And she pulls it off. The film is stunning. She is stunning, and thoroughly deserves Best Actress. Bravo, Lars von Trier!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It seemed straight-forward. Justine revealed that she knew the planet would hit them. Her physical and mental ailments were her feeling the impending end of everything.

    Then it was about people. Just how these specific people cope in the end of earth. It's the end of earth. What is the correct way? There is no correct way, but I guess Justine ended it with love and empathy, to a small degree.

    I didn't like it. I don't think it's a masterpiece. I don't think it had anything to say. The music sounded like the soaring music when the two people fall in love in a melodramatic 1940s musical.

    Visually, it was absolutely stunning throughout.

    It wasn't science fiction, and even if it was, there are far better ones on the science side. It doesn't say anything meaningful about people, because let's hope we're never faced with entire planetary destruction in a single moment like this.

    It doesn't say much about people outside of that, except different people have different personalities, which we already knew.

    It doesn't say anything about depression, because that's not what it was. Justine told her Mom she was scared, and it had nothing to do with the wedding. She was talking about her fear of the impending doom. Her Mom didn't listen. She wanted to talk to her Dad, who abandoned her. She told Claire she knew the planet would hit. This was not a story about depression.

    What did it have to say? I don't know. I got nothing out of it, other than a story about random made-up people, who then all died. End of story.
  • There's a serious polarity in the reviews for this film,and I'm not surprised. If you've ever suffered depression this bleak movie will hit hard, and you'll pick up on all of the subtle messages it sends out. It's done so well it can't be anything other than achingly familiar. The despondency, and the frustration the sufferer feels at their own despondency, in particular, is well conveyed.

    Unfortunately I think a large chunk of the people who've seen this film (and there aren't many who have, sadly) went to it expecting a slightly arty apocalypse movie. It's not a smarter Deep Impact. The (blue) planet Melancholia is just a metaphor for depression. Unrelenting and irresistible, Melancholia has the main character in its thrall.

    For those who don't "get" this movie, no it's not a pretentious, pseudo intellectual flick. Rather it's a well crafted take on the fine detail of a subject matter that you have been fortunate enough to not have had to understand. Long may that be the case.
  • After "Anitichrist" I had given up on Lars Von Triar but I was tempted back after reading some articles on his new opus "Melancholia" I'm glad I did. He is still the most maddening of filmmakers because his chutzpah is larger and more up front than his talent, that means a huge, monumental chutzpah. "Melancholia" has many things going for it: the performances by the two female leads, Kirsten Duntst and Charlotte Gainsburg are pure cinematic brilliance. The photography, superb with some sound design worthy of superlative praise. Glimpses of John Hurt and Charlotte Rampling are also a major plus but the script littered by infantile dialog was a crashing blow. The film left me without appetite or willingness to talk. The one thing that I have to confess, I may, just may see it again one day.
  • This movie completely freaked me out. It was SO well done, but if you've ever suffered from serious depression it really gets under your skin.

    People I know who watched this movie thought it was boring and didn't understand it. I understood it very well. I have never seen a better metaphor for depression, and the seductiveness of "giving in."

    If you're very depressed, don't watch this movie alone.
  • The unstable and depressive Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Michael (Alexander Skarsgård) arrive late in the expensive wedding party promoted by her sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and her wealthy brother-in-law John (Kiefer Sutherland) in their real estate.

    Justine is promoted by her boss Jack (Stellan Skarsgård) to art director and the affectionate Michael is very happy. However, Justine's bitter mother Gaby (Charlotte Rampling) makes acid comments destroying the happiness of her daughter. Sooner Justine is depressed again and she offends Jack and loses her job and she decides to split from Michael.

    She stays with Claire, John and her nephew Leo (Cameron Spurr) recovering from her break down. Meanwhile the erratic blue planet Melancholia is in collision route with Earth, but John is calm and believes in the predictions of the scientists that the planet will pass by Earth. Claire is afraid and fears the end of the world, but John calms her down. Until...

    "Melancholia" is a depressive film by Lars von Trier that shows how insignificant we are and incapable to control our fate. Divided in two parts, the first one (Justine) shows the relationship of a dysfunctional family on the night of the wedding of Justine. Kirsten Dunst performs a character that is not able to be happy even on the day of her wedding. The bitterness of her mother and the indifference of her father explain the behavior of Justine. The second part (Claire) is better and better and shows how vulnerable the human race is.

