|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#41
10-24-2009, 01:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm not a huge fan of the film but I don't think Von Trier fakes anything - if any thing its the complete opposite and he believe his own art for arts sake more than 99.9% of directors.. And mentioning 'I didn't think the world was stupid enough to go for this film' - i think 'Transformers 2', 'The Hangover' and 'Fast and the Furious' all made alot more at the box office than Von Trier flick. PS - you are confusinging 'female castration' with 'female circumcision'....and you are confusing 'sh*t-box of a film' with 'a film i have made a knee jerk reacton to... 
|
|
#42
10-25-2009, 04:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hmm can't make up my mind whether I want to see this movie or not yet - although did like Von Trier's Dancer In The Dark which made an impression!
__________________
"I've seen enough horror movies to know that any weirdo wearing a mask is never friendly." 
|
|
#43
10-25-2009, 11:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Some directors in this world look to tell a story in a comprehensive manner with style and charisma and some directors (Von Trier) are like the attention deprived children who seek it by any means necessary; usually resorting to shock-value and cryptic delivery in order to fake depth. That pretty much sums up Von Trier's whole film career. PS: Good call on the "castration vs. circumcision". I stand corrected. Although, I think clitoris removal just falls under "genital mutilation"... either way, eek. Last edited by p1zl3; 10-25-2009 at 11:14 AM.
|
|
#44
10-25-2009, 02:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm not an expert on Von Trier - I've only seen The Idiots and Dogville from him (as well as The Antichrist) and I didn't think they used 'shock-value and cryptic delivery in order to fake depth' at all.. I can see why u say it about AC though - it i very heavy handed but I think you're being very hard on it - and this is a film I though was only ok (mostly fpr the reasons you stated too)
|
|
#45
10-26-2009, 11:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I didn't really find much in Antichrist to be overly steeped in shock value per se. Maybe after watching films like L'Interieur or Martyrs it takes a bit more than genitalia being destroyed to phase me. Maybe it's more that the people who are shocked and offended by this movie go into it expecting more of an art film?
Either way, I found the movie to be way over-hyped. It's less graphic than most any mainstream horror movie you'll find. The symbolism involved was interesting, but honestly I had to do some research online to get what Von Trier was going after. Was it a good movie? I guess, but I doubt I would recommend it to very many people at all. I found it to be too polar. It starts quite amazingly with some breath-taking cinematography and atmosphere. It moves into more and more surrealism, then abruptly changes gears into a wannabe Saw installment. I just didn't feel much flow, but then again maybe that's what Von Trier wanted. It's definitely an interesting film. I'm not so sure it goes as deep as people want to think it does though.
|
 |
|
|
