morgandorfer61

"Dancer in The Dark" is about a mother, Selma, who will do anything for her son, Gene, so that he will not suffer from her disease ( which is going blind ). She moved to America from Czechoslovakia, so he can get eye surgery. But she has to work day and night in a metal factory to raise him the money for surgery. Her only escape from her tired and dreary life is her imagination where every little noise turns into a musical. In her mind, she can see and sing and dance and everything is happy. Just when she raises enough money for her son's surgery, everything takes a turn for the worse when her friend and neighbor, Bill, runs into financial trouble. Its Selma's own strength and will that gets her into the mess she winds up in, but its all for her son, Gene, so he can see his grandchildren.

I can understand why people do not like this movie, but I other hand love this movie and was strongly moved by it. The use of digital camera might not have been the wisest choice. The editing in the beginning is choppy and the weird close-ups and shaky camera movement sometimes takes the impact of the scene away. The only time I think a person can really feel at ease technically and visually with this movie is during the dance numbers, because then the picture is brighter and of a higher quality and more steady. But I think that was the point. In Selma's imagination the world is brighter, higher quality, and steady. It's a better world. The songs are beautiful. If you sit back and close your eyes the lyrics bring tears to your eyes. Especially the songs "I've Seen It All", "Scatterheart", "Next To Last Song", and "New World". But the gem of the movie is Bjork's performance!! She plays Selma as a woman who has the entire weight of the world on her shoulders, who can still be happy and maintain a child-like view of the world. The moments when she smiles at the slightest happy things brought tears to my eyes. Her performance is dead on, and to have it not be recognized by the Academy is just WRONG! There was more heart and sweat and tears in Bjork's thumb then in all of Julia Roberts's cleavage and talent in "Erin Brockovich". But I believe that because this movie wasn't recognized that well except at Cannes just makes it more special. You have to discover it yourself because I think a lot of problems with movies lately is that they're really overrated or underrated and you go in a theatre or rent a movie thinking what people say and not really just sit back and enjoy the movie. Another reason why I don't think people like this movie is because of the intensity of it. Its emotionally exhausting, gut-wrenching, and doesn't leave you in a good mood. It makes you angry and hurt. And a lot of people don't go to see movies to feel horrid.

I loved this movie. I hated watching it because it brings out a lot of sadness in me. I wouldn't recommend this movie to just anyone. It takes a person who appreciates the small things that actors do (like smiles or glances and emotion in words), not just someone who expects an actor to look good and says funny one-liners to move a predictable plot along. I think a lot of the magic that Bjork put into Selma comes from her actions and facial expressions. I recommend this movie to people who have felt sympathy for a fictional character. Someone who can take something from a movie and feel its power and not dismiss it as 'just another movie'. It's not for the faint of heart or the easiest of crier. If the sentimental moments of a romantic comedy get you broken up, this movie is definitely not for you. This movie is one-of-a kind and delightfully strange. It can only be embraced by a few people, almost like Bjork's music. It can be only understood and loved by a few people, but in my opinion it is wonderful.

Matt Damon proves that he is one of the most talented younger (but no too young) actors out in the movie business. I wasn't expecting much from this film because it was being overshadowed by all the hype "GOOD WILL HUNTING" and Matt and Ben Affleck received. So when television programs and magazines were making a big deal that Matt and Ben weren't in a movie together (heaven forbid!) I wasn't quite sure whether I would like this movie. I had another reason for my doubt: Along with Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio had a lot of attention from his 1997 movie as well (titanic), and his follow up movie, "MAN IN THE IRON MASK" was just a fair attempt at OOH A LEO FLICK! Leo's bland performance in that movie made me believe that young hotties only have enough fire to do one really good movie, get heavy publicity, and then they fizzle and take a couple years off for partying or self discovery. Well...Matt Damon totally changed my opinion. He proves he can handle the publicity and still dish out good movies that everyone (including his fans) could enjoy. "Rounders" is an excellent and thrilling movie featuring an awesome cast. Edward Norton is superb as the jerky best friend, Worm. His performance is better than Matt's! (See him in "Primal Fear", "American History X", and "Fight Club") The supporting characters are excellent as well (Martin Landau, John Tuturro). I do concede to the fact that John Malkovich's Russian accent is a bit obnoxious, but I love him anyway. At least he attempted at an accent. In his movies where everyone else around him is speaking in a fake accent ("Dangerous Liasons", "Mary Reilly"), he stands out with his regular voice. Maybe he likes to stand out. I love the story and the whole ending. It had me talking to the television, and if movies get that reaction out of me, it's definitely not a dud. I would recommend this movie to anyone!

First I'll start with the good things of this film before I begin ranting: 1. The scenery was beautiful 2. Joseph Fiennes is in it 3. See #1 But one must know that scenery does not make a movie or does an extremely minor character make a movie. So what I have left is what I didn't like about the movie. It was way too long for what it covered, but for some reason it left me with question marks running through my head. I felt that Jeremy Irons's character was underdeveloped and I didn't feel the importance or the chemistry between him and Liv Tyler. His character wasn't the only one underdeveloped. Many actions weren't explained - like Why does Christopher get on a computer and use Lucy's name in a chatroom? Why does Liv Tyler like the guy who she first believes is her father? The world may never know. There was so much emphasis on the sex and nudity in this movie that I believe the makers forgot the storyline in a lot of the parts. Movies like "The End of the Affair" and "Shakespeare in Love" which use nudity and sex to represent love, art, and beauty succeed at continuing the story and not losing itself among the beautiful actors. Liv Tyler flaunts herself a lot in this movie. It made me wonder why she would ever argue with Martha Fiennes over not doing a nude scene in "Onegin". Because she sure bared her soul in this movie and didn't seem bothered by it. Maybe I didn't pay attention. I was too distracted by the numerous scenery shots I guess. Maybe there was some deep message that I missed. But the only deep thing I could think of is that this movie is just deep in fodder. Phew! Don't bother!