Anti-Christ

Thornography

I just watched it,

Can someone tell me what the hell I just watched. I mean,, im speechless.
Got to be the WORST movie I wasted my time on.

DazMarz

Thornography wrote: »

I just watched it,

Can someone tell me what the hell I just watched. I mean,, im speechless.
Got to be the WORST movie I wasted my time on.

I take it you mean the fairly recent one with Willem Defoe in it?

Yeah, was an awful movie. I didn't like it at all. But I was completely freaked and disturbed by the violence in it, and never hope to see such again.

You basically watched a torture porn film, more or less. Awful...

Eirebear

I enjoyed it, from the wonderfully shot opening sequence right through to its rather creepy conclusion.

Given Von Trier's tendancy to come accross as a real hater of women the basic undertones were fairly obvious, although i felt they portrayed a fear of women rather than a hatred.

As for "torture porn" (seriously, can we put that term to bed? Its Daily Mail standard bull****) considering the fact that the woman was rapidly going out of her mind, and believing that she was evil and there was nothing she could do about it, surely the violence was contextual?
Its not like she was doing it for fun, which is what the "torture porn" tag you have given it would suggest.

johnny_ultimate

I had posted a reply here a few minutes ago but it seems to have disappeared!

But yes I also 'liked' it more than I hated it. Like all of Von Trier's films it is full of ideas (although I think it is an inferior film to the likes of The Idiots, Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark). As pointed out above fantastic, atmospheric opening. Plus the violence works on another level than typical horror films - like Funny Games, it is hyper violent as a reaction to society's take on violence. The whole point of the film is to look upon and examine gender roles and violence (in particular against women). And in the two infamous scenes at the end, these themes are taken rather literally (and I admit I was shocked by them, and I'm generally not very squeamish).

I prefer other Von Trier films, but the man makes fascinating films with well written (especially female) characters).

Could have done without the talking fox though!

Eirebear

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Could have done without the talking fox though!

lol, ive never seen a cinema empty so quickly than it did after that part!

It could have done without it, but in a way it works, especially in the context that made you compare it to Funny Games.
It gives the viewer an opportunity to stand back and remember that they are watching a film, in a way desentesising (sp?) them to whats about to come.

I used the word enjoyed in my earlier post, thats probably the wrong word to use, i felt entirely uncomfortable from start to finish. Although i have no doubt that was one of the main aims of the film.

I think my wife summed it up best when leaving the cinema she said, "I'm extremely glad i went to see it, but i dont ever want to see it again!"

johnny_ultimate

Eirebear wrote: »

lol, ive never seen a cinema empty so quickly than it did after that part!

It could have done without it, but in a way it works, especially in the context that made you compare it to Funny Games.
It gives the viewer an opportunity to stand back and remember that they are watching a film, in a way desentesising (sp?) them to whats about to come.

I used the word enjoyed in my earlier post, thats probably the wrong word to use, i felt entirely uncomfortable from start to finish. Although i have no doubt that was one of the main aims of the film.

I think my wife summed it up best when leaving the cinema she said, "I'm extremely glad i went to see it, but i dont ever want to see it again!"

Yeah I see where you are coming from, but the actual delivery of the 'Chaos Reigns' (I think?) line was so absurd and silly! I kind of get why its there (the animal violence is a recurrent motif throughout) but I think it is one of the cases in the film where the stylisation comes across as a bit rubbish rather than interesting.

But I must agree with your wife's analysis! It is one of the most characteristic and unique films I've seen this year, but it is such an onslaught of unpleasantness repeat viewings aren't particularly enticing. That said, there is so much going on, I may watch it again at some point just to try and sort through the complexities of the film. I may or may not skip the last half hour though :pac:

genericguy

i wouldn't have said this film was as shocking as some that i've seen, but what really got me was seeing this kind of stuff in the cinema.

It was an amazingly well shot film, and i could see why some critics loved it. i'm still not sure if the antichrist was willem dafoe or charlotte gainsbourgh though. it should be watched once, but as above i wouldn't be heading back for dessert.