I've been thinking about watching Salo actually, is it any good? Part of me wants to watch it, but after reading that it has scenes were people actually eat excrement i'm not so sure (obviously it's not REAL excrement, but it's just the thought of it. The sick eating scene in Audition made me queasy as it is!). Does it actually have a story to it or is it just humiliation and torture for the sake of it?
Well it's a metaphor for fascism and like the previous poster said it does have a point. But the problem at least for me was that what you see is so violent and disgusting at parts, that it makes it impossible to concentrate in the true meaning of the dialogue or what it's meant to portray. It is difficult to explain, most violence we see in normal movies is "glossy", they can show you someone drilling someone's eye, bur for someone it's used to those sort of movies there is a kind of mental understanding that bottom line everything is fake, in Salo the violence is gritty, prolonged and uncomfortable, besides the fact that the excrement eating was probably the sickest scene I've seen in a movie.
Well my husband walk out of the room in disgust and he couldn't understand how i stomached to see the rest of it.
I liked it, and also agree its not worse than Salo.
Though I did enjoy Salo (as much as you can enjoy it). The fecal scenes did make me pause the film, go for a cigarette and grab a gin and come back and try and finish it. Was an interesting film. Like the final scene watching it from a distance, found that a really interesting way to show it.
I have Salo on blu ray but havent gone through all the special features yet. Both the italian version and english version of the film which is cool but its not something i watch often. Lovely packaging though and nice thick book full of information so well worth it if your thinking of buying it.
You need a fairly strong stomach to watch Salo. It really takes cinema viewing to the limit. Am I right in thinking that the movie begins with horses shagging? That's pretty graphic (as far as horse porn goes :-)
I liked it, and also agree its not worse than Salo.
Though I did enjoy Salo (as much as you can enjoy it). The fecal scenes did make me pause the film, go for a cigarette and grab a gin and come back and try and finish it. Was an interesting film. Like the final scene watching it from a distance, found that a really interesting way to show it.
I stopped the video at the circle of shit point, ejected it and gingerly removed it from the player as if it was a turd and flung it. bit of a wimp when it comes to coprophagia.
I have Salo on blu ray but havent gone through all the special features yet. Both the italian version and english version of the film which is cool but its not something i watch often. Lovely packaging though and nice thick book full of information so well worth it if your thinking of buying it.
I got it from LoveFilm but I may have to get the dvd just to have a look at the booklet and the special features, can't say i'd watch the film all that often but would be good to add to the collection.
Steer clear of Salo. It's quite the pile of poop, no pun intended! I actually found the 'circle of blood' chapter far more disturbing than the (admittedly horrible) crap chomping.
I saw Antichrist at the cinema and wrote my mumbled, jumbled thoughts on another film website. I'm female and I loved it. I'll copy/paste some of what I wrote here...
***spoilers within***
My thoughts on this film are a little confused right now. That’s not to say that I didn’t absolutely love it. I thought the cinematography was breathtaking and the narrative was anything but mundane and plodding (as has been suggested by some of the reviews I have since read). Charlotte Gainsbourgs performance is truly awe-inspiring…although I expected nothing less from the dynamic, talented female at the centre of a Von Trier vehicle. It’s audacious, haunting, pretentious, confrontational, humourous, cathartic and utterly bizarre at times. And yet in spite of it all I thought it was just brilliant from the very first shot to the last.
The opening scenes are unflinchingly explicit and exquisitely shot. But the beauty of each frame serves only to masquerade a sense of dread which culminates in an event so tragic and yet so poetically photographed that it’s difficult to know how to feel about it.
I loved the scenes that followed…Her journey into Grief. These scenes were challenging and believable and deeply disconcerting. I found the sporadic score made up of primal rumblings and twisted animal song incredibly powerful and absolutely pivotal to the films tone.
The journey into Eden was quite possibly my favourite part of the film. The shots of Gainsbourg crossing the bridge with her floral dress and the light emanating from her skin were just beautiful. And when she disappeared into the grass I was utterly entranced.
