Holy Crap!! I cant even compute what i just watched. Im not even talking about the gore and sex. I'll be back after i do some research to figure out what all this means. ANTICHRIST.
What i can say so far is that the director is one of a kind. Hardcore score and great cinematography!
Excellent review! I saw it a couple of years ago and it truly was an incredible movie. Wish there was a Region A blu of this This and City of God are my favorite movies from Brazil.
City of God is fantastic. The images drip with atmosphere. I could feel the sun and the dirt under my shoes. I was there.
Jolie was super-mega-ultra-fantasticularlly-incredible in that. One of the best Female performances I have seen in DECADES!!!
Everyone is getting me wrong. Jolie did a good job but the beginning of the movie felt very fake. Her acting and the Police Captain's acting were OFF. It took me a while to warm up to them.
It's weird seeing people on here when they're watching a film. If I'm gonna watch something, everything's off and the film has my attention, nothing more.
I even turn the phones off. I want to get lost in the film. All the way.
I thought Jolie did a very good job overall. The only thing that bothered me was later on in the film, the constant
[Show spoiler]"he's not my son!" lines were repetitively delivered by Jolie, and hence felt robotic. Maybe that's good acting though? Maybe a mom in her shoes would feel in shock and say something over and over again, the same way?
. The only issue I had with the film was editing as the film seemed to naturally end
[Show spoiler]at about the 90-100 minute mark, when the cops were busted, and the last 45-50 minutes just seemed like an unnecessary drag out of telling the audience what it aleady knew
I bolded part of your spoiler.
[Show spoiler]Maybe thats just the script and she did what she had to do.
[Show spoiler]Year: 2009
Director: Lars von Trier
Starring: Willem Dafoe (“he”) and Charlotte Gainsbourg (“she”)
I thought the film had a simple enough plot when I first read about it: a married couple dealing with the recent loss of their young child. But the film is much deeper than that. But I think it’s really up to the viewer to accept that there are themes here. Some, many, may just see this is as a film showcasing violence, smut and some major “WTF” make your skin crawl moments that would leave the Saw series in tears begging for the film to stop, while others will look at a more ‘artistic’ approach. So, what is it? Smutty violent nonsense or incredibly deep and darkly poetic? Um… I think deep and darkly poetic, but it took awhile to get there.
The film is really a tale of two halves. The first half is much slower paced. Learning a bit about these people and their troubled marriage and that “he” (Dafoe) - seriously they don’t have names, is a therapist, and that’s incredibly clear as he tries to help his wife get over the grief of their terrible tragedy. Of course everyone grieves in their own ways, and the film shows how different he and she deal with the situation. and how bad grief can push a person.
The second half is where the madness and wildness is on full display. For hearing rumblings about how freaky and brutal the film is in certain areas, I was a tad confused and thought I was watching the wrong movie. But nope, this was it. Just takes awhile to get going. But once it does it comes in waves and while there are only 6-7 MAJOR “WTF?!” moments that don’t last too long. They leave a much longer impression mentally than the scenes themselves. I could have done without some of the scenes being so vivid, I’m a big fan of “less is more” and I think Trier could have displayed this in a “less is more” way and have us understand exactly what’s happening, so be forewarned, are some scenes a bit “holy moly!” in nature? Yes. But they don’t stay for too long. Thankfully.
But I must say, for those who dislike animals in any sort of harm or danger, there are 3-4 scenes in Antichrist that have moments like this. Does this piss me off? Yeah. Because at least 2 of them seemed completely pointless. And I’ve stumbled across like 5 films in the last week or so that have this. I’ve got bad luck I guess. I didn’t downgrade the film however for having something I don’t like seeing, just stating for those who are in the same boat as me, you’ve been warned.
For the longest time I was gonna give Antichrist 2.5/5. I just didn’t get it and while I still don’t “get it” I think, completely (I have a ton of questions for tbizzle, surf and others who’ve seen it although if I didn’t get answers that’d be okay too) the last 40 minutes for as “whoa” as they are, really change the pace and “feel” of the film. And they are completely worth it and make the slower first hour much more satisfying when bananas really start to hit the fan (or acorns hit the roof ).
Individual merits for the film are all getting high praise from me.
Directing? I thought it was great. The first 10 minutes really had me hooked, and while after that I kind of fell “out” of the film, the directing was top notch and in the wrong hands this could have been a mess.
