This film's strength ended up being it's major weakness: it's unflinching violence. At some indefinable point, well into the second half, the plot went from intriguing, fun and somewhat horrifying, to stale and predictable and cheesy in about as much time as it takes to snap an Achille's heel with a pair of giant forceps.
It basically became a version of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" set in the French countryside, although about ten times bloodier. But the movie is not all bad, most of the acting is top-notch and there are several great chase scenes between the young thieves and the weird Nazi clan. Unfortunately the last twenty minutes were just plain predictable and seemed to rely on the old horror/revenge/gore film paradox, whereby we are supposed to believe what is happening in the film with the strictest of logic but at the same time everything that transpires seems cartoonish and full of logic holes. Somehow, just somehow, we just have to believe that our "heroine" will make it through, no matter what the odds. Schwarzenegger would be proud.
And the last five or ten minutes were just intolerable, with the blood and muck drenched heroine shaking and barely able to walk from shock (kudos for attempting to get that close to reality), after being beaten severely by a rifle butt and the hands of several very well-built men, yet still somehow, miraculously,survives that and a fierce gun battle against two women, with one even packing a machine-gun. All for the sake of what? To end their movie on the most over-used cliche in film history? "The good guy must prevail." Although they did tack on a swell little irony with her getting caught by the police at a roadblock. A little too late to save the film for me.
Enjoyed the set up, was mildly intrigued by the weird Nazi clan, and was totally let down by the ending. All the hinting at the malformed children in the mine shaft ended up being a total let down as well. What could have been a very interesting plot device, similar to what was used in a far better film, End of the Line, was all lost here for a bland and painfully rhapsodic revenge trope.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Thoughts on the film, Antichrist
Interesting that they dedicated the film to Tarkovsky, I thought of his films immediately when first watching. Ultimately, this movie ends leaving me with more questions unanswered than answered, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The use of the slow-motion scenes, and the surreal dissolves are absolutely brilliant. But was Gainsbourg's character a witch all along? Or perhaps just simply insane. You simply can't explain away the events in a linear and non-abstract Sherlock Holmes kind of way. There are too many scenes containing outright supernatural or magical events. Was Dafoe's character the Antichrist? And it took these occassionally incoherent, and brutal events to transpire before he could fully realize it? I may be missing a backstory, I've simply not researched the movie at all.
The first hour of the movie is beautiful filmmaking. I wouldn't describe anything here as "tabloid sensationalism," as someone critical of the film suggested. It is very raw, powerful and real emotion, grief. Interspersed are the surreal and unnerving scenes that make you at once cringe and want to know more. The unusual camera work doesnt seem contrived or unduly egocentric to me at all. I think it really enhances the overall bleak and emotional raw mood of this movie.. An argument could be made that the director perhaps owes a bit too much to Tarkovsky or Bergman, but I don't think so. I think he rather beautifully crafts his unusual shots, the plain amazing and beautiful ultra-slow motion scenes especially. nd they're not just there for show. He intricately places these. Some of the wildly spinning shots of the forest are also quite disturbing.
In the second half is where things get a bit fuzzier, while at the same time acutely more hideous and violent. This is some of the most cringing, bold and never before seen violence in Horror film history. It isn't at all artful, as say the violence in Dario Argento's films. And there isn't a whole lot of it, but what's there is pretty brutal. And the fact that there really isnt much of it, makes what's there even more darkly poignant. We see a woman cut off her clitoris with a pair of scissors. We see the woman jerk off her husband and cumming blood. It's pretty sinister. I absolutely don't see it in the realm of so called "goreporn" whatsoever. Whether she is falling under the spell of "Satan's Church" or just going insane, her acts of violence actually fit perfectly, in that they seem bizarrely random, with little or no meaning. Random, bizarre acts of violence perpetrated by those with severe mental illness very much mirror her acts as well, using items within reach. I honestly didn't find any of the scenes of violence or sex gratuitious. The theme of sex is very prominent as well in the movie, and could be further explored.
Yet there are a number of pesky problems in the plot. The last half, and ending of the movie relies too much on impressionistic hintings rather than actual exposition of a plot. Is there a plot? I havent researched the possibility of a backstory here that I may be not aware of.
So, overall, I have to say, I'm impressed with this movie. There were some truly disturbing scenes for me. Any mad woman with scissors in her hands, always raises a hair on my neck. That one scene with the mutilated fox actually speaking, saying something like, "Chaos Reigns", was a tad corny, and I laughed my ass off. The director probably could of left that scene out.
My only complaint is, does any of it make any real sense? But this movie has a lingering quality and will certainly make me think longer about certain themes in it. The rational vs irrational/dream mind, the "evil" qualities of nature, the beautiful transforming into the hideous. The artifical chapters in the movie, to make it like a dark fairy tale, really don't do the movie any justice. There are really only two parts, the first half, and the second. The beautiful and the hideous. And the epilogue, which is either release, or recognition (if in fact Dafoe's character is the Antichrist).
Well, that's all I can blabber about this movie right now..
The first hour of the movie is beautiful filmmaking. I wouldn't describe anything here as "tabloid sensationalism," as someone critical of the film suggested. It is very raw, powerful and real emotion, grief. Interspersed are the surreal and unnerving scenes that make you at once cringe and want to know more. The unusual camera work doesnt seem contrived or unduly egocentric to me at all. I think it really enhances the overall bleak and emotional raw mood of this movie.. An argument could be made that the director perhaps owes a bit too much to Tarkovsky or Bergman, but I don't think so. I think he rather beautifully crafts his unusual shots, the plain amazing and beautiful ultra-slow motion scenes especially. nd they're not just there for show. He intricately places these. Some of the wildly spinning shots of the forest are also quite disturbing.
In the second half is where things get a bit fuzzier, while at the same time acutely more hideous and violent. This is some of the most cringing, bold and never before seen violence in Horror film history. It isn't at all artful, as say the violence in Dario Argento's films. And there isn't a whole lot of it, but what's there is pretty brutal. And the fact that there really isnt much of it, makes what's there even more darkly poignant. We see a woman cut off her clitoris with a pair of scissors. We see the woman jerk off her husband and cumming blood. It's pretty sinister. I absolutely don't see it in the realm of so called "goreporn" whatsoever. Whether she is falling under the spell of "Satan's Church" or just going insane, her acts of violence actually fit perfectly, in that they seem bizarrely random, with little or no meaning. Random, bizarre acts of violence perpetrated by those with severe mental illness very much mirror her acts as well, using items within reach. I honestly didn't find any of the scenes of violence or sex gratuitious. The theme of sex is very prominent as well in the movie, and could be further explored.
Yet there are a number of pesky problems in the plot. The last half, and ending of the movie relies too much on impressionistic hintings rather than actual exposition of a plot. Is there a plot? I havent researched the possibility of a backstory here that I may be not aware of.
So, overall, I have to say, I'm impressed with this movie. There were some truly disturbing scenes for me. Any mad woman with scissors in her hands, always raises a hair on my neck. That one scene with the mutilated fox actually speaking, saying something like, "Chaos Reigns", was a tad corny, and I laughed my ass off. The director probably could of left that scene out.
My only complaint is, does any of it make any real sense? But this movie has a lingering quality and will certainly make me think longer about certain themes in it. The rational vs irrational/dream mind, the "evil" qualities of nature, the beautiful transforming into the hideous. The artifical chapters in the movie, to make it like a dark fairy tale, really don't do the movie any justice. There are really only two parts, the first half, and the second. The beautiful and the hideous. And the epilogue, which is either release, or recognition (if in fact Dafoe's character is the Antichrist).
Well, that's all I can blabber about this movie right now..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)