Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: grrr!

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: grrr! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: grrr! - 27/7/2009 6:09:25 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: fletch666

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neth

Saw this last night. Despite being a big Von Trier fan, I tried to approach it as subjectively as possible. And I'm still not quite sure what to make of it all. Suffice, there's a ton of striking imagery - the slowed-down shots of Gainsbourg (and later Dafoe) crossing the forest are eerily beautiful - and the performances are strong. The script's not so hot, with some clunking on-the-nose dialogue and an over-reliance on psycho-babble.

I counted eight walk-outs from a cinema around 1/3 full - and I'm betting those were more down to the laborious pace than anything else. It's sad to see this being marketed to dipshit Saw fans expecting a plethora of over-the-top yucks - that's not really the case. The emotional violence on display far outweighs any of the brief dalliances into "torture porn", and makes the movie far more disturbing as a result. People anticipating another Martyrs should rethink their expectations.





Just got back from seeing this and can agree with your view on this, really unsure of what to make of this.† It is a beautifully shot and well acted film, both leads give it there all.† But if there is a message here I'm really not sure what it is.

My comment comparing it to Matryrs was in the way this film had been marketed as extreme cinema, but should have realised that this being Lars Von Trier, nothing would be straightforward or even close in comparison.

There were also multiple walkouts in the screening I saw, including 3 during the prologue, which is the most straightforward of the chapters presented.



I felt the same I guess, but after four days have decided that I liked it. I've just written 1500 word review of it, which is here -

http://hopelies.com/2009/07/27/antichrist-2009/

Interestingly we had no walkouts. I cant understand how anyone would go to Antichrist without actually knowing what to expect though, given the press its garnered thus far.

< Message edited by adambatman82 -- 27/7/2009 6:10:56 PM >

(in reply to fletch666)
Post #: 31
RE: RE: - 27/7/2009 6:47:34 PM   
kenada_woo


Posts: 1668
Joined: 30/9/2005
Now then....its not exactly Hannah Montana 3D now is it?  SPOILERS

It really is an odd film to generally critique or review IMO.  I think Chris Hewitt's mild review at Cannes said its a film he couldnt recommend or enjoy it...but its good, very good, if you catch the drift.

I agree with what others have said.  Its beautifully made and shot with some lasting imagary.  The violence in is eye popping (or more eye watering) just for its sheer balls and tendency not to shy away, never glorifying it.

I personally feel that people maybe trying to over analyse the film being that its Von Trier.  I found myself doing it through the theropy mid-section as Defoe is trying to help her.  I sat their finding it rather interesting, wondering if it would delve deeper into that aspect...but then she begins to spout random horror gush like "the floors burning" and "Nature is Satan's Church" you begin to think - "hold on she's being very silly and you hope Defoe gives her a slap"  But as Defoe begins to lose his mental state, and you find out that she is in fact a crazy bitch in the first place and you being to really get into the fact that its a "horror film".

Is it scary?  Has moments.  Is it gory?  Its very harsh but not spraying the walls with blood gory.  So what's so good about it then?  To me, tension and not knowing where the fuck the film is going.  90% of horror nowdays is (while entertaining and some better and effective than others) pretty much be guaranteed to second guess.  There's no chance of that with AntiChrist.  From the opening titles right to the end there's a sense of dread and forboding.  You're expecting and pay off, a release, but there never is one.  Even the end (which I dont really understand and was midly humourous) had me pinned back thinking...somethings gonna happen here.  

For that reason i think its why it's hard to recommend as an enjoyable experience, and why some people are in arms with it.  There's 2 main moments that will have people whinging, and yes, they are graphic...but I think its the overall tone and pure nastiness of what you think LVT is setting up (moody woodland, strong sound FX, weird forest animals) that the "graphic" scenes come across more extreme.  I could compare the same crtique to Irreversible - minus 2 "shocking" moments, the overall film is made on a technical view point to unnerve with camera angles, pace, sound.  AntiChrist is the same - its unnerving but beautiful at the same time so you HAVE to watch and wait for the release which doesnt really come so you end up repelled by its graphicness (or you could say openess).  Its also very slow burning.  Not slow as in "slit your wrists that nothing is happening" slow but as in it takes its time, it lingers, it makes images last.  

Another thing I was shocked by was LTV's use of CG and FX.  WOW.  A good horror has to be beliveable no matter how bullshit it is.  So when a Fox turns its head around after eating itself and beings to speak, you're taken aback telling yourself "how did he do that?"  How did he get those arms in the those trees?  How did he get that dead dear to fall out of the adult dear?  Those images are very realistic and added into an already intense film.  It was rather eye opening.    