    The cinematography and soundtrack of "Melancholia" are very beautiful. Lars von Trier is among my favorite directors and once again he makes an original and beautifully crafted movie. My vote is seven.

    Title (Brazil): "Melancolia" ("Melancholia")
  • fxdillinger-uno21 September 2011
    Warning: Spoilers
    This review MAY contains spoilers, yes. The movie itself DOES contain spoilers.

    The first four minutes or so are awesome. You can do yourself a favor and leave the theater after that for dinner and coffee. You can come back for the last two minutes save the titles. They bookend the beginning. The rest is torture. If you are a depressive masochist, you might find the middle part enjoyable though. I gave it 2 stars for those few minutes.

    "It looks like sh.t. I'm shaken." These are not my words. It's from Lars Von Triers director's statement about this film.

    When Lars Von Trier appeared with Kirsten Dunst at Cannes promoting his latest effort in tormenting audiences he claimed to understand Hitler. Maybe because this rather endless, self indulging narcissistic art-house piece about the annihilation of rural upper class Denmark had brainwashed him to the point of calling himself a Nazi and Isreal a "pain in the ass". Who knows. Maybe he meant to promote the film. It did not reach me.

    His promotional efforts got Trier banned from Cannes. He is banned from my play list too after I have been bored to tears one more time with outdated art-house tricks that have ceased to impress me in the last millennium.

    Kiefer Sutherland, Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg (they don't look like sisters) and others are working loyally with their tormentor. It's sad watching them waisting their talent though on this pointless journey. Udo Kier has a short cameo and is funny, as always, even in pointless surroundings.

    The editing is bad enough to use it as an example for film students on how to make wrong choices.

    Yes, jerking a camera endlessly and pointlessly can be done, even 15 years after "Breaking the Waves". Back then shaking cameras without meaning was some kind of art-house fashion statement. Now it looks like someone wearing the wrong trousers to the wrong party.

    The implausible arrival of another planet, being observed through an obscure piece of wire until it finally smashes an idyllic pasture was great for two things: it ends both the endless camera jerking and the movie.

    Even if this review will be stowed away deep in the bulk of this distributor's guest reviews, I'd like to warn you. The film leaves you in pointless depression. If you think that's a good way to invest your time end money, I can highly recommend it.
  • shizoeid12 September 2011
    I've never seen anything so painfully familiar. Every move of Justine, her every word echoes with the heartache of a melancholiac. And the inability of the others to understand this pain, their inability to feel it and understand - it only makes it more familiar to the ones drowning in this mute slow-motion everyday despair. After watching this movie I went home without saying a word, I sat down on my chair and sat there silently for about an hour. I like Lars von Trier, I liked his movies before, but this one was a headshot. In this one film Lars von Trier succeeded to show all the ultimate emptiness of the everyday rituals, the endless longing of a melancholiac and the unbearable helplessness of this condition - like a bulletproof glass cocoon around you, muting the sounds and making the colors dim. I vote "excellent", 'cause this film is closer to my heart than any other I've seen before.
  • I think there are people who when they see a slow movie with classical music as a soundtrack will always say automatically "brilliant, spectacular, amazing", but I think that's not enough, the movie is boring and predictable, there are many dialogues but without emotional depth it's trivial talk all the time, movie talks about depression portraying a depressed character as a provocative person making the victim role, it doesn't thrill at any time, it's too cold it has not led me to identify with any character, it's just cinema for intellectuals who appreciate classical music in slow movies, almost to lull us for not pay attention to the void of ideas, a movie cannot be just that for the highest grade. And i'm not saying that i don't like slow movies, actually i love most of them, but this one is a failed attempt to be a masterpiece.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The movie shines visually at certain points. To be specific it shines first five minutes and then the last say 20 seconds.

    The rest of the movie is just cruel, sadistic and never ending torture by boredom. First and foremost, the lead character is not "melancholic". She is seriously depressed, I mean chemotherapy to electro-convulsive therapy class depressed. It is seriously not fun to watch her being depressed. It made me feel very depressed as well and this was just the beginning.

    The family seems to be broken, but in a very boring way. Nothing much happens here except for people running away (I wish I did the same thing after opening scene, but I was hoping for at least some pretty pictures later on). Then nothing happens, then nothing happens, then nothing happens, then the sister suddenly understands the World is going to end, so she freaks a little, runs around a little, then all three remaining heroes decide to sit at their asses and to wait for collision.

    Yes, there are some pretty pictures of the castle where the boring people live, but seriously I would rather watch another Miss Marple murder case. These movies are silly but at least something happens! Seriously I never expected to see another Armageddon or something like that but this bottle is completely empty. There are not even questions, it just frustrating wait for the end of the World so the movie may end as well.

    I'm so so disappointed. If you were attracted by the trailer, you may go home now. There is nothing more interesting to see here. The trailer is misleading, it is pretty poster consisting of all the action in the movie. The rest is just cold, empty, freezing hell of boredom disguised as a art. Even the worst Lynch movies are at least an order of magnitude better than this!
  • When we think about the end of the world, we usually think about the things we have always wanted to do, but never got the chance to. In whatever way it is that we wish to live our last hours on earth, whether it be by going out with close friends and relatives, or doing the things you never thought you'd do, the feelings of impending doom are the driving force behind our decisions. There have been many films lately that seek a comedic twist to something of this level (which isn't a bad thing), but what Lars Von Trier does with Melancholia is give us a beautifully orchestrated vision about the beauty that comes with the destruction of our planet as well as very realistic and often somber interactions between the characters in this film. One can't help but be mesmerized and terrified by the magnitude of Melancholia and the attention to detail, the science (dear lord!) was easy to understand and though it wasn't the focal point of the film, it was enough to offer the audience an idea as to how something like that was possible. (I would be lying if I said it didn't make me weep.) The film is separated by chapters that focus on the two sisters played by Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg and their lives before and after they found out about Melancholia. I believe that by taking the time to show us how the sisters were before the end of the world even became a possibility, we understand why they react the way they do to the news. Accepting what is to come instead of fearing it is what separates the sisters and the conversations/arguments that transpire speak a lot about the human condition and forces us to ask ourselves: What will I do with the time I have left? I watched this film about a month ago and I still think about it. It's captivating and absolutely worth your time.
  • This is not an easy movie to watch. It's tough from the very beginning - a prologue prequel with music by Wagner and an apocalyptic perspective. Any movie in which dead birds fall from the sky in the first three minutes is not going to be light and fluffy.

    But this movie, about deep melancholia experienced by Justine (Kirstin Dunst), the principal character, and the melancholia of the potential end of life itself, is an artistic triumph. Great acting, great cinematography, great music. Even the sometimes puzzling plot - the post-prologue movie comes in two halves - is engrossing and pregnant with underlying meaning. The three principal characters all represent a point on the compass of human feelings: Depression, anxiety, and something resembling nice normalcy. How each deals with the apocalypse is a well-threaded effort.

    While the movie is dark, it is by no means humorless. The wedding that occupies the first half of the movie has a great deal of fun alongside the depression.

    Not a movie for everyone, and a bit too long, but if you watch it, stick with it. You may not want to see it twice but you could be glad you saw it once.
  • Yes, it was visually impressive but of the 7+ billion people on the planet, why did Lars von Trier choose to follow this particular nutty woman? Surely others could have offered something more insightful, and maybe even meaningful. I found the characters' behavior...unlikely, even given the circumstances that we later come to appreciate. Many, many books and movies (both fictional and not) have covered the topic of people facing impending doom. Personally, I prefer a combination of the Hemingway hero and Kurt Vonnegut's main character in Cat's Cradle: fight with dignity to the end, but then thumb your nose at the world. Like Breaker Morant: "Shoot straight, you bastards! Don't make a mess of it!" OK, the subject deserves a variety of treatments, but I found this one less than compelling.
  • If you watch this film once... you'll watch it again... and still not be disappointed.

    Left me wondering who is sane, and who is insane when the comfort of a perceived reality changes... dramatically !

    Almost Flawless !
  • He, I mean Von Triar, is as brilliant as he is irritating. Some part of me tells me he's having the last laugh at my expense. But then, this film is hypnotic in so many different ways and not all bad. The images will stay with me even if I don't particularly want them to. Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg are sublime, like Thulin and Ullman in "Cries And Whispers" Unfortunatele, their journey comes from the mind and more unfortunately from the pen of one of the great self-promoters of the last 20 years. Enough with the hand held camera, please! The device is not a style anymore but a show of laziness. I have to grant, however, I wasn't bored, I was rather transfixed by the unavoidable planet enveloped in Wagner's Tristan and Isolde.. Kiefer Sutherland plays the selfish coward, with chilling conviction while Charlotte Rampling and John Hurt are a delight in a much to brief appearance. If you love movies you must see this, I think that's part of Lars's con.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    When I watch a movie, I can put up with mediocre cinematography and other shortcomings but I cannot get past characters that do not say and do things that real people are likely to say and do in the circumstances where the characters find themselves in the movie.

