- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
I won't lie, sometimes the controversy surrounding a movie is enough to get me interested in seeing it. Most of the time, I feel that the controversy isn't worthwhile, one example being "Hounddog," which was relatively tame considering the way people reacted to one particular scene. Yet sometimes when you strip away the controversy, there's something genuinely good underneath, or just something mediocre. I have an open mind and have seen some pretty damn twisted films and haven't seen much that offends me. Yet for the first time since attempting "I spit on your grave" (Couldn't finish it, anyone who has had the unpleasantry of seeing it will know why...) I finally found another movie that truly deserves all the controversy it has garnered: Antichrist. What a fitting title for one of the most foul, pointless movies ever made. Anyone who has followed the controversy of this film and gained curiosity, I am here to give you a fair warning: Don't see it. Don't even attempt. Even if the film wasn't genuinely shocking or disgusting, it would still be one of the most pathetic excuses for a "Movie" I have ever seen in my life. I'm sure Lars Van Trier things he made something "meaningful" here, but he didn't. There is no point to the film, and the only redeeming quality I can think of is that I absolutely love Willem Dafoe, but that makes it all the more disappointing that he was in this mess.
The "plot" is relatively simple, and this is the only way I can describe it without pushing the rules of the forum: "He" and "She" lose their baby, have lots of hardcore and rather gory sex, and then mutilate eachother and themselves in rather painful ways. Then they keep doing it, and from what I'm guessing Lars Von Trier was attempting to tell a story about the grievance of losing a child, but ultimately just wanted to see how many different ways one can mutilate their manhood or womanhood. There's been a word floating around the past few years, usually describing the "Saw" or "Hostel" movies, and that word is "Torture Porn." I've never agreed with the concept of "Torture Porn," but if any movie ever was truly Torture Porn it would be Antichrist. The film contains several unsimulated sex scenes, yet they're also portrayed as torture and try their hardest to sicken the viewer, and it does a pretty good job of it. While disturbing films CAN be "entertaining," at least in regard to being a horror movie, but when they push the line they end up being unpleasant and overall the exact opposite of "entertaining" or "compelling," and end up being a movie that no one in their right mind could possibly enjoy. I have a hard time imagining even sadomasochists enjoying something like "Antichrist." The name is surprisingly fitting, to the art of filmmaking, this is indeed the "Antichrist," it has no artistic merit, it has no value, all it is is a jumbled mess of sex and gore. This movie has garnered a lot of controversy, and its one of the few films that actually deserved the controversy, yet at the same time I wish it hadn't garnered so much attention because then I wouldn't have gained the curiosity to see what all the hubbub was about. When walking out of the showing up at the University, someone walked up to me and asked me for a barf bag. My response was "Sorry guy, I'm looking for one myself." Even if you are curious, do not see this film. Do not give Lars Van Trier any credit for this piece of crap. Beyond the controversy, the film is a great big void of nothing, and a massive blemish on the art of filmmaking. There is no redeeming factor for this film, and its easily one of the worst I've ever sat through, if not THE worst.
0.5/10 (It barely gets that .5 for having Willem Dafoe in it)
The "plot" is relatively simple, and this is the only way I can describe it without pushing the rules of the forum: "He" and "She" lose their baby, have lots of hardcore and rather gory sex, and then mutilate eachother and themselves in rather painful ways. Then they keep doing it, and from what I'm guessing Lars Von Trier was attempting to tell a story about the grievance of losing a child, but ultimately just wanted to see how many different ways one can mutilate their manhood or womanhood. There's been a word floating around the past few years, usually describing the "Saw" or "Hostel" movies, and that word is "Torture Porn." I've never agreed with the concept of "Torture Porn," but if any movie ever was truly Torture Porn it would be Antichrist. The film contains several unsimulated sex scenes, yet they're also portrayed as torture and try their hardest to sicken the viewer, and it does a pretty good job of it. While disturbing films CAN be "entertaining," at least in regard to being a horror movie, but when they push the line they end up being unpleasant and overall the exact opposite of "entertaining" or "compelling," and end up being a movie that no one in their right mind could possibly enjoy. I have a hard time imagining even sadomasochists enjoying something like "Antichrist." The name is surprisingly fitting, to the art of filmmaking, this is indeed the "Antichrist," it has no artistic merit, it has no value, all it is is a jumbled mess of sex and gore. This movie has garnered a lot of controversy, and its one of the few films that actually deserved the controversy, yet at the same time I wish it hadn't garnered so much attention because then I wouldn't have gained the curiosity to see what all the hubbub was about. When walking out of the showing up at the University, someone walked up to me and asked me for a barf bag. My response was "Sorry guy, I'm looking for one myself." Even if you are curious, do not see this film. Do not give Lars Van Trier any credit for this piece of crap. Beyond the controversy, the film is a great big void of nothing, and a massive blemish on the art of filmmaking. There is no redeeming factor for this film, and its easily one of the worst I've ever sat through, if not THE worst.
0.5/10 (It barely gets that .5 for having Willem Dafoe in it)
