Reviews

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.

It is not often that I comment upon a film that has done nothing to move or upset so I thought I would break with tradition and offer my opinions.

First off - as a film, LAC is not terrible. The stand out aspect of the film is that it is able to maintain its pace without breaking stride, allowing the audience no time to dwell on the utter ridiculousness that is the plot. Now I may be naive as to the way the American Legal system works but it appears that, for the sake of a tidy narrative, it would be appropriate to have a Lawyer, who also acts as lead interrogator, who also heads the investigation against our 'lead man' who incidentally used to be his client.

It is also a little confusing as to who we are routing for. Clyde Shelton - a wronged man who decides he should kill everyone who got close to reading an article about the murder of his family, or, Nick Rice, who seems to route for Sheldon until the point at which Clyde decides to fool around with Nick's life.

This issue of loyalty to our leads also begs us to ask the question why Clyde didn't decide to take immediate action against Nick, who was, let's face responsible for cutting a deal with the man who raped and killed his family.

Herein lies the problem that the well paced plot forces the writers to completely bumble any sense of integrity in either character.

Viewers may also find some points of the film a little to convenient, making a great show like 24 look positively plausible. A few people have moaned about how a nice guy, turns so very bad, but given the way his life was turned upside down, I didn't really have a problem with a brutal reaction from Clyde. The implausibility however, is dragged to red-alert, when we realise that Clyde only has a couple of people who he should really be punishing - so we are forced to endure a supposedly moral man bump off lawyers for the sake of making the movie last more than thirty minutes.

There is also a big question mark as to how the rapist and murderer, managed to get off with pretty much a telling off, while his accomplice who seemed to be no more than a voyeur gets the death penalty. But, as we quickly learn, this is a film the will consistently, until the final credits role, ignore the unignorable in a bid to keep the story accelerating.

The film has its violent moments, which some may object to, but given the whole ridiculous mess, they may not prove to be offensive as they otherwise could be.

Criticism aside however, I did not feel like asking for the price of my ticket back and it will certainly keep you entertained. If you are prepared to sit back and not reflect too deeply on the utter stupidity of the film, give it a try. If you are the type of person who watches superman and says 'that would never happen' save your breath and go watch something else.

6/10 - Because stupidity isn't always bad.

I think it would be fair to say that the impressive cast was attracted by the equally impressive pay-packets they were undoubtedly offered as well as the chance to partake in a movie that will deliver at the Box Office.

I am not somebody who likes to constantly compare literature to filmic adaptations as they are stand alone art of different mediums and as such deserve to be judged on individual merit. However, it is impossible to read 'Angels and Demons' and not be frustrated by the alterations that have taken place in adapting the novel for film.

After reading the novel I believed that the film would be significantly more successful the the Da Vinci adaptation for the primary reason that the novel is not as focused on theological details that were lost in the adaptation of The Da Vinci Code. The pace of the novel is also more suited to adaptation and the setting of Rome had the potential for incredible cinematography.

Before I define why this film is worthy of a 4/10 rating I will say that the film was well paced (as it should have been), Tom Hanks was likable as Langdon (despite initial casting concerns) and the powers that be graciously decided to omit Langdon's farcical helicopter dive towards the end of the novel (why on god's earth did Dan Brown include this pathetic episode in an otherwise decent book). That being said, the film, as an adaptation fails on so many levels.

If you have not read the book I would argue that you will not leave the cinema demanding a refund, but those who have read the book will be hugely disappointed by an opportunity missed to create a really decent Dan Brown adaptation.

Tonally the film was vacant,but deep down with Hanks and Howard involved, fine craftsmen as they may be, it was never going to the dark and sinister thriller it should have been.

I was however, deeply frustrated by the unwillingness of the director/producers to opt for a riskier but longer run time that would allow the novel to be more honestly adapted. The Langdon/Vetra love interest was rightly omitted - I don't think anyone would say it had any impact whatsoever in the novel, but unbelievably they chose to omit 99% of all the background information that made the characters interesting and motivated - Vetra's relationship with her adopted father paralleling the relationship between Camerlengo and the diseased pope.