    In this respect, Melancholia is perfection, while other aspects, from dialog to staging, are merely ingenious.

    The script brilliantly reveals the main character Justine step by step, played by Kirsten Dunst. At first she comes off as a one-dimensional neurotic, prone to inexplicable fits of depression and whimsy. At times she is so depressed she cannot get herself into a bath.

    As the story progresses, her actions exhibit a breadth of aberration beyond sadness and pathos, from the anti-social -- as in showing up two hours late for her extravagant wedding reception -- to outright hostile -- such as by having impromptu outdoor sex with her boss's nephew during that reception. The audience is prepared to interpret these acts as part of an old pattern of behavior, given her whacked-out family, her flighty father and her mouthy, mean spirited mother.

    At this point no one is liking Justine's character. Is this an artsy movie about a crazy rich woman? Boring.

    Then the script introduces us to the apocalyptic event that is behind Justine's behavior but without connecting the two yet. We see a giant blue planet menacing the evening sky. We are told that the consensus of scientists is that the planet presents no danger, that it will pass by harmlessly. But we are cued to wonder what the real story is, such as by Justine's sister turning up contradictory assessments in a web search.

    The only character that doesn't discuss the looming planet is Justine. Why? As we learn later, for Justine there's nothing to talk about. In fact, for her purposes it's best to keep her knowledge to herself.

    Is there a connection between Justine's mad behavior and this threat? If so, why isn't everyone else acting out as well? Maybe Justine is just being Justine, prone to erratic feelings and hysteric acts, and the possible danger posed by the planet is turning up the volume.

    But then the script reveals Justine is an advertising executive who functions at a too high a level to be a career depressive neurotic. She is the go-to gal that thinks up the tag lines for a major agency's top ad campaigns. Her boss surprises the family by giving her a promotion at the reception.

    Justine is sensitive, a creative who feels the world around her deeply, and a seer. The director relies heavily on Dunst's marvelous facial expressiveness to convey an inner world that she struggles to keep inside and away from those around her.

    This leads us to the aspect of Justine's character that is the motivation for her behavior. Justine knows that the big blue planet will destroy the earth. She's worked it out the way an autistic knows the number of beans in a jar without counting them, the way she can miraculously come up with the perfect tag line. To the people around her this ability is like magic. This time she decides to use it for her own benefit, to exploit others rather than to be exploited as she has been, such as by her despicable boss whom she later tells off.

    In contrast to her family who will only realize their fate hours before the event, Justine has had days, weeks, months -- who knows how long -- to feel sadness, terror, anger -- the full range of emotional reactions to certain death, and to plan her final days. The rest of her family is variously numbly unaware, or in denial, or confused to the end.

    Justine is perfectly clear: Everyone and everything is going to die.

    Justine doesn't waste time trying to explain the truth that she sees. Perhaps she doesn't feel that these people in her life deserve to know the truth, or they won't believe her anyway.

    She decides to use her special knowledge to her own benefit. She works down her bucket list. She gets married. She gets her brother-in-law to throw her an expensive wedding reception. She gets her sister to comfort her in her moments of crippling despair, but without revealing the cause to her sister. Instead she lies to her: "If you really think I'm afraid of a planet, you're stupid." But her sister suspects there's something her sister isn't telling her, later accusing her: "You're lying to all of us." And she is. She prepares only her beloved nephew, keeping his innocence safe to the end.

    To help us to relate to the depth of her feelings the movie is filmed in the beautiful natural scenery of a wealthy family's estate. Had Justine been poor and the family filmed in a two family house in South Boston, Justine's cynical defense against her feelings of sadness and rage for her and the world's demise would not have the same sting: "The Earth is evil. There's no need to grieve for it."

    Melancholia is about human nature and family brought into sharp focus by the ultimate time-out. It is about the relationship between the creative and the exploiters of the creative. Like all great movies, it drifts between the real and dream state of consciousness. Justine's visions at the start of the movie are so drawn out you worry that the whole movie will go on that way. After that you are with Justine and her family in the final days of her life that she lives out on her own terms, and it really feels like the end of the world.
  • kosmasp14 March 2012
    There is a reason the movie is called "Melancholia". There is also a reason why Kirsten Dunst mood changes. If you are paying attention there won't really be a surprise towards the end. Only surprise being that the characters themselves didn't think of it. And don't watch it, just for the "flesh".

