http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200742/CHRISTOPHER-HART-What-DOES-film-banned-days.html
Read this, the guy hasn't even seen the film!! It gives some of the film away, so if not bothered, click away.
Nothing surprising coming from the Daily Mail newspaper.
Amusing, really amusing. AND will they never learn, wonderful wonderful advertising for the film. I believe a % who would not have bothered with the film will see it just to see what all the fuss is about.
Ha ha.
I've just seen it, and talk about the film critics exaggerating over everything in the film as usual... especially that moron critic above that I linked to who hasn't even seen it.
I thought the film was very good but not amazing, and had some moments I could have done without, for example I did in fact laugh at the Fox talking...
It's funny, the most disturbing thing for me in the film was the violence towards the animals, and the animals hurt etc, especially the
Spoiler:.
Deer with the dead fawn hanging out of it
Definitely worth seeing because the cinematography/art direction is fantastic. Charlotte Gainsbourg was also fantastic, a brave actress in this.
This movie is eerie. It reminded me of the first time i saw, Magic. It made me feel like i was going insane. I guess for that aspect it was a good movie. There is also something about the tone of the film. It just gave me some eerie vibes. The only real problem i had was the pacing. Many scenes did tend to drag on.
I saw this earlier, and I was rather impressed.
While I do agree with MP that the critic response to this film has been a bit over the top and exaggerated, it was quite disturbing, but not for the reasons most have said.
Much like Salo, the thing that I found most unsettling in this film was a kind of extremely despairing and hopeless tone that lasted through the entire film; it actually felt as if real evil somehow attached itself to this movie.
Other aspects were great. The acting was outstanding, especially the actress. Very daring performances.
It was also amazing to look at, an art house horror film is so very rare, when one comes along that is actually of high quality like this one was, it's always quite an experience. Some brilliant imagery in this film.
Definitely a quality film, here.
Oh yeah, the talking fox, though, that was a bit goofy.
Astonishing visual film. Especially the scenes in slow motion when she's walking up to the cabin in her mind.
I really don't think the controversy over some of it is warrented though. Wow...You see a penis going into a vagina for a fraction of a second...Big deal. The only scene of any disturbance in the cliterodectomy. Maybe the choking scene too.
I think mountains and mole hills apply here. Not the film I expected at all.
Originally posted by BackFire
Indeed, the controversy certainly didn't fit the actual film. Critics are going soft, maybe. Pussies.
Supposedly people had to leave the theatres and such.
What the hell is happening to these supposed movie critics? I saw this with three people from my class, two of them were girls. What kind of person, who critiques movies for a god damned living, would find themselves incapable of seeing this through? Buncha prudes.
If you can see things like Martyrs/Inside, then AntiChrist shouldn't be much of a stretch in the violence/gore department. I know the other two were not 'sexual violence' but still.
I found the scene in the film Inside where the
Spoiler:more disturbing than the 'woman' in AntiChrist
belly is cut open
Spoiler:. The scenes from Inside stayed with me longer than anything in AntiChrist.
self-mutilating her vagina
Ok, I have seen it. It was cringe inducing to say at least, but I liked it.
I find it is difficult to point to exactly what this film was supposed to be saying, but one overtone which struck me the most, and which I thought was absolutely amazing is that
Spoiler:
things which are attributed to God, are actually Satan's work. Brilliant. It felt like it was saying that it wasn't God that created the world, but Satan. It showed nature as cruel, evil and unforgiving. Which it kind of is. When She said that women are most influenced by nature, indicated that female is the inherent evil.
I did not see this movie as misogynist at all. I found it to be an interesting idea.
Cinematography was amazing, as was symbolism. He and She as well - firstly, nameless, then He the voice of science, reason and rationality, She is the emotion filled one unable to rationalize.
The typical things which are attributed to men and women. The woods being called Eden. Overtones of sex, violence and pain. The three beggers.
I would not re-watch it though. It is far too dark and disturbing. And not just ''the scenes'' but the whole overtone of the movie.