Monday, June 14, 2010

Film Review: Antichrist (2009)


Antichrist is a movie that intrigued me in many ways. I've heard all the praise when it was first released and read all the gushing reviews claiming it to be a marvel of cinema only to be breathed in by the intellectually savvy. I'm here to tell you...no.

Being that Antichrist is an IFC production, I was able to finally view the film in the comfort of my own home on said network without any of the inconveniences a cinema or rental experience may provide. Viewing it this way enabled me to be as open-minded and undiscriminating as can be...IFC network logo not with-standing.

The film simply did not work.

My good friend Thomas Drew of the Northern Alpine Valleys initially watched the film some months back and warned us not to embark on Lars Von Trier's directorial offering. He mentioned that it was a film that stripped him of some creative juices and almost shit-canned the script that we've been co-writing that I've only recently picked up writing again. Now...while I respect my brother from the Northern Appalacian Peninsulas (did U know that the word Peninsula is an absence of an "n" away from being a region chockful of cock?)...I cannot see how this film could have left such a mark.



My biggest two problems with this film are...

Chapter 1. The Art House Aspect: Ok...I get that this was an artistic endeavor made with great pride by an "artistic" director. But, seriously...did Von Trier have to wave his "art house" cock throughout the entire film?? I mean...come on, man....fuckin' chapters?? Isn't that being a smidge too full of oneself to insert fuckin' chapters into a film that otherwise would've been perfectly fine without? I've seen films where chapters worked great...like in a Kurosawa film. Sometimes a few chapter cards actually helped the viewer along through the story. In this film....not really. I felt like it was a little distracting...and by the time the "Three Beggars" chapter came rolling along...I was already annoyed with Von Trier. Perhaps a stupid reason to be upset with a film....but, regardless....it's something that sticks out like an unnecessarily long cock in a midget porno. Otherwise...the film's Calvin Klein-ish shot scenes worked wonderfully...if not tediously. I've seen countless horror films with the underworkings of an "art house" sheen that worked perfectly and this one works just as fine...which brings me to my next gripe...

Chapter 2 (See how fuckin' annoying that is?!). Horror??!!???: When I tapped the info button on my remote to find out who the female lead was (a wonderfully confused but, buttock-defficient Charlotte Gainsbourg) I noticed something that I would be scratching my Venezuelan balls about after the credits rolled. Antichrist (2009) Drama/Horror. Horror. Horror? Horror???!!?? Ok...let me set up some parameters...if you will. Children dying...check. Cabin in the woods...check. Mutilation....check. Von Trier.....nope...try again. See...I'm from the school where a cabin in the woods instantly makes me go...Evil Dead! Dead children....The Shining! Mutilation...Dario Argento! I'm from the school where men like William Friedkin, Stanley Kubrick, John Carpenter and Alfred Hitchcock knew the dna of a true horror film. Where a film...not only scares you in some way...but, manages to get under your skin and creep the fucking hell out of you. Now....taking these measures into account....how in the fucking fuckiest of fucks can you label Antichrist a horror movie? While I do admit...there was one scene involving ticks that got under my skin..I'm not gonna label Animal Planet a fucking horror network. If they didn't include the "horror" moniker...I probably would've given the film a higher score.....probably not. But, if you're gonna include this film into the annals of horror....make it fuckin' scary, Goddammit!!

So...what did we learn? Von Trier is a pretentious pussy who can film the shit out of a Calvin Klein ad. Not a horror movie. Stay the fuck out of the genre, spermguzzler.

Sidenote: There was a sequence in the...heh...."prologue" of the film which involved the death of a child. I was whole-heartedly touched by this scene. It was probably the most beautifully filmed scene involving the death of a toddler I have ever seen.



Oh...and there's a talking fox in Mr. Von Trier's "horror" movie, too.

While I don't agree with my good friend of the Upper Poconos Regions over the sense of urgency in "shutting the studio down" over this film...I do agree with the fact that finding some sort of entertainment value in this film is about as hopeful as finding a hot female at a Bolt Thrower show. It may happen....but, you might catch something bad and end up regretting your time spent. I dunno what that means.



Willem Dafoe's teeth are scarier than this film.

2 out of 10.


Thanks for reading,

bryan.

No comments:

Post a Comment