Jack, un asesino en serie, describe los asesinatos que realmente desarrollan su locura.Jack, un asesino en serie, describe los asesinatos que realmente desarrollan su locura.Jack, un asesino en serie, describe los asesinatos que realmente desarrollan su locura.
- Premios
- 11 premios ganados y 17 nominaciones en total
Ed Speleers
- Ed - Police Officer 2
- (as Edward Speleers)
Opiniones destacadas
The story follows Jack (Matt Dillon), a highly intelligent serial killer, over the course of 12 years, and depicts the murders that develop his inner madman.
Also starring - Bruno Ganz, Uma Thurman, Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Sofie Gråbøl, Riley Keough, Jeremy Davies.
This doesn't happen often: I watched the whole movie, the two and a half hours of it, and still couldn't say whether I find it good or bad, or even whether I liked it or not. Didn't find it boring, that's for sure - although I wouldn't call it exciting either, exactly.
One reason are the short but vivid scenes of extreme violence, which make one take a mental step back from the experience, and even think about not writing a review at all. Just in case that some reader would think that I condone violence or something.
The second reason is, of course, Lars von Trier himself, the co-writer and director of this joint. He doesn't seem extreme in interviews, but when it comes to work, the notorious film-maker likes to provoke and divide audiences without hesitation.
And "The House That Jack Built" might just be one of his crowning achievements in that.
Critics are divided as well. Many see the movie as empty provocation, or just tedious. Some see it as a something more. One is certain: it's not a mainstream entertainment. Not only for the overall creepiness and length, but also for how it's been put together.
You see, Von Trier has been more interested in making a point than making a movie with audience-friendly flow or tempo.
Compared to the "regular" movies, there's no clear structure - yes, Jack's story is divided between five cases but what happens during each is never easily anticipated - or for how long.
This is one of those rare movies which keep you guessing for the most time, never knowing what can happen next.
Von Trier also doesn't try to build and hold suspense, like in a "normal" movie, especially the one about serial killers.
He may have even actively worked against letting us just watch and get carried away because there's so much narration during the whole thing - in fhe form of constant dialogue between Jack and his mysterious companion played by Bruno Ganz.
Maybe because of the spotaneousness and unpredicability of the central antihero, it somehow still works. I never found myself idling and bored. Even during the end-section that left me even quite puzzled, which was clearly the authors' intent.
What makes it all so provocative and divisive, then, you may ask. It's the constant narration or dialogue between the serial killer and his companion. They argue over different things, mainly whether killing can be considered as art, and what makes murder such a bad thing anyway.
At first glance, these may seem like a stupid questions, but there's more to these arguments than wish to break taboos or something. Von Trier has deeper thoughts on the matter, and he wishes to make the audience think along.
People will interpret Von Trier's intentions differently, which is surely part of his goal. I would summarize the central thesis that if art is an act of creation and self-expression, then artful killing can be art too (which it certainly is for the serial killer Jack).
And before you rush to claim that killing is bad, let's not forget that everybody is at least indirectly or partly responsible for certain amount of death around the world, from eating meat, or even buying it and then just throwing it away, to not taking an active stand against destroying the environment where we all live.
Von Trier goes on to discuss several connecting themes, such as how killing can be addiction and how most of the violence is somehow associated with only men.
But the most shocking parts are Jack's actual killings, especially some that I didn't believe the author would dare to include in this day and age of political correctness.
Then again, the director's own stance seems to be against killing, because it's never glorified which is rare in the movies indeed.
Some of these acts may be funny in their own horrible way but none is intended to make you feel this adrenalin-induced watching glee as in most action flicks. If a person gets shot, for example, there's nothing cool and visually captivating about it. One just drops down like a big bag of flour, and stays this way.
Having commented on all the "important" things about the production, I can't forget Matt Dillon giving a remarkable performance as our anti-hero.
Just like the movie's approach to killings, there is nothing show-offish about him work. He seems to have wholly immersed into this character which makes him just mesmerizing in its own quiet way.
Dillon's easy naturalness combined with the unpredictability of the character makes this a cinematic "bad guy" to remember, although there's little unforgettably cinematic about him per se.
"The House That Jack Built" is a movie quite unlike anything else that you can see in cinemas this year. Unless you and I visit very different kind of cinemas.
Anyway, don't approach without hard stomach. Von Trier is not for everybody, and has never been, especially his latest.
Also starring - Bruno Ganz, Uma Thurman, Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Sofie Gråbøl, Riley Keough, Jeremy Davies.
This doesn't happen often: I watched the whole movie, the two and a half hours of it, and still couldn't say whether I find it good or bad, or even whether I liked it or not. Didn't find it boring, that's for sure - although I wouldn't call it exciting either, exactly.
