I liked it, but the last segment took me by surprise...

We know you are a brainlet

Yeah, thet's the thing that disappointed me. Lars is a fatass who thinks that jump is impossible for a normal fit person. The gap should have been bigger to justify climbing around.

Irrelevant to whether you could physically jump that gap or not.

The last part is the only good part of this movie.

can i learn all about dante without having to read all that OLD SHIT

Why did the blond slut just let Worst Dillon do that shit to her? She didn't even fight back

It's called the Divine Comedy. I never read it but I've heard enough. You can watch the animated film Dante's Inferno, it's pretty good. The Divine Comedy is obviously one of the most influential book in Hollywood. A lot of movies use its themes.

It was lazily made and the ending was the only redeeming thing about it.

There was no getting out of there. It was meant to show his hubris.

Some people can't or won't fight. She might've felt like it was pointless or would only anger him and make it worse on her.

Saying 'we' on an anonymous imageboard is a massive insecure cope

That's what made it stand out though. Apart from all the gratuitous violence and gore. But the Verge scenes were kino.
What I wasn't a huge fan of was the Lars supercut. People keep saying Refn is the one that wants to toot his own horn, but Lars is much, much worse in that regard. Masturbatory shit.
>My only issue is the fact that he supposedly could have gotten out of hell if he could rock climb better and he only fell into the pit because his core body strength was lacking
>He could have just jumped the four feet over the broken bridge.
>Yeah, thet's the thing that disappointed me. Lars is a fatass who thinks that jump is impossible for a normal fit person. The gap should have been bigger to justify climbing around.
Imagine being this stupid, my God.

>What I wasn't a huge fan of was the Lars supercut.
I guess he wanted to make it obvious that Lars is Jack.

I thought this line (and a couple? of variations) made it obvious enough
>Some people claim that the atrocities we commit in our fiction are those inner desires which we cannot commit in our controlled civilization, so they're expressed instead through our art.
It's not like the average American moviegoer is gonna go watch something like THTJB, it's all festival-fare and for Lars fans. Thought it'd be pretty obvious even without having to subject me to even a second of Antichrist.

>Imagine being this stupid, my God.
Explain yourself, smartass

I second that, brainlet

Yas Forums bros deserve a second chance

Why was God on his side? I'm referring the rain scene

I third that, brainlet.

>the last segment took me by surprise
...Did you miss the very first scene where he's taking a trip through Hell with Virgil that we revisit the entire film?

That was an interesting moment. He interpreted as God being on his side, but he was cleary deluded. If anything, the devil was helpig him.

It was completely dark, we don't even know who is talking at that point.

Is it as more, as or less violent then Anti-Christ? Call me a pussy but that movie put me off, makes me suspicious of Lars Von Trier movies (although Melancholia was great).

cont. usually I can stomach violent movies but watching a woman cut her clit off and smash a guys dick in with a brick and jerk it off till blood comes out is some of the more disturbing movie moments I’ve seen

It's more violent and has excerpts of violence from his other films too. Antichrist only has two really bad scenes (mutilated penis masturbating blood and clitoris removal scenes). The rest of it is pretty easy to sit through.

House that Jack Built has animal/ duckling torture, children getting shot in the head, fat lady tied to the back of a van and dragged along till her entire face is sliced off and a woman's breasts cut off just to name a few.

he makes a wallet out of the tit as well if I recall correctly

Yeah and the house he builds is made from the bodies of his victims.

>that whole tangent about aschwitz and stuka dive bomers
Was tearing up from laughing in the movie theater.

Not only does Lars get the guy who played Adolf in Downfill in his movie, he has this whole tirade about beauty in auchwitz.

Must have still been pissed off about the controversy at Cannes film festival regarding his comments.

Attached: German-dive-bomber-Stuka-Junkers-Ju-87.jpg (858x850, 128.15K)

Unlike Antichrist, most of the violence in Jack is played for comedy. The only time it was somewhat disturbing was threatening to cut that women's boobs off.

In one scene, he also smashes a woman's head in with a tool and it cuts to a Pablo Picasso painting of a woman's face with similar fracture lines down the middle.

Personally I found that taxidermy done on the kids one of the most disturbing things in the movie.

Lars can't help himself.

Most disturbing was the duck scene and the picnic with the dead children

>Grumpy is grumpy no more!

>Most disturbing was the duck scene

It's like 5 seconds of grainy footage with no sound. And the duck doesn't even look that bothered by it.

Poor Grumpy...

I wish I was as handsome as Jack

Attached: jack.jpg (1777x736, 65.01K)

Those Glenn Gould sequences got pretty tiring after a while

Matt Dillon was perfectly cast

>This has been a very good day. What's your favorite number?

>Noooooo! You can't find beauty in the Nazi regime!
>Haha bomber go woo

Bruno tells him that people have tried it before but noone has managed to get to the other side, i think it's impossible to get over, it just serves to show his enormous ego

he has always been handsome as fuck. and his voice. man i wish i had that much of a deep voice and im 25. he has had that voice since the outsiders or earlier

You idiots, it obviously wasn't as simple as having "strength" to do it it's one of those things that no matter what you did something would have gone wrong and he would have fallen regardless

The passage was there to cock tease ego maniacs into falling into the deepest depths of hell instead of settling for a less brutal option up above

But what is it supposed to mean? Is Lars saying he can never redeem himself?

The ending redeems the entire film. It shows that all of Jack's work and all of his bluster amounts to absolutely nothing, and he is condemned to Hell for his miserable and wasted life.

And since all of von Trier's recent works are partially self-commentary, we might take this to mean that he is condemning the transgressive works of his past, ironically redeeming himself in the process with the final scene - a thing of great beauty capping off an ugly film. But it's Lars, so there's always about a hundred ways to take it.

In short, it's kino.

Attached: Blood and Black Lace.jpg (1808x1080, 1.19M)

Same. The end was the best part. A Dante's Inferno movie in that style would be incredible.

It means Lars can never achieve the true art he wishes to, just like how Jack's "art" was just sadistic gore that resulted in him being punished.

he can redeem himself by suffering in hell until the second coming of Christ

fourth, you are dumb and gay

>Those are the Elysian Fields. We don't have access here.

Attached: Capture.jpg (1920x800, 681.43K)