Cinematography? Awesome. Some very haunting, eerie images / feel. Not of the brutality, but of the woods, the fog, the cabin… it’s great stuff. Most full blown horror movies don’t get this right and drench the film in darkness. Not Antichrist. Very haunting feel. Loved it.
The performances. Dafoe was pretty good. I’m not a huge fan of him in anything he does. He seems to play the same role in everything I’ve seen him in, but good to great at times none the less. but man, Charlotte Gainsbourg was a beast here When she flips a switch halfway through the film, you really can sense that. Visually in her expressions, in her voice, her actions (of course) and just overall demeanor. If she doesn’t at least get nominated for some awards for “best female performance” that would be a crime imo. Honestly, as far as “women who portray a side of psychosis” Gainsbourg has to be in the discussion for top 5 and maybe even #1.
That all being said, this will more than likely (if I were to give percentages, I’d say 75/25) be a one time watch and be added to my “one and done” collection. Although, since for some reason, for as bizarre and wacky as the last 40+ minutes were, part of me thinks I may watch it again down the line (long, long, long down the line) which is odd. I also wasn’t exactly clear on the themes the film was presenting. The main one was obviously grief and dealing with grief and getting past it, but the whole
[Show spoiler]“beating women” deal and the devil
kind of went right over my head and the last image of
[Show spoiler]all the women (I think all were women) walking around the mountain…?
What did that mean? and how did it connect with the rest of the film? Maybe I missed some dialogue that explained this? I know
[Show spoiler]she was doing a thesis on it and there were pictures of women tied up during middle ages and whatnot,
but the lines did not connect for me there.
I’m surprised I’m rating it as highly as I do, but I’m gonna go with a 3.5/5. It may be bumped up once I understand what exactly some of the other themes were, and I still thought the first hour was a little slow and I was even bored at times, but some individual merits need to be recognized, so that added a point or so to the total and I’m not going to downgrade a well made film just because I didn’t personally like it or find it something I would want in my collection. There are hundreds of worse films, it’s just a matter of taste preference and how far you’re willing to give a film to tell you a story.
I don’t know if I would recommend it, per se, but for someone in to dark dramas that are able to look past what some might see as some unnecessary brutal moments, it can’t hurt to rent it / netflix it. Just be warned it isn’t as hardcore / brutal / gross as some make it out to be, but there are some moments I’m sure some won’t want to stomach or even hear about
.
3.5/5
Question.
[Show spoiler]How bad/tough are the animal scenes? Danger, or hurting them? I cannot tolerate animal cruelty, it freaks me out to the point where I feel RAGE against the sick facker humans.
Director: Lars von Trier
Writer: Lars von Trier
Mains: Willem Dafoe, and Charlotte Gainsbourg
Get Ready to be Totally Confused
Plot: A couple has lost their child in an unfortunate accident. Torn apart they seek some type of relief for their mistake. The Husband is coping with it quite well but this event is taking its toll on the Wife. The Husband is a therapist and recommends them to go into the wood so his wife can face her greatest fear. Things dont go as planned and this trip turns into a nightmare for the both of them.
My Take: This film is so complex and so well written and directed that its hard to even explain some of the clips. Its very unique that much is true. From the opening scene to the camera work to the erie score its completely original. This film is extremely controversial because of the overall meaning of the film. One could lean one way and one could lean the opposite, its all how you take it. I thought that this film hit harder for myself than any other religious film i've seen. I'm a big fan of The Seventh Seal and The Passion of the Christ but this movie was so cold and so gritty that i felt the evil that Lars von Trier is trying to explain. There is allot of talk about this movie being torture porn and but i dont think that at all. This film just shows nature, us.
Conclusion: I dont know whether to recommend this movie or not but what i can say is it deserves a viewing. Not because of the porn but because of the overall DEEP message and its deep. I appreciated the way this movie was delivered but because of my own ability to comprehend the movie its hard for me to give it a fair shot of a rating. This film is extremely complex and require knowledge of the bible and GOD and satan. Also the history of Christians. I'm a Baptist and i believe in GOD. This movie has nothing negative about GOD himself but more of the sinful nature of man. You truly have to see the film for yourself to grasp the meaning of it. Many reviewer like myself can only tell you what the movie meant to them. Being that this a religious movie you will always have mixed feelings so I encourage you to SEE IT YOURSELF.
