The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest rental: “Antichrist.”

I went into this being rather skeptical. When I heard that it would be gruesome, disturbing, sick, etc, I feared as to how far it would go. When I saw the title and read about the director’s atheism, I feared how far he would push it. But rest assured, my fears were mostly unfounded. The movie does have some cringe-inducing violence, yes, but still not on the same level as something like a “Saw” movie. There is a lot of graphic sex, probably more so than most other films, but no sexual torture, as with “Salo” and “Caligula” (the combined graphicness of “Antichrist” could never reach the same level as either of those films anyway). Do be advised though that there are a couple of scenes involving disfiguration of certain body parts, which I found particularly gnarly, and a couple of bizarre animal scenes (didn’t find them all that violent necessarily; if anything, the unnaturalness of these scenes accentuated the film overall). And as for the themes…well, I’m still thinking about it. I’m not even sure why this film is called “Antichrist,” but there’s nothing that overtly criticizes established faiths, nothing that glorifies Satanism, and I didn’t really catch any atheist themes. Nihilism is the only thing I got out of this, but even then, I don’t know…

The film presents a surprising amount to think about, and on the first viewing I probably only scratched the surface mentally. Right now, I feel that it’s something similar to “Apocalypse Now!” (and by extension, the “Heart of Darkness” story), in which the characters succumb to their primal nature and devolve into uncivilized beasts. I think “Antichrist” does so as a journey through Hell as well; the imagery of the forest is often atmospheric and creepy, invoking imagery that reminded me a lot of Dante’s Inferno (whether the poem, the paintings, or the video game; they all had freakish imagery). A lot of individual scenes stand out as some of the creepiest and most invoking images I’ve seen in, well, any film. Right from the start, the film is loaded with images that are both beautiful and brutal; the cinematography alone makes the film worthwhile.

I can’t say that it’s the greatest story, or even the most interesting. It took a while for it to totally grab my interest, but once it did it was relentless. The pacing is a bit slow, especially with such limited dialogue and such a simplistic story. But it manages to maintain a lot of tension in the last act. My big complaint about the story is

[Show spoiler]the woman going nuts. I’m not even sure why she just went psycho like she did; I guess it was the grief and the latent hatred she had for the dude. Even then, wouldn’t a passionate argument been good enough? Why did she have to freakin’ drill a hole in his leg and impale a stone wheel through it?! WTF?!!! That’s the scene that really made me cringe. As unreasonable as this character seemed, I couldn’t help but to think of “Pinocchio 964,” another movie in which a chick goes psycho for some unknown reason (puking up a massive pile of yellow goo before yelling, screaming, and torturing the title android character. Yeah that was crazy. Thank goodness “Antichrist” wasn’t that unreasonable, but still… )

.

Overall, I found this film way more fascinating than I initially thought I would.

4/5 (entertainment: 3.5/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 5/5, intellectual impact: 5/5) Score might improve with repeated viewings.

While the B&N sale is still ongoing, I might order a copy.

I think i can explain most of the things you mentioned but bare with me. I highlighted the proportions and i will reply in the same order

[Show spoiler]1. I believe its called the Antichrist in relation to women. Some believe that women are the gateway to satan being that us men are so easily seduced by them. Hence adam and eve.

2. I thought this as well but i dont know

3. She's going nuts for 2 reasons A: she's mad because he's not happy for her or B (which i believe the most) The more he tries to control her the more angry she becomes. It seems like the only way out is to sacrifice him for her sins as jesus did for ours????????

This film is extremely complex. I still dont get the half of it but i understand the basics. There's allot of scenes where im like "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON"

Like

[Show spoiler]When they are having conversations why is "HE" in a different spot when the camera focuses back on him. It seems as he's jumping around the room. Or why in the begining when see was talking about her life the camera is shaking in a very retarded way??? How about the masked faces during the funeral and the end of the film? Better what the hell do all the dead bodies represent? While we're at it why are there clips of the Forrest wave as if there is a fire happening.

This movie is giving me a headache all over!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I appreciate your response and the research you put into it. I obviously have no argument regarding what you posted--I'm very aware of all the quotes and reports you cited to. You do have to take into account, however, that those who gave those negative quotes did so because their role was reduced. This is very much sour grapes and it's happened before not only on Malick's films (happened on Days of Heaven too) but other films as well.

What you don't mention is that Malick shot over 10 hours worth of footage for the film and that initially it was 4-6 hours. The studio is the one that forced him, for obvious reasons, to reduce the film to a manageable 3 hours. Thus, he had to cut out scenes that involved major actors. This isn't misleading actors in anyway and there's no evidence that that was the case. A contract generally will not state the exact screentime an actor is supposed to have. When Malick was forced to cut his film in half, he had to reduce or omit certain things. What he did was choose the scenes that he thought best reflected the themes he intended to convey, which I obviously argue he did extremely well since I believe and have written that each scene and piece of dialogue fits with those overaching themes.

