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.
You can say alot of things about lars von trier both good and bad but you can never say he didn't serve up enough provocative portions of psychological gobbledygook to keep us chewing on our cud for days on end!
The opening scene in black and white is unbearably beautiful! If you look at it too long your retina's will surely fry for they have never been ravaged by such exquisite imagery!
The slo mo acts of unbridled amour accompanied by the intensely haunting aria Lascia ch'io pianga have been seared into your memory, the branding iron still stinks of burnt flesh! The other shoe falls an innocent young life is taken! You hear the sizzle as the iron finds…
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…
This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.
Do not be mistaken. This is a film by the aberrant and outlandish Lars von Trier, who after a lengthy bout of depression made a film in 2009, which is an 'uneasy-intimate' experience with subtle, slow motion shots of snow fall, an explicit shower sex-scene and babies accidentally falling out of open windows. The camera follows the entire 23 second fall of the toddler until the tiny thing (I am still trying to convince myself that it was only a film prop; it certainly was, but not the fiendishly beautiful direction) makes contact with asphalt.
The metamorphoses of the film into a full blown violent, psychological horror drama is film-making at its best and most vile. Not everything is in…
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.…
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…
The most messed up film ive ever seen...
I havent seen a Serbian Film...Yet..(Not planning on it)
Visually beautiful through the incredible cinemotography
Moving Art... This is the only Lars Von Trier film I like by the way.
Gainsbourg is just amazing.
P.S EWWWWWW at some of the stuff in the latter stage
jesus wept for our sins, and this movie is one of them.
the first scene of this is basically porno, like slow-mo b&w balls slapping pussy in the shower porno. all the while a baby falls out the window, for some reason. just turn it off after that. if not you already know what you're getting into.
Weak vision of what Anatomy of Hell could have looked like if Tarkovsky had filmed it.
Trier has all but disavowed it already (" in the midst of a deep depression . . unable to control"). Lots of his now frequent painted backdrops with fade ins, slightly shaky handheld on intimate conversations, and psuedo-chapter titles.
Dafoe and Gainsbourg give a lot for the camera, but then they always do. It's the tepid film they are in that makes one focus on how much awkward work they are being asked to do. Not as bad as Melancholia, but close.
"Exposure. That's the only thing that really works. Everything else is just talk."
I wanted to love this film so badly. Even the first time I watched it I wished I could've appreciated it more than I did, and the craving to return to it and to give it another chance lingered for such a painfully long time.
The cinematography is beautiful, the sound design is amazing, the symbolism all throughout is deeply interesting and I can honestly say that Antichrist's opening and closing shots are some of the greatest to any film I've ever seen. But I just can't enjoy any of it with how sloppy and disjointed the actual execution and production of the film is.
Distractingly silly moments, terrible editing choices and unconvincing CG without any presence, Trier constantly talking…
This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.
Throughout this film there are many moments that I like (usually something like thirty seconds of a scene or three consecutive great shots) but I realised while watching this that I just really dislike handheld cinematography (with a few exceptions) but it is used well here. I really can't fathom what Lars von Trier is trying to say or if he is trying to say something. I was also very surprised by the dedication to Andrei Tarkosky as I wouldn't have predicted his films being an influence on LVT from what I've seen. I feel like I need to see this again, and my rating is mostly a guess (I can't really pin down anything about this film for some reason, but it's very intriguing).
There's a really cool premise here, and let no one say it's forgettable. I think in order for this to actually work for me, the people might have to actually resemble...you know, people, rather than half thought out flesh vehicles for the philosophical ramblings of one disturbed Dane. Somebody get that man a therapist.
I will say the shot of Willem Dafoe getting his balls smushed with a log is one of my favorite shots ever. I wish I could have that on a loop forever and ever.
The dedication to Andrei Tarkovsky really rubbed me the wrong way and that might be part of why I'm so harsh on this. Dammit, Lars, you're not allowed to invoke fucking Tarkovsky. Screw you.
A big collection of films that might be considered as strange, mindfucking, surreal and weird. Sorted by year. Suggestions are…
Many favorites, as well as a small handful of films that I don't care for... in no particular order (1960-2014).