User reviews

I'm not a fan of von Trier to begin with. But this movie just got in to my mind really bad. Couldn't stop thinking about it. Was it good, was it bad, if I admit I liked it does that make me half insane? It's a movie that doesn't let go of it's viewers, even though they walk away. I had to pause several times, not because of its length but because the cruelty and sickening things and the anticipation of what was going to happen. But I always came back. I had to see what was coming.. Those ambivalent feelings stuck so hard.. Oh boy. Both disgusted and fascinated. I have to admit that I know feel like a horrible person for liking the movie. It was somewhat pretentious, but imo quite better done than Lynch.

Yes, you do think about LvT and what mindset he has to come up a movie like this. This movie just breaks all barriers. It is extreme. No wonder people walked out of the premiere. But it does have good actors, nice camera work, interesting scenery and a sensation of well done movie.

It's not a movie for a easily horrified audience. Perhaps it's best to watch it alone. And to say you didn't like it or maybe even that you never seen it.

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.

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 have a proposal for those who have not yet seen 'The House That Jack Built', Lars von Trier's latest film (2018). Try to forget who the director is. I know it's not easy, because we are dealing with a person and a personality who provokes and shocks, who seeks and attracts scandals and who knows that advertising is best when it's bad. My opinion, after watching this film to which the 2018 Cannes Film Festival scheduled only a premiere out of competition, is that the attitudes and reactions triggered by this film are much more extreme than the film itself. It is a dissection and a psychological analysis of a serial killer, developed with effusion over two and a half hours of screening, but I did not find in this film anything that would shock me more than what I experienced for example at the screenings of 'The Silence of the Lambs' or 'Zodiac' and the graphic visual details do not exceed what we saw in the countless films in the series 'Scream', 'Halloween' or 'Elm Street', not to mention the violent and psychological intensity of the films of Tarantino, Lanthimos or von Trier himself. Whoever manages to separate this film from the advertising shell of the image that the director is trying to build to himself will have many reasons for cinematic satisfaction.

Von Trier assumes in 'The House That Jack Built' the risk of describing five episodes of the blood and corpse-laden journey of a serial killer. At one point, Jack, the hero of the film, played by Matt Dillon, confesses to his future victim that he committed 60 murders and is about to commit the 61st. One of the messages of the film may be that one should believe the statements of those who confess to criminal inclinations and bloody sins. Why is von Trier a special case? Other directors who have approached such themes and characters have not faced similar dangers, but von Trier has made enough other extreme films (but also some sublime ones) as well as shocking statements, so that when he speaks evil we may be tempted to believe him. Jack's travel partner in the film is most of the time a voiceover borrowed from Bruno Ganz, that of a character named Verge, who receives Jack's confessions and forces him to look for the roots of the deeds he commits. Is there any possible justification? Is there any other alternative end to this journey than in one of the hottest circles of Hell?

Matt Dillon succeeds to create in 'The House That Jack Built' one of the best roles of his career confirming the statistics that make the roles of psychotic criminals career peaks for the actors who play them. Bruno Ganz - in one of his last roles, he would die less than a year after the premiere of this film - creates an excellent counter-character in Verge, and the use of off-screen dialogue between the two is in this case perfectly justified. Lars von Trier copiously uses the collage technique by inserting animation, sequences from his own films, documentary sequences (including with characters embodying the evil that Hitler and Mussolini) and musical sequences such as those with pianist Glenn Gould. The original music and the soundtrack belong to Víctor Reyes and the cinematography to Manuel Alberto Claro, the faithful director of cinematography of von Trier for more than a decade. The America described by von Trier (who has never visited the North American continent) is perfectly believable, the realism of the scenes amplifying the horror effect. The combination of sophisticated references, core dialogue, psychological analysis of the character on the one hand and his behaviour on the screen on the other hand can be confusing and shocking, but it is interesting and asks questions that seem legitimate to me about how evil can be represented on screen. Anyone who knows von Trier's films understands that he rarely compromises. This is not the case here either and in my opinion the balance is clearly positive.

