|
Rule -> RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic (7/20/2009 6:49:16 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark
Lars Von Trier's new movie Antichrist will have on the entire planet, he manages to speak about the content of the movie, about the subtle nuances and plot details, about the shocking visuals and the way the overall tone and pacing of the flick presents its story, all from having seen the movie exactly, errrrr, zero times.
Yes, it's explicit, violent and what you'd term 'arthouse'
Its that horror flick that is situated in some kind of museum full of bones and stuffed or wax people, isn't it? I have not seen it either, but I have been told that the acting was quite good, except for the main character who couldn't seem to remember his lines. The lighting wasn't very good either. I mean: of course there are some dark shots in a horror flick, but when the screen is black nearly half of the time, it no longer is a movie, but a hearplay. I have also been told that the original director did a swell job, but when he died from food poisoning his replacement - either Ed Wood, Uwe Boll, or William Thinby; I forgot which (perhaps it was someone else) - just blew it: no eye for composition nor for plot or story-line at all! I still do not know what that chorus of geriatric cheerleaders were doing dancing around the Chronos-10 crew when those two hapless astronauts erected the wooden cross of the antichrist in Mare Crisium in 1959. They had black nickers and did not wear any astronaut suits at all! What kind of prop manager is that who cannot supply the necessaries? Hearing all of that, I do not think that anyone would willingly go and see that movie - unless of course it is so bad that it is good.
|
|
|
|
