vanbrina It is definitely not an usual kind of movie documentary, but what to expect from an unusual movie director? Well, if the documentary does not show rehearsal scenes is because Lars Von Trier style is not to rehearsal. If it does not show himself directing is because he leaves the actors to improvisation. If does not show Bjork acting is because she asked for. The documentary does not show clearly the directors style indeed, but its richness relays in what is not said nor showed. This facts can be seen in Bjork own behind the scene where she and the other actors from the casting talk about Lars Von Trier style of directing and move making.

Tobias Baunbæk Most behind of the scenes are really most about saying how fun it was to do the movie, and say how much they love one-another. But this is not like that. Far from it. It shows how much work it has taken to do this movie. Mostly because Bjork and Lars Von Trier didn't work together well.It's quite funny that Bjork has been credited as being in this documentary, because as it tells in the end, Bjork asked the director if she could be taken out of this, and she was. You only see her in one clip, and that is far from a closeup, hehe.You should see this if you liked the movie, and want some background information. But mostly, you get more information about Dancer in the Dark by listening to director's comments track on the DVD. I gave it 8, for not being one of those pat-on-the-back behind-the-scenes.

Rainsford55 This doco is the most interesting of 'making of' doco's that I've seen yet. However on the downside we don't get into too much depth as has been stated previously when a bit more probing into the making of a Von Trier film would have been invaluable to someone like myself that is keen on learning the ropes in the independent film making industry. I would love to have seen more of Von Trier in action as a Director rather than as a clown. Also Barr, Deneuve and Bjork at work. We have some remarkable talent in this one film (Dancer) and I can only view this doco as a wasted opportunity. What about some focus on Bjork writing her music and/or rehearsing in the studio? Von Trier directing and Deneuve discussing her role with her director? There is a million things we could have had but didn't. Very tantalising doco that doesn't deliver, but intriguing nevertheless. I view it as worth seeing and gave it a high score, but I was still disappointed. There could have been more.

JMartin-2 Lars von Trier is not simply one of the most consistently interesting filmmakers working today -- he is also a supremely gifted con artist with a penchant for pulling the public's collective leg and constantly building up his own "legend." As such, it's difficult, if not impossible, to know when to take him seriously, and thus any serious attempt to figure him out is ultimately doomed to failure. Therefore, a documentary about von Trier and his work is best approached as pure entertainment rather than a revealing glimpse into the "filmmakers' art" or the "creative process" or whatever. Here, though, another factor comes into play: unlike the previous docs on von Trier (such as Stig Björkman's "Tranceformer: A Portrait of Lars von Trier" and Jesper Jargil's "The Humiliated"), "Von Trier's 100 Eyes" -- about the making of his latest film, "Dancer in the Dark" -- is produced by Zentropa, von Trier's own production company, which (in Scandinavia at least) is well-known for its tendency toward exaggeration and outright fabrication in matters of publicity. In other words, this film should be approached not simply with a grain of salt, but preferably a whole bag.First things first: for (ostensibly) legal reasons, Björk herself has a negligible part in this doc, limited almost entirely to clips from the finished product. The entire enterprise seems mostly pointless as a consequence, and the one scene in which she does appear (a cutaway view of the set, with von Trier directing her in the harrowing murder scene while filming the action through a hole in the wall) is so utterly fascinating that you want to see more, but sorry, that's all you'll get, buddy. And with the lead actress out of the picture, there is precious little footage of von Trier actually interacting with his actors, save some goofy, between-takes clowning with Catherine Deneuve and a couple of other members of the supporting cast. For the most part, though, once von Trier's camera goes on, Forbert's goes off, and so anyone interested in seeing how von Trier works with his actors might as well skip this and track down a copy of "The Humiliated" instead.The remainder of the piece is scarcely more informative than the ten-minute promotional pieces included on the U.S. "Dancer" DVD, dealing with the original inspiration (a Danish fairy tale called "Golden Heart"), the choreography, and of course the much-vaunted 100 cameras, with plenty of pretentious moments in between where Lars reads lyrics from the film's songs in a droning, emotionless voice while a split-screen shows the view from various angles. Things finally pick up a bit near the end, after Björk has (supposedly) disappeared after (supposedly) stalking angrily off the set while (supposedly) tearing up her wardrobe with her teeth (!). Von Trier is shown considering whether or not to give up altogether (not very convincingly, I might add), and somebody creates some odd-looking Björk masks, with the intention of putting them on a body double and finishing the rest of the film that way. The whole thing is so absurd and credibility-straining that even the most gullible viewers will probably sense that something is awry, and sure enough, just when things are looking their most hopeless, Björk suddenly and mysteriously reappears on the set, filming is completed, and flash-forward a bit to Lars and Björk collecting their awards at Cannes. Everyone lives happily ever after, the end, etc. etc. Cinéma vérité this ain't.Forgive my cynicism, but if anyone connected with this documentary thought they were making a "serious" film, it doesn't show. This is basically an hour-long promotional piece for Lars von Trier and the film he happened to be working on at the time. We learn nothing about von Trier, nothing about "Dancer in the Dark," and nothing about the process of making a film, and as if that weren't bad enough, this isn't even a particularly entertaining film. A boring documentary about good ol' zany Lars? It's like they weren't even trying. Go with "Tranceformer" or "The Humiliated" instead, or better yet, just watch "Dancer in the Dark" again.