Antichrist seems to draws from many areas including science and the supernatural, theology and psychology…and then it promptly rips up the rulebook and creates a entirely new mythology of its own. I have so many thoughts and theories rambling around in my head right now that I’m finding it difficult to articulate myself. So bear with me if you will…
When we first discover that ‘She’ has been putting Nic’s shoes on the wrong feet I think this is an indication that she might actually be - or at least strive to be - evil in the purest sense. She obviously lost some part of her mind when she first visited Eden to complete her thesis…or her rational thought process was at least corrupted by some part of her research into the topic.
It’s hard to believe that this act was accidental. The Polaroid’s show that she repeatedly forced Nic's feet into the wrong shoes and a (fictional?) flashback from Dafoe’s POV shows the little boy crying as She does so.
At first I thought that He was going to write “MEN” at the top of the fear pyramid and I thought she might have been crippling her son as a form of punishment or maybe even to prevent him from walking around in the night (something only She was aware of). It’s possible she contributed to Nic’s death in the sense that she hindered his movement or balance and this somehow resulted in him losing his footing at the window ledge. It’s a reach, but not totally out of the realms of possibility. I also couldn’t help but think of how Satanism and suggestions of satanic possession often relate to opposites…backwards speech, the reversal of supposed 'norms'. It was almost as if she was going AGAINST nature and what is essentially ‘right’ by corrupting what is an everyday task (putting on shoes correctly) and altering her Sons physicality.
My own take on the writhing bodies beneath the great tree roots is that they are the souls of the victims of ‘Gynocide’ that She has studied in texts and paintings. Gainsbourg and Dafoe’s lovemaking amongst the tree roots and the naked torsos within seems almost sacrificial to me…an offering of sorts. I think the people inside the earth are the same blurry-faced women dressed in white that we see rushing towards Him at the end of the film. I am inclined to believe that he is somehow more connected with these people - and indeed Nature as a force - as he forages and eats the berries from the dirt.
The millstone that She attaches to Dafoe’s leg is symbolic. Millstones have been used as a torture device for thousands of years now…and are notably prevalent in Biblical and Medieval torture tales. No doubt many of the victims of ‘Gynocide’ will have been burdened with a millstone around their neck and tortured until death. I think it’s also worth noting that she is burned upon a pyre…not unlike the alleged Witches of early modern Europe.
Whilst the clitoridectomy scene is uncomfortable viewing, it isn’t exploitative or gratuitous in the slightest. I believe that Gainsbourg’s self-mutilation relates to the fact that her Son died whilst she was in the throes of climactic ecstasy. Every orgasm she will ever experience will be a reminder of her tragic loss, and she believes that her sexual desire is the root cause of Nic’s death. Of course this is where the outraged cries of misogyny stem from.
I’m not entirely sure what “The Three Beggars” are meant to represent aside from what is made clear to us within the script.
The deer, the fox and the crow all have very distinct roles within the film. The deer at first appears beautiful and majestic, and then suddenly we are presented with a gruesome representation of the loss of a child. I think the talking fox is there as an indication that She is now truly in the grip of madness, “Chaos Reigns” in both the character and what is yet to unfold within the film (hey a talking fox! all bets are now off...) The crow is interesting because it seems to suggest that man and nature are at odds and you cannot **** with nature, because nature will kick your arse. On a side note I thought that Dafoe punching a crow was the most darkly comedic part of the film…it was just so fundamentally ****ed up and weird. I also found one of the closing shots of “The Three Beggars” all stood together, slightly transparent a bit of a wry wink in the audience’s direction.
Anyway, I thought Antichrist was a totally flawed masterpiece and I haven’t thought about a film this intensely since Inland Empire.
I got it from LoveFilm but I may have to get the dvd just to have a look at the booklet and the special features, can't say i'd watch the film all that often but would be good to add to the collection.
Well if you got the blu ray from Lovefilm surely they would have sent you the booklet with it?
Ooooooooo very nice review Badcoverversion! I didn't love it as much as you did but I'm female and thought it was rather good too. As usual the media hype what appears in the film up a millions times than it actually is...