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.

I just saw Lars Von Trier's new film 'The House That Jack Built' at the Atlantic Film Festival. I'm not extremely familiar with Trier's other work (I love Antichrist and Dancer in the dark is one of the most depressing films I've ever seen), but I've still been looking forward to this one since its premiere at Cannes. The subject matter peaked my interest and the trailer looked great. The early reviews got me even more invested as everyone was saying it was Trier's most disturbing and violent film yet.

'The House That Jack Built' was fairly brutal, yet oddly comical (if you can look past the disturbing material) and widely entertaining. I was not expecting it to be as funny as it was considering all of the 'hype' around the film's dark brutality since its screening at Cannes. Having said that there are some extremely gruesome and disturbing scenes which are effective in what they set out to do.

The film is divided into 5 sections plus an epilogue. A strange structure but ultimately I think that it benefited the film as we see a slight progression of Jack's character throughout. Though it can feel a bit repetitive at points, it never gets boring and is continuously engaging. Matt Dillon was excellent as the truly psychopathic serial killer Jack. It was honestly probably the best role I've seen him in (seriously, he should be in more movies).

There are many philosophical discussions about the nature of art throughout the film. This can either come off as super pretentious or can actually add to the film. I thought it worked fine in the context of the film as it relates very much to the character of Jack and how he views himself and his, so to say, 'art'

The film portrays the violence in a fairly realistic manner and does not hold back. At all. Seriously, the movie is not for the faint of heart. But it never came across as gratuitous or 'edgy'. It felt like Trier was just showing us what these scenarios would look like if a serial killer viewed his killings as art.

If you're a fan of Trier's work then definitely try and see this one. Even if you're just a fan of disturbing art-films, check it out. It has a screening at VIFF in October but other than that I have no idea where you can see it. Surprisingly, the Atlantic Film Festival (Halifax, Nova Scotia) had a one-night screening for the film. Either way, try and see it if it looks interesting to you. I highly recommend it. 9/10.

Fabulous and remarkable film that grabs a hold of the viewer from the very start. Even though this breaks my own little 'Dogma' rules in that a film of over two hours repetition and numbered scenes should be avoided, Lars von Trier asserts his authority and as far as I am concerned holds attention and (unbelievably!) belief until the wondrous and spectacular Dante inspired ending. The performance of Matt Dillon is crucial and his opening scene with Uma Thurman vital to the film's success. As it happens the scene is utter perfection and the varied and mounting degrees of humour, frustration, anger and retribution are all present and ensure that the attentive viewer is sucked in. Brilliant film making and although I have tended to ignore the director in recent years because of length, I am a convert.

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.

Does anyone else miss pre-depression era Lars von Trier? I still give him Antichrist and even Melancholia, but the "just because" stylistic choices of the tedious Nymphomaniac made me yearn for a time when he had enough thought behind his unconventionality to give us his wonderful Dancer in the Dark, and enough humor to give us Riget. He was always nasty, defiant, and upsetting like only he knows how, but something has changed.

Now we have The House That Jack Built; another film that, despite how different it is from every other movie out now, still manages to be predictable if you know your Trier. I often defend strange decisions and rule-breaking in film, as with Michael Haneke's Funny Games, but Von Trier somehow manages to make clear that the only reason he's breaking the rules is that he's Von Trier, the supposed arthouse emperor. See what I did with that shot? Aren't these title cards weird? Look at how oddly edited everything is!

We get "more of the usual" in other departments as well. The documentary-esque camera work (à la Dogme 95), the super-slow-motion bits, the jump-cuts, the lengthy lecture-like conversations, and the controversial scenes of violence and mutilation. The villain protagonist, OCD-ridden serial killer Jack, narrates the film nigh constantly, and despite sometimes doing us the favor of explaining to us what he's thinking and feeling, I don't know that he ranks among the greatest, most complex killers of cinema.