So, why don't we see more Travolta for instance? Because the scenes with his character did not convey the themes of the film as well as someone like Nolte's. It is also interesting to note that Brody's character was originally the lead but then was reduced significantly and Caviezel's became the lead. My one argument with your response is that you almost make it seem like Malick is the only director who comes up with the final product in the editing room. He's not. Many directors shoot an extraordinary amount of film and then piece it together in the editing room. Lord of the Rings is another example.

At any rate, thank you for the post.

Oh no, for sure I agree that many/most directors do a TON of creative work during editing. Tweaks though. I just believe that most directors have a clear vision in their mind, and on story boards before they even begin shooting. The editing suite allows them to assemble, tweak and polish the final product. In Malicks case, it seems to me, that is the beginning of the creative process, which leads to waste.

I cant believe that Malick actually intended a 5-6 hour run time when he began shooting. If so, I cant believe that any of the studios involved were aware of his intentions, (Hollywood aint going that route) nor would they have approved it. Typically studios have a "Run Time Window" with a target so thay know how to market a film, and thats decided during the conceptual phases. Looking at the track record of the project, and Malick, I would sooner believe that he either proposed the 5 hour version after he captured so much footage, or he misled the execs the whole time. I cant see the studios reading the script, hiring multiple big names, paying for those names, and then forcing all that investment out of the film. No way.

Sure, in EVERY movie scenes are cut, and onscreen time is reduced. But in Brodys case I'd say his sour grapes were justified. His role went from Lead Protagonist to zilch AFTER he signed on. AFTER filming was completed. Thats not a "deleted scene". The entire "Movie" was changed after his ageements and after his work.

I think of a director as the man/woman holding the reigns of the project, and that includes marketing. Allowing Brody to hit The Tonight Show and make the media circuit pimping the film when he had no idea what the finished product was like was very unprofessional, lacked leadership and ultimately embarrassed both Malick and Brody.

I liken Malick to Herzog, an eccentric, scatterbrained genius. Malick has always delivered a "miss" for me, but I really like what he is trying to do in his films. I will be seeing The Tree of Life because I believe that sooner or later one of his works will be a "hit" for me.

Thanks for keeping it civil. I know you hold the guy in very high regard and I have been ragging on him pretty hard.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

suddenly someone has netflix...?

Yeah i said Fu@k it. Took a leap of faith and it worked. I can even stream movies on my iphone lol. tight.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Thank you. I think I see what you mean about the violence; I felt that some of the other torture porn films out there have a lot more frequent violence and a lot more gnarly dismemberments, but "Antichrist" seems to have a bigger impact with less frequent and (somewhat) less graphic scenes.

After writing my thoughts, I saw surfdude's notes earlier. It's very interesting... It might make better sense on repeated viewings.

true. good point about the horror films having it more frequently. so in that aspect, there is more and can be harder to take, and it may just be me, but when watching a horror movie, i generally am not scared because i know that's what it's aiming for. weird i know

are you referring to the link surf posted that lead to an article by a woman about the film? if so, yes, that helps makes a lot of sense and should be mandatory reading once one finishes the film. it adds a lot to the film and helps the viewer try and connect and diagnose what they just saw. especially for me, who has never been involved in church in any sense, so i didn't see and understand or connect some of the visuals and choices used in the film, so the article was a great help

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

I think i can explain most of the things you mentioned but bare with me. I highlighted the proportions and i will reply in the same order

[Show spoiler]1. I believe its called the Antichrist in relation to women. Some believe that women are the gateway to satan being that us men are so easily seduced by them. Hence adam and eve.

2. I thought this as well but i dont know

3. She's going nuts for 2 reasons A: she's mad because he's not happy for her or B (which i believe the most) The more he tries to control her the more angry she becomes. It seems like the only way out is to sacrifice him for her sins as jesus did for ours????????

This film is extremely complex. I still dont get the half of it but i understand the basics. There's allot of scenes where im like "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON"

Like

[Show spoiler]When they are having conversations why is "HE" in a different spot when the camera focuses back on him. It seems as he's jumping around the room. Or why in the begining when see was talking about her life the camera is shaking in a very retarded way??? How about the masked faces during the funeral and the end of the film? Better what the hell do all the dead bodies represent? While we're at it why are there clips of the Forrest wave as if there is a fire happening.

This movie is giving me a headache all over!

That was the other thing I forgot to mention; there's a lot of stuff in there that I have no idea what it all means.

[Show spoiler]The epilogue at the end was a funeral?!

I wondered if the "Antichrist" in the title referred to

[Show spoiler]the leading lady

, but in retrospect, given all that you guys have mentioned I could see it referencing

[Show spoiler]women in general

.

Dang, there's so much to think about...

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

2010 version with Casey Affleck? added it to my queue
:

I havent seen it, but I havent heard anything good about it. What I have read has steered me far away from it too.

I'll be interested in your review.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

That was the other thing I forgot to mention; there's a lot of stuff in there that I have no idea what it all means.

[Show spoiler]The epilogue at the end was a funeral?!