Steer clear of Salo. It's quite the pile of poop, no pun intended! I actually found the 'circle of blood' chapter far more disturbing than the (admittedly horrible) crap chomping.
I saw Antichrist at the cinema and wrote my mumbled, jumbled thoughts on another film website. I'm female and I loved it. I'll copy/paste some of what I wrote here...
***spoilers within***
My thoughts on this film are a little confused right now. That’s not to say that I didn’t absolutely love it. I thought the cinematography was breathtaking and the narrative was anything but mundane and plodding (as has been suggested by some of the reviews I have since read). Charlotte Gainsbourgs performance is truly awe-inspiring…although I expected nothing less from the dynamic, talented female at the centre of a Von Trier vehicle. It’s audacious, haunting, pretentious, confrontational, humourous, cathartic and utterly bizarre at times. And yet in spite of it all I thought it was just brilliant from the very first shot to the last.
The opening scenes are unflinchingly explicit and exquisitely shot. But the beauty of each frame serves only to masquerade a sense of dread which culminates in an event so tragic and yet so poetically photographed that it’s difficult to know how to feel about it.
I loved the scenes that followed…Her journey into Grief. These scenes were challenging and believable and deeply disconcerting. I found the sporadic score made up of primal rumblings and twisted animal song incredibly powerful and absolutely pivotal to the films tone.
The journey into Eden was quite possibly my favourite part of the film. The shots of Gainsbourg crossing the bridge with her floral dress and the light emanating from her skin were just beautiful. And when she disappeared into the grass I was utterly entranced.
Antichrist seems to draws from many areas including science and the supernatural, theology and psychology…and then it promptly rips up the rulebook and creates a entirely new mythology of its own. I have so many thoughts and theories rambling around in my head right now that I’m finding it difficult to articulate myself. So bear with me if you will…
When we first discover that ‘She’ has been putting Nic’s shoes on the wrong feet I think this is an indication that she might actually be - or at least strive to be - evil in the purest sense. She obviously lost some part of her mind when she first visited Eden to complete her thesis…or her rational thought process was at least corrupted by some part of her research into the topic.
It’s hard to believe that this act was accidental. The Polaroid’s show that she repeatedly forced Nic's feet into the wrong shoes and a (fictional?) flashback from Dafoe’s POV shows the little boy crying as She does so.
At first I thought that He was going to write “MEN” at the top of the fear pyramid and I thought she might have been crippling her son as a form of punishment or maybe even to prevent him from walking around in the night (something only She was aware of). It’s possible she contributed to Nic’s death in the sense that she hindered his movement or balance and this somehow resulted in him losing his footing at the window ledge. It’s a reach, but not totally out of the realms of possibility. I also couldn’t help but think of how Satanism and suggestions of satanic possession often relate to opposites…backwards speech, the reversal of supposed 'norms'. It was almost as if she was going AGAINST nature and what is essentially ‘right’ by corrupting what is an everyday task (putting on shoes correctly) and altering her Sons physicality.
My own take on the writhing bodies beneath the great tree roots is that they are the souls of the victims of ‘Gynocide’ that She has studied in texts and paintings. Gainsbourg and Dafoe’s lovemaking amongst the tree roots and the naked torsos within seems almost sacrificial to me…an offering of sorts. I think the people inside the earth are the same blurry-faced women dressed in white that we see rushing towards Him at the end of the film. I am inclined to believe that he is somehow more connected with these people - and indeed Nature as a force - as he forages and eats the berries from the dirt.
The millstone that She attaches to Dafoe’s leg is symbolic. Millstones have been used as a torture device for thousands of years now…and are notably prevalent in Biblical and Medieval torture tales. No doubt many of the victims of ‘Gynocide’ will have been burdened with a millstone around their neck and tortured until death. I think it’s also worth noting that she is burned upon a pyre…not unlike the alleged Witches of early modern Europe.