The conflict between science and religion was addressed in the loosest terms and sadly the CERN narrative was completely ignored, leading to a not so clever twist and bland storyline. Where was Kohler, one of the most interesting characters in the book? Why did they decide to rewrite the assassin of 'Hassassin' character. His physical presence, fanatical stance and twisted morality was an ominous presence in the book and yet the powers that be decided that he would be better written as a 'bit character' from 24 - a 'gun for hire' - SERIOUSLY WTF!!!!!!! They also decide to rewrite the character of Olivetti in a bid to relieve the film of any interesting, conflicted characters that might offer any element of tension. I actually left the theatre angry at the fact that supposedly 'professional people' allowed the film to be made in this way.

Maybe worst of all is the dialogue. If I another Dan Brown adaptation hits our screens with the characters explaining their thought processes to the person standing next to them, I may be forced to punch the screenwriter. People DON'T talk like that!

With background, non existent, character diluted and a pretty shady script, 'Angels and Demons' will be just another box-office hit with no substance. Sadly, it could have been so much more. This had the potential to be the best of all the Dan Brown adaptations and I am sad to say it is an opportunity missed. The 7/10 rating will probably remain, but, it will not be on merit! If the Vatican interests you watch Godfather Part 3 as Angels and Demons is certainly one you can afford to miss.

Before I begin this review I would like to say That I was a big fan of Lock Stock, Snatch and more recently Rock n' Rolla. That being said I will continue. When I first saw the trailer for Revolver I was excited to see that Richie had appeared to want to make a darker gangster movie. The movie appeared to be visually impressive (which at times it actually was)and even more impressively it had Ray Liotta in it.

If you have not seen the film I suggest you just watch the trailer as it will undoubtedly make more sense and be infinitely enjoyable. Understandably (but idiotically) Richie jumped to the defence of the movie amidst a flurry of terrible reviews, stating that it was for intelligent people and he was right - it was made for intelligent people to avoid1 Aside of the aforementioned visuals and a decent scene with Beethoven's moonlight sonata playing in the background the film is pure excrement. To my utter dismay, I discovered that the film was a farce after paying for my cinema ticket (I hoped the reviews were a little harsh) and sitting in the cinema for two hours. Worst of all it is only in the last 15 minutes of the film that the audience discovers that 2 hours would have been better spent locked in a refrigeration unit.

No matter how many quotes Richie plasters across the screen, this film will never ever be clever. An apt analogy would be writing a complex mathematical equation on a piece of paper and pretending you solved it by writing some Greek and some numbers next to it - It may look clever, but its not and it doesn't make sense. That is Revolver - Richie poses a question and then tries to answer it with some vague, narrative deficient conclusion.

Poor Ray Liotta does his best to distract with some committed acting. However given the abyss that is this film he simply manages to overact and is unable to save the movie. In an attempt to create a Usual Suspect-esquire movie Richie ignores the fact that it needs to make sense and tries to fool the audience into thinking their has been some monumental twist. Trust me there has not! The climax of this pretentious excrement is Jason Statham's character shift in an elevator. Never have I felt more compelled to throw stuff at a cinema screen. The intended intelligent twist in the film is so unbelievably stupid that I wanted to hurt myself. I left the cinema worried that I had missed some crucial scene before realising that the real shock was that I had paid to see this film.

Should you wish to understand the Revolver experience just book somewhere nice to go holiday, spend all day travelling, stop a couple of miles away from the hotel/resort throw your holiday money down a drain, poor petrol over yourself and then set fire to your face. It really is that pointless.

The only people who will think this film is clever are stupid people. If you want to watch a really clever film, rent 'Old Boy'. If you do watch this film and think it was clever and are not Japanese, do not watch 'Old Boy' as it has subtitles which you will probably struggle to read.

I give this film 3/10, but only if you stop it 15mins before the end. That way you can make up your own ending!