MUST SEE
[Show spoiler]How bad/tough are the animal scenes? Danger, or hurting them? I cannot tolerate animal cruelty, it freaks me out to the point where I feel RAGE against the sick facker humans.
No brother this is something totally different. They arent being abused but its crazy and very creepy. You have to see it yourself but dont worry you wont get ragged out.
Director: Lars von Trier
Writer: Lars von Trier
Mains: Willem Dafoe, and Charlotte Gainsbourg
Get Ready to be Totally Confused
Plot: A couple has lost their child in an unfortunate accident. Torn apart they seek some type of relief for their mistake. The Husband is coping with it quite well but this event is taking its toll on the Wife. The Husband is a therapist and recommends them to go into the wood so his wife can face her greatest fear. Things dont go as planned and this trip turns into a nightmare for the both of them.
My Take: This film is so complex and so well written and directed that its hard to even explain some of the clips. Its very unique that much is true. From the opening scene to the camera work to the erie score its completely original. This film is extremely controversial because of the overall meaning of the film. One could lean one way and one could lean the opposite, its all how you take it. I thought that this film hit harder for myself than any other religious film i've seen. I'm a big fan of The Seventh Seal and The Passion of the Christ but this movie was so cold and so gritty that i felt the evil that Lars von Trier is trying to explain. There is allot of talk about this movie being torture porn and but i dont think that at all. This film just shows nature, us.
Conclusion: I dont know whether to recommend this movie or not but what i can say is it deserves a viewing. Not because of the porn but because of the overall DEEP message and its deep. I appreciated the way this movie was delivered but because of my own ability to comprehend the movie its hard for me to give it a fair shot of a rating. This film is extremely complex and require knowledge of the bible and GOD and satan. Also the history of Christians. I'm a Baptist and i believe in GOD. This movie has nothing negative about GOD himself but more of the sinful nature of man. You truly have to see the film for yourself to grasp the meaning of it. Many reviewer like myself can only tell you what the movie meant to them. Being that this a religious movie you will always have mixed feelings so I encourage you to SEE IT YOURSELF.
MUST SEE
4.5/5
Definitely considering getting this, the 50% off sale applies to in-store too, right?
in 15 mins of Antichrist in this is BEST cinematography i've ever seen. Holy crap.
Get off the damn computer and pay attention to the facking film!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by iam1bearcat
i get crap for answering ONE phone call during ONE film while Disturbed constantly gives up updates on what he's watching while he's watching it and he doesn't get mocked?! where are you now surf and tbizzle?!
I think I have a friend who has AntiChrist on DVD, I might have to ask if I can borrow it
No dessert for a week for mentioning that inferior format, jk. Collecting a few cheap DVDs lately myself, to make my own combo packs. Avatar again, 5/5 all around, still don't understand the hatred this movie gets.
No dessert for a week for mentioning that inferior format, jk. Collecting a few cheap DVDs lately myself, to make my own combo packs. Avatar again, 5/5 all around, still don't understand the hatred this movie gets.
year: 2009
director: Cary Fukunaga
starring: Edgar Flores (Willy / "Casper"), Kristian Ferrer (Smiley), Paulina Gaitan (Sayra)
plot summary: a teenager (Casper) brings a young boy (Smiley) into his gang, El Mara, to teach him the ropes. but when the leader of El Mara finally pushes Casper to the breaking point, how far is he willing to go, knowing his life is on the line?
the film follows Casper and Smiley as the two main characters in this fantastic foreign drama. for 90 minutes it packs a lot of punch and while not necessarily a hyper active action, intense film, there are quite a few moments that had me on the edge of my seat in anticipation Sin Nombre does this excellently. something most common drama / thrillers don't do well at all.
as to be pretty much expected of foreign films the directing, the performances, the atmosphere, cinematography and themes are all A+ across the board. the atmosphere and cinematography especially are absolutely spectacular! and even on netflix instant it looks gorgeous, i would love to see this on blu-ray
the realistic feel of the film alone is something Hollywood imo never gets right in 90% of its films. sure, some films feel real (Training Day, Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse Now) but there's something about the feel of foreign films that are just more gritty and real. it's not about over the top characters or explosions, it's about people, the places and the story. and Sin Nombre excels that that. just like Elite Squad, The Lives of Others and Revanche do in their respective films.