I wondered if the "Antichrist" in the title referred to

[Show spoiler]the leading lady

, but in retrospect, given all that you guys have mentioned I could see it referencing

[Show spoiler]women in general

.

Dang, there's so much to think about...

Tell me about it! I already know once i get the full meaning down this will be a 5/5 for me. The cinematography alone makes it a 4/5.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

true. good point about the horror films having it more frequently. so in that aspect, there is more and can be harder to take, and it may just be me, but when watching a horror movie, i generally am not scared because i know that's what it's aiming for. weird i know

are you referring to the link surf posted that lead to an article by a woman about the film? if so, yes, that helps makes a lot of sense and should be mandatory reading once one finishes the film. it adds a lot to the film and helps the viewer try and connect and diagnose what they just saw. especially for me, who has never been involved in church in any sense, so i didn't see and understand or connect some of the visuals and choices used in the film, so the article was a great help

Dang, I forgot about the link. I'm going to have to find it and do some serious reading. I just read this here post (after the film ended, naturally):

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I think there are two questions here...

[Show spoiler]

(1) is she to blame?

(2) should she be to blame?

I think the answer is yes to (1), but that's the whole point of the film : we wholesale condemn women as the source of all evil and darkness in the world, because our judeo-christian tradition (from which western society is built) says so.

The director is saying: the answer is yes to (1), but he's also saying that's effed up. THe problem isn't women, the problem is the system that arbitrarily labelled women as the gateway of sin into our world. (Garden of Eden: Adam and Eve. Eve effed up and picked the fruit, hence opened up sin onto the world. Adam was great and wasn't tempted like EVe! If only that dummy Eve wouldn't have been such a dumb #$*#$, we'd be sinfree!! <-- that's the attitude the director is attacking. he's saying "eff all that crap. women are no more to blame for stuff than men are. they bring all this guilt on themselves b/c society tells them they must")

Hence, why the answer to (2) should be No, IMO. question (2) is a much deeper theme. remember, its not just the chick in teh film, but ALL WOMEN. she's just a symbol.

I'll need to watch this again!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Tell me about it! I already know once i get the full meaning down this will be a 5/5 for me. The cinematography alone makes it a 4/5.

Sometimes those are the best kind of films!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by two40

Comparing it to Pixar? I shouldn't even have mentioned it. The animation style is very different and elicits different emotions. I find Pixar stuff, although full of wonderful detail, to be too clinical (perfect lines, shading, etc) where the animation in 5 Centimetres Per Second was warm and rough and full of imperfections that add to its beauty. It draws out different emotions and the use of unusual framing adds interest. It is worth checking out, even for non anime fans.

See, now thats worded better. I've seen screen captures and it is gorgeous. I'd like to see it, but I cant find it for rental, and it's $165.00 at Amazon.

Are you able to enjoy Pixars stories?

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I havent seen it, but I havent heard anything good about it. What I have read has steered me far away from it too.

I'll be interested in your review.

LOL i just looked it up on netflix and saw it had Casey Affleck in it and added it. didn't even read what the story was or look up how it was received. Casey is a great actor so i figured 'what the hell?' and added it

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Suddenly someone has netflix...? :d

l..............m..........a........off

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Sometimes those are the best kind of films!

Yeah i buying this crap as soon as B&N has a copy. This is an important film (Well i think it is) so does CRITERION lol.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

l..............m..........a........off

what the h3ll is so funny???

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Yeah i buying this crap as soon as B&N has a copy. This is an important film (Well i think it is) so does CRITERION lol.

I take it you mean the actual brick-and-mortar store? I ordered one online just now, and it's already scheduled to ship!

[two40]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Are you able to enjoy Pixars stories?

I have nothing against Pixar. I'm a big fan actually and I've seen everything they have to offer. Can't say I'm a huge fan of Jap anime but the stuff I've seen makes me curious enough to seek more.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by two40

I have nothing against Pixar. I'm a big fan actually and I've seen everything they have to offer. Can't say I'm a huge fan of Jap anime but the stuff I've seen makes me curious enough to seek more.

Have you seen Grave of the Fireflies? I'd wager that you would like that a lot based on its visual style and serious subject matter.

It was a 5/5 film for me. Plenty o'

[lDlisturb3d]

I think i started a HUGE debate on the Antichrist in the Criterion thread

[two40]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Have you seen Grave of the Fireflies? I'd wager that you would like that a lot based on its visual style and serious subject matter.

It was a 5/5 film for me. Plenty o'

Oh nice. I have heard of it but yet to see it. Adding to my list.

I have sourced Spirited Away which is waiting for me at home. Good thing is I work in a bookstore where we stock a wide range of international films including the classics of anime so I kind of have my own private library here.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by two40

Oh nice. I have heard of it but yet to see it. Adding to my list.

I have sourced Spirited Away which is waiting for me at home. Good thing is I work in a bookstore where we stock a wide range of international films including the classics of anime so I kind of have my own private library here.

Both are superb