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…
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…
Trier could have pushed the limits a little more I feel. Quit holding back!
Von Trier's Antichrist is full of intended symbolism which in the end, after a lengthy conflict between the two characters is resolved, begs the question, what exactly is Trier trying to say? Is Trier a misogynist and the whole thesis is about how women are responsible for the original sin? Or is it a broader study involving the themes of nature, evil, man and woman without necessarily pointing fingers? I don't know.
As far as technique goes, the exposition scene feels overdone with multiple unnecessary spectacles (slow-motion, black and white cinematography, opera music etc.), otherwise the the rest of the film is exquisitely filmed. Trier's signature handycam usage and quick cuts during dialogue scenes seem to implicate the viewer of voyeurism , but briefly enough to not be distracted from the events unfolding.
👌👀👌👀👌👀👌👀👌👀 good shit go౦ԁ sHit👌 thats ✔ some good👌👌shit right👌👌there👌👌👌 right✔there ✔✔if i do ƽaү so my self 💯 i say so 💯 thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: ʳᶦᵍʰᵗ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ) mMMMMᎷМ💯 👌👌 👌НO0ОଠOOOOOОଠଠOoooᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒ👌 👌👌 👌 💯 👌 👀 👀 👀 👌👌Good shit
Grotesque, terrifying, and strangely beautiful Antichrist at first seems like nonsensical gore-porn during a fever dream. But as the days wear on and the movie continues to seep in, the viewers realizes what it is; a mesmerizing piece of work about the nature of humans and the meaningless of it all.
"Antichrist" is the most disturbing film I've ever seen, not just of horror films, but any film ever. This is my fifth favorite film of all time. There has never been a film that left me in a nerve-lacerating, mortifying state of dianoia (the thought you have when you finish the film). Its quite the life-changing cinematic experience to say the least. Lars Von Trier is a genius, and one of my three favorite directors, along with Xavier Dolan and Michael Haneke. Willem Dafoe gives his best performance, and Charlotte Gainsbourg gives the second best female performance of all time, and perhaps the second best performance of all time, period. Her descent into insanity and madness is heartbreaking. The cinematography…
Deeply distrubing piece of art. "Antichrist"s aesthetic production contrasts the tragical and dystopian plot in an appealing way. Nevertheless the film is far away from being easy to digest. Highly causing discomfort "Antichrist" evolves an aura of hopelessness and darkness.
The film shows us the existence of pure evil, embodied in nature itself, better and more aesthetically pleasing than Pasolini's Salo. Von Trier always brings an interesting look to his films. The fantastic b&w-imagery along with his trademark (unorthodox) camerawork is interesting to watch. But sadly, the film drags itself out, goes round and round, with no interesting middle and characters that explain the already obvious symbolics. A potential great short, but a dull feature.
This movie is disturbing.
Even if it is not a horror movie it can freak you out in some scenes.
If I could give this movie negative stars I would
Utterly disturbing. Endlessly thought provoking. It enters your eyes and wraps its coils around your soul. The mood remains unsettling. The imagery is shockingly graphic. It is not meant to eat popcorn to. It is not meant to be enjoyed. Like all art, it is meant to be felt.
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).