it's an easy film to give a score to, and that was before the terrific ending:
[Show spoiler]i LOVED the show down between Smiley and Casper and was really wondering if Smiley was going to kill him or if he was just saying that. but man! he shoots him 3 times! that kid definitely meant business and was not kidding around just to save his own life (i believe, because if he killed him just to save himself, he could have just shot him once, not 3 times)
i just wish it would have been a bit more drawn out. after all that build up it was over relatively quickly but that's just a minor nitpick.
i watched Sin Nombre with the gf and some friends and after it ended we had an interesting discussion about what some films show us from their characters / situations. nothing gruesome so to speak, but we actually had 2 people leave the room and refuse to watch the movie because one of the story lines was about
[Show spoiler]illegal immigrants trying to sneak in to the United States
. after the film ended we had a discussion about being open to watching different types of films. without making this a debate that is off topic i will say that i stand firmly on one side of the discussion, the one that dislikes what the characters were doing, but i had no issue watching the movie i even have a friend who won't watch Final Destination because he's a big believer in faith and "the devil isn't in control of that, that's nonsense" and within 2 minutes of watching the film and him reading the back cover of the dvd, he demanded we turn it off!
i personally have no issue WATCHING A FILM that has situations / themes maybe i don't believe in or accept or like, but it's a film. yes, some films are fantasy, but then there are also films that show real life in a very realistic manner, like Sin Nombre. just because i may not like or agree with someone characters are doing in a film doesn't mean i won't watch it. but i was surprised as fudge that some of our friends actually left! i personally think that's nonsense, but to each their own i guess.
is it another edition to my top 50 Favorite Films? eh, maybe? but it's definitely in the top 100 somewhere. and if this would come out in a U.S. release i would pick this up asap highly recommended.
No dessert for a week for mentioning that inferior format, jk. Collecting a few cheap DVDs lately myself, to make my own combo packs. Avatar again, 5/5 all around, still don't understand the hatred this movie gets.
because it's incredibly boring and the acting is terrible. imo
Last edited by iam1bearcat; 11-10-2010 at 06:56 PM.
Below is an excerpt about The Thin Red Line from my Malick thesis, written between the time that I was 20-22. Admittedly, I find the writing to be rather juvenile and awkward at times, so I'm glad I had reason to revisit it. It's publication has been in limbo the past two years and I really think it's time to go back and completely revamp the writing style. At any rate, I think it may shed some light on the film, although it's difficult to get the full grasp of Malick's intentions without seeing all four of his films and/or reading my analyses of the other three films.
[Show spoiler]While Badlands and Days of Heaven display a masterful use of simplistic, terse narration, The Thin Red Line shows an evolution on Malick’s part in that a new narrative style is introduced. Instead of the naïve narration that Holly and Linda use in his previous two films, Malick’s third film adopts a much more expansive narrative approach, incorporating the thoughts and observations of several different characters, often done so in a poetically abstract manner. The effect of this narrative evolution both impresses and confounds, in that it is a bold and audacious transition from the single narration of the previous two films, while the incorporation of several different points-of-view can sometime confuse the viewer, especially due to the almost lyrical nature of these narrations.
The first character (and closest to a central protagonist as the film comes) that the audience is introduced to is Private Witt, an AWOL army private who has escaped to a Pacific island and is living among the peaceful natives. After a brief montage of images of nature, as is one of Malick’s trademarks, Private Witt’s narration begins, and it sets the tone for the rest of the film. He says, “What’s this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power but two?” Witt’s contemplation on the paradoxical nature of war is indicative of the sort of questions Malick poses in the ensuing 170 minutes of the film, and to great effect. It is immediately evident that Witt’s narration, in conjunction with his surroundings, are meant to offer a stark contrast between the war that he as a soldier is supposed to be involved in, and the serene nature that the natives of a secluded island evoke. These natives, while they may catch glimpses of ships and airplanes, are completely isolated from the events that are occurring throughout the world in 1942-1943, and as such they are largely unaffected by it. As the opening montage displays, they are living at peace with their natural surroundings, as most primitive people do, and they do not take nature or tranquility for granted, as it is how they have survived for hundreds of years.
