Antichrist (2009) Review

Lars von Trier, the director of films such as Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark and Dogville, has never been shy of controversy. His films often have a dark, grim outlook on human nature, with stark cinematography and editing that create a look that is distinctly his own. This often results in people having opposing view as to whether his work finds the beauty in ugliness, or are just plain ugly. Despite this reputation, Antichrist may very well be his most controversial movie to date.

Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Defoe play a couple that are grieving for their son who dies at the beginning of the film under tragic circumstances. Willem Defoe's character, being a therapist, believes that he can treat his wife for her depression and panic that follow from this event, and so they move to a secluded cabin in a forest so that she can confront her fears. Things don't go as planned and the film leads towards some of the most horrific violence that you could imagine seeing on screen.



No matter how you feel about this film, there's no denying that you will react to it on some level. Lars von Trier is a master of provocation. Disgust, outrage, beauty, anger, sadness, revulsion, these are some of the things that come to mind when I was watching this movie. From the sheer confrontational and upfront way that he shows certain scenes of graphic mutilation, it would be easy for many people to walk away feeling nothing but sickened by what they have seen.



However, if you can stomach these scenes and look past the bloodshed, you will definately get more out of this viewing experience. There are multiple moments that are made up of breathtaking slow motion, the prologue in particular is amazingly hypnotic. The performances by the two leads are also commendable, as it is astounding the level of commitment that these two actors will go to in order to achieve von Trier’s vision.



Antichrist is not an easy going experience, but in many ways, it is also an unforgettable experience. The never-ending debate as to whether Lars is an individual genius or maddening sadist will continue to go on as it has in the past but both opinions seem somewhat irrelevant to me. With most filmgoers being so hardened by what they have seen in other movies, perhaps it takes a filmmaker like Von Trier to come along and kick us all in the guts every once in awhile. Whether or not we like it is besides the point, so long as we feel it.

The Wolfman Review

There were rumors of production problems with The Wolfman on the internet towards the end of last year. If there needed to be any evidence to substantiate these rumors, it can be seen in the films release date, with February and the other early months of the year being a general dumping ground for films that have gone wrong. When critics finally got a look at the finished product, it is probably unsurprising that they generally wrote it off as a failure of a film. Due to all these reasons, I was a definate skeptic going into The Wolfman. However, I was nicely surprised that I ended up having a pretty good time with the movie.

The story concerns a man named Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returning to his hometown of London after he finds out that his brother has just died. Lawrnce begins investigating into what exactly happened to his brother and it isn't long before he comes into contact with a werewolf. Of course, much madness and mayhem follows.

The casting for this film was great. Del Toro looks like a wolf before you even apply any makeup and is totally believable in the title role. Hopkins plays the father of Lawrence, and although some critics have accused him of taking this role as a cash in, I disagree. Hopkins most famous role is Hannibal Lecter, a horror villain, and a film like The Wolfman is always going to be able to use his creepiness effectively. Hugo Weaving is also good as a Scotland Yard inspector that tries to stop the beast from doing more damage.

Being a period piece set in the 1890s, the film has a nice, appropriately dark, vintage look to it. In contrast to this, the man to werewolf effects are very much 21st century. This essentially means that they are very cgi in there appearance, but that't not necessarily a bad thing. I was certaintly entertained and impressed when the full moon came out and the hair and fingernails began to grow.

Was the transformation effect as good as An American Werewolf in London? I wouldn't say so. To be honest, The Wolfman is nowhere near as good as that film or The Howling, the two titles that I would say are the real werewolf classics (I haven't seen the original Wolf Man but I am curious to check it out).

However, this does not mean that The Wolfman is a terrible movie. Once the action started it delivered the goods. In a time when we have a series like Twilight turning vampires into pathetic little wussies, its good to still have a werewolf movie that features multiple decapitations in a murderous rampage. After all, these mythical creatures are meant to be dangerous, aren't they?

Children of the Corn Review

When it comes to Stephen King’s horror adaptations, the results have been incredibly varied. On the one hand, we have Carrie, Misery and The Shining; all great horror films that have become classics of the genre. Even recent adaptations of the Mist and 1408 have gained positive responses from critics and fans alike by obtaining the right mood and feel that the author intended.

On the other end of the spectrum, there is the terrible film that is The Lawnmower Man. In King’s defense, the story bears pretty much no recognition to the original tale and is essentially an adaptation in name only. Nonetheless, when watching a movie with King’s name on it, one should expect it to be better then that garbage.

Somewhere in the middle we have films that have gained mixed responses. Pet Sematary, for example, has a 50% fresh rate on Rottentomatoes.com from 18 reviews, with reviews ranging from Fred Topel calling it a “Great Stephen King movie”, to Gerry Shamray calling it “Another awful Stephen King adaptation”.