Whilst the clitoridectomy scene is uncomfortable viewing, it isn’t exploitative or gratuitous in the slightest. I believe that Gainsbourg’s self-mutilation relates to the fact that her Son died whilst she was in the throes of climactic ecstasy. Every orgasm she will ever experience will be a reminder of her tragic loss, and she believes that her sexual desire is the root cause of Nic’s death. Of course this is where the outraged cries of misogyny stem from.
I’m not entirely sure what “The Three Beggars” are meant to represent aside from what is made clear to us within the script.
The deer, the fox and the crow all have very distinct roles within the film. The deer at first appears beautiful and majestic, and then suddenly we are presented with a gruesome representation of the loss of a child. I think the talking fox is there as an indication that She is now truly in the grip of madness, “Chaos Reigns” in both the character and what is yet to unfold within the film (hey a talking fox! all bets are now off...) The crow is interesting because it seems to suggest that man and nature are at odds and you cannot **** with nature, because nature will kick your arse. On a side note I thought that Dafoe punching a crow was the most darkly comedic part of the film…it was just so fundamentally ****ed up and weird. I also found one of the closing shots of “The Three Beggars” all stood together, slightly transparent a bit of a wry wink in the audience’s direction.
Anyway, I thought Antichrist was a totally flawed masterpiece and I haven’t thought about a film this intensely since Inland Empire.
***spoilers end***
9/10...
Thanks for that review!
I am still confused at to whether I enjoyed the film or not. I have battled severe anxiety and depression and within the first 30 minutes it really hit home. After that I think I became very confused as to whether this film was trying to be too clever. I think it ultimately failed, but I read feedback from other people - some say it's great, some say it's crap. I've still to make up my mind.
Awful film. Porn-horror masquerading as art. It tries desperately to shock and confuse the viewer but ultimately it's just a dreary, boring story about a disturbed woman who has a deep psychological fear of being abandoned, even to the point where she "hobbles" her own child to make him more dependant on her. When her point of focus shifts from the child to her husband she does nothing to prevent her child's accidental death so that her husband will shower attention onto her. It's a simple as that. The Director seems to have thrown in genital mutilation and graphic sex scenes to disguise this complete borefest as "art". Cobblers.
Awful film. Porn-horror masquerading as art. It tries desperately to shock and confuse the viewer but ultimately it's just a dreary, boring story about a disturbed woman who has a deep psychological fear of being abandoned, even to the point where she "hobbles" her own child to make him more dependant on her. When her point of focus shifts from the child to her husband she does nothing to prevent her child's accidental death so that her husband will shower attention onto her. It's a simple as that. The Director seems to have thrown in genital mutilation and graphic sex scenes to disguise this complete borefest as "art". Cobblers.
Von Trier assumed it wouldn't get past the BBFC, as pornographic scenes including erection, ejaculation etc seldom do.
That Antichrist was released fully uncut is a milestone in the BBFC's history.
Awful film. Porn-horror masquerading as art. It tries desperately to shock and confuse the viewer but ultimately it's just a dreary, boring story about a disturbed woman who has a deep psychological fear of being abandoned, even to the point where she "hobbles" her own child to make him more dependant on her. When her point of focus shifts from the child to her husband she does nothing to prevent her child's accidental death so that her husband will shower attention onto her. It's a simple as that. The Director seems to have thrown in genital mutilation and graphic sex scenes to disguise this complete borefest as "art". Cobblers.
The woman in this film had Munchausen by Proxy, an all too real syndrome.
Erm.. It has a 6.9/10 on IMDB, which doesn't really come anywhere close to a "pile of wank".
What the f*** has a IMDB rating got to do with anything? Phantom Menace has a rating higher than 6 on there... does that mean PM is a good film? Does it bollocks. Learn to accept some people may not enjoy the films you do and vice versa. Or call your therapist.
I stop reading most things when that lazy term torture porn/porn horror is used...
