The director definitely wanted this certain look.

This movie looked like it was somebody's home movie and I am quite sure that is exactly the look the director was going for.

Even though i will agree that the Dogme approach did wonders in this particular film, i certainly despise many of its rules.The only rule that is understandable is the prohibition of the usage of non diegetic sound/music. No wonder Dogme is now abandoned by its creators itself.(And i think there isnt a single so-called Dogme film that purely conformed to these rules 100%..even Festen broke one of the rules)

I agree with the OP to an extent. There are very few Dogme 95 films I've enjoyed, and I can't watch more than 1 at a time before craving for something more "cinematic." However, I do think the style really helped this particular film. The look, the realism, the fast editing all served the plot in this exceptional case. Actually, for a Dogme 95 film, it was actually pretty fancy, I thought, with the camera angles and editing. If the picture quality were sharper it could've easily been an Orson Welles flick from the '40s (much of it reminded me of The Magnificent Ambersons in tone, pace, theme, and style).

This message has been deleted.

Its a manifest, like the sound manifest Russian filmmakers made when sound in films came around
Like you said, "it's a stylistic choice", you either do it or don't
Films aren't better or worse because of it, that would be a very superficial statement

The question can easily be answered is that like all genres of film, there are style choices involved. That is like saying why a film can't be horror if it is bright and sunny.
HI F-ING YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
2013 Rankings imdb.com/list/2-zx4cThbEY/

You are mistaken about the shooting format. The Idiots, Festen and Julien Donkey-Boy were all shot on MiniDV, which is digital. They were then transferred to 35mm for theatrical exhibition. The rule is not that it has to be shot on film (which these examples blatantly aren't) but that the aspect ratio has to Academy Standard (4:3).

Good post Philman.
The emperor has no clothes.
The Dogme thing is a joke.
Oh, and I heard that it was Ted Danson who donated the money anonymously.

The rules are only suggestions.
Lars von trier:
"But I still think that Dogme might persist in the sense that a director would be able to say, I feel like making that kind of film. I think that would be good. Im sure a lot of people could profit from that. At which point you might argue that they could just as easily profit from a different set of rules. Yes, of course. But then go ahead and formulate them. Ours are just a proposal."(in MacKenzie,2003, 56)
"Dogme is not about following the Brothers Rules: its simply about setting some rules and limitations, and these can be any. The idea is simply to gain creativity through self-imposition." (Kelly: 2000, 80).

the idea was to put emphasis on the story and the acting, and not gimmicks. i think its a good idea, though some of the rules are stupid, like no props. this doesn't make sense to me, because any object used by characters is tehcnically a prop and i don't understand this one. well, i'll list them, copied from WIKIPEDIA:
Filming must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in. If a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found.
-the prop thing doesn't make sense to me, but fine, no studios
The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. Music must not be used unless it occurs within the scene being filmed, i.e., diegetic.
-understandable
The camera must be a hand-held camera. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. The film must not take place where the camera is standing; filming must take place where the action takes place.
-why can't we put the camera down somewhere? it's a stylistic choice
The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable (if there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
-also seems like a stylistic thing. this is why most dogme movies look like beep
Optical work and filters are forbidden.
-fine
The film must not contain superficial action (murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
-and why exactly is this?
Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden (that is to say that the film takes place here and now).
Genre movies are not acceptable.
-again, why? and how can you say that? arguments can be made either way concering the genre of a particular film
The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
-oh now you are dictating the film stock? why can't we shoot digital? it's cheaper and easier, seems more in line with the rest of these rules
The director must not be credited.
-again, why? it seems like a convoluted ego thing. like that episode of curb when marty funkhouser donates a bunch of money anonymously but everyone knows its him
basically, Lars Von Trier is a pretentious cock and he wrote out these rules. i would like to see him tortured in a korean movie.

Why does it make a movie better to cast super models, use tons of CGI (even for blood)?
I think the dogme 95 wanted to create "real" movies.