Bad points?  Gainsbourg gave a gutsy performance but her line delivery was shocking, she reminded me of the little girl out of 28 Days Later the way she spouted her semi-drugged up dialogue.  It also doesnt really have a "point".  Now, I dont mind that, in fact I like that.  But I think the expectation is that people will see it wanting a "message".  The message people at Cannes got was that the film is about all women are crazy satanic devil worshippers only wanting to destroy the male junk box - especially with the ending.  So getting over that isnt hard, and will improve a repeat reviewing IMO because to me I'm loving the fact that it all could be in Defoe's head (ooooooh get me) and they're both nuts.  I found Martyrs far more intellectually engaging that AnitiChrist - but AntiChrist is a different beast althogether.  If we were in the 80's it would be banned as a Beauty-Nasty than a Video-Nasty heheh.

What did I take from the film?  Well....when the satanic woman idea started getting thrown about and shit started to hit the fan, I threw everything out of the window about this being an "intellectual" exercise in horror.  Its not.  To me its LVonT trying to make his european 70's exploitation flim.  What happens in the film while graphic and screams "I didnt really need to see that, did I?" arent entirely removed from alot of the "nunsplotation" films of the 70's such as The Devils etc - Satanic plots, crazy woman that just masterbate and fuck, and filled with burning, mutilation etc etc.  Its an audio/visiual experience that has alot of strong and real themes (psychology, loss of a child, grief, love, marriage) that ground it reality before turning them nasty in a original visual style.  But it never dwells on those themes or elaborates on them trying to tie things up in a tidy plot - they're there to lay the reality and add to the atmosphere or what LVT has created.  

If I'm pointing out the Total Film's pastiche angle, I dont really agree.  Too much effort and time has been put into the film to be rubbished off as a piss take. Its a gorgeous looking film - dark and menacing.  But I dont think its OTT, everything that happens is grounded in reality (yes, the talking Fox is real IMO haha).  I just think its not shy.  You get that from the Calvin Klien-esque arty opening Epilogue when you know you're not in Kansas anymore as you see a super-slomo penis sliding into a lady's tuppence and a toddler hitting the deck from a high window - all beautifully shot I may add.

Overall, wouldnt recommend it, didnt really enjoy it, thought Gainsbourg wasnt great when she opened her mouth.  But it did leave me rattled, its was unnerving, and it was techincally beautifully made.  A true original?  I'd say so.  

****/*****

NB - also my 2nd LVT film next to The Idiots and a few The Kingdom episodes so I was viewing it as a horror rather than a Lar Von Trier horror. 

< Message edited by kenada_woo -- 27/7/2009 7:41:06 PM >


_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

Hatcher. Marked For Death


(in reply to steveg66)
Post #: 32
RE: RE: - 27/7/2009 7:23:26 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo


NB - also my 2nd LVT film next to The Idiots and a few The Kingdom episodes so I was viewing it as a horror rather than a Lar Von Trier horror.†


I was going to bring this up. I wondered how it played to those less familiar with his work, as Im a big fan of his eighties work and think this slots in nicely alongside Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.

(in reply to kenada_woo)
Post #: 33
RE: RE: - 27/7/2009 7:29:04 PM   
FritzlFan


Posts: 4793
Joined: 19/11/2008
From: Bristol
Before I watch Antichrist (I probably wouldn't be allowed entry to the screen anyway) I'll try and see atleast two of his films - I haven't seen any yet. Breaking the Waves will be the first one I'll watch - it's on YouTube, but with the sex scenes taken out  - it's just a shame that it doesn't have a great DVD release.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miles Messervy 007

Child labour is necessary in the short term




(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 34
RE: RE: - 27/7/2009 7:36:37 PM   
kenada_woo


Posts: 1668
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo


NB - also my 2nd LVT film next to The Idiots and a few The Kingdom episodes so I was viewing it as a horror rather than a Lar Von Trier horror. 


I was going to bring this up. I wondered how it played to those less familiar with his work, as Im a big fan of his eighties work and think this slots in nicely alongside Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.


Like I mentioned, it reminded me of a 70's European horror film, not afriad, taboo-breaking, but obviously updated and highly stylized.  In fact alot of new modern European horror is like that, but LVT got away with more sexuality in AntiChrist (Gasper Noe seems to do that alot too).

It reminded me of style of Kingdom in its surrealness.  But I know LVT is more famous for his Dogma films so I was surprised with how his used and handled the FX and CG in the film - you hardly know he used it.