Provide a decent alternative then. I only called it for what it is. The female in the film mutilates her own genitals and we get to see every grisly moment. Why? For what purpose? What did it achieve? It would have been far more powerful if the camera had cut away and allowed the viewer to use their imagination. If anything around here is lazy it's a director who needs to fill a psychological drama with pornographic sex scenes (including an ejaculating penis and full penetrative sex) and gratuitous self-mutilation scenes to ensure a multitude of dullards would seek it out in the vain hope of some tittilation. Oh but apparently it's "art" so that's ok then. :rolleyes:
The only penis I saw ejaculating was the one near the end, with blood coming out, not exactly a turn on for normal people...
I'd be worried about people who get turned on throughout the film AntiChrist, especially the first sex scene, how can a sane person get off on it when it has shots of a child in danger and falling to its death...
None of it is porn. Look at what actual porn is made for...
I watched it last night, biggest load of crap ever!!!!
Too arty-farty for me and I doubt I will ever watch a lars movie again.
I found it really hard to stay awake, Defoe has one of those voices that makes me sleep.
My advice, don't waste your time and it should be banned not because of the 2 sec shot of a willy but because its just plain crap.
Provide a decent alternative then. I only called it for what it is. The female in the film mutilates her own genitals and we get to see every grisly moment. Why? For what purpose? What did it achieve? It would have been far more powerful if the camera had cut away and allowed the viewer to use their imagination. If anything around here is lazy it's a director who needs to fill a psychological drama with pornographic sex scenes (including an ejaculating penis and full penetrative sex) and gratuitous self-mutilation scenes to ensure a multitude of dullards would seek it out in the vain hope of some tittilation. Oh but apparently it's "art" so that's ok then. :rolleyes:
Haha, ridiculous. "Use your own imagination". It's the year 2009 - directors should be allowed to express themselves however they want without pathetic "suggestion". Don't know much do ya?
Haha, ridiculous. "Use your own imagination". It's the year 2009 - directors should be allowed to express themselves however they want without pathetic "suggestion". Don't know much do ya?
Yes, use your imagination.
The horror film considered to be the most scariest of all time, The Exorcist, did that throughout the whole movie. While it was considered to be quite graphic at the time, and to many people today, the director understood that horror is best left up to the viewers imagination. Tap into that, which he obviously did, without obviously leading the audience like a bunch of children, who shouldn't be watching such films in the first place, and you have yourself the best horror that can be made.
The Blair Witch Project was successful, I think, because it did that entirely throughout the whole movie. Much of the younger generation laughed at it and dismissed it, as they did when I watched it in the theater, because younger people today lack imagination with all the distractions they have in their lives.
Younger people today also tend to be much more cynical about things so it isn't too surprising, unfortunately, to see film makers relying on special effects and graphic sex to interest the viewer.
Comments
Well it's a metaphor for fascism and like the previous poster said it does have a point. But the problem at least for me was that what you see is so violent and disgusting at parts, that it makes it impossible to concentrate in the true meaning of the dialogue or what it's meant to portray. It is difficult to explain, most violence we see in normal movies is "glossy", they can show you someone drilling someone's eye, bur for someone it's used to those sort of movies there is a kind of mental understanding that bottom line everything is fake, in Salo the violence is gritty, prolonged and uncomfortable, besides the fact that the excrement eating was probably the sickest scene I've seen in a movie.
Well my husband walk out of the room in disgust and he couldn't understand how i stomached to see the rest of it.
Though I did enjoy Salo (as much as you can enjoy it). The fecal scenes did make me pause the film, go for a cigarette and grab a gin and come back and try and finish it. Was an interesting film. Like the final scene watching it from a distance, found that a really interesting way to show it.
I stopped the video at the circle of shit point, ejected it and gingerly removed it from the player as if it was a turd and flung it. bit of a wimp when it comes to coprophagia.
I got it from LoveFilm but I may have to get the dvd just to have a look at the booklet and the special features, can't say i'd watch the film all that often but would be good to add to the collection.
I saw Antichrist at the cinema and wrote my mumbled, jumbled thoughts on another film website. I'm female and I loved it. I'll copy/paste some of what I wrote here...