    Kirsten Dunst delivers a power house performance. And the other actors are good too. I was still missing something. I liked the movie (and I can tell you there weren't that many in the cinema I watched it, who actually liked it) and I could see the allegories and everything Lars v. Trier was trying to convey. Still thought the break (it's kind of like watching two different movies back to back) didn't really work that well in my opinion. Some of course will just like it, because it's different. That's OK too, just be sure to know what you let yourself into.
  • lorihbyrd5 March 2021
    Completely disappointing, self indulgent garbage. I wish I could give this movie a negative 7. I kept thinking I would get to the point or see something interesting. But it never happened.
  • arkif127 September 2011
    Warning: Spoilers
    This film tries to tie too many things together into one and hence fails.

    The "Claire" part is better, but its finish is weak. Let her go to the village, show the pain of the people and at least that part would have been fine.

    No can do, since, if Wagner ruins "Die Götterdämmerung" by Brünnhilde's self immolation instead of letting it end properly with Siegfried's death, then Lars von Trier must of course ruin his film in the exact same way.

    It is a dramatic impossibility to go from grief to blissful resignation.

    And, by the way, that's also not how Schopenhauer said blissful resignation comes about. (Explicitly, resignation comes from either suffering or insight and insight comes from being lucky and a genius.) Not that Lars wouldn't know, he knows things, just like Justine does, in particular that life is evil. And hence she is... clinically depressed. What went wrong there? But the more idiotic the twist... all of a sudden it's "Always look at the bright side of death, just before you draw your terminal breath", which is actually quite sane, but... where did that sanity come from? I also wonder why the film is called "Melancholia" and not "Depression". I must admit that Kirsten Dunst does a good job at looking swollen and old in the second part, but in the first part all she looks is consternated, like a woman who just heard the words: "It hasn't rained in weeks. Go get the bucket and water the apple trees. I would do it myself, but it would be rude, if I would let my good friend here drink all the moonshine alone by himself." And that is not melancholic and neither is it depressed. Gloomy, yes. Filled with hatred, yes. But that's about it. And her actions? Well, stage fright isn't melancholia and neither is it depression. Let me put it this way: What would Amy Winehouse have done? Certain things similarly, other things very differently. Why should a melancholic person be afraid of marriage? If it doesn't change anything, well, what to be afraid of? In my opinion Lars simply exchanged the person. In the first part Justine has a choleric temperament, a power complex and strong regressive tendencies. In the second part she's clinically depressed. Until in the very end she makes for a silly parody of blissful resignation.

    There are other horrible mistakes in the first part, like that Lars can't make up his mind, whether he wants to narrate or show. I mean, if you show a wedding like that, then it stands for itself. Good art actually, the best depiction of a wedding I've ever seen on film, but in its glorious objectivity it totally destroys any consideration of the plot or Justine's inner life. I was thinking: "Yeah, just like that on my friend's wedding. And what a tour de force it is..." And I am not to blame. You shoot like Tarkovsky, you better also steer like Tarkovsky. Is that too hard to understand? And then the thing which annoyed me the most, the constant use of "Tristan und Isolde" as if "Tristan und Isolde" would be about regressive tendencies, clinical depression or what have you! If you read this Lars, let me tell you what "Tristan und Isolde" is really about: "Heilige Elisabeth, bitte für mich!" How dare you! So, Wagner went to Paris, didn't like it, but Minna did. Wagner's reaction? "Der fliegende Holländer": A woman should drown herself, if that would bring salvation to her husband and not enjoy trivial things. Still angry, back in Dresden, he composes "Tannhäuser": Yes, I married her for sex. If only it could be any other way! And then "Lohengrin": Forget about it. Women shouldn't even know the names of their husbands, so little do they grasp a man's greatness and depth. But... now... low and behold... Mathilde Wesendonck! Did she come out of the blue? Or did Wagner finally find a woman who fitted the Elisabeth role? But the thought had taken on flesh now and Wagner had to wrestle himself out of its grip and so he composed "Tristan und Isolde".

    That's it. No room for interpretations here.

    The only time when I thought the music was fitting was in the second part during the hail storm, fitting for the naked desperation and pain.

    And all the other times, it's just a silly artsy fartsy thing.

    On the plus side, visually and metaphorically the film is quite good and even connected to melancholia.