Private Witt’s opening voice-over also is imperative to the film as a whole in that it poses the question of whether or not nature is the sole dominant force in the world, or if there is “Not one power but two?” This seems to be an extension of Days of Heaven, in which Malick deliberately displays the grand power of nature, and the subsequent inconsequentiality of people. This question is much more prevalent in and significant to The Thin Red Line, however, in that war is the ultimate test of humanity, both individually and collectively, with a large portion of people questioning the presence of their god in the process. This questioning of one’s faith as it relates to war and nature is subsequently enhanced through Witt’s next narration, in which he says, “The great evil, where does it come from? How did it steal into the world? What seed, what root did it grow from?” As was the case with his previous narration, Private Witt contemplates what it is that infuses us as humans with the ability to commit great acts of violence.
All humans have the potential for evil inside of them, but it is a matter of what influences this manifestation and why some people display and ultimately show it more so than others. This question, which is enhanced by war, seems to be the most important point that Witt’s contemplation arises. Is this evil inside of each and every one of us able to be controlled? Or, is there some external force, as Witt ponders, that is able to bring it out in selected individuals? It is impossible to know the answer to this question but there is one inexorable truth about evil, as evidenced by the film—every single person is capable of evil, even if the degree and cause of such varies.
Although The Thin Red Line is very much a film that has no true main protagonist, other than possibly Private Witt, there are several other characters in the film whose narratives are vital to the construction and subsequent understanding of the film. Colonel Tall, the main commander in the raid on Guadalcanal in the movie, is such a character. While he appears to be rigid and invested solely in the success of the mission at hand, he is much more multi-dimensional. Here is a Colonel who has never been involved in actual combat until this point, and must assume leadership in one of the most significant battles of World War II. It is readily apparent that he relishes this opportunity, but at the same time he laments what it cost to get him there.
Standing on the deck of the troop ship on the way to the island, he says in narration, “All they sacrificed for me. Poured out like water on the ground. All I might have given for love’s sake. Too late.” This is an apparent reference to his frustrated desire to obtain and fulfill his professional goals, while squandering his possibility to enjoy a family life. Once again, Malick uses nature imagery to convey this point, by using water as an example. Love, like water, is something that can be obtained and kept, but when it is poured out onto the ground it slowly and gradually seeps away and ultimately disappears. This appears to be the case for Colonel Tall. While he had a family who supported him, his desire to fulfill his professional goals overshadowed the success that he had at home. Now, on his way to his first act as a commander in battle, he briefly laments this loss, although not completely. Instead, it seems as though he regrets that he did not enjoy and hold on to love, but now that it has passed him by and he has achieved his career goal it is not as significant of a loss as it would have been if he was not given the opportunity to lead his men into battle. Thus, while he has feelings of remorse, he feels that it may just have been worth it in the end.
While Malick poses many interesting questions throughout the course of the film, he does not answer any of the questions specifically, but this seems to be beside the point. It appears that Malick’s intention is to bring to light these virtually unanswerable questions as a way to convey to the viewer that when a person is faced with potential death, they may not only be thinking about how best to survive, but concurrent with these thoughts, in a potentially subliminal manner, they may be contemplating topics of an existential nature. Sometimes it takes perilous circumstances to reflect and expound upon that which we all enjoy but often take for granted.
Thank you.
[Show spoiler]I will admit that I have a pet peeve. Intelligent people who wont get their sh!t together drive me nuts. It's maddening to me when people dont take a project seriously and it negatively affects those who work on the same project. Malick spent tons of other peoples money wastefully, some of it not even on the film, pissed off the producers and misled some of the actors. Three months before filming, Sony pulled the plug because new studio chairman John Calley did not think Malick could make his movie with the proposed $52 million budget.
For the record, I didnt come across any of this information until AFTER I had seen all of Malicks films. They all struck me the same way, so thats why I started to read up on him. As I have stated, his films appeared to be made on the fly to me. After researching his working "style" my suspicions made sense to me.
I never read Eberts review, so I thought I’d take a peak today. Ironically, he chose the same word that I did. Rhythm. What a coincidence. I'm sure you have read it, but I'll point out where he and I agree the most.