***spoilers within***
My thoughts on this film are a little confused right now. That’s not to say that I didn’t absolutely love it. I thought the cinematography was breathtaking and the narrative was anything but mundane and plodding (as has been suggested by some of the reviews I have since read). Charlotte Gainsbourgs performance is truly awe-inspiring…although I expected nothing less from the dynamic, talented female at the centre of a Von Trier vehicle. It’s audacious, haunting, pretentious, confrontational, humourous, cathartic and utterly bizarre at times. And yet in spite of it all I thought it was just brilliant from the very first shot to the last.
The opening scenes are unflinchingly explicit and exquisitely shot. But the beauty of each frame serves only to masquerade a sense of dread which culminates in an event so tragic and yet so poetically photographed that it’s difficult to know how to feel about it.
I loved the scenes that followed…Her journey into Grief. These scenes were challenging and believable and deeply disconcerting. I found the sporadic score made up of primal rumblings and twisted animal song incredibly powerful and absolutely pivotal to the films tone.
The journey into Eden was quite possibly my favourite part of the film. The shots of Gainsbourg crossing the bridge with her floral dress and the light emanating from her skin were just beautiful. And when she disappeared into the grass I was utterly entranced.
Antichrist seems to draws from many areas including science and the supernatural, theology and psychology…and then it promptly rips up the rulebook and creates a entirely new mythology of its own. I have so many thoughts and theories rambling around in my head right now that I’m finding it difficult to articulate myself. So bear with me if you will…
When we first discover that ‘She’ has been putting Nic’s shoes on the wrong feet I think this is an indication that she might actually be - or at least strive to be - evil in the purest sense. She obviously lost some part of her mind when she first visited Eden to complete her thesis…or her rational thought process was at least corrupted by some part of her research into the topic.
It’s hard to believe that this act was accidental. The Polaroid’s show that she repeatedly forced Nic's feet into the wrong shoes and a (fictional?) flashback from Dafoe’s POV shows the little boy crying as She does so.
At first I thought that He was going to write “MEN” at the top of the fear pyramid and I thought she might have been crippling her son as a form of punishment or maybe even to prevent him from walking around in the night (something only She was aware of). It’s possible she contributed to Nic’s death in the sense that she hindered his movement or balance and this somehow resulted in him losing his footing at the window ledge. It’s a reach, but not totally out of the realms of possibility. I also couldn’t help but think of how Satanism and suggestions of satanic possession often relate to opposites…backwards speech, the reversal of supposed 'norms'. It was almost as if she was going AGAINST nature and what is essentially ‘right’ by corrupting what is an everyday task (putting on shoes correctly) and altering her Sons physicality.
My own take on the writhing bodies beneath the great tree roots is that they are the souls of the victims of ‘Gynocide’ that She has studied in texts and paintings. Gainsbourg and Dafoe’s lovemaking amongst the tree roots and the naked torsos within seems almost sacrificial to me…an offering of sorts. I think the people inside the earth are the same blurry-faced women dressed in white that we see rushing towards Him at the end of the film. I am inclined to believe that he is somehow more connected with these people - and indeed Nature as a force - as he forages and eats the berries from the dirt.
The millstone that She attaches to Dafoe’s leg is symbolic. Millstones have been used as a torture device for thousands of years now…and are notably prevalent in Biblical and Medieval torture tales. No doubt many of the victims of ‘Gynocide’ will have been burdened with a millstone around their neck and tortured until death. I think it’s also worth noting that she is burned upon a pyre…not unlike the alleged Witches of early modern Europe.
Whilst the clitoridectomy scene is uncomfortable viewing, it isn’t exploitative or gratuitous in the slightest. I believe that Gainsbourg’s self-mutilation relates to the fact that her Son died whilst she was in the throes of climactic ecstasy. Every orgasm she will ever experience will be a reminder of her tragic loss, and she believes that her sexual desire is the root cause of Nic’s death. Of course this is where the outraged cries of misogyny stem from.
I’m not entirely sure what “The Three Beggars” are meant to represent aside from what is made clear to us within the script.