_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

Hatcher. Marked For Death


(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 35
RE: grrr! - 27/7/2009 8:50:49 PM   
impqueen


Posts: 7474
Joined: 24/7/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: fletch666

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neth

Saw this last night. Despite being a big Von Trier fan, I tried to approach it as subjectively as possible. And I'm still not quite sure what to make of it all. Suffice, there's a ton of striking imagery - the slowed-down shots of Gainsbourg (and later Dafoe) crossing the forest are eerily beautiful - and the performances are strong. The script's not so hot, with some clunking on-the-nose dialogue and an over-reliance on psycho-babble.

I counted eight walk-outs from a cinema around 1/3 full - and I'm betting those were more down to the laborious pace than anything else. It's sad to see this being marketed to dipshit Saw fans expecting a plethora of over-the-top yucks - that's not really the case. The emotional violence on display far outweighs any of the brief dalliances into "torture porn", and makes the movie far more disturbing as a result. People anticipating another Martyrs should rethink their expectations.





Just got back from seeing this and can agree with your view on this, really unsure of what to make of this.  It is a beautifully shot and well acted film, both leads give it there all.  But if there is a message here I'm really not sure what it is.

My comment comparing it to Matryrs was in the way this film had been marketed as extreme cinema, but should have realised that this being Lars Von Trier, nothing would be straightforward or even close in comparison.

There were also multiple walkouts in the screening I saw, including 3 during the prologue, which is the most straightforward of the chapters presented.



I felt the same I guess, but after four days have decided that I liked it. I've just written 1500 word review of it, which is here -

http://hopelies.com/2009/07/27/antichrist-2009/

Interestingly we had no walkouts. I cant understand how anyone would go to Antichrist without actually knowing what to expect though, given the press its garnered thus far.



During the screening I saw, four teenaged boys walked out after the prologueÖI think they just read the name of the film and knew nothing else.

_____________________________

Yes, always.


(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 36
RE: RE: - 27/7/2009 10:45:25 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

Before I watch Antichrist (I probably wouldn't be allowed entry to the screen anyway) I'll try and see atleast two of his films - I haven't seen any yet. Breaking the Waves will be the first one I'll watch - it's on YouTube, but with the sex scenes taken out† - it's just a shame that it doesn't have a great DVD release.


Yeah, its a pretty rough experience too. You should check out The Element of Crime too, his first film from 1984(?), as its genuinely great. His earlier films are much more visually arresting than the Dogme years, and Antichrist is closer to that style.

(in reply to FritzlFan)
Post #: 37
RE: RE: - 27/7/2009 10:49:39 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo


NB - also my 2nd LVT film next to The Idiots and a few The Kingdom episodes so I was viewing it as a horror rather than a Lar Von Trier horror.†


I was going to bring this up. I wondered how it played to those less familiar with his work, as Im a big fan of his eighties work and think this slots in nicely alongside Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.


Like I mentioned, it reminded me of a 70's European horror film, not afriad, taboo-breaking, but obviously updated and highly stylized.† In fact alot of new modern European horror is like that, but LVT got away with more sexuality in AntiChrist (Gasper Noe seems to do that alot too).

It reminded me of style of Kingdom in its surrealness.† But I know LVT is more famous for his Dogma films so I was surprised with how his used and handled the FX and CG in the film - you hardly know he used it.



His earlier work was much more stylised than the Dogme-era, and featured some genuinely revolutionary uses of certain visual techniques, with his use of back projection being a thing of greatness, so Antichrist tends to slot in better along that earlier work. It is quite funny that someone so notorious for being incredibly lax in terms of visuals (of late) has made such a beautiful film in Antichrist though. It was shot by the fella that did Slumdog Millionaire and won best cinematography oscar this year.

Did anyone else find it odd to realise that this film is set in America? It didnt strike me at first, even upon seeing the Seattle address on the envelope, but apparently it was.

(in reply to kenada_woo)
Post #: 38
RE: grrr! - 27/7/2009 11:06:02 PM   
Lex Romero


Posts: 412
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: southampton
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
I cant understand how anyone would go to Antichrist without actually knowing what to expect though, given the press its garnered thus far.


You'd think, but the posters that are up for it, just the black page with the "contains real sex, scenes of violence and genital mutilation" bit on it, do indeed seem to be leading to a lot of people thinking it's some kind of (I hate this expression) torture porn film.  I mean, it doesn't help that Odeon's own website recommends it with this:

quote:

If you liked ĎThe Omení and ĎThe Unborní, youíll love ĎAntichristí.





_____________________________

My Film list for 2009:

http://www.empireonline.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2164869&mpage=39

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 39
RE: grrr! - 27/7/2009 11:50:57 PM   
Neth


Posts: 4750
Joined: 3/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lex Romero

I mean, it doesn't help that Odeon's own website recommends it with this:

quote:

If you liked 'The Omen' and 'The Unborn', you'll love 'Antichrist'.