Ebert said that it felt confused and unfinished, but was "fascinating ... The battle scenes themselves are masterful, in creating a sense of the geography of a particular hill, the way it is defended by Japanese bunkers, the ways in which the American soldiers attempt to take it ... Actors like Sean Penn, John Cusack, Jim Caviezel and Ben Chaplin find the perfect tone for scenes of a few seconds or a minute, and then are dropped before a rhythm can be established"
Reportedly, the first assembled cut took seven months to edit and ran five hours. By the final cut, all footage of the performances by Billy Bob Thornton, Martin Sheen, Gary Oldman, Bill Pullman, Lukas Haas, Jason Patric, Viggo Mortensen and Mickey Rourke had been removed. Holy shit. IMO, that is a guy without a clear vision, and it shows (for me) in the film. Not to mention a ton of cash tossed out the window.
Pre-production went slowly, as Malick had a hard time making decisions. Weeks before filming began, Malick told Geisler and Roberdeau not to show up in Australia where the film was being made because George Stevens Jr. would be the on-location producer supporting line producer Grant Hill. Malick told them that they had upset the studio for refusing to give up above-the-title production credit to Stevens. He did not tell them, however, that in 1996 he had a clause inserted in his contract barring the producers from the set.Geisler and Roberdeau were mystified about this behavior; Geisler told Entertainment Weekly, "I didn't think he was capable of betrayal of this magnitude".
The editing also resulted in many of the well-known cast members being on screen for only a brief period: for example, John Travolta and George Clooney's appearances are little more than cameos, yet Clooney's name appears prominently in the marketing of the movie. The unfinished film was screened for the New York press on December 1998 and Adrien Brody attended a screening to find that his originally significant role, "to carry the movie", as he put it, had been reduced to two lines and approximately five minutes of screen time. On April 15 2001, an interview with Adrien Brody revealed that he was still upset over the removal of his work. He expressed his opinions in an interview with the London newspaper The Independent.
Quote:
"I was so focused and professional, I gave everything to it, and then to not receive everything ... in terms of witnessing my own work. It was extremely unpleasant because I'd already begun the press for a film that I wasn't really in. Terry obviously changed the entire concept of the film. I had never experienced anything like that."
Again, this strikes me as a guy that doesnt seem to have a grasp on the overall project.
I realize that I am ragging on Malicks business practices and methodology here, but I see a bleed over effect into his artistic product.
Anyway, rant over, and thanks for posting that part of your thesis.
Last edited by SquidPuppet; 11-10-2010 at 06:41 PM.
[Show spoiler]How bad/tough are the animal scenes? Danger, or hurting them? I cannot tolerate animal cruelty, it freaks me out to the point where I feel RAGE against the sick facker humans.
there is 1 scene. it's not really shown. and some could say it's necessary for survival, not that that matters imo. i'd say it's about 25 seconds? inter-cut between other scenes. no blood or visuals though. if you want to know what type of animal it is or anything else, let me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d
No brother this is something totally different. They arent being abused but its crazy and very creepy. You have to see it yourself but dont worry you wont get ragged out.
are you forgetting the
[Show spoiler]bird scene when he's in the little cave thing? he punches that damn thing like 55 times. although we don't see it, we just hear it, but still, it's definitely not just something we see already dead or gross
and to everyone who has seen Antichrist, was i the only one that laughed hysterically when
[Show spoiler]the fox looks at him and says "chaos reigns" in almost Darth Vader type slow-mo voice?
i had to pause the film to calm down from laughing so hard. am i the only one that found that outrageously funny?
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
This and City of God are my favorite movies from Brazil.
I even turn the phones off. I want to get lost in the film. All the way.
and while I still don’t “get it” I think, completely (I have a ton of questions for tbizzle, surf and others who’ve seen it although if I didn’t get answers that’d be okay too) the last 40 minutes for as “whoa” as they are, really change the pace and “feel” of the film. And they are completely worth it and make the slower first hour much more satisfying when bananas really start to hit the fan (or acorns hit the roof 
).
When she flips a switch halfway through the film, you really can sense that. Visually in her expressions, in her voice, her actions (of course) and just overall demeanor. If she doesn’t at least get nominated for some awards for “best female performance” that would be a crime imo. Honestly, as far as “women who portray a side of psychosis” Gainsbourg has to be in the discussion for top 5 and maybe even #1.
and the last image of 
highly recommended.
i had to pause the film to calm down from laughing so hard. am i the only one that found that outrageously funny? 
Linear Mode
