Antichrist

beans

Anyone got any thoughts on Lars Von Trier's 'Antichrist'?

Seems I've been waiting forever for a decent new horror movie to arrive, so I got excited when I heard the chatter about a new scary movie that caused the audience at Cannes to faint and vomit and run from the theater.

I really enjoyed this. May have to watch it again to answer a few questions about exactly what was being said, but it's such a nice looking thing that this won't be a chore. Like a good horror should, it leaves lots to the imagination and asks tough questions.

One or two scenes struck me at the time as pure non-sense. I guess I expected this. As I've been forced into replaying these scenes over and over in my mind, and thinking about them in relation to the rest of the movie, I think I see what he was trying to say. I like this. It's stayed with me.

A clever, beautiful, unsettling horror movie - or total codswallop? Or a bit of both?

Otis Driftwood

Have heard mixed things about this so am not in any major rush.Von Triers is very hit and miss IMO.The Idiots was good fun though.

run_Forrest_run

since reading about this this film a few weeks ago I've been looking forward to seeing it and making my own mind up.
I'm hearing weird stuff about foxes and stuff (in addition to the old genital mutilation of course).

nix

This is ment to be a horror? Thought it was a psychological thriller tbh

Was brought to see it yesterday with no knowledge of the film, and yes its quite disturbing in some scenes. My head nearly turned away for the first time ever in a movie, some sick scenes..

Especially the clit scene.. yuck

The opening scene was shot beautifully, even though its a sad scene

beans

If people get away with calling 'The Shining' a horror, then I think you're justified in fitting this into the genre. It horrified me, that's for sure

I do know what you mean, it's as much a psychological drama as it is anything. Neatly classifiable it certainly ain't, but there are enough of the building blocks of the horror-movie in there for my money.

Neo#

beans wrote: »

If people get away with calling 'The Shining' a horror, then I think you're justified in fitting this into the genre. It horrified me, that's for sure

I do know what you mean, it's as much a psychological drama as it is anything. Neatly classifiable it certainly ain't, but there are enough of the building blocks of the horror-movie in there for my money.

How could The Shining not be classed as a horror? Maybe its a psychological horror. But a horror deffo. This one famous scene for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmn6FRgYwBQ

johnny_ultimate

Really looking forward to seeing this when I get a chance - yeah Von Trier can be a bit difficult at the best of times, but he rarely makes less than interesting films, and Dancer in The Dark, Breaking the Waves, The Idiots and Manderlay are all fantastic. Mixed reports have kind of left me wondering what to expect, but in fairness to the man he makes films that are rarely less than ambitious and unique, even if he isnt always successful.

MikeC101

Neo# wrote: »

How could The Shining not be classed as a horror? Maybe its a psychological horror. But a horror deffo. This one famous scene for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmn6FRgYwBQ

That has me baffled too - the Shining is blatantly a horror movie. Obviously there's more to it - it is a Kubrick film after all - and critics will happily discuss and apply metaphor and meaning to it, but that doesn't mean it's not a horror movie.

A case of "it's a serious movie, with a serious director, and I like it, so it couldn't possibly be one of those disgusting low brow horror movies." perhaps?

Motorbreath

Went to go see it on Friday night.

At first I wasn't too sure what to think of it (bar the cinematography was pleasing to the eye) but over time it's grown on me somewhat.

Not too sure what to make of all that raft symbolism. Have read a few interpretation though would certainly reward a second viewing for me to make up my mind.

grimm2005

I went into this knowing it'd probably be a bit weird and non-mainstream to say the least and had an open mind about it. After seeing it all i could think was 'WTF?'. Can't say i really enjoyed this at all. I've never seen so many people walk out of a film (and this was before

the last half hour where the most f!cked up/gruesome stuff happens)

tbh i was a bit bored for most of it, then a bit disgusted by the rest (which is quite hard to do with me) and didn't really find it entertaining at all, thats just me though

beans

Sorry to confuse things - I do class both The Shining and Antichrist as horror movies; the horror in each takes root in the psyche of the protagonist, so you could say they're psychological thrillers too. Broad spectrum, but you have to pin it down sometimes.

