• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

film: antichrist

Rate this movie

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/1star.gif[/img]

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/2stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/3stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/4stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/5stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • Total voters
    9
L2R

L2R

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Apr 19, 2001
Messages
43,528
d & w: lars von trier

s: willem defoe, charlotte gainsbourg

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870984/

lars-von-trier-antichrist-poster-313x375.jpg



wow

now this film really lives up to its name. the type of work that really sticks to you. heavy stuff. incredibly graphic in many ways. i didn't understand much of it, but i did understand how it made me feel. now this is real horror.

i am stunned
 
I only got to see the first scene so far, and holy wow. I can only imagine where it goes from there. I'm a bit afraid to keep watching to be honest.
 
^bit of a ruiner (not so much a spoiler) there.

yeah the first scene really sets the tone just right. i would strongly warn caution for both men and women, but particularly to women. there's one shot in this that i can't get out of my mind.

you will know it when you see it, and then you might regret you ever did.
 
Well, it was decent. As much as I like Willam Dafoe, this movie would have benefited from someone else playing his role. He didn't do a bad job considering he is basically saying "My name is Willam Dafoe" silently throughout the whole movie to the point where it almost seems like he is screaming. It's nice to see someone make a big-budget drama where there aren't any character cliches for once. It was also nice to see the impressionist artwork that was painted over many scenes, often unnoticeable before repeat viewings. The violence really didn't do much for me. Other people seemed pretty freaked out by it, but the film makers didn't build the characters enough to make the shock sequences much more than cardboard dinosaurs that jump out at the rollercoaster in a theme park.

The movie has a false opacity, and it almost gets away with it. But despite the adult themes and almost-getting-away-with-it opacity, it is very obvious that this film is targeted toward a young audience. The film has a serious problem: almost anyone can understand every theme. This means that the violence, Willam Dafoe, and even the false opacity are all marketing ploys that take up almost 100% of the film.
 
It was garbage. Very disappointing. Laughable/comedic.

Catherine Breillat, Romance is far superior than that piece of drivel:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0194314/

Glad someone could open a thread so I could vent my waste of time. It looked pretty, but how did Dafoe/Gainsbourg accept to be in such a pile?

Oh, why not use the Red Camera, just because...

Anyways, go see it to make your own opinion.
 
from my one viewing i was spooked for most of the runtime. did it have that effect on just me?
 
Just finished watching it. Absolutely mind blowing. Definitely the most graphic thing I've ever seen. Incredibly disturbing horror, like nothing else. I have no idea how this film got past the censors.

The movie has a false opacity, and it almost gets away with it. But despite the adult themes and almost-getting-away-with-it opacity, it is very obvious that this film is targeted toward a young audience. The film has a serious problem: almost anyone can understand every theme. This means that the violence, Willam Dafoe, and even the false opacity are all marketing ploys that take up almost 100% of the film.
Click to expand...

That sounds very clever but I don't think it reflects Von Trier's attitude towards his art at all. And I'm not sure that the film being universally accessible is such a bad thing, necessarily.

I think you're taking way too much of an academic approach to this film.

If you're open to feeling something and open to being connected to this film, rather than analyzing, I don't understand how numerous scenes didn't freak you out or move you in some way at least a little bit.

The violence really didn't do much for me. Other people seemed pretty freaked out by it, but the film makers didn't build the characters enough to make the shock sequences much more than cardboard dinosaurs that jump out at the rollercoaster in a theme park.
Click to expand...

If you really had no reaction to seeing that, then I don't know... that's pretty fucking weird. I mean I assume that it would freak you out in real life, which means that you're kind of blaze and disconnected from the film version of the event.. if you know what I mean... and then what's the point of watching movies if you're not going to let them engage you?

Why does every film need to follow the rules of narrative and flesh out characters enough so that we care about them each individually?

Horror is renowned for having under-developed characters.

That image (I'm pretty sure you know which one I mean) should shock you regardless of character development. But that doesn't mean it's just shock value cause personally I thought it fit into the context of the film perfectly.

4.5/5
 
I took one of my biannual doses of DXM powder for this film. After watching a few of Von Trier’s other films I suspected the director’s take on horror would really exercise what the dissociative seems to amplify for me (esp. my appreciation of darkly beautiful things). Despite having an audience-adopted tagline I might expect to see scrawled on a 14 year old goth boy’s notebook cover, I was not let down.

i didn't understand much of it, but i did understand how it made me feel. now this is real horror.
Click to expand...

I agree. Its horror is metaphysical, which suggests it is shared by all. Regarding its meaning: some fragmented and desultory hints (at least I think they’re hints) if you’re interested:

NSFW:
Fallen savior. Star of Bethlehem. Three wise men that don't bear gifts. Evil cosmography. Blood is ejaculated from a lifeless body rather than procreative semen. Despair is dragged into pain’s borrow and buried alive. Adam (Dafoe) is pulled out of the hole/Eve’s shovel-mutilated womb feet first, a reversal of normal birth. Cycles of suffering: eating entrails (Ouroboros), and the miller’s stone. Dead phallic tree of death has women imprisoned in its roots (later freed after destruction of genitals and murder).
 
Last edited:
I thought it was pretty bad, although visually it looked great.

What annoys me most about it is that it's loved by all the critics who screamed against the 'torture porn' flicks of the past 10 years.
 
^It's divisive, that's for sure. I love John Waters' take on it, which I snagged from the film's wiki page:

Waters said:
If Ingmar Bergman had committed suicide, gone to hell, and come back to earth to direct an exploitation/art film for drive-ins, [Antichrist] is the movie he would have made."
Click to expand...

The two big criticisms I've heard leveled at it since seeing it are that it's torture porn or that its mythical structure is too visible. However, its not so subtle statements might be designed that way so people can appreciate the film as torture porn with a purpose (more as provocative art). I assume this is why it gets a pass by some critics, though the critical reaction is about as divided as the audience reaction, I think. Alas, if only they had seen it high on the drug in cough syrup this latter group could've enjoyed it as much as me.
 
Rate this movie.
I'd love to see this one...but I think I may just expect too much after reading this thread and not be as satisfied or as spooked as I would've been if I watched it with no expectations :\
 
^Fear not, this is one of the few films on the face of the planet that no matter how much hype you encounter, it shouldn't reduce the impact. Many people recommended to to me as the most shocking and incredible thing they've ever seen on film. I expected it not to live up to that... It did.
 
^That was really funny in an uncomfortable way. Then again, The Onion never has shied away from brutal satire. For example, getting an actual anorexic woman to act as an author advocating a "no food diet" based on consuming inanimate objects during her starvation delirium. They're pretty twisted even when they aren't lampooning Von Trier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top