    Nevertheless... all in all... this is just pompous. Compare it to "Breaking the waves" and you'll see.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I think this is the worst piece of sadistic, fatuous crap that I have ever seen. Von Trier is clearly seeing how completely he can pull the wool over art-house viewers. It is also an abuse of Wagner's magnificent music. In addition to the ridiculous science-fiction framework (it is conceivable that if a planet 10 times the mass of the earth was heading right at us, it might at least make the evening news, but nobody even seems to be aware of it). Also, an abject that massive would create a horrendous gravitational effect which would dramatically alter the Earth's (and the Moon's) orbits, create massive earthquakes and huge tides that would overwhelm all coastal cities, etc. I couldn't stop laughing in the last scene when the planet nearly fills the whole sky and the sea in front of the mansion is not even disturbed a bit. Oh please. And the cheap CGI rendering of nebulae etc. are not worthy of a B movie (see The Tree of Life for breathtaking handling of such images, created by a master filmmaker). The absurdly long wedding scene, with every art-house black-tie trope imaginable, was just insufferable. What a piece of garbage.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Melancholia was a movie I went to see expecting it to blow me away. I thought: now here's a movie that doesn't have the mass-friendliness of the average Hollywood movie, but at the same time actually has a nice budget, and some good actors. Now don't get me wrong, I often find low- budget films with fresh talent amazing, but with Melancholia I was hoping for something that successfully molds together the Hollywood and indie movie scenes. Here's what I thought of the movie:

    As it opens there's a quite long, slow moving apocalyptic scene that I won't even try to explain. But, to be honest, I found it to be quite nicely done. With the occasional space imagery to me it looked like if Ingmar Bergman had made a 2001: A Space Odyssey -based short film. Wagner's music really made it an extraordinary experience.

    Part I: The Wedding (no I'm not calling it Justine, live with it): At first it seemed like a pretty nice, slow starting, atmosphere building part of the movie (note that at this point I still really wanted to enjoy this movie), but as time went on I found myself hating most of the badly written, annoying, and shallow cast, and I was hoping for bad things to happen to them all, especially Justine, Kirsten Dunst's character. By the way, why does everyone consider her performance so great? Sure, she was good at playing an angsty character whose motives remain a mystery to everyone, but honestly, being either expressionless or having an intentionally painful fake smile on shouldn't be that hard. When the wedding scene was over, I thought, finally, now can we get to the part where this gets good?

    Part II: The Generic Ranch: So, after being bored with the first half of the movie I was hoping for something a bit better. Well, I never got what I was hoping for. Justine just got a lot more annoying, we found out she has paranormal abilities, and people were taking a planet sucking out some of earth's atmosphere, probably taking it off it's course and killing everyone on it regardless of weather it collided or not really goddamn well. Not even Kiefer Sutherland's great performance could make me have any motivation for watching on. For the first time in my life I was actually contemplating walking out of the theater I was so bored and annoyed. Long story short, Justine was a total douche, her sister paniced and the world came to an end, and the movie ended. Oh yeah and there was that kid who did an even worse performance than Jake Lloyd on Star Wars ep. 1. Yes it was really that bad.

    Okay, the very end was pretty epic, with Wagner's music almost blowing my eardrums out and a huge blue planet smashing into the earth. I have to admit though, when the movie ended, I accidentally let out a giggle, much to the dismay of most people sitting near me. Seriously, as well made as it was, it was a pretty silly way to end the movie in my opinion.

    Alright, pros and cons:

    Pros: We saw Kirsted Dunst naked a couple of times, and although I really disliked the jumpy, amateuristic camera-work, the movie was at times visually amazing, and not really ever over the top. Also, the idea for the movie was pretty cool, and I really enjoyed Kiefer Sutherland's acting. The very beginning and very end should have been made into separate short films because they were really worth watching.

    Cons: Exceptionally shallow characters whose ridiculously small backstories were just thrown on to the viewers, mostly just average, sometimes painfully weak acting, and plentiful filler scenes that had no purpose whatsoever and that could have been cut down without the movie losing anything, while some scenes were just cut off completely (for example the impromptu sex scene with Justine and her husband, which, if correctly made, could have told us most everything about their relationship, and many more scenes that were just cut way too short).

    Conclusion: I'd like to give the movie more points just for it's beginning and end, and the story that had great potential for a sci-fi - sporting drama, but I just can't. For the first time in a while I seriously had trouble getting through this movie without walking out in the middle. Sorry to all the people who think it's a great movie, but personally I think I'd seriously rather do the dishes and mow the lawn than watch this movie again.
An error has occured. Please try again.