Epidemic (1987)

33% of critics liked it
(6 reviews)
58% of users liked it
(3,343 ratings)

Director Lars von Trier stars in a double role in this experimental horror fantasy. He pretentiously portrays a director who spends a year and a half preparing to make a horror film with help from a government grant. In the second part, he plays a young physician who unknowingly has a plague virus… More Director Lars von Trier stars in a double role in this experimental horror fantasy. He pretentiously portrays a director who spends a year and a half preparing to make a horror film with help from a government grant. In the second part, he plays a young physician who unknowingly has a plague virus planted in his medical bag. Fantasy sequences depict the possible horror that could come if the virus is unleashed on the public. ~ Dan Pavlides, Rovi

Rating, Runtime: Unrated, 1 hr. 46 min.
Directed By: Lars von Trier
Written By: Lars von Trier, Niels Vørsel
Genres: Drama, Horror, Art House & International, Science Fiction & Fantasy

In Theaters: Jan 1, 1987 Wide
On DVD: Sep 21, 2004
Studio: Vitagraph Films

Critic Reviews

Robert K. Elder, Chicago Tribune
Will never be confused with von Trier's great films. But it is an intriguing introduction to his later cinematic obsessions.
J. Hoberman, Village Voice
Uneven as von Trier can be, Epidemic is among his better and most revealing movies.
Fernando F. Croce, CinePassion
As meta-doodles go, this one needs better gags
Jake Euker, Filmcritic.com
feels thrown together, as though von Trier is working at the mercy of available material, weaving it into a whole as he goes
Dennis Schwartz, Ozus' World Movie Reviews
It's an obsessed film that is too murky to be great cinema, but interesting enough to remain intriguing.
Maitland McDonagh, TV Guide's Movie Guide
In keeping with his generally perverse filmmaking aesthetic, von Trier systematically does everything he can to alienate horror enthusiasts.

Read all 6 critic reviews

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

Featured Audience Ratings

Anthony L

Epidemic represents the birth, or at least, the conception of the Dogme movement. Lars von Trier had proved he could do stylish and beautiful films on a modest budget, it was only when he took this film on as a bet (To prove he could make a film on a very small budget) did his truly… More
Epidemic represents the birth, or at least, the conception of the Dogme movement. Lars von Trier had proved he could do stylish and beautiful films on a modest budget, it was only when he took this film on as a bet (To prove he could make a film on a very small budget) did his truly experimental style surface. It works, it feels real, is original and it did indeed stick to its small budget. It also bought out the Von Trier as we know him, challenging to the last, almost to the point of pure exhaustion. 'A film should be like a pebble in a shoe' and this is one sharp pebble, the final screams are almost unbearable. It is brilliant but it is only a peek at the greatness to come.
Dimitris S

Apocalyptic manifesto,the last 20 minutes are what our subculture today should have been: decadent in a vicious square of thoughts.And here is the wizard's illumination,a plot where what's seen isn't less real than what's felt.
MJS M

Lars Von Trier?s second feature film, this film is extremely experimental and of little interest otherwise. Shot on cheap black and white film stock (parts of it make Clerks look like Black Hawk Down), the film features Von Trier playing himself writing a movie intercut with images… More
Lars Von Trier?s second feature film, this film is extremely experimental and of little interest otherwise. Shot on cheap black and white film stock (parts of it make Clerks look like Black Hawk Down), the film features Von Trier playing himself writing a movie intercut with images of the movie he?s writing. The plot about the writing very boring and the story that their writing is incoherently disjointed by the nature of the project. The film is filled with odd quirks like the decision to have the film?s title as a watermark in the upper left corner of the screen throughout the whole film for no conceivable reason. I checked it out to cross a Von Trier flick off my ?to see? list (been investigating the guy since his latest caused a stir at Cannes) but this thing is a big miss.