(Oh - I came to the book before the film, keep forgetting that Kubric played-down the real issue of Jack's addiction)

Back to Antichrist - I can see how the audience may have lost interest with the first half of the movie, but the payoff was worth it IMO. I don't even remember a raft, so I guess I'm certainly going to have to re-watch this one!

I also liked the whole

Man / Woman / Nature / Chaos / Control

themes

beans

grimm2005 wrote: »

I've never seen so many people walk out of a film

'Eyes Wide Shut' has the honour of most walk-outs in my experience, and most irate customers demanding their money back!

Eirebear

Just back from seeing this now.

Wow! I am struggling to put into words for some of the feelings i went through in this film, and the more i think about it the more jumbled up they get.

What i will say about it, is that it was a true work of art, it wasnt comfortable to watch by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a million times more complex than the "extreme" horror films it will sadly, though inevitably be compared with in the mass media. I was hypnotised by it at times.

Interestingly enough, i watched this in a packed screen (albeit one of the smaller cineworld screens)...i reckon about a quarter of them must have left. But the majority of those that did left BEFORE anything kicked off, my only guess is they had read the media fuelled controversy and expected Saw or Hostel.

Some beautiful, yet brutal imagery. Top notch cinematography.

Horror in its purest form IMO, dealing with the darkside of human nature and nature itself.

Great stuff.

Aidric

beans wrote: »

'Eyes Wide Shut' has the honour of most walk-outs in my experience, and most irate customers demanding their money back!

Don't know why. I quite enjoyed that movie myself.
As for Antichrist I'm looking forward to seeing it for myself this weekend.

Pop's Diner

beans wrote: »

'Eyes Wide Shut' has the honour of most walk-outs in my experience, and most irate customers demanding their money back!

Dogville for me. I went to a screening in Cineworld. About a dozen people turned up. Eight walked out within the first 30mins.

Eirebear

I had purposefully avoided the "outrage and controversy" that surrounded this so i could watch it for myself without being swayed in anyway.

Last night i stumbled upon this however.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200742/CHRISTOPHER-HART-What-DOES-film-banned-days.html

A "broad minded" film critic who calls for a films banning without actually watching the film in question....wonderful! :rolleyes:

Chocoholic84

I'm crossing my legs as I write this *shudder* I really don't think anything apart from the gruesome scenes are going to stick in people's heads.

A complete heap of codswallop. Most people stayed til the end, around 7 or 8 walked out I'd say.

The opening scene was beautifully done though.

run_Forrest_run

Eirebear wrote: »

I had purposefully avoided the "outrage and controversy" that surrounded this so i could watch it for myself without being swayed in anyway.

Last night i stumbled upon this however.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200742/CHRISTOPHER-HART-What-DOES-film-banned-days.html

A "broad minded" film critic who calls for a films banning without actually watching the film in question....wonderful! :rolleyes:

hmm, and all this will do is give the movie lots of free publicity.
anyway, looks like I will have to wait for DVD release, not one cinema in Cork showing it, what a load of boll*x!

Crapjob Sean

Apart from the opening five minutes I thought this played like a parody of a pretentious student art film.
The themes were laid on with a trowel - 'He', 'She', 'Eden' etc.
I think LVT is trying to have it both ways. Make a proper art film exploring serious themes, but also give him the back door of saying it was all tongue in cheek, so there's no actual merits to fail the film on.

Can't get that Handel aria out of my head from the opening.

Pop's Diner wrote: »

Dogville for me. I went to a screening in Cineworld. About a dozen people turned up. Eight walked out within the first 30mins.

I've never seen as many people walk out of a movie as Happiness.

Karl Hungus

Eirebear wrote: »

I had purposefully avoided the "outrage and controversy" that surrounded this so i could watch it for myself without being swayed in anyway.

Last night i stumbled upon this however.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200742/CHRISTOPHER-HART-What-DOES-film-banned-days.html

A "broad minded" film critic who calls for a films banning without actually watching the film in question....wonderful! :rolleyes:

Daily Mail. Enough said.