Not sure what the greater untruth is here - the comparison between those movies and Von Trier's film; or the insinuation that somebody, somewhere liked The Unborn.


_____________________________

"You taste like a burger. I don't like you anymore."


(in reply to Lex Romero)
Post #: 40
RE: grrr! - 28/7/2009 4:12:48 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3251
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
Thankfully my local arthouse cinema in Sheffield (you know the one adam! ) has got Antichrist for a second week (along with Moon ) so I'll be seeing Antichrist this Sunday all being well.

Big von Triers fan; Breaking the Waves is one of my fave films ever and although it's gonna be an unpopular opinion...

Mark Kermode is a complete wanker! Did anyone one see him being challenged by an audience member on The Culture Show a week or so back - you talk about Chris Tookey being a snob, believe me this bloke beats him hands down. He really is an arrogant, chauvanistic twat who has somehow built himself a film critic career off the back of championing a decent horror film called The Exorcist. Astonishing!

< Message edited by losthighway -- 28/7/2009 4:15:38 PM >


_____________________________

The secret to becoming a star is knowing how to behave like one.

(in reply to Neth)
Post #: 41
Anti Christ's crime is that it's boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - 29/7/2009 1:59:44 PM   
theoutsider

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 29/7/2009
Review_Anti Christ

Anti Christ the "shocking" and "Provocative" new film by Lars Von Trier
has generated mountains of reviews which is clearly what it set out to do.
Some critics have called it beautiful,poignant,meditative,a masterpiece while
others have denounced it as wicked, cynical and exploitative.
Both these views give it too much credit.Anti Christ is dull.Don't be fooled
by the intellectual clap trap talked about this film.It's really just a very
bad horror movie,with little action,and a weak,contrived plot.Yes there are
some beautiful shots of Dafoe and Gainsborough backpacking through
the forest but Any movie with just two speaking characters(And a ridiculous talking fox )
needs to have scintillating dialogue,not just some pretentious twaddle about
the evils of nature.Unfortunately the characters are dreary and no amount
of meaningful bonking can change that.
Willem Dafoe's He is a know it all bore.Gainsborough's She at least
has quite a sweet London Estuary accent and runns around in the nude a lot.
The horror at the end seems contrived and lacking in suspense.Gainsborough's
infamous clit snipping scene(the onlyreason I stayed awake that long) is
breif and unpleasant rather than terrifying.
If you want to be shocked and entertained go and see Bruno




Review_Anti Christ

Anti Christ the "shocking" and "Provocative" new film by Lars Von Trier
has generated mountains of reviews which is clearly what it set out to do.
Some critics have called it beautiful,poignant,meditative,a masterpiece while
others have denounced it as wicked, cynical and exploitative.
Both these views give it too much credit.Anti Christ is dull.Don't be fooled
by the intellectual clap trap talked about this film.It's really just a very
bad horror movie,with little action,and a weak,contrived plot.Yes there are
some beautiful shots of Dafoe and Gainsborough backpacking through
the forest but Any mov

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 42
RE: RE: - 30/7/2009 2:49:00 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2426
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo

What did I take from the film?  Well....when the satanic woman idea started getting thrown about and shit started to hit the fan, I threw everything out of the window about this being an "intellectual" exercise in horror.  Its not.  To me its LVonT trying to make his european 70's exploitation flim.  What happens in the film while graphic and screams "I didnt really need to see that, did I?" arent entirely removed from alot of the "nunsplotation" films of the 70's such as The Devils etc - Satanic plots, crazy woman that just masterbate and fuck, and filled with burning, mutilation etc etc.  Its an audio/visiual experience that has alot of strong and real themes (psychology, loss of a child, grief, love, marriage) that ground it reality before turning them nasty in a original visual style.  But it never dwells on those themes or elaborates on them trying to tie things up in a tidy plot - they're there to lay the reality and add to the atmosphere or what LVT has created.  




Off topic, but I have to take slight issue with the idea that The Devils is any kind of exploitation film.   I put it in my top ten in Adamís Sight & Sound inspired poll and would only say that itís a deceptively earnest film about seeking the latitude to approach God without dogmatic strictures. The pageantry of loony tunes around Oliver Reed is only a plot-point driven in co-incidence by the bat-shit Vanessa Redgrave character and her still-birthed libido.    But at its core itís practically Arthur Miller and the source literature pre-dates even him .  Itís palette is vibrant, itís subject baroque and its execution makes for a vivid piece of cinema, - I think it Ďtis fantastic and itís a great shame its not available on DVD.  When theyíre handing out tickets for posterity I think The Devils should definitely get one plumped into its paw.

My local arthouse isnít showing Antichrist until the middle of August but Iím inspired by this thread to go see it. Prejudice be damned!

