Chinaski wrote:The only thing from 2009 deserving an award is No Country For Old Men. Gneh.
Er.. doh! that won best picture at the Oscars in 2008!
Chinaski wrote:The only thing from 2009 deserving an award is No Country For Old Men. Gneh.
You'd think with all those cuckoo clocks they'd be with the times in Switzerland.Elessarina wrote:Chinaski wrote:The only thing from 2009 deserving an award is No Country For Old Men. Gneh.
Er.. doh! that won best picture at the Oscars in 2008!
leo-rcc wrote:You'd think with all those cuckoo clocks they'd be with the times in Switzerland.Elessarina wrote:Chinaski wrote:The only thing from 2009 deserving an award is No Country For Old Men. Gneh.
Er.. doh! that won best picture at the Oscars in 2008!
Chinaski wrote:![]()
Shit. Change that to A Serious Man.
Hmm I thought the film was surrounded by controversy and the subject matter not exactly nice?Animavore wrote:Actually Antichrist should get best picture and its not even nominated. Not commercial or heart warming enough for the American public I guess.
They panned it because they were shocked and disturbed by it. That's their tough shit. Plenty of great films in the past have also had the same effect including The Excorsist, Eraserhead A Clockwork Orangeand Possession (1981). I thought it was highly engrossing, beautifully shot by the same guy that done Slim Dog Millionaire and menacing as well as brooding and emotional. Who cares if the subject matter isn't "nice". The world isn't nice. Happy endings don't happen in real-life. Some aspects in life are messed up and films like Antichrist hold a mirror to that.Elessarina wrote:Hmm I thought the film was surrounded by controversy and the subject matter not exactly nice?Animavore wrote:Actually Antichrist should get best picture and its not even nominated. Not commercial or heart warming enough for the American public I guess.
It also was panned by a lot of critics and doesn't have a high approval rating
I am only referring to what critics have said I don't think it's that the film ius shocking or the subject matter isn't nice but that the film wasn't good or was dullAnimavore wrote: They panned it because they were shocked and disturbed by it. That's their tough shit. Plenty of great films in the past have also had the same effect including The Excorsist, Eraserhead A Clockwork Orangeand Possession (1981). I thought it was highly engrossing, beautifully shot by the same guy that done Slim Dog Millionaire and menacing as well as brooding and emotional. Who cares if the subject matter isn't "nice". The world isn't nice. Happy endings don't happen in real-life. Some aspects in life are messed up and films like Antichrist hold a mirror to that.
American public want schmaltz and sentimentality and that's why corny films like Forrest Gump get best picture.
Why not watch it and decide for yourself. You will love it, or hate it. It is not really a film of in-betweens.Elessarina wrote:I am only referring to what critics have said I don't think it's that the film ius shocking or the subject matter isn't nice but that the film wasn't good or was dullAnimavore wrote: They panned it because they were shocked and disturbed by it. That's their tough shit. Plenty of great films in the past have also had the same effect including The Excorsist, Eraserhead A Clockwork Orangeand Possession (1981). I thought it was highly engrossing, beautifully shot by the same guy that done Slim Dog Millionaire and menacing as well as brooding and emotional. Who cares if the subject matter isn't "nice". The world isn't nice. Happy endings don't happen in real-life. Some aspects in life are messed up and films like Antichrist hold a mirror to that.
American public want schmaltz and sentimentality and that's why corny films like Forrest Gump get best picture.
"Von Trier has mutilated his own film, turning it into a crazy, hysterical work that alienates the audience with its infantile shock tactics and tedious transgressions." Times UK
"Given how desperate to shock the film is, it’s surprising that long swathes of it are so turgidly dull" A different reviewer from the Times UK
"The scandal of Antichrist is not that it is grisly or upsetting but that it is so ponderous, so conceptually thin and so dull. " NY Times
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:[Why not watch it and decide for yourself. You will love it, or hate it. It is not really a film of in-betweens.
Animavore wrote:Well until you've seen it you're not in a position to judge. And I really don't know how anyone can call the film dull. Plus you only quoted the critics that hated it, have you looked at thee ones who liked it? Mark Kermode has it down as one of his top ten from last year.
My taste and range of films I like is very wide.. it's not that I am adverse to any particular genre or type of film.. the "plot" of "Antichrist" did not grab me.. had it had fantastic reviews I would probably have watched it.. regardless of my initial disinterest... as it was slated by quite a lot of people I elected not to. I base my choice in movies on varying factors sometimes just one.Animavore wrote:In fact, I gave my friend Ollie it to watch last night telling him nothing about it, he never heard of it, I'm dying to know what he thought of it
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest