paul sandberg
paul's Collection
paul's collection is private.
paul's Friends
paul's Activity
paul reviewed...
Antichrist (2009)
In presenting such a radical and polarizing title, Lars Von Triers… More
In presenting such a radical and polarizing title, Lars Von Triers asks the central questions: Where does evil come from, and is man an inherently evil species.
Antichrist does not mean the "opposite" of Christ (defined as grace or goodness in this context), but opposed to. Of course it's a fine line, and "opposed" can have several interpretations, just as this film, a two person play of sorts, can leave you arguing about not only who is "good" and who "opposes good", but the aforementioned central question.
As I mentioned, this is a two person drama (with the exception of animals - one who speaks two prophetic words; and an infant who only appears in the film's prologue). Interestingly, the two characters don't use each other's name during the film (perhaps showing a lack of intimacy in spite of all their on screen lovemaking), so Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are simply "he and she".
Von Triers begins the film with a lovely black and white passage, shot in slow motion, of the pair making love, oblivious to their surroundings and unaware that their toddler is able to maneuver his way past the infant gate and is... well let's just say he's a bit curious about the snow outside their loft apartment. This is all beautifully filmed and could stand alone as a short subject. Unfortunately this sequence is only the setup for the film, which is presented in three acts, and in spite of some wondrous and inventive shots, suffers from some truly atrocious editing in its storytelling.
Essentially we're dealing with emotional trauma here, and the stages of getting through said trauma - grief, pain and despair, each given a "chapter" in the film. For its first half, the film manages to keep you involved and wondering where this is headed. There's an overtone of "evil" with a capital E, that may represent Satan or not (as one scene clearly indicates, when He (a psychiatrist) tries to break She from her "abnormal anxiety" by making a pyramid list of her fears - at one point he puts Satan at the top, but then scratches that out).
What begins as a possible treatise on trauma and grief (which would have been a fine film, as it presents how differently two people can deal with the same tragedy), the film makes a sudden turn, if not into the supernatural, then into the psychotic natural and the surreal - which, at least for a time also works, until the surreal clashes heads with the all too real, leaving the film obvious and far removed from better possibilities.
There was so much potential here, but sadly the motivations became trite and oversimplified, as if Von Triers was afraid to leave anything ambiguous, such as She's investigation into Genocide (i.e. the killing of witches), which leads her (and supposedly the viewer) to ponder upon the supposition that women are inherently evil (the spawn of Satan and all that). She is a representation of all womankind - a portrayal of the emotional part of humanity, where logic cannot find a foothold. It is said in the film that nature is the culprit (and nature being the Devil's playground), and that due to nature, women are not in control of their bodies (I suppose meaning the monthly thing). He is portrayed as logic; cold and distant, seeking finite answers to the infinite questions. Again, this is interesting, and perhaps in better hands could have been profound; but here, sadly, we end up with a brutal sadistic bit of film pretending to be "horror".
My final score is in the middle, due to the wonderful opening sequence, some imaginative imagery, an interesting concept and some powerful, raw acting - as opposed to the last half, with some serious wrong choices, and jarring editing. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
10 days ago via Rotten Tomatoes
paul reviewed...
The Campaign (2012)
Well, what did I expect? Will Ferrel has made a career out of a… More
Well, what did I expect? Will Ferrel has made a career out of a certain brand of low brow comedy, and he certainly isn't stretching here. Yes, there are a few pearls amongst the swine, but you'd expect that in using the scatter gun brand of comedy (throw a hundred jokes at the wall and see what sticks - or stinks as the case may be). Case in point; when bumpkin political nominee Zach Galifianikis asks his family for honesty, many a joke follows, with a couple of stinkers and only one nice one - it's such an obvious set up and chance for the writers to riff and show off their chops. Take this scene as a whole and you may mildly smile, which is my overall assessment of the film.
It is also easy to say that Zach isn't really stretching in this film either - so you end up with two antagonists who are exactly who you'd expect them to be, a plus I guess, if you were looking for exactly that. But for me, I expected more - perhaps a wicked commentary of our seriously broken political system... but there is nothing here that isn't over the top obvious - even the billionaire brothers trying to buy the campaign... hmmm, perhaps a send up of the Koch brothers - but to call them the Moch brothers... well, hopefully you see my point. Further, the talents of Dan Ackroyd and John Lithgow are wasted as the two brothers. They are given very little to do or say, even though their greed first and only philosophy should have been ripe for lampooning.
Brian Cox is similarly wasted as Zach's father, an old time political war horse in the pocket of the Moch bros. Seriously, the only characters who are truly humorous are that of Cox's maid (a Chinese woman paid extra to talk like a plantation mammy), and Dylan McDermott as a slick (and slightly sinister) campaign "fixer".
The film has decent pacing and a few chuckles, but, for me at least, will be forgotten tomorrow.
25 days ago via Rotten Tomatoes