(in reply to kenada_woo)
Post #: 43
Antichrist on a bike! - 31/7/2009 3:58:02 PM   
timmcollins

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 8/3/2009
More a despair film than a horror film, it has a few interesting shots and techniques that will probably be ripped off by more commercial horror films. Not much of an attempt at narrative, and the dialogue spelled out the themes of the film too explicitly. But it had a cock spunking blood, and that's more than you can say for Transformers 2.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 44
RE: RE: - 1/8/2009 4:17:40 PM   
kenada_woo


Posts: 1668
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo

What did I take from the film?  Well....when the satanic woman idea started getting thrown about and shit started to hit the fan, I threw everything out of the window about this being an "intellectual" exercise in horror.  Its not.  To me its LVonT trying to make his european 70's exploitation flim.  What happens in the film while graphic and screams "I didnt really need to see that, did I?" arent entirely removed from alot of the "nunsplotation" films of the 70's such as The Devils etc - Satanic plots, crazy woman that just masterbate and fuck, and filled with burning, mutilation etc etc.  Its an audio/visiual experience that has alot of strong and real themes (psychology, loss of a child, grief, love, marriage) that ground it reality before turning them nasty in a original visual style.  But it never dwells on those themes or elaborates on them trying to tie things up in a tidy plot - they're there to lay the reality and add to the atmosphere or what LVT has created.  




Off topic, but I have to take slight issue with the idea that The Devils is any kind of exploitation film.   I put it in my top ten in Adam's Sight & Sound inspired poll and would only say that it's a deceptively earnest film about seeking the latitude to approach God without dogmatic strictures. The pageantry of loony tunes around Oliver Reed is only a plot-point driven in co-incidence by the bat-shit Vanessa Redgrave character and her still-birthed libido.    But at its core it's practically Arthur Miller and the source literature pre-dates even him .  It's palette is vibrant, it's subject baroque and its execution makes for a vivid piece of cinema, - I think it 'tis fantastic and it's a great shame its not available on DVD.  When they're handing out tickets for posterity I think The Devils should definitely get one plumped into its paw.

My local arthouse isn't showing Antichrist until the middle of August but I'm inspired by this thread to go see it. Prejudice be damned!



To call that film an exploitation film isnt a slant on the film mate, its just a label.  There were a mass of films around the 70's similar to The Devils in that nunsploitation bracket.  The Devils was probably set apart from the others but it still holds similar conventions  -

Nabbed this from wiki -

These films typically involve Christian nuns living in convents during the Middle Ages. The main conflict of the story is usually of a religious or sexual nature, such as religious oppression or sexual suppression due to living in celibacy. The inquisition is another common theme. These films, although often seen as pure exploitation films, often contain criticism against religion in general and the Catholic church in particular
.

Not a bash on The Devils at all mate.  I was just linking Antichrist to it. 

_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

Hatcher. Marked For Death


(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 45
Finally seen it! - 2/8/2009 11:35:44 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3251
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
I didn't hate it but I didn't think it was wonderful either. I should say Lars von Trier is one of my favourite directors along with David Lynch and so a film where he attempts to mimic Lynch at every turn/sound effect should have me moist in the aisles but sadly von Trier's attempt to 'do a Lynch' was admirable but wanting.

For starters, the Epilogue looked stunning and was a fantastic start to the film. There was some nervous laughter from a guy with his (male and female) friends at the cock in vagina shot but really once you've seen it once in a von Trier movie (The Idiots), well you've seen it! The format of breaking the film into chapters with title cards had me reminiscing about Breaking the Waves immediately (one of my fave films ever) and a few of the conversations were almost homages to Bess and Jan imo. However, as we got into Chapter 2 and the woods appeared and more Lynchian imagery, it just started feeling really pretentious - and then the Despair arrived...

Well to say this film has been hyped in the extreme would be an understatement, I seriously did not find anything particularly shocking about the supposed 'troublesome' scenes in this film. Yes, I winced at Defoe's crushed balls, the blood cum shot made me think 'eew' but i'm afraid the clit cutting scene was almost laughable. The woman had gone so mad by that time that the shot was not shocking in the slightest because it was almost expected and set within a very firm context... if it had come out of nowhere earlier in the film during a fit of anger then that would have worked, as it is - and as with much of the gore in the film - it looked redder than red and fake. I honestly found the 'broken bottle in crotch' shot in Fulci's The New York Ripper more shocking.

There really is a very simple narrative in this film swamped under a lot of pretentious, Lynchian imagery, witchcraft and talking, i.e. the mother felt (Mother) nature had punished her by taking her child and therefore, she internalised her anger and ended up dead.