Matt Dillon is good in the role but like many a recent Trier character, Jack rarely partakes in any particularly human-sounding interactions or monologues. It's difficult to emotionally connect with the characters of Trier lately, especially when they start reciting whatever opinion or observation was on the director's mind while he was writing and felt the need to vent.

The movie supposedly alludes to his fiasco at Cannes. You know, that time when he apparently "understood Hitler"? I didn't notice this when I saw the film myself but I believe in the critics (there's definitely a sequence where he congratulates himself on his filmography and dubs himself misunderstood). It's nice that he got to screen another film at the festival after all, but the film in question may have made his future at Cannes uncertain.

In the movie, Jack retells a number of "incidents" from the past 12 years of his life, where he would slaughter women played by the likes of Uma Thurman, Riley Keough, and Siobhan Fallon Hogan - these scenes, I gather, haven't exactly countered the idea that Von Trier has weird feelings about women. I maintain that he gave us admirable female characters in pictures like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark, but who knows? Did the divorce change things?

Listening avidly to Jack's tale is Bruno Ganz, never seen by the viewer but often heard making obvious observations, and/or notes which Von Trier no doubt really WANTS the audience to make during a given scene. Again, thanks for the assistance.

The House That Jack Built is just not that rewarding to watch. It's amazing how a movie can be so different, so completely defiant, and yet so completely unsurprising at the same time. When you're spoonfed all emotions and themes, and you've gotten used to the cruel violence and even the persistent rule-breaking within the presentation, what's there to chew on? Towards the end, the film goes for a more surreal (albeit at times just "random") approach and I find myself interested again, although it isn't quite enough.

Hell, the film doesn't even have Udo Kier. What kind of Von Trier film is that?

In the 70´s, the serial-killer Jack (Matt Dillon) is having a conversation with the mysterious Verge (Bruno Ganz) about his murders. Jack, who has obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and the nickname "Mr. Sophistication", randomly reports five incidents to show Verge that his murders are artwork. However Verge tells that love is missing in his works to be art. Meanwhile Jack builds and demolishes the house searching for the correct material.

"The House That Jack Built' is a creepy story of a serial-killer by Lars von Triers. Matt Dillon is perfectly cast in the role of a serial-killer that needs to clean the crime scene since he has OCD. There some questions without answer but in general it is a good film. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil):"A Casa que Jack Construiu" ("The House That Jack Built")

It is a really interesting movie, a character study of a psychopath. The ending took me out of the movie completely, not necessary at all. Didn't do anything for the plot or the pacing. The visuals didn't live up to the quality of the rest of the movie either. Don't get me wrong, Bruno is great in this movie, but the conversations at the ending scene aren't as strong as before. It feels like the director wanted to make his own version of Dantes inferno, but had to shove it into this movie.

Put off the movie at the point where Jack goes into a hole (you'll know). Regardless of the disappointing ending, I can still recommend the rest of the movie (of you can bare the disturbing violence).

I just got back from seeing the directors cut of The House that Jack Built, and man, it was quite the experience. First and foremost, if you don't have a strong stomach for violence and generally aggressive behavior then this probably isn't going to be for you, however I'm not sure how much of what I saw will be in the rated R cut. This is a nasty movie, about a nasty man. It is quite graphic in some scenes, though none of the violence ever felt out of place or just there to shock. The acting by everyone involved is top-notch, the writing and direction is absolutely fantastic, as well. This movie can be surprisingly funny, from time to time. The cinematography was very well done, although some scenes are less memorable than others due to not being as unique as they could have been. There is a review here on IMdB who states this movie had no meaning, and also says they didn't even watch the whole movie. I'd definitely suggest getting through to the end and making your own decision on that. All in all, if you're a fan of artsy movies, underground horror, true crime, or extreme cinema in general I highly suggest seeking this one out.

This is essentially Lars Von Trier stroking his cock and tickling his balls for two and a half hours, for a phase it feels good but you can't jerk off for long without it feeling boring and repetitive.

