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…
Definitely interesting, definitely horrifying, maybe good?
Von Trier's art-house horror film never fails to shock and scare but I'm still not sure whether he made a genuinely good film or if he just filmed one of his nonsense nightmares (which I'm sure he has).
The story of a couple (never named, only 'Him' and 'Her') and how they deal with their child dying. The answer to this is to go to their 'cabin in the woods', a staple of the horror genre, but this film takes it in an unexpected, and nasty direction. The emotions felt and portrayed of the parents did feel realistic and well calculated by von Trier but calculated is also not a great way to describe…
There were parts of this movie that I watched at varying degrees of "in the room."
Well... okay. Not a huge fan of this flick. Definitely not what I expected. And later it again was not what I expected. Just not for me I suppose.
This is not a review of 'Antichrist'.
I mean yeah I fucking love this movie, but there is a reason why I picked this movie to write about this. It is something very important to me, and I need help with it.
(Sigh) Well, it all started in January when I watched a movie. If you can't guess what movie it is yet, well it is kind of obvious. And I did something when I did watch this movie (Oh, and that movie is 'Antichrist') I made a Movie Review/In-Depth Analysis on my YouTube Channel. I worked on it for a good 2 to 3 days, I have never worked so hard on something in my entire life. I had…
My first Von Trier.
Women, am I right?
Lars von Trier zijn meest persoonlijke werk tot nu toe. En zijn donkerste ook. Na het lezen van een interview ongeveer een jaar geleden en wat opzoekwerk over zijn leven, werd als snel duidelijk dat deze man worstelt met zichzelf, mentaal. "Antichrist" geeft een kijk in zijn melancholische, donkere, depressieve gedachtengang. Heel de film ademt von Trier. Zowel de filosofie, als het excessieve symbolisme, als het camerawerk, als de houterige en zware conversaties, als de seksuele explosies, als de montage, als de muziek, als Charlotte Gainsbourg in de hoofdrol, ik kan zo uren blijven doorgaan. Ik ga mij focussen op enkele zaken maar.
Beginnend bij de cinematografie. Schitterende beelden, zowel de slow motion zwart/wit beelden als de shaky beelden met…
The problem that I’ve realized that I sort of have with LvT, and more specifically, his “in-your-face” attitude (vs. his fairly subtle films), is that he is a director that is obviously really aiming for affect, and that is the number 1 thing that I look for in films, but he’s still so wrapped up in traditional “art house” modes of cinema (I think it’s particularly revealing that he spear-headed the Dogme 95 movement, which I think was him ostensibly trying to break out of his own shell [and more or less failing]) (even in Antichrist he dedicates the film to Tarkovsky [which, of course, can be read in different ways, but ultimately, despite Tarkovsky's penchance for the emotive status…
The template here (for me) is Bergman's Hour Of The Wolf, minus the copulation and the mutilation of genitalia. I said this about Refn a couple of weeks ago: if he scaled back the violence 15-20%, I'd take him a lot more seriously. Same goes for von Trier, albeit with sexuality/masochism - his need for provocation seems borderline genetic. The reason his approach worked so well for me in Nymphomaniac, Vol. I was the mischievous playfulness behind it, even using flashbacks to riff on them (at least as I interpreted it) as a cheesy Hollywood narrative device (there's an inkling of mockery in Dafoe's therapeutic sessions here, as well). Clearly he and Refn don't give a bleep about what…
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).