Overall: 3/5 (i'd probably wait for DVD - and don't believe the hype!)

< Message edited by losthighway -- 2/8/2009 11:38:32 PM >


_____________________________

The secret to becoming a star is knowing how to behave like one.

(in reply to kenada_woo)
Post #: 46
RE: Finally seen it! - 8/8/2009 8:47:49 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4027
Joined: 19/10/2005
Like most of Lars Von Trier's films,this is a hard film to like,and reveals the director's deep misogyny far more than anything else he's done. However,it's also imposssible to ignore,and makes for a highly original,if not exactly enjoyable,experience. After a really quite beautiful,slow motion black and white opening [despite a hardcore insert],hardly anything happens in the first half,but an amazing sense of unease is created by clever use of sound and the odd jarring visual,and you feel the story could go a number of different ways. After that,it becomes a very intense,though [very] blackly comic,battle between the two main leads [both of whom are superb]. There are two horrid bits of genital mutilation,though in general the film is not as gory and violent as you may have heard-anyone expecting a Saw/Hostel exercise in 'torture porn' will be sorely disappointed,and the frequent sex is grubby and very unerotic. The ending asks more questions than it answers,especially as the film is essentially a very simple horror tale done in an arty way,but it's to Von Trier's credit that much of the background detail is only fleetingly sketched,leaving the audience to work alot of things out. Overall,a must see for fans of strange and/or extreme cinema,but hard to like,and it does leave a sour taster in the mouth.

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 47
RE: Finally seen it! - 9/8/2009 10:17:29 AM   
HIM


Posts: 9734
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Star Trekkin', across the universe
I'm pretty sure the fox saying 'Chaos reigns' signals the start of Chapter 2: Pain (Chaos reigns), not the final chapter, The Three Beggars.

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 48
- 9/8/2009 2:48:31 PM   
cece

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 25/11/2006
one of the most beautiful and yet the most horrifying movies i've seen. Its not for everyone but its great filmmaking at its best... surely!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 49
Lars Von Trier succeeds at dividing audience opinion... - 10/8/2009 1:24:07 PM   
WhiteRabbit23

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 10/8/2009
Despite all controversy, Lars Von Trier’s ‘Antichrist’ is a rare, thoughtful and innovative film. Despite touching on certain themes that some cinema-goers may find offensive, despite depicting, at times, what some would consider to be deeply alarming scenes of violence, overall the cinematography and storyline of Von Trier’s piece can do nothing but impress and intrigue. Whether it be by means of the rare episodic narrative of the film or the enigma coding cleverly used by Von Trier to keep his audience engaged, ‘Antichrist’ really has set a new standard for films of its genre. Putting aside the theological undertones of the film, Von Trier has created, what I believe to be, one of the most effective psychological horror films in many years. From the opening scene onwards, you are plunged into the dark, forever trying to make sense of what’s going on, and just when you believe you are beginning to understand, Von Trier continues to prove you wrong again and again, often presenting the least expected outcome. Could it be that now horror-movie fans are going to be calling for more films like it, as opposed to the excess of predictable, two dimensional, horror films that appear to try to make up for, in levels of gore and violence, what they lack in terms of plot and ultimately in terms of interest? ‘Antichrist,’ I admit, is not a film for everyone, Von Trier himself was fully aware from the beginning that a film of this nature would cause polarisation within an audience. I suppose, with this in mind, he has succeeded in sparking a very mixed array of reactions to the film. My advice would be, give it a chance, go and see for yourself. Don’t be expecting a film that lives up to the typical horror-genre conventions, or sticks to the typical plot ideas, because there is nothing predictable about this film and you will be deeply disappointed. I hope that you will agree with me in finding ‘Antichrist to be one of the best, most original and interesting films of its sort in years.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 50
RE: Finally seen it! - 13/8/2009 2:50:50 PM   
mattitude

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 22/1/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: HIM

I'm pretty sure the fox saying 'Chaos reigns' signals the start of Chapter 2: Pain (Chaos reigns), not the final chapter, The Three Beggars.


Actually no... the fox is the END of Chapter 2...hence why the chapter's title has Chaos Reigns in it.


I thoroughly enjoyed this film, but it bugs me how everyone seems to focus on the violence and gore. It's not the main focal point of the film, its just one of many integral parts.
The constant feeling of dread throughout the film is scarily effective....I work in a cinema, and whenever I had a spare moment I would pop in to see some of it again, and every time I went into the screen, the feeling of dread hit me instantly. (The fact that I got into the screen during the slo-mo forest walk probably had something to do with it).

I haven't seen much of Lars von Trier's previous work, and this was a pretty stark introduction to his work. But it has inspired me to go back and watch some previous films, especially Dancer In The Dark. Anyone know how some of his previous work compares to Antichrist?


ps. Does anybody know why the fox has a wee bell on it?

(in reply to HIM)
Post #: 51
RE: Finally seen it! - 13/8/2009 7:11:25 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: mattitude


quote:

ORIGINAL: HIM

I'm pretty sure the fox saying 'Chaos reigns' signals the start of Chapter 2: Pain (Chaos reigns), not the final chapter, The Three Beggars.


Actually no... the fox is the END of Chapter 2...hence why the chapter's title has Chaos Reigns in it.


I thoroughly enjoyed this film, but it bugs me how everyone seems to focus on the violence and gore. It's not the main focal point of the film, its just one of many integral parts.
The constant feeling of dread throughout the film is scarily effective....I work in a cinema, and whenever I had a spare moment I would pop in to see some of it again, and every time I went into the screen, the feeling of dread hit me instantly. (The fact that I got into the screen during the slo-mo forest walk probably had something to do with it).

I haven't seen much of Lars von Trier's previous work, and this was a pretty stark introduction to his work. But it has inspired me to go back and watch some previous films, especially Dancer In The Dark. Anyone know how some of his previous work compares to Antichrist?


ps. Does anybody know why the fox has a wee bell on it?


I think, though I haven't seen it, tv series The Kingdom.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to mattitude)
Post #: 52
Big up the talking fox! - 17/8/2009 1:26:55 AM   
filmsunlimited

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 20/2/2009
Cinematically this is brilliant. Appropriate scores, feeling of dread and a distinct overarching sense of artiness. A film which involves the psychotherapist husband make use of a cognitive triad, near the end you realise where this is heading. Gory, yes, although what sticks in the head more is the random talking fox in the middle, which delivers a sudden bit of humour to a film which otherwise creates a mood darker than a wet November afternoon in Aberdeen. Definitely a Marmite film, the less cultured may walk out early shaking their head (seen in my local cinema) but art aficinados will lap this up bigtime. Although not polarised either end, the points have to go to the art aficinados here.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 53
RE: Big up the talking fox! - 17/8/2009 11:10:56 AM   
CharlesBronson


Posts: 26
Joined: 30/7/2009
Great, just what I was expecting, I would be suprised if the movie was not going to polarize. Same with me, though I havent seen it yet, I am expecting to either love or hate it. Hopefully love it, of course ;)

_____________________________

...Britains most violent prisoner!

(in reply to filmsunlimited)
Post #: 54
- 18/8/2009 12:10:06 AM   
omarx

 

Posts: 151
Joined: 7/10/2005
From: Somewhere that's neither here nor there
A very disturbing film, yet savagely beautiful. It explores all aspects from grief, arrogance, madness, utter horror, and revenge. Ofcourse it will always be devisive, but isn't it better to debate than just leave the cinema wondering why we ordered sweet popcorn instead of salty??

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 55
RE: Antichrist - 19/8/2009 9:44:16 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2426
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
I'm just back from seeing Antichrist and I thought it was super.

The posts I initiated earlier in this thread were drunken and deliberately facetious, playing off some notion I had earned of Von Trier some years previous after watching and deriding Dogville.  But I'm sure I hadn't the maturity to appreciate it then. And so I went to see Antichrist fresh from being blown away by Breaking The Waves at the weekend and found this no less adept...when it wanted to be. 

I went in more afraid of its pretensions than I was about its potential to disturb.  Midway through the Gynocide chapter that neurosis (and it had become a neurosis at that point) was reversed.  Coming out from underneath the beautiful epilogue I felt somewhat cleansed and a bit chilled out.  And its great that a film can put you through that wringer and then perversely refresh you when its time to leave.  I'm really glad to say I didn't feel Antichrist to be the least bit pretentious.  After an incredibly cosmetic prologue (mercifully cosmetic, I don't think I'd want to see events like those depicted in any other way - and that's a very smart judicial choice on Von Trier's behalf considering what is to come) the second chapter was a highly impressive, bang-to-rights cerebral drama.  The whole movie is incredibly well written and acted.  Even aside from instances of the heightened aesthetic Von Trier handles the subject matter of trauma and therapy masterfully.  In this month's Sight and Sound editor Nick James' in a throwaway line muses on Tarantino and Von Trier's perpetual adolescence.  I think he's dealt them both a perfunctory disservice there but you could probably watch this film and claim that Von Trier brings it on himself.  You could say he inflates his drama into monstrous nut-jobbery for no other reason than to alleviate his own boredom, but after watching (admittedly only two films proper) I'd still venture that he seems more interested in the escalation of events, and a nasty side-effect of that becomes...well...nastiness. 