The deer, the fox and the crow all have very distinct roles within the film. The deer at first appears beautiful and majestic, and then suddenly we are presented with a gruesome representation of the loss of a child. I think the talking fox is there as an indication that She is now truly in the grip of madness, “Chaos Reigns” in both the character and what is yet to unfold within the film (hey a talking fox! all bets are now off...) The crow is interesting because it seems to suggest that man and nature are at odds and you cannot **** with nature, because nature will kick your arse. On a side note I thought that Dafoe punching a crow was the most darkly comedic part of the film…it was just so fundamentally ****ed up and weird. I also found one of the closing shots of “The Three Beggars” all stood together, slightly transparent a bit of a wry wink in the audience’s direction.
Anyway, I thought Antichrist was a totally flawed masterpiece and I haven’t thought about a film this intensely since Inland Empire.
***spoilers end***
9/10...
Well if you got the blu ray from Lovefilm surely they would have sent you the booklet with it?
Thanks for that review!
I am still confused at to whether I enjoyed the film or not. I have battled severe anxiety and depression and within the first 30 minutes it really hit home. After that I think I became very confused as to whether this film was trying to be too clever. I think it ultimately failed, but I read feedback from other people - some say it's great, some say it's crap. I've still to make up my mind.
Von Trier assumed it wouldn't get past the BBFC, as pornographic scenes including erection, ejaculation etc seldom do.
That Antichrist was released fully uncut is a milestone in the BBFC's history.
The woman in this film had Munchausen by Proxy, an all too real syndrome.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/sick/munchausen.html
Shame it was a complete pile of wank.
Erm.. It has a 6.9/10 on IMDB, which doesn't really come anywhere close to a "pile of wank".
What the f*** has a IMDB rating got to do with anything? Phantom Menace has a rating higher than 6 on there... does that mean PM is a good film? Does it bollocks. Learn to accept some people may not enjoy the films you do and vice versa. Or call your therapist.
Provide a decent alternative then. I only called it for what it is. The female in the film mutilates her own genitals and we get to see every grisly moment. Why? For what purpose? What did it achieve? It would have been far more powerful if the camera had cut away and allowed the viewer to use their imagination. If anything around here is lazy it's a director who needs to fill a psychological drama with pornographic sex scenes (including an ejaculating penis and full penetrative sex) and gratuitous self-mutilation scenes to ensure a multitude of dullards would seek it out in the vain hope of some tittilation. Oh but apparently it's "art" so that's ok then. :rolleyes:
I'd be worried about people who get turned on throughout the film AntiChrist, especially the first sex scene, how can a sane person get off on it when it has shots of a child in danger and falling to its death...
None of it is porn. Look at what actual porn is made for...
You just did... or Psychological Horror.
Too arty-farty for me and I doubt I will ever watch a lars movie again.
I found it really hard to stay awake, Defoe has one of those voices that makes me sleep.
My advice, don't waste your time and it should be banned not because of the 2 sec shot of a willy but because its just plain crap.
Was harldy porn or horror.
Get 'Pirates' for the porn and '30 days of night' for the horror :cool:
As for art who needs that wine and cheese bollocks
At least try Dancer in the Dark, unless you don't like musicals, it's his best imo.
Haha, ridiculous. "Use your own imagination". It's the year 2009 - directors should be allowed to express themselves however they want without pathetic "suggestion". Don't know much do ya?
Yes, use your imagination.
The horror film considered to be the most scariest of all time, The Exorcist, did that throughout the whole movie. While it was considered to be quite graphic at the time, and to many people today, the director understood that horror is best left up to the viewers imagination. Tap into that, which he obviously did, without obviously leading the audience like a bunch of children, who shouldn't be watching such films in the first place, and you have yourself the best horror that can be made.
The Blair Witch Project was successful, I think, because it did that entirely throughout the whole movie. Much of the younger generation laughed at it and dismissed it, as they did when I watched it in the theater, because younger people today lack imagination with all the distractions they have in their lives.
Younger people today also tend to be much more cynical about things so it isn't too surprising, unfortunately, to see film makers relying on special effects and graphic sex to interest the viewer.
A talking fox?