One reason are the short but vivid scenes of extreme violence, which make one take a mental step back from the experience, and even think about not writing a review at all. Just in case that some reader would think that I condone violence or something.
The second reason is, of course, Lars von Trier himself, the co-writer and director of this joint. He doesn't seem extreme in interviews, but when it comes to work, the notorious film-maker likes to provoke and divide audiences without hesitation.
And "The House That Jack Built" might just be one of his crowning achievements in that.
Critics are divided as well. Many see the movie as empty provocation, or just tedious. Some see it as a something more. One is certain: it's not a mainstream entertainment. Not only for the overall creepiness and length, but also for how it's been put together.
You see, Von Trier has been more interested in making a point than making a movie with audience-friendly flow or tempo.
Compared to the "regular" movies, there's no clear structure - yes, Jack's story is divided between five cases but what happens during each is never easily anticipated - or for how long.
This is one of those rare movies which keep you guessing for the most time, never knowing what can happen next.
Von Trier also doesn't try to build and hold suspense, like in a "normal" movie, especially the one about serial killers.
He may have even actively worked against letting us just watch and get carried away because there's so much narration during the whole thing - in fhe form of constant dialogue between Jack and his mysterious companion played by Bruno Ganz.
Maybe because of the spotaneousness and unpredicability of the central antihero, it somehow still works. I never found myself idling and bored. Even during the end-section that left me even quite puzzled, which was clearly the authors' intent.
What makes it all so provocative and divisive, then, you may ask. It's the constant narration or dialogue between the serial killer and his companion. They argue over different things, mainly whether killing can be considered as art, and what makes murder such a bad thing anyway.
At first glance, these may seem like a stupid questions, but there's more to these arguments than wish to break taboos or something. Von Trier has deeper thoughts on the matter, and he wishes to make the audience think along.
People will interpret Von Trier's intentions differently, which is surely part of his goal. I would summarize the central thesis that if art is an act of creation and self-expression, then artful killing can be art too (which it certainly is for the serial killer Jack).
And before you rush to claim that killing is bad, let's not forget that everybody is at least indirectly or partly responsible for certain amount of death around the world, from eating meat, or even buying it and then just throwing it away, to not taking an active stand against destroying the environment where we all live.
Von Trier goes on to discuss several connecting themes, such as how killing can be addiction and how most of the violence is somehow associated with only men.
But the most shocking parts are Jack's actual killings, especially some that I didn't believe the author would dare to include in this day and age of political correctness.
Then again, the director's own stance seems to be against killing, because it's never glorified which is rare in the movies indeed.
Some of these acts may be funny in their own horrible way but none is intended to make you feel this adrenalin-induced watching glee as in most action flicks. If a person gets shot, for example, there's nothing cool and visually captivating about it. One just drops down like a big bag of flour, and stays this way.
Having commented on all the "important" things about the production, I can't forget Matt Dillon giving a remarkable performance as our anti-hero.
Just like the movie's approach to killings, there is nothing show-offish about him work. He seems to have wholly immersed into this character which makes him just mesmerizing in its own quiet way.
Dillon's easy naturalness combined with the unpredictability of the character makes this a cinematic "bad guy" to remember, although there's little unforgettably cinematic about him per se.
"The House That Jack Built" is a movie quite unlike anything else that you can see in cinemas this year. Unless you and I visit very different kind of cinemas.
Anyway, don't approach without hard stomach. Von Trier is not for everybody, and has never been, especially his latest.
This movie was definitely a roller coaster. Some very intense scenes and some very slow ones. For the most part, I enjoyed the film. I will say it was different from your average horror flick. The camera work reminded me of something you'd see in a docudrama. Matt Dillon was great in this. Based on his performance alone you should give this film a shot. I've been reading a lot of criticism towards the director. I guess I'll have to watch some of his older work. 7 stars.
I just saw the "one night only" screening of THTJB, and it's surprisingly good. All the press about the outrageous violence is overstated. There's blood and a scene that verges on torture porn, but the levels of violence and gore are far worse in Nymphomanic and Antichrist.
LvT winks and nods. He gives us satire. Murder as art. Architecture and engineering. Uma Thurman with a broken Jack. The jack as a weapon. Blood. Frozen pizza. Glenn Gould. "Stupid" women. Stupid cops. OCD. Luck and fate. Photography. Family. MAGA hats. Guns. A picnic. Predator and prey. Murder as art (but Verge isn't buying it). The sound of wading in water. Nazis. Jacqueline (the feminine Jack). Misogyny. In America no on can hear you scream. Full Metal Jacket. Antiquity. Hell.
I'm curious to see the R rated version of the film because I think it can benefit from some editing. Matt Dillon is fine, sometimes great. The writing struggles at times. But for once there's another LvT film I can't wait to see again.