But there's a great attention to minutiae here. In the way he builds his chapters and its very engaging for the viewer who can't help but sense trip wires all over the shop.  I loved that invasive and insistent bang of the acorns on tin that permeated the soundtrack (as an example).  Its (possibly spurious) nods to a Shining/Blair Witch lore behind the proceedings give it a cross-genre appeal - a dialectic on feminism and on human nature give it a greater depth of vision.  I don't really care that it never settles down to define itself as a genre.  For many other film makers I would find this self-ignorance, this indecisiveness unforgivable.  But here Von Trier definitely commands my attention in whatever part of the Venn diagram he's currently filming out of.   In these credit crunch times audiences should embrace this artistic quadrophrenia, that a film can straddle so many possible attitudes and pass muster on all its experimental variances.

The scenes we can mark as disturbing and are really just that.  And I won't lie, I felt deeply uncomfortable at times, and really felt that the director might have gone a bit Kurtz. I momentarily felt sorry for the actors who were seemingly caught in this mad man's thrall.  However, its only a movie, this has artistic merit and the most depressing thing about Antichrist is not Antichrist itself but the fact that some needle-dick film-maker - most likely not from the art-house scene - but the gorno genre, will feel he has to surpass this level of graphic vivisection.   

A shocking, beautiful, and eerily ambient post-card from the id.

4/5        



< Message edited by demoncleaner -- 19/8/2009 9:48:09 PM >

(in reply to omarx)
Post #: 56
Antichrist - 18/9/2009 9:32:41 AM   
Soprano168

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 17/9/2009
Lars Von Trier has to be one of my favourite directors with such films as Dancer In The Dark and Breaking The Waves and Antichist proves this again and in my opinion is his best film to date. The film brilliantly charts these two characters slow yet horrific descent into hell. Antichrist is slow burning, beautiful and troubling film that really needs to be seen to be believed.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 57
It's no date movie that's for sure! - 22/9/2009 1:25:02 PM   
Rich Empire

 

Posts: 901
Joined: 6/12/2005
From: London
I saw Antichrist yesterday, before seeing it I deliberately avoided any reviews or descriptions of it. I had heard about some controversy but wanted to keep a balanced view and a clear head.
It is in my opinion a beautifully shot film, the cinematography is great. The acting is first rate and holds together the intense story. Though some of the edits were slightly uneven in some scenes I just went with it. I can't believe how fast a lot of journalists have been to say "Ban this film"?
It is shocking and certainly not for anyone under 18 true, but let's all just calm down here shall we?
It is a truly mature adult film that explores the feelings of loss and depression going into the dark corners of the mind where very few directors have the courage to tread.
When the film ended i was shocked and relieved, but I also felt that I had not wasted my time watching it at all.
I haven't been so keen to discuss a film after seeing it for a very long time, for me this is also the sign of a good artistic film. It doesn't give you all the answers and leaves the audience to determine a conclusion and meaning in what they have witnessed.
Thinking man's cinema, in my opinion.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 58
- 2/10/2009 4:32:33 PM   
Smootle

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 18/9/2009
This a definately a film to watch at the cinema with a girl on your first date. She'll thank you for ever for imprinting the image of a woman mutilating her vagina on her mind.

As a fan of classic horror movies such as the shining and dont look now I really enjoyed the movie. I checked my boxers afterwards and found a total of ten, TEN! Lumps of excrement. It's chilling atmosphere will really linger in your mind. Some reviewers called it mysogenistic, which is more of a statement concerning their own interpretations more than anything else. That's the good thing about the film. It doesn't lead you down the garden patch like most do. It's more old school.

Not the kind of movie I think I'd watch twice as it's quite a harrowing ride, but I'm glad I experienced it. Lars von trier for the win!!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 59
No, No just NO! - 24/10/2009 2:54:46 PM   
sephiroth7

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 14/10/2009
There are several movies I'll not forgive Empire for recommending. Twilight and Termiantor 4 immediately spring to mind. However, though I hated this movie, I will say that some of the scenes were so beautifully shot that only an idiot would fail to recognize them. However and this is why I'm writing the review, can you imagine what would happen if two scenes (you know the ones) in thismovie were in Saw or Friday the 13th? Don't get me wrong, part of the reason I hated the movie was because of these scenes which seemed to be put in there to try and take our minds off the gut wrenchingly bleak opening sequence. However, once again the artsy fartsy brigade get away with content so disgusting that I fail to find words to describe. Tom Savini should feel pissed off about now. :) Movie: 2/5

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: grrr! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News††|††Empire Blog††|††Movie Reviews††|††Future Films††|††Features††|††Video Interviews††|††Image Gallery††|††Competitions††|††Forum††|††Magazine††|††Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.328