"The House That Jack Built" takes a sartorius angle on art films and specifically Lars Von Trier films. It does this by showing what it thinks are uncompromising disgusting acts, over explaining everything and showing pointless montages of high art and architecture and whatever else Jack and the disembodied or corporeal voice of Verge are talking about. I think the satire would have worked a treat for me if Lars hadn't removed two ribs in order in suck his own dick while presenting this element. There's a montage of what Lars considers high art with clips from both "Melancholia" and "Antichrist" which is enough to get a good idea about how pretentious everything about this is. Despite having criticisms about the kind of parody angle I actually really liked it for the most part, yes it's extremely self-indulgent and ends up repeating the same point over and over but it's also genuinely hilarious and actually pretty smart a lot of the time.

I liked a few of the performances, especially Matt Dillon', the cinematography is cinematography in a Von Trier film, same goes for the editing, the dialogue is unbearable at times and not great during the moments where I don't recoil at it either, the soundtrack was good and surprisingly not annoying cause, like the film, it's very repetitive and the score was awesome, the many montages + narration take away any room for interpretation which really hurt the film, but is also kind of the point of the film which is a problem I encountered criticising many elements of this movie. I likely would have immensely enjoyed this film if everything before the last 20 minutes weren't explained to me.

Jack is meant to be a genius, he's referred to as a genius many times over the course of his film but he does so many dumb things unrelated to his OCD (which as someone with OCD I can confirm is delt with well) only because satire? Or is it bad writing that can be written off as satire, this is why I had trouble critiquing this, almost everything "bad" about it can be played off as satire, but many of these things that can simply be shrugged off severely damage my enjoyment. Except for one thing, the uncompromising violence is nowhere near as brutal as it thinks it is, none of the imagery or implied violence had any effect on me which at times ruined the sartorius angle, the family sequence is the worst culprit of this, it comes off very silly, I laughed during this elongated stint of the movie because it was all so predictable, terribly executed, terribly acted, Lars still can't direct children, unnecessary and (again) disgustingly pretentious, so I didn't laugh for the reasons intended.

Despite having criticisms and despite really hating my viewing experience for about an hour I still really enjoyed seeing that state of the worth from Von Trier's perspective. You might know that I'm borderline obsessed with what people think so to see so many of his thoughts laid out in front of me was something quite special. He does like to shove his ideas down audiences throats but it's alright with me.

Lars Von Trier's 2018 film, "The House That Jack Built," transcends its surface narrative as a grimly comedic exploration of art and violence to serve as a potent dissection of its creator's own psyche.

The film's brutal story, punctuated by the existential musings of its titular character, Jack (Matt Dillon), serves as a conduit through which the filmmaker grapples with his own artistic impulses and the expectations levied upon him by society. To understand the film in its fullest context, one needs to delve deep into Von Trier's psyche and the broader tapestry of his own work.

Von Trier has been known for his controversial films, which often push the boundaries of societal norms and cinematic conventions. These are no casual forays into discomfort, but rather, they are systematic explorations of the human condition and the outer limits of behavior. At times, it seems as though Von Trier himself may benefit from psychoanalysis, if only to shed light on the psyche of the man who can create such unsettling masterpieces.

"The House That Jack Built," is not merely a tale about a serial killer; it is a study of a man who progressively pushes the boundaries of his art, mirroring Von Trier's own journey in filmmaking. Jack, initially an engineer, is bound by the constraints of his profession and societal norms, but he yearns for the freedom to be an architect, seeking to build a legacy for himself; something he can achieve through his own vision - in this instance, a house.

The pivotal moment in the film comes with the interjection of a sudden, transformative passion that sets Jack on a new path. It's a passion that steers Jack away from the norm, pushing him towards a path of greater personal significance - at least in his own eyes. This mirrors Von Trier's career, marked by a significant shift from mainstream narratives to pushing cinematic boundaries with films that provoke, challenge, and disturb.