LvT winks and nods. He gives us satire. Murder as art. Architecture and engineering. Uma Thurman with a broken Jack. The jack as a weapon. Blood. Frozen pizza. Glenn Gould. "Stupid" women. Stupid cops. OCD. Luck and fate. Photography. Family. MAGA hats. Guns. A picnic. Predator and prey. Murder as art (but Verge isn't buying it). The sound of wading in water. Nazis. Jacqueline (the feminine Jack). Misogyny. In America no on can hear you scream. Full Metal Jacket. Antiquity. Hell.
I'm curious to see the R rated version of the film because I think it can benefit from some editing. Matt Dillon is fine, sometimes great. The writing struggles at times. But for once there's another LvT film I can't wait to see again.
You know that a Lars von Trier serial killer movie is unlikely to be like anyone else's serial killer movie; that it is most likely to be more gruesome and perhaps even with a streak of very black humour and "The House that Jack Built" certainly doesn't disappoint. What we might not have guessed was that it would take the form of a dialogue between our serial killer, Jack, (a never better Matt Dillon), and some Stygian boatman who is probably rowing him all the way to Hades, (Bruno Ganz. perfectly cast).
When it was shown at Cannes a number of critics walked out. Why? Could they really have been so sensitive or did they just want to punish von Trier for even showing up? Certainly no-one could deny that as serial killer movies go this one is highly original; you might even call it pretentious but then you'd be missing the joke or could that have been the reason for those walk-outs? Serial killers aren't supposed to be funny.
Using animation, paintings and newsreels to illustrate Jack's 'career' von Trier goes his own way as usual and the von Trier way is, as we know, both shocking and disturbing in ways other director's films simply aren't. If you want to see a 'thriller', forget it but if you want to get inside the head of one crazily inventive outsider, (von Trier, who else), then this is the one for you.
When it was shown at Cannes a number of critics walked out. Why? Could they really have been so sensitive or did they just want to punish von Trier for even showing up? Certainly no-one could deny that as serial killer movies go this one is highly original; you might even call it pretentious but then you'd be missing the joke or could that have been the reason for those walk-outs? Serial killers aren't supposed to be funny.
Using animation, paintings and newsreels to illustrate Jack's 'career' von Trier goes his own way as usual and the von Trier way is, as we know, both shocking and disturbing in ways other director's films simply aren't. If you want to see a 'thriller', forget it but if you want to get inside the head of one crazily inventive outsider, (von Trier, who else), then this is the one for you.
Greetings from Lithuania.
"The House That Jack Built" (2018) is a movie that made me feel disturbed while i was watching it. I won't spoil anything, but the movie is about serial killer, and the way he does his "thing" was disturbing for me. And make no mistake, this a movie by L.V. Trier, so it won't be your typical and straightforward story about serial killer. And for the most part i was really involved into this movie, but then the last 20 min or so were really poetic and just a bit to much for me.
Overall, if you didn't like any of L.V. Triers previous movie, "The House That Jack Built" won't make him your fan that is for sure. On the other hand its a very skillfully made movie that kept me involved into its disturbing story right until the ending, which was a bit to much for me, unfortunately.
"The House That Jack Built" (2018) is a movie that made me feel disturbed while i was watching it. I won't spoil anything, but the movie is about serial killer, and the way he does his "thing" was disturbing for me. And make no mistake, this a movie by L.V. Trier, so it won't be your typical and straightforward story about serial killer. And for the most part i was really involved into this movie, but then the last 20 min or so were really poetic and just a bit to much for me.
Overall, if you didn't like any of L.V. Triers previous movie, "The House That Jack Built" won't make him your fan that is for sure. On the other hand its a very skillfully made movie that kept me involved into its disturbing story right until the ending, which was a bit to much for me, unfortunately.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe film had its world premiere at the Cannes International Film Festival on May 14, 2018. It was reported that more than a hundred audience members - including some critics - walked out during the premiere, though a six-minute standing ovation followed the screening. Some of the upset audience members continued to condemn the film on social media for its extreme violence and nihilistic tone.
- ErroresIn the closing credits, "Miscellaneons Crew" can be seen.
- Citas
Jack: 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. I don't agree. I believe Heaven and Hell are one and the same. The soul belongs to Heaven and the body to Hell.
- Versiones alternativasAn R-rated version exists alongside the unrated 'director's cut'. The UK/Irish release is of the unrated version, as confirmed by the press invitation.
- ConexionesFeatured in ARfRA: The House That Jack Built Controversy (2018)
- Bandas sonorasPartita No. 2 in C minor, BWV 826
Written by Johann Sebastian Bach (as J.S. Bach)
Performed by Glenn Gould
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- The House That Jack Built
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- EUR 8,700,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 258,106
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 34,273
- 16 dic 2018
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 3,081,913
- Tiempo de ejecución2 horas 32 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta