Recently, I've become aware that certain films are able to transcend the medium by being completely self-assured in their atmospheres…
When nature turns evil, true terror awaits.
A grieving couple retreats to their cabin 'Eden' in the woods, hoping to repair their broken hearts and troubled marriage. But nature takes its course and things go from bad to worse.
So.....I guess von Trier took the whole 'torture porn' thing too literally.
I can take the pretentiousness and can forgive the self-indulgent ramblings and thickly laid on self-importance.
I can even stand the yucky bits.
What I can't stand is the shallow, cold and completely unengaging treatment of its potentially intriguing subject matter.
“Nature is Satan's church.”
-She (Charlotte Gainsbourg)
Over on the Internet Movie Database, someone once described Lars Von Trier as, and I quote, ‘an arty wanker’.
Now, although that is perhaps the most unsophisticated and rudimentary way of expressing it, they did have a point. It isn’t hard to see why Trier could be considered pretentious, especially with his most controversial outing yet, Antichrist.
To say it is unforgettable is a gross understatement. Rather, for better or worse, it sears itself into your subconscious, tapping its way into your most deep seated fears. It is a film that will astonish and infuriate in equal measure, a film that cannot be simply watched, but felt. The exact emotions felt will differ…
The perfect film to see with your girlfriend's right-wing, conservative parents.
Those were probably the most common sounds/phrases coming out of my mouth while watching Antichrist. After a brilliant and hypnotizing opening, Lars von Trier takes your hand and guides you through a misty realm of wo- "HOLY FUCK WHAT IS THIS SHIT."
I must say. Antichrist is unlike anything I've ever seen. Its like Evil Dead as written and directed by Terrence Malick. Its cold and calculated and is light on the shocks until they sneak up and strike. Antrichrist is labeled as a horror film but its hardly conventional horror fare. Instead its a quiet film that resembles an awkward neurosurgical operation rather than a horror film you're used to seeing.…
Part of A Film A Day
I feel as if
I feel violated.
My eyes need bleach.
are the appropriate expressions to describe my immediate reactions to Antichrist.
Lars Von Trier's provocative 2009 film Antichrist could be deemed a cinematic Frankenstein (and the Director a kind of Tarantino for the art-house crowd) with it's blatant nods to the Director's influences in Tarkovsky, Dreyer and Bergman as well as the post film credits which call out a department of researchers on; misogyny, mythology and evil, anxiety, horror films, music, theology and therapy. But in looking for the beauty in the beast amongst this witches brew of ideas, themes and symbolism, as well as some of the most gruesome self-mutilation imaginable, surfaces an existential horror masterpiece that has absorbed my thoughts and entirely this week.
After my first viewing a few years ago I felt physically ill and…
Crazy, confusing, shocking and disturbing.
Ugh. This film can go to hell.
The absolute worst kind of "artistic expression". I would equate this film to a child throwing an unreasonably violent temper tantrum.
I both love and hate this movie. My entire body is stuck in a permanent twinge. If Lars von Trier wanted to unnerve his audience, in the case of this viewer job well fucking done, Sir!
All I can say now is that the film is breathtakingly beautiful. The score is haunting. The performances from Gainseberg and Dafoe are fearless and worthy of more praise. I really want to give this movie back some of what it gave me, but I cannot, and so I'm forced to sit here and stew in what I can only describe as "male guilt."
Now I'm going to go tell my wife I'm sorry for being a man.
Anthony Dod Mantle is working at God-tier here. Part one of Lars Von Trier's self-titled "Depression Trilogy", which deals with the "loss of another". Might be the only time I've felt that Von Trier's preoccupations with provoking his audience blended rather seamlessly with his more interesting and thoughtful tendencies, creating a difficult but immensely watchable horror film that is more surrealist and strange than just about any other horror film of the last 20 years, and all the better for it.
This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.
Another entry into my rewatching great films tangent I've been on for some reason. I still don't understand a lot of this film, but quite honestly I don't want to. The ambiguity is what makes this dark calamity work.
Befuddling, frightening, and compelling! Touches of magical realism, surreal imagery, and disturbing psychological exploration.
I don't know how to rate this. I feel violated and intensely disturbed which in Von Trier's book must be a success.
This is not a bad film by any stretch and potentially a very powerful cinematic experience, just an experience that is gruelling and frighteningly lacking in empathy for the viewer.
Ebert called this one of the most despairing films he'd ever seen. The movie had always interested me but it took me until just recently to watch it. The initial shock of what I saw had to wear off a bit before I could allow the films deeper meaning to set in. It works on a level that most films don't. It speaks to a part of you that even you aren't aware exists and there it allows you to know and feel things you will find difficulty in expressing. This is admittedly the first Von Trier film I've seen. It won't be the last.
- Only God Forgives
- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
- Spring Breakers
- A Field in England
- A Page of Madness
- Un Chien Andalou
- L'âge d'or
- Meshes of the Afternoon
A big collection of films that might be considered as strange, mindfucking, surreal and weird. Sorted by year. Suggestions are…
- Grand Illusion
- Seven Samurai
- The Lady Vanishes
- The 400 Blows
The entire Criterion collection organized by spine number.
I don't know why I did this.
Number I've Seen: 158/738