Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Cody One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

aklcraigc One detects the influence of many directors on the young Von Trier, many have already been mentioned (Tarkovsky, Hitchcock, Bergman, etc), but Tarkovsky looms the largest. The opening scene is a direct quote of 'Andrei Rublev', from there on in we are treated to ever increasing levels of Tarkovsky-esq rain, dripping faucets, people standing in water, until it becomes almost comical. The story is ostensibly your generic 'washed up cop pursuing a murder' mixed in with some hypnosis and color filters. The main character is apparently following a crime detection method outlined in a book (entitled 'Element of Crime', of course). This involves somehow 'becoming' the killer by recreating his steps, rather predictably, the line becomes blurred between cop and killer and then nothing seems to happen. The movie starts with good energy and atmosphere, but then fails to capitalize on the setup, scenes just seem to serve the purpose of allowing Lars to insert yet more Tarkovsky/noir references until it all starts to feel a little pointless. The movie then ambiguously grinds to a halt with no obvious conclusion (at least not one which was clear to me). One can't fault Von Trier's imagination, scenes often startle with their originality and composition, but it just starts to feel played out by the middle of the movie, the story is simply not strong enough to support the visuals. As a first movie, it's pretty damn good, but it just doesn't quite come off. Zentropa is a much better movie.

baishya-saumitra This film starts in a most unrealistic situation.Presence of hypnotist is quite comical. This could be otherwise plotted.Presence of a hypnotist dilutes the serious mood of the film. But as the film progresses,it generates interest in it.I thought ,this film would be based on some real field reports. But , as the film progresses, it becomes clear that contention of th film is not an academic study, but a total fiction. Making of the film & back ground music are quite imaginative. After all the film never distracts attention of viewers.However, not a bad movie to watch.

theskulI42 "Do you believe me? I'm in the middle of Europe screwing a Volkswagen 1200." A brilliantly esoteric pseudo-murder-mystery, The Element of Crime brings to mind the work of Paul Auster, stories like Ghosts and City of Glass. The fact that the entire film is communicated through the hypnosis-induced memories of a former detective leads to a breathtaking heightened reality that makes the film's dreamy visual sensibility irresistible. I don't know if it's thanks to Von Trier or Criterion (who deigned this movie one of the first entries into their Collection), but the print is GORGEOUS, and is damn near impossibly clean for a film made in 1984. Amadeus didn't look this good the day it came out.Like Auster's masterpieces, the film is technically about a murder, a detective named Fisher (Michael Elphick) returning to Europe from Cairo after a thirteen-year absence, come back to investigate a child killer named Harry Grey, as informed by his mentor Osborne (Esmond Knight), a mysterious prostitute named Kim (Me Me Lai) and antagonistic Chief of Police Kramer (Jerold Wells). He is telling all this from memory to a therapist (Ahmed El Shenawi), and the atmosphere is in kind.The film is completely shot in a burnt-umber tint, with occasional hints of blue coming through for minor things like police lights, and I can't be exact, but I would be willing to bet that the entire film is shot at nighttime, and at least 90% of it is during a severe rainstorm (Dark City, eat your heart out). It really is the doom-and-gloom special, and it's perfect for maintaining the mood the film is looking to put forth. Like Rose Hobart, it's the combination that makes all the difference. Alone, any of these elements (of crime?! No.) could have been comfortable, even soothing, but in tandem, they're haunting and unsettling, and kept me on the edge even at times when nothing of substance was occurring on screen.This is not to say that a lot of tangible things DO occur on screen. Anyone coming into The Element of Crime looking for a straightforward detective movie, where he follows the clues and solves the crime, is going to be sorely disappointed. This is why I'm glad I had read City of Glass previously. I realized straight away that this wasn't going to be ordinary or obvious. For Fisher, what originally begins as an investigation very quickly spirals down into a series of bizarre encounters and off-the-wall experiences, and he gets so deep into his desperate search and into his own psyche that he begins to lose his identity, and damn near his capacity for rational thought, and the results are spellbinding.Of course, considering the director, I should have realized substantially sooner than the start of the film that this wasn't going to be Agatha Christie ordinary. Ol' Lars doesn't do ordinary. Hell, even his most 'commercial' film (his office comedy The Boss of It All) is a long way from starring Will Smith, and his greatest films, like Dogville or Zentropa, are "off" just enough to be unique. I think this is the thing that attracts people who might not be aligned with Von Trier's world view, his cinematic approach, might find themselves lost in an area that they aren't comfortable with. For all you crazy kids who think you might be, give Von Trier's debut film a whirl. Be warned, though: It just might whirl you back.{Grade: 8.5/10 (B+) / #11 (of 26) of 1984}

deliogul I have to say that when we consider the setting, it is one of the best films I've ever seen. The black side of the Europe with all those shades of red and orange is very impressive. On the other hand, thanks to the classic Von Trier understanding, it is longer than it could be and it is boring than normal films. He would do the same thing while filming the "Dogville", which contains a great idea and innovative scenes but still being a long and boring movie.Also, I must recommend you to see other two movies of the trilogy. They are all successful in filming. Of course, if you have enough patience to handle the boring minutes in them. I can say that Von Trier was "this" close to create a masterpiece in his early period but in a sense wasted it in order to create a personal cinematic style.