Initially, Jack is depicted as a haphazard executioner, but as he grows more comfortable with his new 'craft,' his art becomes more daring, creative, and experimental. In a parallel manner, Von Trier's early pieces might have seemed less refined or unpredictable to some observers. However, as he honed his craft, experimented, trialed, and tests, he has developed a signature filmmaking style that consistently provokes intense responses from viewers.

In the end, Jack does indeed build a legacy, but not as he initially planned. His 'house' ends up being a collection of his monstrous deeds, a testament to his twisted artistic journey. Again, the parallels to Lars remain; His body of work, much like Jack's, has often been met with shock, controversy, and rejection. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, he continues to create, leaving an indelible mark on the world of cinema.

Von Trier's "The House That Jack Built" is thus not just a film about a murderer, but an exploration of the nature of art and the struggle of the artist. It is a deep dive into the mind of an individual who defies convention, providing a provocative commentary on the creative process and the artist's role in society. It is, in many ways, a self-portrait of Von Trier himself, who, like his protagonist Jack, continually tests the limits of his artistry, undeterred by societal perceptions.

Watching a horror movie would have been easier to watch. Entire film Iv been asking my self "WHAT THE HELL AM I WATCHING." I should have turn it off.. but this movie just makes u wanna keep watching wondering what happens next.

I wanted to like this movie. I really did. But there are way too many things that drag it down. First off, it's slow. Reeeaally slow. Now that wouldn't be such a bad thing, but it's also really long. The dialouge is very monotone and not engaging. Honestly, I have never been so bored watching people get murdered. Even the action is derivative and difficult to pay attention to. There is some good acting and it is shot well, but that does not save it from being boring. By the time I got to the end, all I wanted was for it to finally be over with. But instead it just limps alongs even slower to a completely nonsensical finish. I'm not a huge fan of art films, and this one is the reason why. Overall, it's quite overrated and really only appeals to a small target audience.

Matt Dillon should not have any difficulty in scaring the beejeebies out of his audience by getting under your skin, literally and figuratively. At a recorded (longer than most feature films) run time of 155 minutes, don't be surprised if a few of your fellow movie goers abruptly leave the screening before Jack's series of mutilations and serial murders ends. As a suspense film that runs for over 2 1/2 hours, it is obviously hard for the novice fan of any serial killer themed film to hang in there without heaving up their popcorn, or dampening their seat with a puddle in their pants.

Danish born Writer/Director Lars von Trier is no slouch when it comes to captivating an audience's attention. He has been engaged in film making for close to 40 years now and with a combination of mastering his dreamlike visual effects and maintaining his key subjects persona with abnormal behaviors (as is the case with our serial killer Jack) that intrigue his audience to wonder "what's to come next?"

I haven't seen many Lars von Trier films. I only remember I hated "Dancer in the Dark" when I watched it as a teenager. That's another story, I'll watch it again sometime and write a review.

"The House that Jack Built" got my attention from some "disturbing movies" list on the net. The premise about a serial killer sounded interesting so I put it in my watchlist.

But this is a difficult movie to review...

In the surface it's a lot like American Psycho - a sick story told through the eyes of a killer. In aforementioned film Christian Bale's over the top performance made it seem also comedic. This one, too, has comedic elements but it's more subtle. Matt Dillon's lead character is somehow more creepy. He's funny too but he's unpredictable and weird. His motivations are quite unclear which makes it more disturbing.

My mind is blank when I try to describe this movie. It escapes the categories you want to put it in..but I guess that's von Trier for you.

Most of the time I thought "ok, this is similar to American Psycho, this is a macabre murder drama-comedy" - which it is, but it is also more. It has a lot philosophical speculation about the essence of art and morality, and the murder story gets some kind of symbolic frame around it, even though it's perhaps a bit thin. And then there is an interesting ending. The less you know about it the better, but I was really surprised. I got some David Lynch feel and (the director admits this in the bonus interview) - Ingmar Bergman influence. He also says this is his most Hitchcock style film, which I didn't come to think of.

Strange but fascinating film. But watch it only if you can stomach terrible acts of violence and a pretty dark sense of humor.