I read that article a few days ago, after it was linked on imdb. It would be hilarious if it wasn't for the sad fact that people actually think like that in this day and age.

This bit really takes the cake:

It doesn't shock or surprise me in the slightest that Europe now produces such pieces of sick, pretentious trash, fully confirming our jihadist enemies' view of us as a society in the last stages of corruption and decay.

It's a kind of double-barreled statement that just leaves me gobsmacked, making a thinly veiled prejudiced stab at Islam, while simultaneously affirming extremist hate.

There's also a lot of anti-EU rabble-rousing, "think of the children" moral claptrap the likes of which you'd hear during the Video Nasty escapade of 20 years ago, and a smack of racism about the article as well... Only the Daily Mail could publish something so utterly sensationalist and wrong.

faceman

Karl Hungus wrote: »

There's also a lot of anti-EU rabble-rousing, "think of the children" moral claptrap the likes of which you'd hear during the Video Nasty escapade of 20 years ago, and a smack of racism about the article as well... Only the Daily Mail could publish something so utterly sensationalist and wrong.

And it generates a massive amount of publicity for a film when the media go down that route.

Eirebear

faceman wrote: »

And it generates a massive amount of publicity for a film when the media go down that route.

Not a bad thing in my eyes.

As i said in an earlier post, the cineworld screen i watched it in was completely full. I reckon about 15-20 people left (i think the screen holds around 100).

If it wasnt for the supposed controversy around the film, i doubt it would have had 20 people in it to begin with.

Now i expect at least half of the people in there were expecting a straight forward blood and guts type movie, probably the reason why the majority of people who did leave, left before things got going in the final act.

How many stayed and, to their surprise, got something out of the film?
If it was even 1 or 2 then its a success in my book!

missingtime

I wouldn't take what that daily mail guy has to say too far:

I haven't seen it myself, nor shall I - and I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency.

Retard.

beans

Seems to be a bit like cinematic Marmite - everyone I've spoken to either loved it or hated it

Eirebear

beans wrote: »

Seems to be a bit like cinematic Marmite - everyone I've spoken to either loved it or hated it

I think that was always going to be the case to be fair.

I'm just glad that something a little bit different and bold has managed to reach a fairly large audience, especially considering were still in "blockbuster season"

radiospan

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

hmm, and all this will do is give the movie lots of free publicity.
anyway, looks like I will have to wait for DVD release, not one cinema in Cork showing it, what a load of boll*x!

It's in the Kino at the end of August. Good few posters around town for it now actually.

Dunno if I could stomach it

christeb

Saw it last night in the Light House.

Loved it. The opening scene is amazing, from there it's essentially a movie which you'll be questioning for a loooong time after you've left the cinema. Even this morning I feel very freaked out by it all.

A decent alternative to the Taking of Pelham 123

johnny_ultimate

Watched this last week, and was genuinely shocked by the level of violence. I'm not saying this is a bad thing mind - it is just rare these days that a film really seems to be a step beyond what you've seen before. But those two scenes are unpleasant to watch!

As for the film, not quite sure what to make of it. I think I get the general gist of what Von Trier was trying - there was definitely a comment on violence against women in cinema in there, although kind of hard to decide whether or not Von Trier is guilty of it himself (men don't get off easy either though!). Some of the images were haunting too, such as the weird slo-mo forest dreamscrapes. But it didn't really seem quite as powerful as say Breaking the Waves or Dancer in the Dark, and the psycho-babble was way too much on occasion. It definitely isn't a bad film, but nor is it a masterpiece. But overall it is a fascinating if meandering film, and I applause von Trier for being ambitious once again. Won't be looking at wooden logs the same way again though.

Corkfeen

Saw it tonite, was unexpectedly shocked. Not really sure what to think of it right now, its one of those movies you have think about after watching it.

Haven't felt like this at the end of a movie since old boy. Just read that their making a videogame of it, strange world.