It is with some regret that I have decided to spend time reviewing Von Trier's 'Antichrist'. I am, by nature a curious film watcher, and will, at times, succumb to temptation and reserve a couple of hours to cast my own opinion, when a film creates ample controversy. Thus far my curiosity, across the spectrum has been met with, elation and disappointment in equal measure.
This is, and I make no apologies for this statement, a truly terrible film. I was hoping to read the user comments and be satisfied that it was met with the utter indifference and loathing that followed my own viewing and was genuinely shocked with the ridiculous ratings that have been pulled from the posteriors of those who mistakenly interpreted this dull and pointless movie as high art.
Given that the acting was by no means sub par(Dafoe was very good as a husband/psychiatrist torn between his professional disposition and the demons of his relationship with his wife; and Gainsbourg was nothing if not committed to the role of a postnatally depressed lunatic) and the cinematography was at times excellent, it should give you some idea of how bad this movie was.
One review entitled 'Canonical Sermon, Classical Hero Journey, Numeric Elegance and Name of The Beast' offered an academic dissection of the movie...referencing the film's numerical balance and some other contextual information that completely fails to justify the relevance and poor execution of this movie, which in principle, before pen hit paper, may have carried some merit and proved to be a dark and disturbing study of the human/inhuman condition.
So, let me 'break it down' without offering insight where there is none or jumping on board the 'Turner Prize' high-art mindset that has corrupted modern art finding thought and intellect in the explicit and mundane.
Firstly: This is NOT a balanced movie, no matter how Von Trier cuts the film into chapters. A nice prologue, followed by over an hour of self absorbed boring nothingness (aside from the revelation of child cruelty), climaxing in a violent last 10 minutes that arrived way to late for me to care about the resolution. Simply put, it is quite an achievement to bore someone to the point that genital mutilation, the ejaculation of blood the image of a wife fingering a freshly drilled hole in her husband's leg does not leave them shocked or a little sick; and yet I was so paralyzed by boredom that I was rendered immune to the horrors depicted on the television in front of me.
It is all very well dissecting this movie for its symbolism and I am sure that for an academic essay it provides the necessary 'meat' for some critical analysis, but seriously, why bother when as a film, as a piece of entertainment, this movie fails at its most basic level.
I have watched interviews with the cast, who really don't seem to understand the movie and listened to drivel about how this was a product of Lars' depression. The reality is that 'controversy' is the most marketable aspect of the film and one has to question the misogynistic stance/intentions of the movie. I am not a fan of feminism as it has moved beyond equality but it certainly wouldn't be too late to question Von Trier's relationship to the fairer sex, both in the context of this movie and his work as a whole.
Imbalanced and a cry for attention; a cheap snub of mainstream Hollywood that craves the attention Von Trier claims to shun; or a failed art-house movie that owes its substance and form to antiquated intellectual study that it fails to properly address and far superior 'cabin in the woods' movies that it does not get close to matching....Take your pick of which best describes this terrible film.
If you want cabin horror, watch 'Evil Dead'. if you like dark and harrowing try 'requiem for a dream'. There has been some talk as to the meaning of 'Antichrist' in the context of this movie. I can say with some certainty that it refers to the pure evil that stole 2 hours of my life last week. Damn you Lars Von Trier, you are an idiot.
This is, and I make no apologies for this statement, a truly terrible film. I was hoping to read the user comments and be satisfied that it was met with the utter indifference and loathing that followed my own viewing and was genuinely shocked with the ridiculous ratings that have been pulled from the posteriors of those who mistakenly interpreted this dull and pointless movie as high art.
Given that the acting was by no means sub par(Dafoe was very good as a husband/psychiatrist torn between his professional disposition and the demons of his relationship with his wife; and Gainsbourg was nothing if not committed to the role of a postnatally depressed lunatic) and the cinematography was at times excellent, it should give you some idea of how bad this movie was.
One review entitled 'Canonical Sermon, Classical Hero Journey, Numeric Elegance and Name of The Beast' offered an academic dissection of the movie...referencing the film's numerical balance and some other contextual information that completely fails to justify the relevance and poor execution of this movie, which in principle, before pen hit paper, may have carried some merit and proved to be a dark and disturbing study of the human/inhuman condition.
So, let me 'break it down' without offering insight where there is none or jumping on board the 'Turner Prize' high-art mindset that has corrupted modern art finding thought and intellect in the explicit and mundane.
Firstly: This is NOT a balanced movie, no matter how Von Trier cuts the film into chapters. A nice prologue, followed by over an hour of self absorbed boring nothingness (aside from the revelation of child cruelty), climaxing in a violent last 10 minutes that arrived way to late for me to care about the resolution. Simply put, it is quite an achievement to bore someone to the point that genital mutilation, the ejaculation of blood the image of a wife fingering a freshly drilled hole in her husband's leg does not leave them shocked or a little sick; and yet I was so paralyzed by boredom that I was rendered immune to the horrors depicted on the television in front of me.
It is all very well dissecting this movie for its symbolism and I am sure that for an academic essay it provides the necessary 'meat' for some critical analysis, but seriously, why bother when as a film, as a piece of entertainment, this movie fails at its most basic level.
I have watched interviews with the cast, who really don't seem to understand the movie and listened to drivel about how this was a product of Lars' depression. The reality is that 'controversy' is the most marketable aspect of the film and one has to question the misogynistic stance/intentions of the movie. I am not a fan of feminism as it has moved beyond equality but it certainly wouldn't be too late to question Von Trier's relationship to the fairer sex, both in the context of this movie and his work as a whole.
Imbalanced and a cry for attention; a cheap snub of mainstream Hollywood that craves the attention Von Trier claims to shun; or a failed art-house movie that owes its substance and form to antiquated intellectual study that it fails to properly address and far superior 'cabin in the woods' movies that it does not get close to matching....Take your pick of which best describes this terrible film.
If you want cabin horror, watch 'Evil Dead'. if you like dark and harrowing try 'requiem for a dream'. There has been some talk as to the meaning of 'Antichrist' in the context of this movie. I can say with some certainty that it refers to the pure evil that stole 2 hours of my life last week. Damn you Lars Von Trier, you are an idiot.