Children of the Corn is another film that could fit into this middle ground, as it has even less critical acceptance at 36% on Rottentomatoes from 22 reviews. Despite this, it was a financial success, earning $14 million off a $300,000 budget and spawning 6 sequels and a telemovie remake. Granted, the majority of these sequels were direct to DVD, but it still shows that there is a loyal audience that existed for this series and enjoyed the films, regardless of the overall critical opinion. And let’s face it, the critic’s consensus never meant that much to most horror fans anyway.

The story concerns a village that has been overtaken by children. The leader of these kids is a young boy named Isaac who acts as a religious leader towards the other children in the town. The boy claims to be able to communicate with an unknown force referred to as “He Who Walks Behind The Rows”. When a young married couple enters into the town (played by Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton) Isaac begins to dictate to the others how “The Man Behind The Rows” wants the couple to be dealt with.

The acting isn’t too bad, Linda Hamilton, being the most famous person here does her job relatively well, but Peter Horn I thought could do with being a bit less of a doofus. Then again, maybe that was how the character was written. John Franklin as Isaac does a pretty good job, with a creepy way of delivering his lines. Courtney Gains as Malachai, his second in command, was a bit more annoying. The way he spoke reminded me of Al Gore in South Park through his irritating whining.

But acting isn’t what this movie is about. The movie is meant to be creepy mindless entertainment, and it does a pretty good job. Then again, perhaps I’m just a man of simple pleasures. Dressing children up in adults clothing and getting them to speak all spooky-like is already going to do a somewhat decent job of entertaining me. Getting them to act violently towards each other and I’m totally there. The Children of the Corn is not the greatest Stephen King adaptation, but it doesn’t need to be. It’s a movie that you can put on late at night and just enjoy it for what it is.

Shutter Island Review

I love Scorsese. In fact, who doesn’t love Scorsese? The man has got to be one of the most reliable directors working in Hollywood today and is a true movie legend. The most recent work he has done with Leonardo Dicaprio, including Gangs of New York, The Aviator and The Departed, have all been standout films in the individual years that they were released. If you look further back to Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas; well, these are just some of the greatest films of all time. My personal Scorsese favorite is The King of Comedy. This film has such twisted, dark, black humor, and Jerry Lewis and Robert De Niro are so good as comedians with polar opposite levels of success (and sanity) that the film is a masterpiece.

Therefore, a new Scorsese film is a big deal to many people. Being a huge fan myself, a new Scorsese film is a big deal to me. Hearing that he had a new film coming out with the story concerning Dicaprio playing a Federal Marshal investigating a spooky asylum, my first response was excitement. However, after then hearing about the delays of Shutter Island without a decent reason (doe the GFC cop it for everything?), I became a little concerned. Then came the reviews. While they certainly weren’t panning the film, there was definitely not the same enthusiasm given to Shutter Island in comparison to the majority of the director’s work. I was now definitely worried. Has the master finally lost the magic after all these years?

Luckily, it only took the first few minutes of Shutter Island to make me feel reassured. With ominous, creepy music playing on the soundtrack, Leo is introduced as detective Teddy Daniels by splashing water on his seasick face, being determined to “keep it together”. Meanwhile, the ship he rides on sails through muggy, atmospheric fog, headed for the films titled destination. Already I had a huge smile on my face. Scorsese is having a blast playing with the film noir conventions. You can feel it right from the get go that he knows what he’s doing and I knew just from this scene that this movie was going to be really fun to watch.

I think, in some ways, that’s why this film was greeted with some of the lukewarm reviews that it received. When your filmography is as impressive as Scorsese’s, people expect that everything you do will surpass the limits of film, comment on the human condition and discuss topical issues. I’m not saying that Shutter Island isn’t deep and complex, far from it, but it is also a genre film. If you think that a director of this caliber should only be making high brow art, then this film isn’t for you. However, if you want one of the masters of cinema to blow your mind with scene after scene of spookiness and suspense then strap yourself for the rollercoaster and have a nice ride.

That being said, despite my enjoyment for the majority of the film, I couldn’t help but feel let down by the ending. Well, at least at first. Without giving anything away, a twist occurs in the plot that felt so cliché that I felt like they were ruining all the good work they had done prior to this moment. Despite this, the final scene in the film still blew me away. I may not have liked the twist but I liked the way that they followed through with it, all the way to the bitter end.

It wasn’t until afterwards that I began to think a little bit more about the film. While watching the movie I thought I understood the plot and the twist, but maybe I was wrong. Maybe there are clues that could lead you to a different conclusion and a different interpretation of what really happened. Could it be that I was fooled?

It was then that I realized that the twist was not cliché, it was just expecting me to question what I was seeing in every scene from beginning to end. I must have been too wrapped up in the enjoyment of each scene to realize it at the time. In fact, I retract what I said before, this film is high art, I was just enjoying myself too much to realize this while it was playing.

****